what does "poorley written" mean?
- Thread starter Vault101
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Many people have gone into detail as to what generally makes up bad writing, and bad writing is largely subjective, but there are a few key things that tend to irk people off regardless of context:
Consistency
When a writer says something, the audience hates it when they go back on their words. This is because it destroys pretty much all of the continuity and meaning that had been built up to that point. This can be out of character moments, major continuity errors, and contrivances.
Condescension
Anything that a writer does that makes it seem like they are talking down to the audience will make the audience smirk at best and outright reject the writer at worst. This can range from pretentiously complex plots to preaching about a moral issue at the expense of the story.
Generally poor taste
This is the most subjecting of the bunch, but it's also the most likely to make people hate something. This can range from rape jokes (especially ones at the expense of the victim) to less serious things like odd character reactions. Basically, it can be summed up as taking things out of context or out of proportion.
Consistency
When a writer says something, the audience hates it when they go back on their words. This is because it destroys pretty much all of the continuity and meaning that had been built up to that point. This can be out of character moments, major continuity errors, and contrivances.
Condescension
Anything that a writer does that makes it seem like they are talking down to the audience will make the audience smirk at best and outright reject the writer at worst. This can range from pretentiously complex plots to preaching about a moral issue at the expense of the story.
Generally poor taste
This is the most subjecting of the bunch, but it's also the most likely to make people hate something. This can range from rape jokes (especially ones at the expense of the victim) to less serious things like odd character reactions. Basically, it can be summed up as taking things out of context or out of proportion.
Yes, just like I can call enjoyable cookies slightly under or over cooked. Good and bad writing isn't a Boolean, it's a spectrum. I think many animes have wonderful plotting, but terrible characterization and dialogue. Furthermore, things can be unintentionally funny or enjoyable. My immortal is one of the most notorious pieces of writing on the internet, but you wouldn't know by all of the laughs people have had at it's expense.Vault101 said:
That's easy. It's like rain on your wedding day.Chatney said:
Honestly, this is one of the things with reality. Reality doesn't have to come off as real, because it's real by its very nature. You really can't write things like that. The two can be similar, but writing has stricter boundaries. Well, in this context.ClockworkUniverse said:
How is that not the same thing? I doubt anyone goes "I want to write this so horribly people will enjoy it!" and you don't know either.Vault101 said:
To the point, do people find the book to be poorly written? Yes they do, you said I should be ashamed for buying it so I'd wager you agree it's poorly written (not to mention I didn't buy it). Do people find it entertaining? You may not, but many others do. Therefore it is possible for something to be poorly written and entertaining.
It's the same reason The Room is enjoyed even though it's a bad movie, it's fun to watch.
Well. Stephanie Meyer wrote a book. And became rich off of it.Spade Lead said:
But you're right; I probably shouldn't do that.
OT: Anything about a written work can be poorly written. The dialogue, the pacing, the plot itself, and especially spelling and grammar.
There's no set "this = bad" in writing (barring the grammar). Because awkward dialogue, one-dimensional characters, rollercoaster pacing... all of it can go from bad to good. It's all about how you handle it.
And in the end, taste is subjective. There's an audience for everything.
Good writing has life; you will feel the happiness, sadness and the other nesses oozing out of the writing. Bad writing bores me to fucking tears and makes me wish that the book was over. That's how I look at it, anyway. I guess that's why I'm such a picky reader...
Not to be a pain in the arse, but could you do some other examples, then? I got bored with Inception, so I can't comment on whether it's brilliant or bull because I never took the time to understand it. Mass Effect 3, you said you could do yourself.Vault101 said:
Usually it's things like plot inconsistencies, trite or overused situations or cliches, excessive deus ex machina, poorly designed, unbelievable, or otherwise useless characters, excessive word use, lack of self-consistency (for example, if you have space ships that are a kilometer long and can somehow enter the planet's atmosphere and take off from a standing start, those ships can always do that. You don't introduce arbitrary rules that are only occasionally enforced), poor pacing, etc. For a good example of poor writing, see James Fenimoore Cooper's "Deerslayer" and basically all of the books in that series.
All of the above, with one extra.
If your story isn't engaging, it's poorly written. And not being engaging is usually because some part of the writing of said story has failed, whether it's bad characters, bad plot, or bad dialogue.
Although, you still can have something good which doesn't manage to succeed. You could have something which is inconsistent, annoying, and technically incompetent, that's still engaging, simply because it has something else. The plot doesn't have to make sense if it's fun while not making sense. The characters can suck if they're still fun. And the dialogue... well, dialogue has to be a little better, since it's largely how it's conveyed. Dialogue is part of how the other elements are conveyed, so it really has to work on some level.
There's two important categories: Execution and Content. Sniper Team 4 points out several good bits of content, which were poorly executed. Similarly, most of Star Trek is poorly executed (It's dated as hell), but it's good content. On the other hand, you can have things like Black Ops, or Battlefield 3 (First that come to mind), where the execution is proficient, but the content is boring rubbish, or stupid rubbish.
It's also a matter of tone, and the interaction between creator and viewer. If you make it as a serious dramatic piece, people will care about inconsistencies. If you play it as humour, they won't. Over the course of a story, the creator builds capital with the viewer. (Shamus Young did a great series on this, and Plot holes). There's always things unexplained, and often minor plot holes, but so long as you don't lose the trust of the audience, they'll go with it. If you completely screw it, then they won't. I'll have to dig up that link and attach it.
But really, so long as people are interested, and they think that what interests them is what you meant to do, then it'll be received as well written.
If your story isn't engaging, it's poorly written. And not being engaging is usually because some part of the writing of said story has failed, whether it's bad characters, bad plot, or bad dialogue.
Although, you still can have something good which doesn't manage to succeed. You could have something which is inconsistent, annoying, and technically incompetent, that's still engaging, simply because it has something else. The plot doesn't have to make sense if it's fun while not making sense. The characters can suck if they're still fun. And the dialogue... well, dialogue has to be a little better, since it's largely how it's conveyed. Dialogue is part of how the other elements are conveyed, so it really has to work on some level.
There's two important categories: Execution and Content. Sniper Team 4 points out several good bits of content, which were poorly executed. Similarly, most of Star Trek is poorly executed (It's dated as hell), but it's good content. On the other hand, you can have things like Black Ops, or Battlefield 3 (First that come to mind), where the execution is proficient, but the content is boring rubbish, or stupid rubbish.
It's also a matter of tone, and the interaction between creator and viewer. If you make it as a serious dramatic piece, people will care about inconsistencies. If you play it as humour, they won't. Over the course of a story, the creator builds capital with the viewer. (Shamus Young did a great series on this, and Plot holes). There's always things unexplained, and often minor plot holes, but so long as you don't lose the trust of the audience, they'll go with it. If you completely screw it, then they won't. I'll have to dig up that link and attach it.
But really, so long as people are interested, and they think that what interests them is what you meant to do, then it'll be received as well written.
I didn't mean that, and I think you know that. I mean things like Anakin in the Star Wars prequels. Nobody speaks like that, do they? (What he said, not how he said it)ClockworkUniverse said:
It could be any number of things. Grammar and spelling mistakes, as well as other mechanical deficiencies, are one example. A poorly structured argument is another. Like one where it's hard to understand the point someone is trying to make or their arguments aren't written in a logical order. There is also poorly written in the from that it doesn't follow the conventions of art. Literature has certain principles that define what is good or bad and not following those principles makes it bad art which is often associated with "poorly written". It could also just be a nebulous insult at something that the reader didn't like. It's not really easy to put your finger on what 'poorly written' means without examining the situation and who said it.
A combo of all three. In addition, failure to maintain immersion. But one of the most important is detail economy. In Silent Hill 2, there's alot of sexual imagery and there's a reason for that. James is very sexually frustrated. But notice that not every single detail jumps to your face and at times, like when you first get the flashlight, these details are placed specifically to capture your attention. Also look at Final Fantasy VII. Machinery sticks out like a sore thumb everywhere it's displayed, and thats to reinforce the games "preserving nature" theme.Vault101 said:
In books, JK Rowling and George RR Martin manage detail economy successful. More important characters or great tasting foods are given an appropriate amount of interesting details. Places that fill a character with emotion are well described, whereas other places are given quick descriptions.
Contrast to Twilight. Stephanie Meyer cannot manage details, for instance in New Moon: "'Ha, ha, ha," he laughed.'" Why is she giving both action and exposition in one sentence?
Or in the very first sentences of the original Twilight:
"My mother drove me to the airport with the windows rolled down. It was seventy-five degrees in Phoenix, the sky a perfect, cloudless blue. I was wearing my favorite shirt ? sleeveless, white eyelet lace; I was wearing it as a farewell gesture. My carry-on item was a parka."
Ok, she just slammed us with a million back-to-back details in the first paragraph. We have no idea who this character is other than she or he has a mother and a favorite shirt. We don't know how the temperature feels, we don't feel the wind blowing through the car. Stephanie Meyer had so much opportunity to establish gender just by having the wind whip her hair around. She could have opened with how the character was going to miss this weather. She could have been holding a single plane ticket which could've told us that she would be going alone. That is poor detail economy
Yes. As an example, reading translated Japanese Light Novels. Thanks to the nature of the translation, they often come across like a 6 year old wrote them. The events happening within, however, are fun and exciting. Were it to have been written by an English Speaking person, rather than translated to English, it would have to be called bad writing. Awkwardly constructed sentences, awkward dialogue - the whole thing is just awkward. But what the story it tells is still good.Vault101 said:
Inception I'll put down to them being some of the few in the world who maybe didn't get what was going on, and mistook it for poor writing at times. Haven't watched it in a while, so there might be something wrong with it that I can't remember, but from memory it was alright.Vault101 said:
Mass Effect... It depends on which one they're talking about, and which part they're talking about. The dialogue is hit or miss. Some of its good, some of its great, some of it is terrible. Picking all the terrible options, and the dialogue comes across as poorly written. Otherwise there are certain points in each of the games, some moreso than others, that are just awkward, unfitting, and generally just don't work.
What constitutes bad writing is never carved entirely in stone. A good writer can take a tired concept or one that's been continuously proven ineffective and one day flip it on it's head and make it a revolutionary new idea with it in literature.
But there's a general consensus on what is 'bad' in writing at current, and again it depends entirely what you're writing for, so typing it all out I could go on for days, and I'm sleepy. It's poorly executed ideas in a nutshell.
So... google it.
Bad writing in books, bad writing in film, games, cartoons, tv shows, fan fiction.
You name it. The internet will tell you.
But there's a general consensus on what is 'bad' in writing at current, and again it depends entirely what you're writing for, so typing it all out I could go on for days, and I'm sleepy. It's poorly executed ideas in a nutshell.
So... google it.
Bad writing in books, bad writing in film, games, cartoons, tv shows, fan fiction.
You name it. The internet will tell you.