# Writing > General Writing >  What is the Difference Between a Good Writer and a Bad Writer?

## AuntShecky

While in search of something else on the big ol' Web, I found this, from Richard Nordquist's consistently useful
website. The very short article attempts to answer the age-old question, "What is the difference between a good writer and a bad writer?"

If you are so inclined, please click, read, and comment:
http://grammar.about.com/od/advicefr...tersandbad.htm


P.S. Numbers 1-9 aside, yours fooly has #10 down!

----------


## Jack of Hearts

This 'would-be writer' doesn't believe anything anymore. Or how about human consciousness runs toward daylight and according it to something tangible ties its legs together.

As for the link, a cut more interesting than most such lists in this category. Thanks for posting it.





J

----------


## prendrelemick

re. #8 :Smilewinkgrin: 




> While in search of something else[strike] on the big ol' Web, [/strike] I found this, from Richard Nordquist's [strike] consistently useful [/strike]
> website. The [strike]very short [/strike] article attempts to answer the [strike]age-old [/strike] question, "What is the difference between a good writer and a bad writer?"
> 
> [strike]If you are so inclined, [/strike] please click, read, and comment:
> http://grammar.about.com/od/advicefr...tersandbad.htm
> 
> 
> P.S. [strike]Numbers 1-9 aside, [/strike] yours fooly has #10 down!



The trouble is, all your personality has gone.

----------


## Delta40

Didn't you post this before? Is that a sign of a bad writer or just a bad memory??  :Smilewinkgrin:

----------


## AuntShecky

> re. #8
> 
> The trouble is, all your personality has gone.


Re: If by "your" you meant yours fooly, then I don't doubt some folks would see that as a "consummation devoutly to be wished."





> Didn't you post this before? Is that a sign of a bad writer or just a bad memory??


Well, Delta, I harbor no illusions contrary to the fact that I may already be showing signs of premature senility-- not so "premature" at that!-- but I think I know which previous thread you mean, which does share some similarities:

73 Ways That Might Make You a Better Writer (but ProbablyWon't)

----------


## zoolane

Not sure what number I am within the list.

----------


## Delta40

Tee Hee. I like the lean on editors comment. There have been some hurt feelings on lit-net due to sensitivity. I'm attached to my writing like I am attached to my body. It doesn't mean it is perfect though since there is always room for improvement. One simply needs to keep working on it till it is in better shape!

Is there a number that says a writer does not need to be learned in all technicalities of writing to the point that they can enter into prolonged discussions on the matter? I often feel that informed technicians are simply a substitute for lack of natural flair.

----------


## Gladys

Aside from #2 and #5, I'm impressed by the summary. Particularly:

A bad writer is a writer who always says more than he thinks. 
Their inattentiveness to the detail of their prose is part and parcel of their inattentiveness to the detail of the outside world.
A good writer does not fake it and try to make it appear, to himself or the reader, that there is a coherent and probable whole when there isn't.

From the list of 73, I could only glean:

Rethink what is 'normal'. 
Take risks - don't be afraid to shock. You are not who you think you are.

----------


## Emmy Castrol

I read somewhere that a good writer and a bad writer actually churns out the same quality of writing on a day to day basis. The difference between them is that a good writer is _able to discern_ his good writing from his bad writing, where a bad writer cannot, and filter most of the bad writing out by his final draft.

----------


## chipper

there are also the basics right?

1) story arch
2) Unique Selling Proposition USP
3) characterization 
4) overall thesis

----------


## libernaut

B.S. it's not that simple.

----------


## Panglossian

I aim to break all the rules, even the good ones. _Language is unlimited_ is a special fantasy of mine.

----------


## PSRemeshChandra

William Wordsworth is a very good poet. But entering his poetry is like entering a dense forest with weeds and dead wood everywhere and fruit trees too scanty to be seen at a glance. He has written two or three dozen fine poems but they are inacessible to the reader owing to the hundreds of inferior poems surrounding them. Had he written only a few, all of them good like Thomas Gray's, it would have been easier to appreciate him. So it is not unnatural for good writers to sire very bad writings. Suppose a person happens to come across and read only his inferior poems: he will begin to think that Wordsworth is a bad writer which in fact he is not. So there are not good writers and bad writers but only good writings and bad writings from a writer. Perhaps someday one of his good writing may come our way, or someday he may write a good piece of literature. All good writers who create much and publish them too without distinction will certainly leave behind a number of bad writings. A writer who is stamped as bad most often may come up with an immortal work which has happened. Inexperience and fame are the two things that are responsible for bad writings.

----------


## Vlad Dracula

It is a matter of liking... :Smile:

----------


## TheChilly

Good writers are true to themselves. Bad writers? Not so much.

----------


## Delta40

given some of the more eccentric postings I have read lately, I am prompted to wonder whether the difference between a good and bad writer is largely about self-perception. If a person wallows in their own self-discovered genius and will not be sidetracked by the comments of others because they consider those posters to be mediocre anyway, what else is there? This is especially relevant regarding writers who are not seeking to be published but grace the net with their 'talent' regardless of critiques.

What do other people think?

----------


## MystyrMystyry

Maybe Delta

- if the self perception of genius is allowing them to write better, then does it matter?

Salvador Dali was the greatest self-declarer of his own genius of all time, and he could back it up by producing work that was unique and quite fascinating, and now even iconic

But how much was for show? How much just a parade to keep his name in the papers?

If that's what it takes, let it happen - the world is richer for having Dali than not

Did Shakespeare jump up and down on the stage shouting: 'I'm a genius! I am!' Probably not in one sense, but his genius was on display to all watched and listened

Did Charles Dickens go to bed a night with a smug smirk on his dial assured of his place in history and knowing that Thomas Hardy couldn't come close to what he had done - unlikely - he was too busy bringing his characters and scenarios to life

This genius business is only really applicable to others criticising the artists' works - the trick is not to believe all your own publicity - if someone calls you a genius, great learn to appreciate the compliment, but still write your best (as distinct from your worst - or have a pen-name for your junk, not that names really mean anything - who was Homer? What was he?)

Waxing philosophical about the quality of writing rather than reading quality writing well, what the Hell for?

You do your best whether money's involved or not, because that's what you're training yourself to do

There are many poets and ss writers on Litnet whom have moved beyond needing to have their individual poems and ss's critiqued, because they've developed their own self-quality control, and gone to and live on another plane

It'd be like trying to criticise e e cummings for not using capitals or something

I guess it's once you've developed your own style and you're happy with it, you stick with it, one because it works for you, and two because who are you writing for if not yourself?

What if Shakespeare decided to forgo the plays and sonnets because he stumbled upon the essays of Francis Bacon and the diaries of Samuel Pepys, and suddenly declared: 'Essays! That's where the action's at! And Diaries! I really want to keep diaries!'

And maybe he did, but he could see his own works, and reminded that he was good at this poetry-play stuff - be a fool to tamper with that kind of self-success

Why didn't Elvis turn to jazz and croon some Sinatra standards? And vice versa? They were both in Vegas the best part of the year, would have had ample opportunity to see what the other was up to

Why bother? They were both good at being themselves, and after all isn't that what it's about?

----------


## tonywalt

I never thought of that, but yes, Elvis did not crone Sinatra tunes. 

I don't think Frank liked Elvis a great deal.

----------


## AuntShecky

> given some of the more eccentric postings I have read lately, I am prompted to wonder whether the difference between a good and bad writer is largely about self-perception. If a person wallows in their own self-discovered genius and will not be sidetracked by the comments of others because they consider those posters to be mediocre anyway, what else is there? This is especially relevant regarding writers who are not seeking to be published but grace the net with their 'talent' regardless of critiques.
> 
> What do other people think?



Present company excepted, I do hope, dear Delta!




> I never thought of that, but yes, Elvis did not crone Sinatra tunes. 
> 
> I don't think Frank liked Elvis a great deal.


Forgive me, but this video seems to dispute both of those statements:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbmyARLytkc

----------

