Poor writing

This tell how to spot bad writing skills

  Most questions posed on the Forum are very bad.
Good writing is clear and concise. Such as: Kelley knew that the man in the mask was a threat.
Bad writing; seeing the man in the mask caused Kelley to reflect on his inner self to determine if and when trouble may occur.

To be fair I have always thought good writing is what keeps me interested so I want more. Basically what sells.
Dean Koontz is good writing. It is entertaining and sells terrifically.
When I was growing up Cosby and Clancy made the big bucks. 

I have always thought that Hemingway and Shakespeare were bad writers. They had an advantage though, they had a captive audience. Hemingway took six pages to describe a tree. So you had to wade through that to get to anything.
Shakespeare was boring and not factual. It was meant as entertainment hundreds of years ago and has little merit in today's society.
Good writing, then to me, is what I like, Patrick Robinson, Mario Puzo, Miner, Clark, Andre Norton, etc.
I would not read Steele, or Anderson, but many do. So it is too hard to explain.  

“Don’t kiss-up, don't use 'I,' and don't be cheesy. Also, don't declare the future for certain, tempting though it might be to make grandiose statements about how your topic will be viewed in the future. Here is a bad example followed by a good example:

BAD:

From all this, it is clear than Joe Smith changed the field of widget watching by inventing the widgetiscope. My life is enriched for knowing about this wonderful man in this amazing field. Joe Smith will forever be remembered as the greatest widget watcher that ever lived.

GOOD:

Clearly, Joe Smith's contributions changed the field of widget watching. His widgetiscope helped to turn previously vague theories into provable laws of widgetry. Smith may have suffered loneliness and ultimately death due to his dedication to his studies, but the field today recognizes him as one of history's great widget watchers.

Notice the difference in each example's mention of the widgetiscope: the first example just tosses the mention of the device in, but the second one summarizes why it was important. The conclusion is your final chance to tell the reader why they should care about your topic, so don't just use it as a summarizing cut-off. The second example mentions the fact that he is recognized in the field without going over the top and playing future-psychic.

Notice also it mentions the interesting new conflict you discovered in your research, emphasizing the interesting part without jumping up and down screaming "Lookie lookie! I learned this!" Tying the facts together like this legitimizes why you bothered to mention his life at all.”

Source:   ,  Kimberly Chapman

Comments

TheMalady

Posted 8 Years Ago Thanks a lot for this! Now, I can make a fresh start in my works! :)

PrescottFry

Posted 9 Years Ago This is true. I like to weed rough my writing and remove all the to be verbs because they always seem to clunk up the good verbs

Weaver

Posted 13 Years Ago Dean Koontz used to be a bad writer. Read his early novel Demon Seed if you don't believe me. (I'm a big fan, although I'm not buying anything new until he gives us that third Christopher Snow novel.) I find it ironic that you like Andre Norton's fiction yet speak against anything but straightforward sentences, etc. Could it be that what you're reading is not actually Ms. Norton's own writing? A lot of crappy writing "sells terrifically," too.