From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written
Subject: Re: Good writing (was Re: Piers Anthony)
Date: 15 Sep 92 22:47:22 GMT
Organization: SPSS Inc.

In article <1992Sep15.200546.27642@pbhyc.PacBell.COM> djdaneh@PacBell.COM 
(Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.224831.12090@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark 
Rosenfelder) writes (after quoting this bit of Dan'l):
>>>How about:  "Good writing (in fiction) is writing which communicates 
>>>effectively, entertains, and does not insult the reader's intelligence."
>>
>>For one thing, I wouldn't limit the purpose of writing to "entertainment."
>
>Nor would I, nor _did_ I.  Nor, apparently, do you have a thorough 
>understanding of the verb "to entertain."  It does not automatically imply 
>a mere passive amusement or whiling away of the time.  

The only relevant definition I find in my dictionary-- and I have a *big*
dictionary-- is "to cause the time to pass pleasantly for someone", with
references to "amuse" and "divert."  

If you want your definition to achieve "clarity", as you suggested in another
posting, you might want to use words in their accustomed senses.  Just
a suggestion.

>>For another, it seems to me that a part of the greatness of at least some
>>great authors is their ambiguity and depth: they don't put across a 
>>simple, easily grasped message.  Dickens and Asimov communicate "effectively";
>>Dostoevsky and Trollope and Bradbury communicate more subtly.
>
>Why do you think subtlety is somehow incommensurate with effectiveness?
>I might add, that the subtlety of the communication of the latter group is
>part of their communication, and part of what makes it so effective.  Some
>messages are not effectively delivered by megaphone.

I question whether "communication" is even the right metaphor for fiction.
The underlying idea seems to be that the author has A Message in his brain,
then makes the quixotic decision to use a novel (rather than Western Union,
executive graphics, or predicate calculus) to convey it to the reader, who
then unwraps it and has the same Message living in his head.  I don't think 
this is even metaphorically true of fiction in general.  (I don't even think
it's true of language in general.)  The response evoked by a work of fiction 
goes far beyond the re-creation of an authorial message, if such a thing even 
exists.  You may be confusing fiction with genres where "effective 
communication" really is the chief aim, like user manuals.

You might want to further think through (or if you've done that, then further
explain) what exactly you think a work of fiction communicates.

>>Don't take all this personally.  I don't think "good writing" can be defined.
>>You can identify elements which seem to be a part of it, but for each one
>>you can find some great book which flouts it.
>
>Okay, go ahead:  find me a great book that fails to entertain, 

Check out rec.arts.sf.written for awhile; hardly a week passes without
someone slamming some book that others consider a classic: LotR, SiaSL,
the Covenant books, Narnia, Gormenghast, to name a few.  Sure, they
entertain *some* people, but so does Xanth.

A bit of meditation on this fact might even lead you to conclude that whether
a book entertains is as much a property of the reader as of the book.

>that does
>not communicate effectively *on its proper level*, 

Too much unexplained theoretical baggage going on here to provide 
counterexamples.

>or which insults its chosen audience/reader.

_Gulliver's Travels_.
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written