What makes a good writer?

[Rabbit1]

My thoughts is ---the most important thing for a good writer to have is Imagination. True the putting it into words is a skill but that can be learned.

you can learn proper grammar ---and spelling ---but it seems the more vivid the writer's imagination is the better they write ----what do you think?

[ElectricBadger]

Not sure. Simple imagination isn't always appealing -- I mean, the last 5 year old I talked to had a great imagination, but I was left with "WTF?" I think you need imagination, but the art of fiction is making the fake seem completely believable.

In writing more generally, however, I think the art is conveying impressions. Not just images, not just feelings, but the true sensation of life. Reading -- art, even -- is about experiencing things new and interesting, and if there isn't enough there (or good enough material) to experience something, it lacks appeal.

[SheepishJaina]

I think too many authors try to write what they don't know. Most of what I have written can be paralleled to my own life in multiple ways. It's too difficult to make it believable otherwise in my opinion.

Emotions are always key to me as well. If you can make a reader FEEL the way the character is feeling, then you've done something right.

[Dragon's muse]

My personal definition is the ability to bring a sense of authentic existence to a fictional character on the printed page. For me good writing is mainly about the people involved -- yes even erotica. No matter how hot the sex you describe is, no matter how beautifully crafted the storyline is, if these things are not happening to someone i can relate to/care about, it will still fall flat.

Just my tuppence, your mileage may vary.
muse

[moptop]

I don't think any one thing is enough. Who was it said writing was 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration?

Each one of us has different innate skills, and no doubt we envy the skills that others have, which we lack. Personally, I find it easy to use words and, from the feedback I have had over time, my writing is emotional and evocative. I find it quite easy to come up with an interesting initial idea, but I find it very, very difficult to turn that initial inspiration into a full story.

Others, I know, come up with full detailed, complex plots, and find it intensely difficult to create realistic characters, or to use words to describe atmosphere effectively and so engage the audience.

Writing what you know is a good intial precept - but even that seems to me to be only a starting point: I believe your story and your characters take on a life of their own, and your imagination has to complete the areas that you cannot fill in from your own personal experience.

So - you need the lot, and the bits that don't come naturally, you just have to work at.

[TheDeSade]

passion, understanding, experience, imagination, and a solid grasp of the mechanics of good writing.

[Aussiegirl1]

There are some great posts here already, so this may repeat some things already said.

I feel a good story needs believable characters, a story line that makes you want to read more, emotions to create a tone or feeling within a story and a logical order that lets the story flow.

I also like a story to have some background, so that you know where the characters are coming from. The thing though that makes a story go from good to great is the ability to make the reader forget all else when they are reading it. Hopefully, doing all of the above will let you come close to achieving this.

[storm]

To me, the mechanics of writing can be taught, but no writer will become anything without being able to easily take the role of the person reading. And it is something that is rarely put first over other aspects of writing.

Regardless of whether you are writing non fiction/erotica/poetry etc..

With my job I freelance for a number of different places, and each has their own 'target market' - the first hurdle, before even beginning to think of an opening line, is working out who that person is, their age, their interests, their lifestyles etc. From there, it's easier to work out when they are likely to get bored, what is likely to make them laugh/cry etc.

Whatever type of writer you are, and at whatever level you are at, it's a lot easier to write if you are writing FOR someone. Unfortunately it's something that is much harder to teach than grammar.

Thats my thought anyway.

[Rabbit1]

many years ago I read a few books By Edgar Rice Boughes<sp> not sure if I spelled his last name right ---but it was a book about Mars ---it had no believable things in it but was pure imagination ----Was Star Wars belivable?

How about Super Man? if you have the imagination you can make people believe ---Dale Brown now writes books with futuristic weapons ---that are not really believable but I love the books ----

Stories from the imagination are for people who have imagination ---who can see beyond reality ----yesterdays Si Fi is todays reality anyway ---lol

but even if you write about what you know ---if you can not see it in your own mind and imagine it happening ---then how can you put it on paper without it being dry facts ----I see many stories that would be better if there was more detail ---if someone was seeing it and acting it out in their mind---

some people can take worn out subjects ---and make a completely new story out of them ---while others can take the same subject and it comes out the same old thing as eveyone else has writen

so yes I do think the most important thing in a writer is imagination

[Domtotrain]

Certainly, it is not grammar or punctuation. It is quesionable that you must even learn these skills. As an example, I offer e.e. cummings.

What I do think makes a good writer even more than imagination, although it is a part of imagaination, is the ability to make the reader experience what it is you see in your head. Is the reader there? What is the reader thinking while they are reading. Are they so wrapped up in the characters that they dont see you have misspelled words, or not used quotation marks? If they can put the story down and say, "Wow, I liked that. I wish it hadnt ended." Then you may be called a writer, regardless of technique, style, imagination, or punctuation. The abiiity to make yourself understood by someone elses. To grok someone or to make them grok you.

IMHO

[Dragon's muse]

What I do think makes a good writer even more than imagination, although it is a part of imagaination, is the ability to make the reader experience what it is you see in your head. Is the reader there? What is the reader thinking while they are reading.
IMHO

That is what i meant when i talked about creatng a sense of "authentic existence"

[moptop]

Certainly, it is not grammar or punctuation. It is quesionable that you must even learn these skills. As an example, I offer e.e. cummings.


Domtotrain, e.e.cummings is one of my favourite poets, but I can't agree with you linking lack of skill/knowledge, and his name!

He is a writer who has fully mastered his skills, and who has consciously chosen a means of expression and experimentation with language and form, to push both his own and the reader's limits - not to accept the norms, to find a wider freedom, but through explicit choice. When he wants to use punctuation, capitalisation, etc., it then has all the more impact. But it is important, I believe, to understand that he is manipulating the language and its effect through conscious choice, not through ignorance. That makes it all the richer.

That does not mean that people who have not got the knowledge of grammar, language etc are not able to produce good/beautiful/valuable work; but I personally believe that as with any craft or art, you will become more powerful and effective, and better able to express yourself with freedom, if you master the tools first.

Hope this isn't taken as a rant - it's not meant to be. But yes, I am passionate about language :)

[pttwyn]

..the art of fiction is making the fake seem completely believable.
Writing so that it looks like you, or at least your charcters, actually believe the story helps make it authentic. You just use the same logic all the way through. And for me, at least, are the mechanics, punctuation, spelling, and actual layout of the sentences.

[SimoneLocke]

For me, the first thing I look for in a story is believable characters.

I'm very emotionally tuned (or so I'm told), and so I have a constant tendency to "look at it through someone else's eyes".
If I read a book or watch a movie and I can't believe a character would ever react that way, it spoils the whole thing for me.

Once I've got a general story flow going, I start to think about what kind of people the main characters are (A bit about their past, major personality traits etc), and then run the scenario through my mind from each character's perspective to see if it would make for good drama, comedy, whatever.

So far I've only kept two or three characters going at once (with a few smaller roles thrown in for color), but I'm working towards being able to hold more in my head at once without mixing them up. I can feel as they do, I get angry, sad, laugh out loud (and people on the bus look at me funny). I brood, I obsess over this fictional situation from the character's mind, and then their thoughts and actions just seem to come naturally.

For all the science fiction, fantasy, and sex a story may have, it's ultimately a story about people. If your reader can't identify with the character's experiences or his reactions to them, then you've lost your audience.

[Mothbrad]

Two stories - one a cliche, and one that happened to me, which I think are vital.

First one - a man is new in town and walking down the street looking up at the buildings, feeling lost. He asks someone who looks like a local 'Excuse me sir. How do I get to Carnegie Hall?'

The stranger thinks for a moment, and answers, "Practice".

Ok, Ok, I know you've all heard that one. Here's one that happened when I was fifteen. I had gone through school believing that I had no artistic ability (due to teachers never encouraging me, low self esteem, etc). One day I was sitting with someone who was a fantastic visual artist - he already had a couple of comic books published at the age of about sixteen, and he was 'doodling' these amazing images. I commented to him how much I wished I could draw, and he said "the only way I go this far was to work on it every day."

I truly believe that everybody is born with imagination and the potential for talent, but it comes down to whether you want to commit yourself to developing a particular skill. Sure, some people will naturally be the master violinist or have the ear for brilliant poetry, but everybody has the chance to express themselves in a unique and wonderful way if they have the time, and TAKE the time, to train themselves.

The question of what makes a good STORY, as opposed to a good WRITER, is a whole other issue ...

EDIT: Oh, one more thing to make a great writer - READ, READ, READ!!!

[Miraculix]

My personal definition is the ability to bring a sense of authentic existence to a fictional character on the printed page. For me good writing is mainly about the people involved -- yes even erotica. No matter how hot the sex you describe is, no matter how beautifully crafted the storyline is, if these things are not happening to someone i can relate to/care about, it will still fall flat.

Just my tuppence, your mileage may vary.
muse

Agree with you! :)

[Uncle_Ed]

Answer: A good pen?

[pejanon]

Writing is about language.

A good writer has an ability to use his words and sentences in such a way to translate his ideas, emotions or whatever else - by means of language - into readers.

Make readers feel what you want them to feel, make them think what you want them to think, experience what you what them to experience.


Good stories with weak, implausible or even nonexistent characters are possible but extremely rare since we need characters to relate to.

A good plot is necessary but just a good plot is like a complicated construction or a skeleton – if there is no meat on it - it turns into empty exercise.

And I agree – a good PEN doth a good writer make.

[Amberxiao]

I definitely agree with Mothbrad on this. Practice makes a good writer.

The more I write, the better I write. The more frequently I write, the more frequently I dream about my writing. The more frequently I dream about my writing, the more imaginative my writing becomes.

I look back at my earlier stories, and half of them feature protagonists who were a lot like me or who I wanted to be, even if my stories were fantasy and obviously nothing like Earth. I won't say that they were necessarily Mary Sues, because I greatly dislike that label - it tries to say too many conflicting things that leads only to confusion on the part of authors who are criticised for having one.

Someone once said that you have to write 300,000 bad words before you'll ever write something good, and I can say that after two successful NaNoWriMos and several novels I've started but not finished, I finally feel like I'm starting a story that actually has real potential. Not that the others couldn't become good with editing or that they were bad stories, but this one is different.

Oh yes, and good pens and reading a lot also help :)

[Eponine]

What makes a good writer... of course it's all a matter of opinion, but i think you must have mastery of the language in which you write before you can attempt to manipulate it to express your ideas in your style.
i do not agree that improper grammar- when not used knowingly for effect- is acceptable. That can ruin a story for me. i have never been so engrossed in any writing that i did not notice technical errors. But maybe i just love to proofread... lol...
i'm sorry, i don't remember who made the comment about e.e. cummings purposely using lowercase and lack of punctuation to make a statement- yes, yes, yes!! you are right, so i won't repeat.

i also find that the more i read, the more my imagination grows and the more i become aware of and develop my own different writing styles.

[Rhabbi]

I think the most important thing to being a good writer is a love of the word. As you said, we can learn the mechanics, but if we do not appreciate the word in its spoken and writtten form, we will never really write.

The reason that imagination is not number one is that we can always write non-fiction. Not a lot of imagination in that.

[mkemse]

Add into that, a good writer needs a good proffer and editorif they can't do it, I would also mention quality of the tory, I wouls rather post 1 or 2 goods stories then a bunch of fair stories< and I realize what is good to 1 person may not be to the next, but to me quality is far more important then quanity

[Mad Lews]

:dont: I think to write well an author needs to be empathetic. Maybe not in real life but he/she needs to empathize with those poor characters he's created. When that's achieved it's very easy to breath life into their actions and words. They become believable because the writer knows them well and knows what they'll do, how they'll react, what they'll feel and what they'll say in a given situation. A good way to practice is sit in a very public place, listen in on other's conversations and then make up the story that should go along with your victi... I mean subject.:)
Mad

[ElectricBadger]

The reason that imagination is not number one is that we can always write non-fiction. Not a lot of imagination in that.


Hmm...I have to disagree, I think there's a lot of imagination required to percieve and understand and interpret real life. A simple relation of facts is dull:
1. Went to school.
2. Kids made fun of me.
3. Kid defended me.
4. I was in love.
Not too exciting. But weaving a tale of a first day in class when nothing seemed to go right, everyone told jokes about me and everything was horrible, and I just wanted to hide under my desk and cry until the other new student, a girl I never would have looked at twice, gave up every chance at fitting in and being cool to stand up for me that day and be my friend...well, that's a story. It has meaning and form, and those are not present in any part of factual life.

[Rhabbi]

Hmm...I have to disagree, I think there's a lot of imagination required to percieve and understand and interpret real life. A simple relation of facts is dull:
1. Went to school.
2. Kids made fun of me.
3. Kid defended me.
4. I was in love.
Not too exciting. But weaving a tale of a first day in class when nothing seemed to go right, everyone told jokes about me and everything was horrible, and I just wanted to hide under my desk and cry until the other new student, a girl I never would have looked at twice, gave up every chance at fitting in and being cool to stand up for me that day and be my friend...well, that's a story. It has meaning and form, and those are not present in any part of factual life.

The simple recitation of facts is boring, but filling in the details does not take imagination. If the event happened, and you can record it faithfully, does not take imagination, it takes passion.

I have read authors who wrote non fiction, and brought history to life for me, but utterly failed at writng fiction because they had no imagination.

[Dragon's muse]

:dont: I think to write well an author needs to be empathetic. Maybe not in real life but he/she needs to empathize with those poor characters he's created. When that's achieved it's very easy to breath life into their actions and words. They become believable because the writer knows them well and knows what they'll do, how they'll react, what they'll feel and what they'll say in a given situation. A good way to practice is sit in a very public place, listen in on other's conversations and then make up the story that should go along with your victi... I mean subject.:)
Mad

i have a character worksheet that i complete for all my main character in my major work. Characterization is my big hobby horse with the students i work with in real time.

[Eponine]

That sounds like such a good idea, Dragon's Muse!- like a great way to stay focused on keeping the characters true to themselves. When I write, i just let it flow and then go back and revise and go back and revise and go back and revise.....
BUT, some kind of character outline would help me to remember important things to include to bring them to life.

Troubles I'm having, though, are titles and endings.. i haven't gotten to look yet if there's anything on that already...if not, i might think about starting a thread.. but any thoughts on that would be appreciated.... Sorry, that got off the topic of the original question, which I can answer again...

to respond to the imaginationers- yes, of course you must be creative- but i think it's very difficult to come up with a truly original, never-been-done before storyline- therefore the writer's originality can and will shine through his tender molding and manipulations of the language into pleasing form- just like a good Master (or Mistress) over a strong, submissive woman. But too often, our poor American English (already mangled British English in their eyes lol) is abused and shattered. And to me, a good storyline cannot compensate enough for stampeding recklessly upon our language....

[ElectricBadger]

i have a character worksheet that i complete for all my main character in my major work.

Any chance we could beg/borrow/steal that from you? I have a sheet for characters but it's designed for (*ahem*...resigned to admitting my geekiness) role playing types.

[Dragon's muse]

Wear your geekiness like a badge of honor. i have been RP'ing since Junior High. i even run a game here once a week (the quest is really getting interesting.) i do maps, backstories, create new theologies, new calendars and astrologies. i have a t-shirt that says,
"Dungeon Masters don't kill characters, Monsters kill characters."

i have another shirt , given me to me by my gamers, that says

"Behind every great Gamemaster is an insane urge to kill everyone"

i can either PM you the link or post it here for the fiction writers character worksheet.

[TomOfSweden]

I'd say that the ability to put words on emotions so they can be carried over to the reader, is by far the most important.

The rest is just fluff.

[TomOfSweden]

Any chance we could beg/borrow/steal that from you? I have a sheet for characters but it's designed for (*ahem*...resigned to admitting my geekiness) role playing types.

I've got a similar one. But I put a lot of work on distinguishing features. Things that others easily notice about them. Especially about their looks. This is different for different people depending on perspective, if it shifts in a story.

If we feel threatened, describing the eyes and how the person looks at others, and what the hands are doing I think is important. Ie, "The man with whitening knuckles said..."; while if it's just a character in the background then they're maybe distinguished by some particular piece of clothing or hat. "A man with grimy trucker hat leaned against the bar....".

For me that tells me a lot about what the viewer is feeling and needs to be logged. If the guy who bunches his fists when angry or trucker hat guy comes back, we need to keep track of it and make sure they do the same thing later.

[mkemse]

I'd say that the ability to put words on emotions so they can be carried over to the reader, is by far the most important.

The rest is just fluff.


i could not agree more, very well said

[Dragon's muse]

This is the one i use, it helps me really know the character. And if i don't know the character, how can i let the reader know the character.

[Mad Lews]

Wear your geekiness like a badge of honor. i have been RP'ing since Junior High. i even run a game here once a week (the quest is really getting interesting.) i do maps, backstories, create new theologies, new calendars and astrologies. i have a t-shirt that says,
"Dungeon Masters don't kill characters, Monsters kill characters."

i have another shirt , given me to me by my gamers, that says

"Behind every great Gamemaster is an insane urge to kill everyone"

i can either PM you the link or post it here for the fiction writers character worksheet.
Dragon's Muse,
Hey I'm no ubergeek, haven't used a boffing bastard sword in months er weeks. Only use them for exercise, honest, but do PM the link for uhm educational purposes only you understand.

"Behind every registered madman there's a Lews trying to escape"

[Dragon's muse]

i found the way to get it into a post with out a link. See post right above yours.

[Ruby]

Thanks ElectricBadger and Dragon's Muse, both of those sheets are excellent. One to put the writer into the mind of the character and the other to set the stage.

What makes a good writer?

I'll add:
* a good sense of humor,
* the ability to live in the heads of your characters,
* editing skills that cover more than grammar, and
* the gift of forgiving yourself.

Mistakes happen,
characters run away with our stories,
and every now and then we come up with a gem.

Knowing what to cut, how to keep story consistancy and the character's true to themselves is an art.

This thread has been a delightful read. Please keep it going. Who's next?

[Faibhar]

"Imagination" coupled with derivative and evocative make for creative writing.

[Rubberwolf]

Before you can write, I believe that you should read. A lot. It is only then that you can understand what works and what doesn't. Grammar and spelling are important, but I can overlook the occasional blip, if the general story is OK.

Forget about BDSM etc for the moment. We do not just read/write BDSM stories. I also like Sci Fi, adventure, Fantasy, cop sagas, horror, etc. However, the main thing for me, regardless of the story that I am following, either a serial killer/cop saga or the adventures of a star ship that accelerates close to C with a hold full of cryogenically frozen colonists, even the crew of a 18th century war ship, is the charector depiction and the storyline. Do I care about these people? Do I care about their adventure?

And that is the true craft of the story teller. It has been the same since travelling bards came to tell of heroes and gods at the court of a local lord, Shamans imparted the oral history of of their peoples around a camp fire, or budding authors who post their work electronically.

If the writer can craft a world populated with good charectors and plot, that is believable, or at least enjoyable for the reader, then it doesn't matter how fantastic the original premis is. I mean, would you really read about people who lived on a giant disc, hurtling through space on the backs of four giant elephants, who were themselves standing on the back of a giant turtle, unless the writer could make you care?

Rant over

[Clevernick]

I don't think any one thing is enough. Who was it said writing was 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration?

Each one of us has different innate skills, and no doubt we envy the skills that others have, which we lack. Personally, I find it easy to use words and, from the feedback I have had over time, my writing is emotional and evocative. I find it quite easy to come up with an interesting initial idea, but I find it very, very difficult to turn that initial inspiration into a full story.

Others, I know, come up with full detailed, complex plots, and find it intensely difficult to create realistic characters, or to use words to describe atmosphere effectively and so engage the audience.

So - you need the lot, and the bits that don't come naturally, you just have to work at.

I like this one -- especially since as a voracious reader, I have noticed that even among my favorite professional authors, some of these skills are weak in each of them! In each case, they use their proficiency at the others to engage me anyway.

For example, in SF, Asimov cannot write character or interesting dialogue. Niven's characters are less than two-dimensional. But their ideas make it all worthwhile.

Meanwhile Sturgeon has few memorable ideas but can write engaging character and his empathy is very high, making him great to read and re-read.

So along with Moptop's wisdom I'd add -- if you're really good at some of these things, write to your strengths and you'll build enough of a fan base to give you time to work on your weaknesses -- or make them irrelevant!

[Mad Lews]

I like this one -- especially since as a voracious reader, I have noticed that even among my favorite professional authors, some of these skills are weak in each of them! In each case, they use their proficiency at the others to engage me anyway.

For example, in SF, Asimov cannot write character or interesting dialogue. Niven's characters are less than two-dimensional. But their ideas make it all worthwhile.

Meanwhile Sturgeon has few memorable ideas but can write engaging character and his empathy is very high, making him great to read and re-read.

So along with Moptop's wisdom I'd add -- if you're really good at some of these things, write to your strengths and you'll build enough of a fan base to give you time to work on your weaknesses -- or make them irrelevant!

Just don't tell me Heinlien's characters would have felt most at home in a forties comic book. Many of his pets became three dimensional eventually; honest.
As a fiction writer one must learn to lie convincingly.

[TomOfSweden]

As a fiction writer one must learn to lie convincingly.

I've heard that one too. I don't buy it. I can't lie convincingly for shit. If I just make it up it sucks. I always have to describe a real person in a real situation I remember but change things like size or scope. Minor things, but which of course can have major implications.

[Clevernick]

Just don't tell me Heinlien's characters would have felt most at home in a forties comic book. Many of his pets became three dimensional eventually; honest.

I think Heinlein's character (singular) was strong, convincing, and fascinating. The fact that the entire dramatis personae of his complete oeuvre was played by that same character, over and over, in drag, age makeup, and blackface where necessary, is just another fascinating tidbit. Oh, nearly forgot the other character: a strawman "bad guy" who pops up once in a while, having all the character of a broom with a face painted on it and a black hat perched atop. But he doesn't count.

If you doubt this assessment, re-read "The Number of the Beast", which should confirm it nicely for you.

And even with all that said, I re-read Heinlein with pleasure just to get more into the head of that one character, Admiral Lazarus Valentine Podkayne Stone Smith.

[Mad Lews]

I always have to describe a real person in a real situation I remember but change things like size or scope. Minor things, but which of course can have major implications.

And this is not a convincing lie, hung on the bones of experience? This is some fundamental truth that I missed?

I'll buy that one. ;)

Mad

[Mad Lews]

I think Heinlein's character (singular) was strong, convincing, and fascinating. The fact that the entire dramatis personae of his complete oeuvre was played by that same character, over and over, in drag, age makeup, and blackface where necessary, is just another fascinating tidbit. Oh, nearly forgot the other character: a strawman "bad guy" who pops up once in a while, having all the character of a broom with a face painted on it and a black hat perched atop. But he doesn't count.

If you doubt this assessment, re-read "The Number of the Beast", which should confirm it nicely for you.

And even with all that said, I re-read Heinlein with pleasure just to get more into the head of that one character, Admiral Lazarus Valentine Podkayne Stone Smith.


Michael Valentine Smith... a very nuanced form of the singular character you see. Unlike you I think many of the versions of Heinlien's 'character/s' were overblown and less than convincing. and I was reading them as a wide eyed child of the fifties.

[Chuckdom19]

I have to agree with Storm and Simonelocke, among several others: I rather strongly believe that a good author must be able to walk around in the character's shoes. He/she may not *like* the character, but you have to understand them.

That may be the hardest of all the characteristics of a good writer.