/lit/ - Literature

>>12447000
>Simple enough for the reader to understand?
And yet beautiful enough to keep them reading as you do more than merely entertain but enlighten.

But failing that, make them laugh(?)

>>12447031
based daisiesposter

>>12447031
God you are such a fucking milquetoast poster.

>>12447034
And you're not?
Give your antithesis to OP

>>12447000
By "good" do you mean: enjoyable, skillful, "relatable," topical, desirable in general, some mix of these attributes, or what? Really all you're asking us to do at this point is describe to you what associations we make with the word "good."

>>12447050
Good writing like using simple words vs complex words..

>>12447000
Faultless intermediary between the subject of the writing and the culture in which it is produced

>>12447071
Elaborate more pls

>>12447063
When I write, I usually describe the scenario, and then write what the protagonist is doing.. Like "I went to the store, bought some mangoes, and went home. It was quite wonderful - though I would have preferred apples. The buildings which I drove past were tall - enough to see over the other buildings behind them."

Any suggestions as to what else I can write about? Or have I pretty much got down the point?

>>12447063
An author doesn't just say, "Oh, well, I followed the rule to only use small words in this novel, so it will be good" (unless he's Hemingway), it's a matter of what the author wants to achieve with the writing. You wouldn't have an aristocrat narrate in a cockney dialect, and vice-a-versa.

>>12447139
Ah so it depends on what the writer wants to achieve? Using small or big words is depended on what his goal is?