/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11441307]

Is there an objective way of deducing whether someone's writing is good or bad?

[Anonymous No.11441309]

Syntax.

[Anonymous No.11442445]

>>11441309
Lmao not at all, we live in an era of Microsoft Office and Google Drive, if you have syntactic mistakes you're probably doing it on purpose.

>>11441307
I'd say someone is bad when they constantly repeat certain words, focus too much on how things look, or phrase things in an unnatural way. Anyways, if you read good literature on a daily basis you'll be ale to spot a bad writer/beginner instantly, almost by instinct.

[Anonymous No.11443825]

Penis inspection of the author.

[Anonymous No.11443857]

>>11441307
do it say something non-common sensical or already present in the zeitgeist

[Anonymous No.11443868]

Okay so I didn't want to start a thread for this and so forth and so on snifflez, but I wanted to find out from y'all what music one can listen to when delving into the harder philosophical works. Thanks to anyone who'll reply.

[Anonymous No.11443882]

>>11441307
Whether or not it was written by man, or by man's rib

[Anonymous No.11443886]

The more adjectives and adverbs the better the writing. It's a fact.

[Anonymous No.11444007]

>>11441307
Good writing is subjectively good. Bad writing is objectively bad.

[Anonymous No.11444210]

>>11441307
If it can evoke your emotions, it is good.

[Anonymous No.11444236]

>>11443868
Death grips

[Anonymous No.11444251]

>>11444007
this actually

[Anonymous No.11444256]

Since all books are essentially just a series of successive events, the most sophisticated writers start at least every fifth sentence with "And then..." Anything else is intellectual masturbation.

[Anonymous No.11444263]

Of course there is. But these objective criticism of writing are based largely on conventions and linguistics. The main ways of discerning good writing is as follows 1. Does the author utilises good grammar and syntax (or if they don’t is this bad grammar used intentionally I.e I have no mouth but I must scream)
2. Does the author express whatever message they are trying to portray in a clear and cohesive way.
3. Does the author utilise literary techniques to deliver this message in a nuanced and creative way.
4. Then the subjective part which is the pre reader response (does the writing make you feel sad/angry etc)

[Anonymous No.11444283]

>>11443868
For me, not any music at all works the best.

[Anonymous No.11444387]

You must first become an objectively good reader.

[Anonymous No.11444485]

Maybe we can say it's bad when, given a particular intent or conveyance in mind from the author, the nature of the writing deters the majority of readers from fulfilling that intent. As an example imagine a horror author writing a scene they intend to scare or disturb the reader but instead most find it comedic or mundane.

[Anonymous No.11444632]

>>11441307
The writing is bad if it gets in the way of you understanding the author's intent/ideas.

[Anonymous No.11444702]

>>11443882
thank you i enjoyed this

[Anonymous No.11444892]

>>11441307
good writing is a mixture of originality, characterfulness, intrigue and message.
bad writing is often just message for example.

[Anonymous No.11444950]

>>11441307
if it makes you think ‘cringe’ it bad, if it makes you think ‘based’ it good

[Anonymous No.11444966]

>>11444632
Retard alert

[Anonymous No.11444982]

>>11443868
Don't worry, senpai, I got you. Listen to Trout Mask Replica.

[Anonymous No.11445006]

>>11443882
>or by man's rib

[Anonymous No.11445052]

>>11441307
unironic use of cliches is a pretty solid indication

[Anonymous No.11445140]

>>11441307
>objective
>>>/v/ and don't come back