Inspired by the threads on Dan Brown.
So what exactly is good fiction writing? Expecially the one that is easy for normal people to read? Which authors do you consider good?
I don’t think even the Nobel Literature Prize winners are good if only 10 people in the world can understand them.
In general, a good writer IMNSHO, is one whom I don’t find myself looking for my copy of Strunk & White while reading.
Intriguing and exotic words are great, but they should be added like spices in cooking: enough to accent the flavor of the offering, without overpowering it.
Having said that - there are authors I like whom I consider to be awful writers: H.P. Lovecraft comes to mind. But these tend to be rather specific examples that are good because of their ability to have something in the story (The plot, characters, or even just mood or ideas.) make the reader ignore the fact that the writing ought to have been submitted to the Bulwer-Lytton contest.
Please read virtually anything by Truman Capote (save for In Cold Blood as it’s largely factual). Your questions will all be answered. 
Well, you know. * In Cold Blood * is a great example of just good writing, in general. Whether its fictional or not, doesn’t really matter if you can create in the reader’s mind an image of what is happening in the story and how the characters will react to it.
It might be harder in non-fiction writing (as the characters aren’t really characters at all, but real people) however, the principle remains the same- create 3 dimensional characters that are true to life and have them act in a realistic manner when dealing with events and you have good writing.
Easier said than done, of course.
While I don’t know that I would agree wholeheartedly with your definition of good writing, the OP nonetheless asked about fiction specifically so it was with that in mind that I made my suggestion.
I do agree wholeheartedly that In Cold Blood is a great example of good writing in general.
I wouldn’t say good writing can be judged solely by looking at the text. For me, a good book has to make me want to carry on reading it (or, even better, make me *not * want to, but have to know what happens next). And I have to care about what’s going on. If it’s got that, i’m a happy man.
Good writing has characters. Characters that have life outside of the plot of the book. If you can’t picture what the character will be doing ten years from now, or have some ideas of what their childhood was like, or if you can ever just switch people’s lines around without it being really wierd, you know thats not good writing.
Good writing can say several things at once. It can give glimpses of something bigger than it’s story. It speaks the human condition. Years after the specifics have become irrelevant and outdated, it will still mean something. And those revelations should be something challenging and interesting. We look to writers to illuminate the human soul. You gotta give us more than greeting card sentiments and chicken soup for the soul bullshit.
Good writing uses language as a tool. Every word should fit in like a puzzle piece- exactly right. No more, no less. Nothing to add and nothing to take away. Words have many properties beyond meaning- sound, rhythm, connotation, shape. None of these can be ignored. Sometimes you can use these things to tell different stories with the same sentence. It’s amazing how a good writer can weave what they are saying and what they are not saying in and out. How sometimes sound and meaning can complement each other, or be at odds with each other, and it all works to make a rich text.
Alexandre Dumas was a good writer.
In this century, Harlan Ellison or Andrew Vachss certainly aren’t no slouches when it comes to the words they use (though they can have some flat characters on the occasion.) Anchee Min is good as well.
A step down would be Roger Zelazney in his work on the first Amber series. And of course there is all the “high fantasy” guys like Michael Moorcock or Stephen Lawhead, though those two often can be a bit unapproachable.
[QUOTE=Sage Rat]
A step down would be Roger Zelazny in his work on the first Amber series./QUOTE]
… but not in his better science fiction novels (Lord of Light, Creatures of Light and Darkness) or any of his short stories, which are bar none the best in the genre - both in terms of writing and in terms of ideas.
Michael Moorcock is fun, but on a Robert E. Howard pulp-fiction level. His attempts at profundity (the whole “eternal hero” thing) are pretty shallow, though. There are much better “high fantasy” writers out there.
True, I’ve only liked his book Von Beck, though that is pretty darn good.
I’ve never had a chance to read Zelazney’s other stuff.
I love good writing. I reread many books that I really enjoy. I have read both To Kill a Mockingbird and The Great Gatsby every few years. I love Hemingway. Capote is great but there isn’t much of him. Some of Philip Roth’s stuff is laugh out loud funny but cleverly written. James Lee Burke, Elmore Leonard, George V Higgins and Michael Connelly all write well in the thriller/detective genre.
Walter Tevis wrote only 5 or 6 books but each is terrific whether SF or about chess or pool hustlers.
Check out any of his short story compilations - The Last Defender of Camelot, Unicorn Variations, Frost and Fire or The Doors of His Face, the Lamps of His Mouth. He’s really at his best with the short form.
The ultimate test for me is “Did I enjoy this so much I want to read the sequels- and upon discovering there aren’t any (or I’ve read them all), would I want to write one myself?”
There aren’t many books that fall into this category for me, and the ones that do are all Science Fiction:
Douglas Adams’ The Hitch-Hiker’s Guide To The Galaxy series (Mostly Harmless was just a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster induced bad dream, I tells ya!)
David Brin’s The Postman (This is crying out for a sequel, it really is)
H. Beam Piper’s The Complete Paratime (The Paratime Multiverse has infinite potential, yet Piper committed suicide in 1964- there have been a couple of Lord Kalvan books which I’d order from Amazon if they were available- and not so expensive!- but nothing from the rest of the Paratime Multiverse, AFAIK)
Simple: Good writing is writing that makes you want to read more.
(Lou Grant’s rule).
There are many ways of achieving this, and there are many reasons why people read, so people use different methods. But ultimately, it all boils down to writing in such a way so that people who pick up the book want to finish it.
See, for me, all three of these apply to The DaVinci Code, yet I cheerfully admit that Dan Brown is a lousy writer. He’s at best an interesting storyteller.
I loved *TDC *for a schlocky poolside turn-off-your-brain summer read. I know it’s fantasy fiction, but since I usually read about elves and spaceships, that’s not unusual for me.
No, there’s something more to good writing. I think the characterization thing is key. There’s also just simply getting me so far into the world the character’s inhabit that I think or dream about it in first person when I’m not actually reading. When the mood of the book affects my mood when I put the book down (Charles DeLint always does this to me - I have to stop reading at a high point, or I’ll be depressed until I can get back to the book.) Bringing a whole other world alive and making it affect me is, to me, good writing.
It’s almost an impossible question to answer because it’s so relative. What’s great fiction to me might be considered crap by one of my closest friends. Great fiction writing is when the characters are real and you care about them and you relate to them, but then there’s Kurt Vonnegut who I also love whose characters and plots are usually impossible or absurd.
There’s also a distinction with writers as there is with singers and other ‘performers’- there are the ones I call entertainers and the ones who are artists. In music for example, I would call Elvis an Entertainer- he didn’t write his own material, he rarely tried to be edgy or open whole new genres, he took an existing genre and became “The King”; I would consider Willie Nelson an artist because he writes his own music and lyrics, gets very experimental in style and theme, etc… Does this mean that Willie Nelson is by definition far greater than Elvis? Not necessarily- just that he’s a different style of performer.
With writers, I would consider John Grisham an entertainer. I loved some of his early work: The Firm, The Client and A Time to Kill, none of which were particularly experimental or “new”, all had great characters and great plots and decent writing (i.e. it was used to build a character and advance the plot) and made some interesting statements or questions- but no great use of words or symbolism or “great questions” posed or theorized. They were all fun and enjoyable reads. (Unfortunately the last few books of his I picked up I couldn’t get halfway through- they sucked.)
Vonnegut is an artist- his implausible characters and absurd plots (the midget son of a physicist who trades state secrets for sex with a 3 foot tall Russian ballerina, or an old indigent hack sci-fi writer hitchhiking to a Holiday Inn or a white supremacist dentist who does “scholarly” works on the Aryan orthidonture of Christ in paintings aren’t people you relate to but the books they’re in are great, an island on which all of the people including the government and the law enforcement are secretly members of the cult they seek to destroy, etc.). He’s funny, he inserts himself into his stories or totally foils chronology (not just in S5) and in a very few pages makes some brilliant observations.
On the other hand, there are times I’d rather read a good Grisham like fiction than a Vonnegut.
I hope this helps to not answer the issue.
I remember reading a book about wine where the author says something like, “There is a difference between wine that you like and wine that’s good. Just because you like it doesn’t make it good wine. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t like it.”
This is basically how I feel about writing. Different people enjoy different kinds of writing - and even the same person can enjoy different kinds of writing depending on their mood. I don’t think that liking a certain genre/author makes you better or worse than anyone else*. However, I DO think some texts are better than others. IMO, superior writing is the kind you come back to and find something new each time - writing that contains so much more than the words on the page. (I know, it’s vague, but it’s still early morning and I haven’t had my coffee yet.) Of course, superior writing should also make you WANT to go back and find new things in the text - and I suppose this is where things become more subjective. However, I do think it’s possible to appreciate certain kinds of writing without necessarily liking them.
*Okay, I kinda lied - I am guilty of judging people by what they read. But I don’t do it in public.
Don’t denegrate the ability to be an interesting storyteller. It’s just has hard to do that as it is to write beautiful prose (Rothman’s Rule of Writing #7: All writing is equally hard to do).
You’re just concentrating on the technical details. Evidently (I’ve never read him) he’s weak at that, but makes up for it with his storytelling ablity. Writing a good plot requires as much skill as writing a character-based story.
Which seems to be what Dan Brown has done: creating a preposterous world and making it seem so alive that people are constantly asking questions on this board about whether the elements he made up were actually real.
Consider Tarzan. Burroughs was no stylist either, but his stories still resonate today. Whereas critically acclaimed authors like Mrs. E.D.E.N. Southworth or Winston Churchill (not the Churchill who became British Prime Minister) are forgotten today.
Wow, that was going to be my example of bad writing!
Good writing is good because it’s believable, a really convincing and entertaining lie.
Some of the best characters–Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Dracula, Conan–are from the worst writers. Great characters tend to be archetypes, and great writers avoid those. Archetypes are pure. Great writing is complex.
Put it this way: It’s bad writing if the movie version was actually better.