My writing is better than your writing

[Ander]

How does one define their writing as superior to somebody else's? What do you define as better "quality" in a post or thread? Is it defined as being better in a technical sense, that you have better grammar or spelling or particular execution of word choice? Or is it defined as the content of your passages, the draw of the story, the ability to pull your readers in and have them asking for more?

When you define superiority, do you take into account things like "voice" and "perspective"? Do they use words that you find yourself familiar with, or have a seamless flow of communication that is easily and readily absorbed? Is their range of vocabulary impressive, that they have such a wonderful word and used in its correct context? Do they lack the interruption of terrible grammar or spelling errors that catch your eye and distract your focus? Is superiority sentence structure, so that the ideas are conveyed in the most efficient way possible?

Or does the "technical" sense of writing hold little appeal to you, and is it the plot that matters? Does it make you better when your characters are loveable, fun to watch, and your reader is anxious to see growth and development? Are you a better writer when your stories are enjoyed by multiple people, because you were able to appeal to a wide crowd with a single stroke of the keyboard? Is it not so much which words that are used, but what they are used for?

How do you define yourself as "better" or "worse" than another person? Is it possible to be the "best"? Is it possible that you just enjoy your own writing more than another? Is it possible that the quality of your writing is only determined by popular opinion? Isn't the goal of writing for self-satisfaction, and progressively, the satisfaction of others? So would the quality of your writing be determined by your own perspective, or the perspective of others?

Perspective is in the eye of the beholder. You may think you're better, or you may think you're worse, but others say differently. You can be happy with your writing, and people don't much like it. You can be displeased with your writing, and people think it's great. You may not care for a particular writer, and they can still be well-liked by others, or you may care for a particular writer, and many others don't share your affinity for their work.

How do you measure "quality" in writing? Do you ever ask yourself why you think you're better or worse? Are you only taking your opinion into account, or the opinions of others? Do you focus on a single person's opinion of your writing, or a broad audience? Should you write towards the expectations of others, or the expectations of yourself? Is your particular style superior, or do you have to emulate others to be better?

In a competitive sense, the superiority of writing changes with the perspective. Your "superiority" is only as good as how well your writing is liked by a single audience. But within only the spectrum of pure enjoyment and pure entertainment, does superiority even matter?

Can you even define superiority in writing? Can you even have a finite, concrete idea? Is it purely comparative, that someone must be less liked for you to be better?

Or does a concept like "superiority" even exist?

[Ashe]

Owned.

/thread

[Super Buu]

I don't consider writing quality to be a one-dimensional scale. In other words, it's ridiculously complex and has a variety of factors. Like some people are better at story, others better at differentiating characters, others better at the writing structure itself, etc etc.

And yeah, to judge something you first have to define what your ideals are. When you say something is 'good' or 'bad', it's done with the assumption that there's a commonly-agreed-upon ideal. For example, although some people prefer serious writing and others prefer comedy, there's a general overlapping preference when it comes to things like characters with more than one facet to their personality, non-repetitive sentence structure, and so on. It's also generally agreed-upon that to create those things requires more effort and/or skill.

IMO, the same argument can be applied to pretty much anything, and to say that "writing quality doesn't exist" is just to back down from a question because it's not easy to answer. But you do bring up some important points which people should be aware of.

[Cain]

"Or does the "technical" sense of writing hold little appeal to you, and is it the plot that matters? Does it make you better when your characters are loveable, fun to watch, and your reader is anxious to see growth and development? Is it not so much which words that are used, but what they are used for? " -
This is the strongest parapgraph for me. Character is half the story. Scenery, the other half, may require some of the more advanced words for appeal. I've seen entrancing reads with an eighth grade reading level though.

"Are you a better writer when your stories are enjoyed by multiple people, because you were able to appeal to a wide crowd with a single stroke of the keyboard?"
Some writers believe you're not talented until you've written and sold something.

[Orion]

What type of writing you enjoy is much like what type of music you enjoy. No one is necessarily right or wrong in enjoying what they enjoy.

[Belle Hibiki]

IMO, the same argument can be applied to pretty much anything, and to say that "writing quality doesn't exist" is just to back down from a question because it's not easy to answer.

Put much more eloquently and succinctly than I ever could.

[Ashe]

I'm laughing so hard in this thread right now.

[Ander]

IMO, the same argument can be applied to pretty much anything, and to say that "writing quality doesn't exist" is just to back down from a question because it's not easy to answer.

Haha. I tip my hat to you, sir. My point was that it's all about personal preference. The overall question wasn't so much if quality itself exists, but rather, the existence of superiority of a writer compared to another writer. Quality exists, to be sure, but the measurement of quality is determined by the reader. Thus, the quality changes reader to reader based on which aspect of writing they prefer the most.

I just wanted to get people thinking.

[Jack]

So this was a riddle? =(

[Jesper]

I've been hearing this a lot lately. xD I get competitive with writing at times, and it was starting to suck the fun out of it. It was also making me look like an idiot. <.<

ns, Nobody.

[Super Buu]

Haha. I tip my hat to you, sir. My point was that it's all about personal preference. The overall question wasn't so much if quality itself exists, but rather, the existence of superiority of a writer compared to another writer. Quality exists, to be sure, but the measurement of quality is determined by the reader. Thus, the quality changes reader to reader based on which aspect of writing they prefer the most.

I just wanted to get people thinking.

This is why I said you'd make a good dungeonmaster. You evil genius =P

[Pinky]

My standard is simple: no pr0nz = ur not trying hard enough.

Disagree if you will, but doing so only means that you're wrong.

[Vad]

My standard is simple: no pr0nz = ur not trying hard enough.

Disagree if you will, but doing so only means that you're wrong.

Porn is hardly an art form of writing. What makes scenes that are erotic in nature become truly magnificient is by reading the entire thing you come out knowing they're having sex. Plain and simple.

The key is to touch lightly on what they're doing, don't describe too much, but not too little to belittle the act.

When I do it, I leave the user to imagine the nitty gritty stuff. Or I just scene transition and make them lust for more.

Porn is usually a no no in serious writing. In my opinion.

[Jack]

The key is to touch lightly on what they're doing, don't describe too much, but not too little to belittle the act.

When I do it, I leave the user to imagine the nitty gritty stuff. Or I just scene transition and make them lust for more.

Porn is usually a no no in serious writing. In my opinion.

I taught you that. I rock.

[Pinky]

Lamez.

[Belle Hibiki]

My standard is simple: no pr0nz = ur not trying hard enough.

Disagree if you will, but doing so only means that you're wrong.

Damn, I've been doing it wrong this whole time. Let me pound something out.

Edit: The bathroom was filled with steam. Belle slipped into the water behind Sayana gingerly, taking care not to let the hot water singe his nuts, which were the size of grapefruits who'd been injected with radiation, causing them to mutate into Hulkfruit, who then had children. Sayana's stray blonde hair was down and parted, exposing the nape of her neck. He ran his fingers, calloused from years of scraping against wood, down her spine to the small of her back. She shivered, turned, and stared at his dong, which was the weight of a 747 filled with John Goodman clones. "What's that," she asked, pointing at his fire-hydrant of a dick. "That means I love you," he said. And he meant it. Aw, sweet.


That look good?

[Sage]

I think it could be more explicit.

[Vad]

Damn, I've been doing it wrong this whole time. Let me pound something out.

Edit: The bathroom was filled with steam. Belle slipped into the water behind Sayana gingerly, taking care not to let the hot water singe his nuts, which were the size of grapefruits who'd been injected with radiation, causing them to mutate into Hulkfruit, who then had children. Sayana's stray blonde hair was down and parted, exposing the nape of her neck. He ran his fingers, calloused from years of scraping against wood, down her spine to the small of her back. She shivered, turned, and stared at his dong, which was the weight of a 747 filled with John Goodman clones. "What's that," she asked, pointing at his fire-hydrant of a dick. "That means I love you," he said. And he meant it. Aw, sweet.


That look good?

Heh, I just finished laughing at that. Major lawls.

[Pinky]

That's not pr0n. That's not pr0n at all.

[Vad]

That's not pr0n. That's not pr0n at all.

Honestly why do you say pr0n. We're being mature here and talking about writing. pr0n just demeans what we're trying to discuss.

UNLESS of course you were being a complete jackass and just joking around, fooling me into thinking you were serious. Then I can see why your doing that...