What makes a Writer good

Things that make a writer good

What makes a writer good in a literature context? Ooh this is a really good one ( "if I understand it correctly") and one that I think about a few times. It is more fertile, I think, to ask what makes a great work of literature, because almost all authors have a few good ones and many less good ones (or even poor ones).

Many authors also compose literature, but also genres and can be good or poor in one or both. However, the central issue is: Authors of genres are fairly simple to "grade": if they type properly, they keep the reader's eye on them and meet the demands of the particular author.

So, if you have a sci-fi novel that's properly spelled, attracts readers' interest, is exciting, has astronautics, extraterrestrials, and so on, then it's probably a "good" sci-fi novel. There is of course a great deal of'great' sci-fi that goes far beyond these aspects.

However, what makes a good'literary novel'? A great novel? If we don't fulfil tough and quick points of our genres, how do we recognise good fictional literature? Well, one of the'problems' is that the'literary' style is so big and morphic. There are some who see literature as a collective concept that encompasses any notion that is not a gender, and some think that literature actually contains very strong fictional features that need to be complied with.

So, what you end up with (and that shouldn't surprise you) is that there are many different ways to identify good fictional literature, and a great deal of discussion about it. Firstly, if you look at it from a historic or distanced point of perspective (how in not `how do I determine whether a bit of fictional literature is good?

You could look at the number and calibre of awards this play has received, how much criticism and academia a play has received over the years, and how much it has lost attractiveness over the years. But, ultimately, everything depends on the question: "How do I determine whether....." the readers own the book, a kind of compilation of these personal impressions, these straightforward judgments about the book qualities?

If you' ve ever seen more than a few titles, you'll find out quickly whether you like a work or not. However, the'parts' of the text that trigger this feeling can differ greatly from one textbook to another, from author to author and so on. What I find appealing in my own fictions, and in all the really great fictions I have been reading, is a feeling of deepness, a kind of undescribable feeling that the work is something bigger than just a novel or just a few hundred pages.

For me, really great fictional literature is something that seems to open up the possibility of living and living, something that seems to transcend the limits of the possible and the actual. Indeed, many great works of literature and great authors of literature are those who have deliberately opposed the tendencies of their times, who have adopted and eliminated the elements of a work that have been generally sought or sought, or who have ridiculed them in their own work.

I' m not sure if many other folks think so, but it works for me. What I'm trying to say is that there are straightforward criterions by which to assess the qualitiy of a work of literature or a text. I would be interested to hear one or some of them, but then I am sure that I or someone else would be able to create a fistful of great works of literature that are completely lacking these skills.

This may not appear to be a disparaging fictional of genres (for which I have a great deal of respect), but at the end of the afternoon I think this is a really fresh and freeing thing about fictional literature: The focus of fictional literature is in the areas of novelty and exploration.

Literature focuses on the discovery of new ways to better articulate people' s feelings, thoughts, relations and experience. Essentially, this means that the greatest works of literature have not yet been composed and could very well be in your own spirit.

Mehr zum Thema