When do you know if what you have written is any good?

[Rustyoznail]

Glad I could indirectly help.

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

Last night, I had nightmares about a particular ex who is one of the inspirations for a story I'm working on (the dreams featured another ex as well, who is connected, but that's a loooong story).

I wonder if that bodes well for the quality of this one? If I could mess with my own subconscious, I guess the story has potential?

 

[WritingwhatIlike]

If I'm aroused by it while writing, I'll work until I've finished it.

I did an unfortunate thing, and read some of the threads here talking about good stories. It made me realize none of mine are that good. (But they get their audience) I tried to come up with better stories and ended up putting myself into analysis paralysis. The only way out was to step back and lean into what the readers - and I - like, and now I've got one in pending.

It'd be nice to be able to produce profound, life-altering prose, but I don't have it in me.

 

[Smuttyandfun]

I took a quick look at a few of your submissions, and I think write pretty well. Personally, I just keep writing, hoping my writing will improve.

 

[Auden James]

As I said, "When I step into an airplane, nobody can measure the success of that journey until the end of the process, when we all find out". If clarification is needed here, the word "nobody" implies "not even the pilot", and "all" implies "including the pilot".

This makes no difference at all as it still does not touch upon what my metaphor above is about. It's not about the final measurement of success—or success at all at that. Besides that, ChloeTzang's statement above is pretty clear in one regard: it is not all of us at all who find out whether her writing is "good" or not, but really only herself (via one avid fan's feedback) and—maybe—one especially avid fan of hers.

Even the pilot doesn't know for certain whether they're going to land or crash, until the flight is over.

And again, that's not at all the point of my metaphor above.

And yet they still have a pretty good idea of what kinds of decisions improve the chance of a good outcome.

And where does this presumption suddenly come from? Anyway, now you're at least kind of indirectly starting to close in on the meaning of my metaphor above, for ChloeTzang provided exactly zero reasons to make this presumption as there's no hint in her statement at all that she has any idea—let alone a "pretty good" one—about the goodness of her writing before being told so by her avid fan after publishing it (because said fan then sends her feedback that they stayed up until 5 a.m. in the morning on a week night to finish reading her story).

In this context, I'd consider "success in writing" and "writing a good story" to be more or less interchangeable language.

I don't know which context you're considering, but in the context of literature—or, maybe more precisely, the history of published fictional literature—a "good story" must not necessarily turn into a "success" at all, at least not upon first being published or even later in the author's lifetime. Take "Moby-Dick" by Herman Melville as one famous example.

Of course, since you're rather imprecise in your word choice, you may disagree again with that because you perhaps meant something completely different by either "success in writing" or a "good story," or both.

 

[Auden James]

There are ways of answering this that don’t rely on universal definitions though. I replied that I judge my own work by whether or not I think a piece achieves what I set out to achieve.

That may be so, but merely thinking to have achieved what one set out to achieve does not guarantee at all that one has indeed achieved what one set out to achieve. You see, unless you are the pope (or superhuman), your judgment, especially of yourself and your own deeds, is fallible. Self-knowledge has been highly sought since the ancient times of Socrates, and seemingly it is not that easy to come by. Also, though the example may seem a little odd at first glance, consider that one sets out to write something mediocre (whatever one might take that term to mean) and indeed achieves to write just that: then you achieved just what you set out to achieve, and yet you haven't written anything "good."

Hence, you really don't know if what you have written is any good, if you're merely going by achieving what you set out to achieve or thinking that you did so.

 

[Auden James]

Meanings change not just with time, but also from person to person. I think we just need to keep that in mind when we are considering their answers.

Yeah, but what do you make of their answers if they don't make the meanings of crucial terms clear? Heck, how can you even start to understand what they are saying if, as you seem to imply, each and every term may very well mean something completely different to everyone involved?

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

That may be so, but merely thinking to have achieved what one set out to achieve does not guarantee at all that one has indeed achieved what one set out to achieve. You see, unless you are the pope (or superhuman), your judgment, especially of yourself and your own deeds, is fallible. Self-knowledge has been highly sought since the ancient times of Socrates, and seemingly it is not that easy to come by. Also, though the example may seem a little odd at first glance, consider that one sets out to write something mediocre (whatever one might take that term to mean) and indeed achieves to write just that: then you achieved just what you set out to achieve, and yet you haven't written anything "good."

Hence, you really don't know if what you have written is any good, if you're merely going by achieving what you set out to achieve or thinking that you did so.

Christ. This is pedantic and insufferable. Do you actually have anything to contribute to this conversation, or are you just spewing words to try to prove how much smarter you are than everyone else?

 

[Auden James]

Christ. This is pedantic and insufferable. Do you actually have anything to contribute to this conversation, or are you just spewing words to try to prove how much smarter you are than everyone else?

A very reasonable response . . .

 

[XerXesXu]

, your judgment, especially of yourself and your own deeds, is fallible.

Fallibility is a matter of degree, ranging from delusional to approaching objectively true. I know where I fall on that spectrum, and, because I know where I fall on that spectrum, I know where I fall on that spectrum. I know when others have written something that is 'any good', by the metric they choose or by any other metric, similarly, I know the same about my own writing.

 

[CurvySassyAJ]

Well, for me it is good if I like it. It's erotica written, mostly here, by amatuers. Ratings and feedback are nice, but I do not chase that. I write for me first, then my friends and finally here if I publish it.

My 2 cents....

 

[000zing]

Well, for me it is good if I like it. It's erotica written, mostly here, by amatuers. Ratings and feedback are nice, but I do not chase that. I write for me first, then my friends and finally here if I publish it.

My 2 cents....

Rem acu tetigisti. Your two cents are as valid as any of the lengthier comments here and probably more so.

The OP should ask himself: do I really need validation from others? It's just going to be their opinions... no solidly objective yardstick. Perhaps it might be even more interesting and enlightening for the OP to read through, say, three or four stories from the Lit. archive chosen at random... and then to ask himself whether he would really place any value on the judgement of writers capable of producing such material.

 

[WritingwhatIlike]

I took a quick look at a few of your submissions, and I think write pretty well. Personally, I just keep writing, hoping my writing will improve.

Thank you!

I agree that just continuing to write is the best way forward.

 

[holliday1960]

I know that there are some among us who have great faith in views and scores and readers’ comments. I am most certainly not one of them. Although there are a small handful of readers whose comments I value. But when I say a small handful, I mean a very small handful.

When I write something, it first has to satisfy me. And then I usually send copies out to four or five members of the dozen or so people who make up my brutally honest ‘review panel’. Mostly, these people are successful writers in their own right. They know their stuff. And they are more than happy to argue about the choice of a word or the position of a comma. If I get a pass mark from these boys and girls, I know that I am probably onto something.

When do you know if what you have written is any good?

My experience here has been that many story contributors don't rely on the opinion of others to gage their work, just as you've indicated. But, I think mostly the newbies do; they have certain expectations when they join, and to a degree, they rely on the affirmations of readers. So many first-time contributors are looking for some sort of comradery, along with acceptance by people they consider to be their peers. The ensuing let-down when that's lacking, combined with negative feedback and comments, can be completely devastating for some. Personally, I admire certain individuals who have managed to navigate 'public opinion' without being affected by all the nastiness that seems to just go with the territory. I have to hand it to many of the long-term writers here; writing inside specified and certain parameters isn't easy to do, and for that reason alone, I never considered the writing I posted here to be 'good' by any measure. Anyone who can write inside a box (time frame, theme, etc.) is worthy of appreciation. Your writing isn't merely 'good', it's nearly flawless, Sam.

 

[yowser]

My experience here has been that many story contributors don't rely on the opinion of others to gage their work, just as you've indicated. But, I think mostly the newbies do; they have certain expectations when they join, and to a degree, they rely on the affirmations of readers. So many first-time contributors are looking for some sort of comradery, along with acceptance by people they consider to be their peers. The ensuing let-down when that's lacking, combined with negative feedback and comments, can be completely devastating for some. Personally, I admire certain individuals who have managed to navigate 'public opinion' without being affected by all the nastiness that seems to just go with the territory. I have to hand it to many of the long-term writers here; writing inside specified and certain parameters isn't easy to do, and for that reason alone, I never considered the writing I posted here to be 'good' by any measure. Anyone who can write inside a box (time frame, theme, etc.) is worthy of appreciation. Your writing isn't merely 'good', it's nearly flawless, Sam.

Nicely said, and I think accurate.

It took me far longer than I'd care to admit to come to realise that scoring here has only the most tenuous and asymmetrical correlation with quality. If a story is exceedingly careless and poorly constructed, it will inevitably get a poor score, yet even a gem of a tale, thoughtfully crafted, does not necessarily mean a plentitude of stars. I think for new writers it is jarring to put a lot of energy (and attention to detail) into a tale that does not do 'well' and then see a more slapdash story from someone else gain a high mark.

I applaud new authors and hope for the development of patience and persistence. Writing is hard work and putting one's thoughts and creations out there to be read takes more courage than usually appreciated.

That said, this place is a lovely playground for experimentation.

 

[SamScribble]

My experience here has been that many story contributors don't rely on the opinion of others to gage their work, just as you've indicated. But, I think mostly the newbies do; they have certain expectations when they join, and to a degree, they rely on the affirmations of readers. So many first-time contributors are looking for some sort of comradery, along with acceptance by people they consider to be their peers. The ensuing let-down when that's lacking, combined with negative feedback and comments, can be completely devastating for some. Personally, I admire certain individuals who have managed to navigate 'public opinion' without being affected by all the nastiness that seems to just go with the territory. I have to hand it to many of the long-term writers here; writing inside specified and certain parameters isn't easy to do, and for that reason alone, I never considered the writing I posted here to be 'good' by any measure. Anyone who can write inside a box (time frame, theme, etc.) is worthy of appreciation.

You make some good points, Holliday - as usual

 

[SamScribble]

I applaud new authors and hope for the development of patience and persistence. Writing is hard work and putting one's thoughts and creations out there to be read takes more courage than usually appreciated.

That said, this place is a lovely playground for experimentation.

It is indeed, Yowser

 

[SimonDoom]

Throwing out a question in response to the OP's original question:

Do we ever really know if what we write is any good?

I'm not sure.

I recall reading something about an interview with Hemingway, who spent all his time when he wasn't drinking or hunting big game writing, saying that he'd write stuff and realize that 90+% of it was crap, and he won the Nobel Prize for literature.

My attitude is that I want my stuff to be "good," by my standards, which I think are reasonably high, but I've never written anything that I think comes close to meeting those standards 100%. I don't fret about it. I move on to the next story and I hope I've learned something from the mistakes I've made in the earlier ones.

 

[SamScribble]

Yeah, but what do you make of their answers if they don't make the meanings of crucial terms clear? Heck, how can you even start to understand what they are saying if, as you seem to imply, each and every term may very well mean something completely different to everyone involved?

Within a couple of hours of my post, I heard the head of a building products company saying that his firm had 'anticipated a problem with the supply of plaster board and sought out alternative sources'. I also read a piece by an 'entertainments' journalist talking about 'a much anticipated concert'. They had each used 'anticipate' to mean something slightly different. The building materials boss had used it in the traditional sense (to expect something to happen and take steps to mitigate the consequences); the journo had used it to mean 'eagerly awaited'. But I had no difficulty understanding what each meant.

 

[SimonDoom]

My experience here has been that many story contributors don't rely on the opinion of others to gage their work, just as you've indicated. But, I think mostly the newbies do; they have certain expectations when they join, and to a degree, they rely on the affirmations of readers. So many first-time contributors are looking for some sort of comradery, along with acceptance by people they consider to be their peers. The ensuing let-down when that's lacking, combined with negative feedback and comments, can be completely devastating for some. Personally, I admire certain individuals who have managed to navigate 'public opinion' without being affected by all the nastiness that seems to just go with the territory. I have to hand it to many of the long-term writers here; writing inside specified and certain parameters isn't easy to do, and for that reason alone, I never considered the writing I posted here to be 'good' by any measure. Anyone who can write inside a box (time frame, theme, etc.) is worthy of appreciation. Your writing isn't merely 'good', it's nearly flawless, Sam.

I think there's something to be said for the notion that those who "succeed" (whatever that means) are those who keep going in spite of negative feedback. I've been around here long enough to see some writers emerge that I think are good, and who receive positive feedback, but they can't seem to handle the negative feedback, and they disappear. It puzzles me. I've received positive feedback, for which I'm extremely grateful--it tickles me to this day, after 5 1/2 years, that people take the time to say they like something I wrote--but I've also had readers tell me that I suck and that I should stop writing. It doesn't bother me. I look at it and ask myself if there's anything in the criticism I can learn from (sometimes yes, more often than not, no) and then I start my next story. And I strongly believe this: if you want to write, you have to have that attitude. It takes a thick skin, just like acting, or stand-up comedy, or displaying your paintings at an exhibition. You'll never please everyone, and you don't have to.

 

[SamScribble]

Perhaps it might be even more interesting and enlightening for the OP to read through, say, three or four stories from the Lit. archive chosen at random... and then to ask himself whether he would really place any value on the judgement of writers capable of producing such material.

If you are suggesting that I should read a few randomly-selected stories from time to time, 000zing, I sometimes do. I seldom manage to get past the first few paragraphs; but every now and then I come across a real gem - often without a gem score.

 

[000zing]

If you are suggesting that I should read a few randomly-selected stories from time to time, 000zing, I sometimes do. I seldom manage to get past the first few paragraphs; but every now and then I come across a real gem - often without a gem score.

I was suggesting you do it just as a one-off experiment, to see whether you can "get past the first few paragraphs" and so form a judgement as to whether you would place any value whatsoever on what these people would think of your offerings.

Your observations both on that point and the "gem score" matter would seem conclusive and I can only agree. There are plenty here nonetheless who will insist that you should, heaven forfend, never draw attention to the fundamental poor-authorship, wank-fodder nature of the site.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Your observations both on that point and the "gem score" matter would seem conclusive and I can only agree. There are plenty here nonetheless who will insist that you should, heaven forfend, never draw attention to the fundamental poor-authorship, wank-fodder nature of the site.

You continue to lump everything and everyone into the lowest common denominator on the site. Does your world view not allow that some writers at least are capable? Mr Scribble, for example, makes his living from writing, so can hardly be described as an amateur (sorry, Sam, for drawing attention, but the point can be made).

And once again, you judge everyone here with the same brush, but your own literary genius remains hidden. You spruik yourself as some kind of self-appointed literary oracle, dismissing us all here as wannabe scribblers - yet your literary expertise is, let's be fair, not on show. Are you going to put yourself on show, as everyone else here has? Or do we just get some kind of a soapbox?

Enquiring minds want to know. It's not an unreasonable question, is it?

 

[holliday1960]

Nicely said, and I think accurate.

It took me far longer than I'd care to admit to come to realise that scoring here has only the most tenuous and asymmetrical correlation with quality. If a story is exceedingly careless and poorly constructed, it will inevitably get a poor score, yet even a gem of a tale, thoughtfully crafted, does not necessarily mean a plentitude of stars. I think for new writers it is jarring to put a lot of energy (and attention to detail) into a tale that does not do 'well' and then see a more slapdash story from someone else gain a high mark.

I applaud new authors and hope for the development of patience and persistence. Writing is hard work and putting one's thoughts and creations out there to be read takes more courage than usually appreciated.

That said, this place is a lovely playground for experimentation.

Very true, Yowser. I agree.

 

[000zing]

You continue to lump everything and everyone into the lowest common denominator on the site. Does your world view not allow that some writers at least are capable? Mr Scribble, for example, makes his living from writing, so can hardly be described as an amateur (sorry, Sam, for drawing attention, but the point can be made).

And once again, you judge everyone here with the same brush, but your own literary genius remains hidden. You spruik yourself as some kind of self-appointed literary oracle, dismissing us all here as wannabe scribblers - yet your literary expertise is, let's be fair, not on show. Are you going to put yourself on show, as everyone else here has? Or do we just get some kind of a soapbox?

Enquiring minds want to know. It's not an unreasonable question, is it?

It is you who are misconstruing my words - I suspect deliberately - so as to produce this "lumping together" and "judging everyone" utter nonsense. I merely suggested a course of action to Sam and it turns out he has already done it - to end up forming broadly the same judgement that I have, if I am not misquoting him.

The real problem here, "let's be fair", is that you do not care for that judgement. So far from having an "enquiring mind", yours is completely closed to the idea that anyone should be reminded of the nature of the site as, presumably, this would tend to show eager contributors to it in a poor light. I have not singled out any individuals as, yes, this would be inequitable given that I choose not to "publish" here... but your thesis is clearly that this status debars me from making any negative comment at all.

We have been through this before. Yours is a busted argument, unsupported by any reasonable concept of fairness or, if it comes to that, Lit. rules themselves. You are becoming tedious, so on ignore you go.