What is good writing, exactly?

 Something strange is happening in England: the National Academy of Writing has launched the first Good Writing Awards. Aren't all the existing literary awards -- the Man Booker and the Pulitzer, the Nobel and the Dayton Literary Peace Prize, the National Book Awards and the Printz as well as countless others -- already awarding good writing?

Maybe so, but the Good Writing Awards are distinguished in two ways. First, the National Academy of Writing is soliciting nominations from the public on its website -- its members "want to hear the British people expressing their opinions," rather than asking a group of professionals to make the decisions (although professionals will be on the judging panel).  The other distinguishing characteristic is that it's not asking for whole books --  only for 100 to 1,000-word excerpts. For those of you who don't count words for a living, that's anywhere from a paragraph to about four pages. "The upper limit has been set," the website proclaims, "because good writing ought to be able to demonstrate its quality in less than 1,000 words."

In two categories -- instruction manuals and business/government writing -- this strategy will certainly generate interesting results.

But setting those aside, it seems to be an upside-down way of casting attention on close reading in longer works. Four pages of a play, nonfiction book or novel -- the other three categories in this competition -- could be much better than the work as a whole. Even a short story could begin with a brilliant paragraph and then devolve into a mass of cardboard characters in a plotless mess.

Isn't one of the things that makes a piece of writing resonate how it fits into the larger piece? Cordelia's arguments with her father might come off as whiny if you didn't realize what was happening in "King Lear." Doesn't "...and yes I said yes I will Yes" carry such resonance because it comes after more than 700 pages of "Ulysses," instead of somewhere in the middle?

Can the texture of writing be isolated from a work as a whole?

-- Carolyn Kellogg

Comments

[Bill Griffiths]

You are writing about "good writing," yet you say: "...in less than 1,000 words" when, in PROPER English, it should be "...in FEWER than 1,000 words."
English USAGE means good writing!

[Carolyn]

Thanks Bill - you're absolutely right. But notice that it's not me who wrote "less than 1,000" words, but the people who organized the good writing contest.

[Chris]

(Yawn) the usual pedantic drivel. She was asking about *writing,* not usage conventions. We don't prize Joyce and Shakespeare for their copyediting skills.

I think Ms. Kellogg's question is well posed. It barely takes more than a glance to spot bad writing: "Her emerald eyes fluttered beseechingly, as his fangs glistened in the moonlight like pearls." But good writing is composed both of great style *and* the ability to sustain a plot and characterization. Perhaps the best that can be said is that a 1000 word sample might indicate promising writing.

[whamo]

Good writing stirs emotions and inspires thought. Usage does not mean much.

[john henry]

no 2 bit blog is going to answer this question... just let them give out their little prize, yeah?

i'm getting awfully tired of this "armchair reporting," where a 10 minute google search constitutes research for a piece. In music production they say, "garbage in, garbage out." A ten thousand dollar piece of equipment ain't going to clean up garbage. Writing is just the tool. (insert rhetorical question here:) Don't you think we need to spend a little more time collecting ideas, and a little less time worrying about a pretty sentence?

[John Cork]

It is difficult to abide the following question: "Isn't one of the things that makes a piece of writing resonate how it fits into the larger piece?" Hmmm. Let's try another version to see if we can make sense of this mess: "Isn't the way a piece of writing fits into a larger work important in judging its resonance?"

Why is the second sentence easier to read and understand? In Ms. Kellogg's construction, she asks a question based on the counter-positive version of the following sentence: ""One of the things that makes a piece of writing resonate is how it fits into the larger piece." This sentence's weaknesses become apparent when one tries to turn the statement into a question. Kellogg's subject is ill-defined ("one of the things"). Her verb takes the form of equation ("one of the things" equals...) and her object fails to match her subject, ("one of the things" equals "how it fits into the larger piece"). An additional problem exists because her object can hardly be defined as a "thing."

Start questions with a definite object. Use, in this case, "the way a piece a writing fits into a larger work," which is the concept Kellogg desires to have judged.

Do not use "how" in a question unless as an interrogatory adverb. Because we are so accustomed to seeing this word as the leading force in a question ("how did you climb that hill?"), it throws readers and listeners off when used relative adverb in a question. In this case, Kellogg is using the word "how" to elicit a response of "to what extent", but as a reader can see by substituting the definition, Kellogg's word choice is inexact. What you want at this point in the sentence is an adjective to modify the subject. Thus, "isn't the way... important?" feels much cleaner than, "isn't one...how?"

Lastly, Kellogg uses the word "piece" twice to convey two entirely different meanings. "A piece of writing" clearly refers to a fragment, part of the larger work. Yet Kellogg attempts to use the word again to refer to a completed work. This construction is confounding to the reader. The word, "piece" means, "a portion of a larger object or group of objects" in almost ever usage. In the world of the arts, we have taken to dropping the defining prepositional phrase because it is often understood. "The piece is a fine Picasso" is shorthand for, "The piece of art is a fine Picasso." Rather than use a different and less confusing word (like "work," which is also shorthand for "work or art" or "work of literature"), Kellogg merely qualifies the initial word with "larger," but the damage cannot be undone with a simple modifier.

Good writing should be rewarded. I hope Ms. Kellogg rises to the challenge.

[John Cork]

Bill is, unfortunately, incorrect. "...in less than 1000 words" is appropriate usage. "Words" is a collective noun. Thus, you seek submissions of "less than 1000 words," just as you would hope to buy a computer for "less than 1000 dollars."

Source:
'It is, however, correct to say, "The signers of the petition were less than a hundred, "where the round number, a hundred, is something like a collective noun, and less is thought of as meaning a less quantity or amount.' - Strunk & White, Elements of Style

[Racquel Fagon]

Blah, blah, blah, the intricacies of proper mechanics in writing is so subjective that the idea of "good writing" should have nothing to do with it. With the dynamics and evolution of people and their lifestyles, it is impossible for the English language as a "work in progress" to stop. In as much as individuals can abide by the conventions and standards established within the language, there has to be room for creative complexities, ergo, the phenomenon of good writing.