what does "poorley written" mean?

[BlackBark]

The problem with that phrase is that people will often use it to describe things that they just don't like. For example, the whole idea about having too much detail. There can't really be too much detail if the writer is good enough, although I guess some people just don't like it. I would say that something is poorly written if it doesn't flow well or fails to absorb the reader into the story and the character's world.

Aside from this, there are techniques that really shouldn't be employed in writing. Firstly, the ones like Chairman Miaow mentioned about crime thrillers. You can't create a mystery by just withholding information. That's cheating. Then there are things like writers using a lot of different words instead of "said" in dialogue.

Anyway, this is really too wide a topic. Maybe you can find a book that details those bad writing techniques that should be avoided.

 

[KelDG]

Once up on a time there was a man named Charlie, he did not have anything in his pockets. He walked to the shop and took ?5 out of his pocket and bought a cake. The end.

 

[tautologico]

First, important point: most people don't know what's good writing and what's bad writing, including people commenting on this thread. This also includes myself I have some idea, but I don't think I have read and analyzed prose enough to really know this well.

If you want to know what's good and what's bad writing I'd suggest you have to read a lot, and not only for entertainment, but read and reread stuff, analyzing the prose, rhythm, etc. Write and have people you think are good writers critique your work. Critique other people's work. Read some more, and then more, try to understand what makes good writers good and bad writers bad. Rinse, repeat, etc. It's a process.

Also, understand this: people like things that are badly-written (stephanie meyer, most videogames, etc), and often don't like things that are well-written (James Joyce, etc). Liking stuff is really different than it being well-made, though they're not completely uncorrelated. Well-written prose can be incredibly boring, and badly-written stuff can be fun/exciting. In a story the emotional elements may draw the reader in more than simply whether the writing is "good" or "bad".

So, there are many dimensions, and the road is long. When people say "writing in X is bad" they're often really saying "I don't like X" or something like it, although of course most people have an intuitive grasp about quality. It depends a lot on the amount of previous exposure one had to writing (and good writing in particular).

 

[spartan231490]

I don't really know what to tell you. Someone a little better versed in writing than myself could probably give you very specific reasons, but all I can really tell you is that there is a difference, and it's pretty obvious. If you're having a hard time telling the difference, read something really well written, like "Name of the Wind" by Patrick Rothfuss, and then immediately read something that isn't as well written, like "Harry Potter." I'd like to take this opportunity to say a book doesn't have to be well written to be a good book. Anyway, you can really tell the difference between the masterful way Rothfuss uses language and the merely mediocre way Rowling does. It's like, when Rowling writes, she writes well enough that the language doesn't get in the way. When Rothfuss writes, he writes so well that the language enhances the story.

You might be a better critic of painting than me, most people are, but for me it's kinda like looking at a kid's crayon drawing and an impressionist painting. They're both kinda blurry, and not really accurate depictions of what was painted or drawn, and I couldn't point to anything and say, this is why they're different, but I'd know the impressionist painting was of a higher quality.

So, I guess my point is, go ask your English teacher, or if they don't give you a satisfactory answer, go down to the local college and ask one of the writing professors. They'd probably be able to tell you why one is better, but all you have to do is read something like "Name of the Wind" side by side with something like "Harry Potter" or something like "Sword of Truth" or even something that's really well written, but not quite as masterfully done like the "Night Angel" trilogy and the difference becomes pretty apparent.

 

[xplosive59]

The true meanings of poorly written:

Character wise

- Characters peform differently to how they have been developed.
- Characters lack flaws or are not believable, the Mary Sue/Gary Stu.
- The dialogue is not realistic of what that actually person would say.
- The actions of a character contradict their beleiefs and is not confronted about them.
- Lack of character development in general.
- Stereotypes.

Story wise

- Plot holes.
- Subplots are left hanging.
- cliches and tropes everywhere and are used in an unoriginal way.
- The logic used is not the same as how it explained to be, for example in Doctor Who if the Doctor said "You can't meet a future/past version of yourself otherwise the universe would implode" and then he goes chatting to his past self in another episode.
- Things that need explaination are left unexplained.
- Bad pacing, if a movie is 1.5 hours long and you are still on the intro at about 50 mins in etc.
- Deus Ex Machina.
- Predictable.

What many people think it is:

- "It was badly written because I didn't like it".

 

[Jamieson 90]

Poorly written can mean many different things, I like to use it to describe any and all of these:

1) Bad spelling, grammar and or punctuation.

2.) Poor characterization, i.e. they don't make sense and you can't relate to them, or they have less personality than a plank of wood.

3) Plots or actions that don't make sense, i.e. a character acts in a certain way despite all their previous actions leading you to believe they wouldn't act this way etc, basically it's clear the author needed them to do x for the plot and y to be driven and progress.

4) Poorly written plot points.

5) Getting facts or in the case of fanfiction canon details wrong.

6) overuse or under use of descriptions; if you're a good writer you'll get it just right, i.e. enough to get the point across but not so much you're bored out your mind, think Tolkien's descriptions, okay we get it there's a leaf on the tree, no need to go into so much detail, I do have an imagination after all so let me use it.

7) Poorly written dialogue, so for example you might have a kid character that speaks far too maturely and for me that's poor dialogue unless it's clear they're some kind of super genius who's well read, because most kids don't speak properly and their words often run together and they may also have a lisp, so writing phonetically sometimes is appropriate. So for example a young child might not say "I don't like it! Do I have to?" but instead "I dun like it! Do I hafta?" Similarly you could have a professor type character that's supposedly educated yet they talk like an idiot because the author has a poor vocabulary.

8) Lastly poor pacing, this doesn't refer to how fast or slow the overall plot is, but how good or bad plot point 1 flows to plot point 2 etc and so on.

 

[Lilani]

I've seen peeople say things are "poorley written" when to me theres honestly nothing wrong

the thing is I dont think I have a very good grasp on what it means when somthing is "poorley written" aside from very obvious examples

so what is it?

-is it dialouge?
-is it charachters?
-is it the plot?

I'd like examples...and not painfully obvious ones like the room, but ones that are less obvious, and reasons why

reason I ask is (you may have seen from other threads) I've been getting into writing some stories and I want a better understanding of things I should be avoiding

Poorly written can refer to anything you listed, or many more things. If a story has flat or unengaging characters, then the characters are poorly written. If the dialog is unbelievable or doesn't flow well, then the dialog is poorly written. If the plot doesn't make sense, doesn't move at a satisfying pace, doesn't engage the audience properly, or doesn't conclude satisfyingly then the plot is poorly written. There are also certain stylistic things that can indicate poor writing--too much detail, not enough detail, too many adjectives, bad similies and metaphors, too much description of scenery, things like that.

I've never read any H.P. Lovecraft books, but I've heard his dialog often leaves something to be desired. I don't think I can find it, but the example I saw was somebody like a farmer who was dying, yet giving a long and drawn out almost Shakespearian speech as he was dying. In reality there is no way a farmer would speak that way, and the way he was saying the dialog was overly dramatic and unrealistic. So that's an example of poorly written dialog--dialog that doesn't match the character, doesn't fit the situation, or resorts to stereotypes.

I'm sure I've seen poorly written characters before, but for the life of me I can't think of any right now. I suppose I could go with Jar Jar Binks--his character is steeped in so many terrible stereotypes just watching him is painful. He didn't have to be that way, he could have easily been the comic relief sidekick without sounding like he's straight out of Huck Finn. But they wrote him that way, and that's how he came out.

As for bad plot, the one on my mind the most at the moment is the plot of Brave. I'll put it in spoilers in case some people haven't seen it yet:

Spoiler

Basically if you haven't seen the film, Merida is being asked to marry one of the sons of one of the four nearby kingdoms in order to preserve the balance of the kingdoms that was established long ago. The balance was put out of place by a selfish prince who sought power and ended up going to war and threatening the safety of all four kingdoms. Merida's mother is the one putting the most pressure on her to marry, and out of frustration Merida runs into the woods and eventually encounters a witch's cottage. Merida trades with the witch and is allowed one wish, and she wishes to change her mother so she can change her fate. The witch gives her a cake to feed to her mother that will cast the spell.

And this is where the story takes a turn I don't like. The cake ends up turning Merida's mother into a bear, and in order to change her back Merida has to fix what was broken by pride (meaning her pride, of course). It felt like such a gimmicky way out to me. And the bear thing did end up connecting with the rest of the story (the selfish prince who nearly destroyed the kingdoms long ago had also been turned into a bear, which Merida and her mother end up slaying at the end). I feel like I need to watch it again because I haven't seen it since the theatrical release so the details are all a bit fuzzy, but I distinctly remember not liking the bear thing. To me it didn't seem to gel with the buildup in the beginning. They spent the first part of the book establishing Merida's inner strength and the choices she makes and wants to make, and then the way the rest of the story plays out she is never given much of a choice. Things happen and she's forced to react.

As for advice on your writing, I highly recommend tracking down Stephen King's book called "On Writing." It's partially a memoir, but it also has some great advice on the foundations of writing. Also, and I don't know how old you are, but if you have the opportunity in high school or college try to take at least one creative writing class. You don't have to take classes to be a great writer if you have it in you, but in those classes you'll get a basic sense of storytelling fundamentals, and you'll take part in one of the most important parts of the writing process--critique. You'll have your work critiqued by others, and you'll learn how to critique other works, which in turn allows you to more effectively analyze your own work. And I'm sure there are plenty of message boards on the Internet that are writing communities, so just look up some of them if you're looking for critique but don't have a class to show your work to.

Apart from that, the best advice I can give you is read. Just go out and read stuff. If you don't know what you like or what you should read, there are lots of lists online of "Best fantasy books," "Best books with female protagonists," "Best mystery books," "Best sci-fi books." And as you read, try to pick out what you like about the story, and think about why you like it. If you find yourself really engaged try to think about all that's going on to make you engaged. Or if you're bored out of your mind, try to pinpoint why and take note of that as well.

For example, the Shannara series by Terry Brooks is a very celebrated fantasy series, and I recently tried to get into it but for the life of me couldn't. I realized it was because there were so many huge information dumps. The section I was reading before I stopped had this "mysterious stranger" sitting on the porch of an inn the main protagonist worked (who was a plucky young lad wanting to go on adventures). The boy was sitting on the porch listening to the stranger talk about the history of the world. This monologue went on for pages and pages. He talked about ancient wars fought between long dead races, listed the names of famous ancient warriors and far off lands, and that's exactly why I couldn't connect. I hadn't seen enough of the world yet at that point in the story to care about who such-and-such land was ruled by long ago. While stories of epic battles are great to deepen the lore of a world, if it doesn't have a parallel with what's going on in the present it just feels like I've stopped reading a story and started reading a history textbook.

I have no doubt later there were parallels drawn between the events of the past and the events of the present (like how in the Lord of the Rings the battle with Sauron at the beginning is parallel to the battles the characters face in Frodo's time), but until there is existing context within the story to connect the pieces I don't see why I as a reader should care about those long-ago battles or the people that fought in them.

But then some people love that. They love feeling like they're reading the history book of some far-off land. Personally I'm more interested in character-building than world-building, but you might not be and there is room for both in the world of writing.

 

[Hjalmar Fryklund]

Something else you might want to check out is author Jenny Trout's blog [http://jenniferarmintrout.blogspot.com/p/jen-reads-50-shades-of-grey.html] where she's been doing chapter summaries of the 50 Shades of Grey trilogy. The books are a great example of bad writing, and Jen explains just what makes them fail so hard (she's also hilarious to read. But the books do have adult content, and Jen does write for mature audiences, so take that into account.)

Just want to add another example of a similar blog, Reasoning with Vampires [http://reasoningwithvampires.tumblr.com/], which aims at picking apart the Twilight series. It's very focused on proper sentence structure (as well as when it is okay to go against the rules) and the use of commas, dashes, colons, and the like. Be warned though, there are very high levels of snark in there.

 

[deathbydeath]

I think there's a difference between "bad story structure", and "bad writing". By "story structure", I mean the point or what is trying to be conveyed (ex: my nitpicky definitions). By "writing", I mean how something is conveyed (ex: being Clear, Concise, and Consistent). Grammar can also apply, although it has more to do with the mechanics of the language medium.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Haha the misspelling of the title just makes this hilarious. One thing that I would consider to be poor writing is using too many complex descriptors when something simple would do.

Yo, you dissin' my homeboy H. P. Lovecraft?

http://en.nkfu.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/H.-P.-Lovecraft-Quotes-1.jpg

In art, brevity is the elegance of the hasty hearts.

 

[StriderShinryu]

For example, a good crime thriller is one in which it's entirely possible to work out the criminals identity at the same time or before the lead. If we aren't told a detail crucial to the case until after the criminal is caught, that's bad writing.

Mysteries/thrillers are often a great place to find both good writing and bad, and it's usually very easy to see the difference in that context.

Were you able to determine the identity of the killer or solve all of the complex plot twists way before anyone in the story does? There's generally bad writing involved. Of course, there's always going to be some level of prescience on behalf of the reader, but if everything is too blatantly spelled out there is no mystery to the Mystery and the characters in the book end up feeling stupid because they don't see what's so obviously going on.

Were you totally unable to understand the identity of the killer even after the reveal or do you not understand any of the plot twists even after they've happened? Does the whole thing only make sense because the author says at the end that it makes sense? There's generally bad writing involved. Every Z needs an A. Everything that happens has to have some sort of reason and logic. The point of a mystery may be to confuse and misdirect, but if there is no trail to follow and no conclusions to be drawn, then it just feels as if the writer is throwing words at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Personally, I don't find bad writing to be anything too specific. It's more about the general feel of the piece. Dialogue, plotting, etc. can all be aspects of bad writing but I wouldn't necessarily say that any one is a make or break factor.

 

[Supertegwyn]

- Awkward dialogue (doesn't sound like a real person is speaking)

Can I disagree? I think in some cases, specially in movies, the characters dialogue doesn't feel realistic, but I still consider it well written.
Let's see, House or Sherlock Holmes for example.

Gah, so many quotes. Could you give a bit more detail? How exactly do you mean that the dialogue doesn't feel realistic? Do you mean in terms of setting or other factors?

- Facts aren't right (5+5=12!)

'Do you remember,' he went on, 'writing in your diary, "Freedom is the freedom to say that five plus five make ten"?'

'Yes,' said the audience.

The bad writer held up his two hands, their backs towards the audience, with the all fingers extended.

'How many fingers am I holding up, audience?'

'Ten.'

'And if I say that it is not ten but twelve -- then how many?'

'Ten.'

The word ended in a gasp of pain. The needle of the dial had shot up to fifty-five. The sweat had sprung out all over the audience. The air tore into their lungs and issued again in deep groans which even by clenching teeth they could not stop. The bad writer watched them, the ten fingers still extended. He drew back the lever. This time the pain was only slightly eased.

'How many fingers, audience?'

'Ten.'

The needle went up to sixty.

'How many fingers, audience?'

'Ten! Ten! What else can I say? Ten!'

The needle must have risen again, but they did not look at it. The heavy, stern face and the ten fingers filled their vision. The fingers stood up before their eyes like pillars, enormous, blurry, and seeming to vibrate, but unmistakably ten.

'How many fingers, audience?'

'Ten! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Ten! Ten!'

'How many fingers, audience?'

'Twelve! Twelve! Twelve!'

'No, audience, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are ten. How many fingers, please?'

'Ten! Twelve! Ten! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!'

Abruptly they were sitting up with the bad writer's arm round his shoulders. They had perhaps lost consciousness for a few seconds. The bonds that had held their bodies down were loosened. They felt very cold, they were shaking uncontrollably, their teeth were chattering, the tears were rolling down their cheeks. For a moment they clung to the bad writer like a baby, curiously comforted by the heavy arm round their shoulders. They had the feeling that the bad writer was their protector, that the pain was something that came from outside, from some other source, and that it was the bad writer who would save them from it.

'You are slow learners, audience,' said the bad writer gently.

'How can we help it?' they blubbered. 'How can we help seeing what is in front of our eyes? Five and five are ten.'

'Sometimes, audience. Sometimes they are twelve. Sometimes they are eight. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane.'

I love you.

- Bad spelling/grammar
- Facts aren't right (5+5=12!)
- Awkward dialogue (doesn't sound like a real person is speaking)
- Makes you laugh when you read it.
- Vault 101's spelling (it's already been done, but it needs repeating)

Those are the main ones for me.

Well if it's meant to be funny that's not bad, but like watching a cutscene in say World of Warcraft. Yeah laughing at that is bad writing.

That's what I meant, humour where it is not intended. Something like Twilight or 50 Shades of Grey.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

It can be all of those things you listed, and it can be none of those things. Writing is an art, and the only way to get better at it is to practice. Here are two examples of poorly written and why I believe they are so:

1) In Killzone 3--or was it 2?--there's a level where you are suddenly driving a tank through the snow. In the previous level, you were on foot with no hint of the tank. Many people complained about the magical appearing tank, myself included. One person on here pointed out rather rudely that there are tanks in the background of the previous level. Okay, but it's still a poorly written transition. Mainly because there was no transition. All it would have taken would have been a few extra words. As the characters are running off, have one of them stop and look at the tank. "Hey, wait. I've got an idea." Done. If there are no transitions, even if the information/reasoning seems obvious to you (ESPECIALLY if it seems obvious to you since it's in your head), then you're going to get a lot of people telling you that you don't know how to write. You don't need to go into painful detail explaining everything, but you also can't assume that the reader knows everything you do. It's a balance.

2) Anakin Skywalker (and Mace Windu sort of). Oh, essays have been written on this character, but I will keep it down to one part. In Revenge of the Sith, Anakin rushes to Mace Windu's side. Mace has beaten the Soon-to-be-Emperor and says, "You are under arrest." Good, that's how a Jedi should act if they have completely defeated an opponent. Palpatine unleashes his last trick, which Mace easily blocks. This man is defeated. But suddenly, for no reason, Mace switches to executioner. "He's too dangerous to leave alive!" Wait, ten seconds ago you were going to arrest him? What happened? Bad character flip-flop right there. But it pales in comparison to what happens next.
As you know, Anakin betrays Mace and Mace dies. Anakin is in TEARS. He is weeping on his knees at what he's just done. This has clearly shaken him to his core and he doesn't know who he is anymore. Hayden does a poor job in acting the scene, but the idea behind it is a powerful one. Everything that Anakin has ever known is on shaky ground now, and it's made him sick. "What have I done?" "You're fulfilling your destiny." Okay! I'm off to murder all my friends, mentors, and freaking CHILDREN because four words were spoken to me. Four. Words. That is more than poorly written. That's just plain bad. That is the author forcing the character to change/do something to fit the story, instead of letting the story and characters flow and grow on their own. Anakin's fall should have been more gradual, his final turning point should have come after a slow build up of minor, horrible deeds. Not because one person tells him to turn.

You need to realize that a story has a life to it. You can guide it, give it a gentle push here or a slight redirect there, but when you start changing it to do what you want at the cost of the story and characters in it, you're murdering your story. Like I said, it's an art and it's going to take some practice. You also have to be ready to be told that your story sucks, and you suck, repeatedly (and yes, in those exact words if not worse). You'll need a tough skin.

Finally, learn how grammar works and learn how to spell. Screwing up the basics will make even the best story fall apart because no one will take it seriously.

And have fun with it.

 

[Vault101]

ISomething else you might want to check out is author Jenny Trout's blog [http://jenniferarmintrout.blogspot.com/p/jen-reads-50-shades-of-grey.html] where she's been doing chapter summaries of the 50 Shades of Grey trilogy. The books are a great example of bad writing, and Jen explains just what makes them fail so hard (she's also hilarious to read. But the books do have adult content, and Jen does write for mature audiences, so take that into account.) As a bonus, Jen is now releasing her own story in the same genre as 50 Shade (that's "BDSM romance" not "Twilight fanfiction") for free, so there's a well-written story for comparison.
.

I think I read some of that...it was really funny! part of the reason being she's an erotic fiction writer and (rightdully) pissed 50 shades became so huge

of coarse I didnt need to read a blog to think "how the flying FUCK did this get published!?" honestly if 50 shades can get published I should just go ahead and write novel (kidding....but yeah)

 

[Vault101]

Well-written prose can be incredibly boring, and badly-written stuff can be fun/exciting. In a story the emotional elements may draw the reader in more than simply whether the writing is "good" or "bad".
.

can you call it badly written if its fun/exciting?

 

[someonehairy-ish]

There are lots of things that constitute bad writing. Contradictions in characterisation and plot, overly artificial dialogue, redundant words in descriptions, lack of clarity. That's off the top of my head.

 

[TehCookie]

Well-written prose can be incredibly boring, and badly-written stuff can be fun/exciting. In a story the emotional elements may draw the reader in more than simply whether the writing is "good" or "bad".
.

can you call it badly written if its fun/exciting?

Easily, go read 50 shades of Grey, it's so bad it's good.

 

[ClockworkUniverse]

- Awkward dialogue (doesn't sound like a real person is speaking)

I, um...I think that if...you know...you were to...to have characters talk like, you know, like people really talk, then that would...um...you wouldn't make it sound all that good, I think.