Pat King: Okay, I think we all have passionate opinions about this weeks topic, "What constitutes a bad writer?" It's a strange, strange thing to admit that with all the subjectivity surrounding writing and writing styles that we still have to use black and white labels like "good" and "bad." But there's a line somewhere. Where is it? What is it? When has a writer gone past "bad" and reached "good?" For that matter, when is a writer "great?"

I'm happy to be moderating this topic and I look forward to what I'm sure will be quite varied responses.

Pat King: Okay, I think we all have passionate opinions about this weeks topic, "What constitutes a bad writer?" It's a strange, strange thing to admit that with all the subjectivity surrounding writing and writing styles that we still have to use black and white labels like "good" and "bad." But there's a line somewhere. Where is it? What is it? When has a writer gone past "bad" and reached "good?" For that matter, when is a writer "great?"

I'm happy to be moderating this topic and I look forward to what I'm sure will be quite varied responses.

David Blaine: When I first read that you were going to hold a round table discussion on what makes a bad writer, I bristled. It might have been unintentional, but we should hold writers more accountable for their word choices, and “bad” is an ambiguous modifier.

No one wishes to be labeled as a bad anything, so the question begs to create confrontation. Confrontation can be a good thing, however in a public forum, it often devolves into animosity ad nauseam.

Perhaps it could have been phrased as “What makes a weak writer?” But although that is less ambiguous, it is still a label no one would welcome.

There are writers and those who are not. Each person who writes will have personal motivations. Some motivations are noble and some less so. Each person will be at a particular level of skill, from novice to seasoned. Each will pursue a different genre and style of the craft; some are artists while others are working commercially. There are the insiders and the outsiders, the academics and the street poets. There are industrious, studious, hard working people who are growing stronger, and there are a few who are lazy wanna-be’s, copying the style of others and seldom learning anything new. There are even posers who don’t have any talent at all, and they know it.

When first meeting anyone who holds himself out as a writer, it’s nearly impossible to place him in any of the above categories, even after reading a bit of his work. But the work eventually becomes the case for or against him. As an individual, it’s hard to say.
One might be a boring dinner guest but a scintillating author. One might be a terribly self-centered asshole but still be an artist of the first order. But just as character flaws don’t necessarily detract from the writing, being a swell guy is no indicator of potential either.

I read some interesting things lately. One fellow wrote a letter to the editor in Writer’s Digest upbraiding people who publish poems in journals with strange names. I don’t imagine he subscribes to Instant Pussy, Fuck, or The Shit Creek Review. About the same time I read a poem berating those who try to criticize poets for doing something, or failing to do something, to meet the expectations of others. I imagine these two authors would spontaneously combust if they were in the same room together.

But me? I love diversity. I hate that it’s become a PC buzzword though. If I only wanted to meet people just like me, I wouldn’t go out of the house. I already spend twenty-four hours a day with myself. I might as well quit while I’m ahead. Who am I ever going to meet that’s more like me than myself? But no, I want to meet people younger than I am and older, and by people, I mean writers. I want to meet people of different faiths and no faith at all. I need to make the acquaintance of friends from different countries and cultures. I’d like to drink with the wealthy and famous while dropping the names of poorer writers and artists they’ve never heard of. To my way of thinking, race, class, age, gender and all the other characteristics that divide us into groups aren’t any more relevant than the geo-political grids on a map. Those who derive power by keeping people stirred up, disconnected, ignorant and weak are the ones who dictate the significance of these divisions, and we let them.

But I have thought about your question and I might have a simple answer, one that few would disagree with, and one that shouldn’t hurt anyone’s feelings.

A bad writer is a writer who doesn’t.

Michael Grover: Bad writing is safe writing. Writing that doesn't have to say anything but just acts like it does. Academic writing workshoped and edited so much that anything that might resemble emotion has been sucked out of it. Flat writing, that does not move or do anything. Shock & awe writing that just uses sex and violence to evoke an easy conditioned emotion. This is just my opinion. I'm sure a lot of people out there would call political writing bad. Bad writing is really just a personal oppinion.

I think "good" and "bad" tends to be a matter of opinion, and that is reflected in the amount of online and print journals there are in circulation. Each journal has its own niche and if a writer is smart he/she recognizes which of their works fits where.

Personally, I do feel there is a large quantity of "bad" writing going on, I have been a participant in that group myself. There are pieces I read from a few years ago and gag.

Aleathia Drehmer: I think the difference between a "good" writer and a "bad" writer is the ability to recognize when something needs work and be willing to change the original idea to make the piece stronger. A "good" writer will learn from mistakes, learn from fellow writers, and yes, might learn a thing or two at a workshop.

I don't think academic works are necessarily badly written, I think they tend to be pompous sometimes trying to capture the air of yesteryear. Academic writers are people that seem to be in love with the past when things were ordered, even if the subject matter is chaos. It is not easy to write in iambic pentameter or to write with restrictions and it is like a puzzle. I know several writers who have their MFA who write with passion and emotion, and partake in free verse. To generalize all academic writers into one lump isn't fair.

I think bad writing comes from a lack of experience and a lack of knowledge to express one's self in the proper way. The more a writer lives, the more he/she sees the world in new ways, and significant situations in life change the angle the pen is held at and what comes out of it.

Pat King: Hmmmm...David mentions diversity. I don't think that's the problem. I think Aleathia gets more to the heart of the problem, that bad writing might have to do with a lack of recognizing when a piece doesn't "work." This would apply no matter the genre.

I realize that, yes, "bad" is ambiguous. But writing isn't totally subjective, is it? I mean, bad writing might be hard to define, but I don't think it's undefinable. We all know it when we see it. Those of us who are editors have all rejected writing. Why? What makes a piece of writing fail to live up to the standards we've set? At Outsider Writers, we might publish writing that's different, but none of the editors have published writing that they think is bad. At least I hope not.

Michael Grover: As an editor I look for something that moves me in some way. Bottom line.

Pat King: What kind of stuff doesn't move you?

Michael Grover: Just dry flat stuff.

David Blaine: OK, well I'm very glad to see that this hasn't turned into a forum about bad writers at all. It's about bad writing.

I think all writers, even the very best, have written some real crap. They shoved it into a desk drawer, checked back on it later, and then shit canned it. The smart ones did. Some left it where it could be found and their families published it posthumously.

So perhaps it's about knowing what should be shared and what should be, at best, kept for cannibalizing down the road. Maybe a poem sucks, but has some great lines or metaphors. Maybe a story stinks, but has a great character. Knowing that might be key in good vs. crapola.

I read that Carl Sandburg left every poem in his desk for at least six months before he looked at it a second time. I have to confess, I'm bad at that. I'm certain that every thing's perfect after the second or third read-through. Then it's posted and the next day, oops, something needs to be fixed!

There is nothing as valuable to a writer as another set of eyes!
Even if you're an editor, it's tough editing your own work.

I did see something in a sales flier the other day that caught my editor's eye: "Half of the time people always scratch the back side of the lens." This was copy writing that someone got paid for! I thought it was as hilarious as anything Yogi Berra ever said.

OK, these may just seem like ramblings, but it's early. The loose tie in is that judgment and editing might just make all the difference between a good piece of writing and a poor one.

Pat King: I think David, you have a great point about writers putting stuff away because they know it's bad. A skilled writer is able to look at his work objectively and know what needs work, what to save for later and what to burn immediately.

Mathias Nelson: I think writing is bad when a writer isn't having fun. Instead he's trying to be fancy. His thesaurus is yellow with old nut stains because he gets off on making a reader look in the dictionary. He doesn't let it come natural. He makes it work. A job. Tries to impress.

I also think bad writing goes overboard on subject matter. Keep it concise. Tell the fucking story. I want to hear about Mike lubing up the hole where the door handle used to be, having his first sexual experience, because that's character. I don't give a shit about Jenny's wardrobe. I want to be able to picture Jenny through her actions. I want to witness Jenny's elaborate plot to murder Mike because Mike's a jerk-off, not hear about it.

So have fun and don't try to be fancy. If you are naturally fancy and the words just come to you like that, then fine. I don't know if your reader will enjoy it, but as long as you do, who cares? And if you tend to fill your novel with filler go take a enema, shit that shit out, then work on a real manuscript. Don't sink the ship. Shank it. You know? Cut that motherfucker.

Miles Bell: I, too, am terrible at leaving stuff alone until I can see it objectively. But I tried this for a while and I still can't see what works and what doesn't. The poem doesn't come at all unless it's working. I'm not so arrogant to suppose everything I write is perfect when it splats onto the page, but if it comes out and seems to get to a point, even if it's not the point I started out trying to make, it's done, flaws and all.
Something I read somewhere: If you're struggling with a piece, take out the part you like best. I'm guilty of keeping a poem, even submitting a poem, because it has a good couple of lines amongst filler. Does that make it bad writing? I don't think so, just makes me a bad editor. My bad writing goes in the bin.

And really, for me, there's writing I don't persevere with, or writing I do. Not good or bad. I don't much like Shostakovich, so I don't listen to it, just like I know Hemingway is held in tremendous regard by many, but it bores me.

But obviously plaigarism or rehashing old ideas in new clothes is never a good thing. I once had a poem published about the only survivors of nuclear Armageddon being Keith Richards, cockroaches, and Twinkies. Crappy poem, and I wish I'd never bothered writing or submitting it.

Anyone want to be my editor? I can pay....nothing.

David Blaine: Miles, sometimes your conscious and unconscious have a hell of a fight with each other. You said sometimes your poems make a point that you weren't trying to make. Right, well, maybe you didn't think so. Good writers can somehow get out of the way and let the thing just happen. If you've had some experience that's moved you strongly, welled up in some emotion, maybe joy, maybe anger, maybe lust, whatever, if you have this feeling, it'll come out well. And often it's nothing that you were reaching for when you sat at the keyboard.

Pat King: Hmmm.....but isn't editing such a big part of the writing process that to not edit well constitutes bad writing?

And I think Miles edits just fine. He's quite a poet.

Miles, I charge nothing and would love to have the sneak peek to all your lovely poems.

And since no one touched it with a ten foot pole, I will.

Aleathia Drehmer: Mathias, it bums me out that you think people with a vocabulary are considered "fancy" writers. I agree that some people do go overboard with word choice and something simpler might do the trick but just because it isn't fun for you to read doesn't mean the writer didn't have fun working on the piece. Maybe having to look up words in the dictionary to understand a poem might take away from the flow of it, but if you are taking the time to look the word up, chances are you had an interest in the poem in the first place otherwise why bother.

I believe that all of us have some poems that come out of the pen pretty great without editing, and I think that comes with time and understanding the nuances of your own style. At some point, the cadence of your voice comes through in the poem and the pen is a willing subject to manipulate. But, I still have poems I have to edit the crap out of.

Mathias Nelson: Like I said, to be naturally fancy is fine, as long as you're having fun.

David Blaine: That does remind me of something specific. A good writer will use the best verb. The action it depicts will eliminate the need for most adverbs. Nouns are similar, but adjectives are more critical. Still, I'm not crazy about a tripple adjective like, The short, cold, gray winter morning...

Miles Bell: I agree, David. Saying too much, not allowing the reader any space to do some work for themselves...I think it's fair to say in prose as well as poetry it's a case of "show, not tell". There's a tremendous bit in "Catcher in the Rye" where Holden Caulfield is trying to persuade his girl Sally to come and live with him in a cabin, and she begs him to stop shouting. He says "and I wasn't even shouting at all". But the skill of the writer is such you know he was, and is more unhinged than he claims.

So if "show, not tell" is good writing, the opposite must be true. I don't WANT all the details.

And the right word at the right time is crucial, especially in a poem where you shouldn't waste words.

Pat, and Aleathia, I can feel the love and maybe I'm editing really, really fast, subconsciously as I write. It's like Gary Player said about golf, "The more I practice, the luckier I get".

David Blaine: There are different strokes for different writers. A.R. Ammons wrote a poem called "Poetics" and it reveals the type of writer, and reader, he was:

"I look for the way
things will turn
out spiralling from a center,

the shape
things will take to come forth in
so that the birch tree white
touched black at branches
will stand out
wind-glittering
totally its apparent self..."

Here's the work of a visual centered poet. But I'm more aurally tuned. I seem to hear my own voice saying these words, these words right here, as I type them. (I keyboard pretty fast.)

But we don't write soley for ourselves, so editors are critical. While I'm concentrating on how the copy sounds in my ear, I'm missing other things, like the other day. I sent someone a very short e-mail of about four lines and used the word "actually" three times. I didn't notice it until he replied and I re-read my original copy. Then I felt like a dunce!

Karl Koweski: Who was it that once said "I can't define bad writing, but I know it when I see it"?
I think bad writing is lazy writing. Writing that lacks passion. And of course it's subjective. I think Hemingway is a bad writer. I'd be hard pressed to explain why, though it might have had something to do with the way he describes things as being "good" or "nice" all the goddam time. But maybe that's just my failings as a reader. As readers, I suppose we bring just as much baggage to a piece of writing as the author does. What misses for me might hit home for another. So it's difficult for me to define. I agree with David Blaine that editing is critical and I think Miles hit the nail on the head when he said the cardinal rule is "show, don't tell".

Ed Churchouse: Such a subjective topic, it's hard to say. Honest writing can be bad writing, lies can be told beautifully. There IS an awful lot of derivative, pointless poetry (especially) out there. If I read one more non-sequiter, pseudo-insane-psycho-babble "poem," it'll be one too many. To me, that's bad writing. Not knowing how to walk that line between "show" and "tell" and just leaving everything up to the reader. And, of course, the young men (and women) who've ingested far too much Bukowski for their own good, there's them.

However, they get published, they get credit, people seem to like their stuff. So...I guess poetry's a bad example. Anyone can get 30/40 lines onto a page and call it poetry, it takes less discipline than sitting down for months, years and writing a novel. Even a shitty novel.

Bad writing is my writing, is all I can definitely say (what's the point in chipping in, then, Ed? why don't you just shut up?). As long as I keep seeing myself as a bad writer, I'll be ok.

Pat King: Whew! I'm glad I'm not the only one who doesn't like a particular writer but doesn't know exactly why. Karl mentioned Hemingway, who I'm lukewarm to (thought For Whom the Bell Tolls was clearly a masterpiece, though) and, for my part, I think of Bukowski. My brother once handed me a Bukowski novel, excited as hell, telling me this was one of the best novels he had ever read. I read it and clearly recognized that Bukowski wasn't bad writer; he had craft for sure. But I also never wanted to read another of his books again. Maybe it's that I go in for a little mysticism in my novels and Bukowski novels seem to lack this quality. Maybe.

But Karl's right. My not liking Bukowski didn't have anything to do with whether or not he was a "bad" or "good" or even "great" writer. I brought certain baggage to the reading experience that turned me off of his work. Perhaps if I had discovered his work as a teenager, I would have had a different experience with the novel.

I suppose the final question I want to pose to the group is: Might writing that's considered "bad" simply have to do with a reader or editor not realizing that their dislike is a matter of taste and not, in fact, objective lack of skill.

And, I guess, a follow up: Is writing such a subjective artform that, ultimately, labels like "bad," "good," or "great" writing should be discarded and replaced?

Aleathia Drehmer: I don't know Pat. I give people the benefit of the doubt as far as writing goes and set aside my likes and dislikes when I read new works. If I didn't do this then I would be stuck reading the same books over and over and over again. Having said that, there is definitely works I would consider bad writing. Some people don't know how to turn a phrase or build an image, and that is unfortunate.

I think bad writing exists and continues to exist because people aren't honest with each other. There is a ton of glory comments about someones work and hardly ever anything saying "this doesn't work" or "this would be better if..." I would hope that our fellow writers would let us know if we write garbage because I think sometimes we have a bubble around ourselves that doesn't let us see all the nuances of our work.

I also believe that bad writing continues because instead of learning from mistakes and trying to educate ones self, the bad writers just keep going on the same plane they have been on.

I didn't like Hemingway either for most of my life, but I read "Old Man and the Sea" again recently and found that I tolerate him more now than I did 15 years ago. The same with Bukowski, I used to love him now, I could care less to ever read him again. Time and experience changes us as people and writers if we open ourselves up to the opportunity to see things in new ways.

David Blaine: "Is writing such a subjective artform that, ultimately, labels like "bad," "good," or "great" writing should be discarded and replaced?"

Maybe discarded, maybe not replaced. To compare it to music, could you? My kids think Bob Dylan sucks. They think Joe Walsh sucks. They can't see what I see in either of those guys, as a singer or guitarist respecively.

Michael Grover: Ed made a good point. A good writer has to have done it long enough to write past what influenced them and maintain their own identity. It's not just Bukowski. I think too many writers these days are influenced by Saul Williams. (This really comes out in the performance.) I think Saul is great and I guess he really is all a young writer has to look up to these days. But you have to mature to a point that it is your own voice coming out.

David Blaine: Ah, Mike. That's true, very true. But let's not cut down the flowers with the weeds. In most every art form a student learns by emulating the style of a master. Then, as you say, they move past that and find their own style. But it's an important stage of development. Writer's need to be able to learn that way without someone crying plagiarism. Of course, if they never move beyond it, that would be the sign of a poor writer. But who knows how long each person takes at each stage of development? Writing isn't something you master in four years. Accounting maybe, not creative writing.

Michael Grover: No it is not a sign of a poor writer I suppose. I know some brilliant people that emulate Saul. Like I said he is a great role model. A couple of weeks ago I went to Orlando with a friend to record some stuff. My friend worships Sage Francis, so he sounds like him everything he reads. I have never said anything about it to him because that is his thing to work through, but the producer was getting frustrated because he was not being himself. So I finally just told him to forget about Sage and just be himself and he did fine after that. Poor writing? No. But I do believe it is a sign of immaturity.

David Blaine: Immaturity? Agreed. But if that were a crime I wouldn't be eligible for parole for a long time!

Michael Grover: Dude I would be gone. But at least as writers we have to mature.

Pat King: Thanks a lot for another great roundtable. I'd like to thank all the writers who participated. Next week, Aleathia Drehmer will be moderating!

Last update : 03-07-2007 09:38

Average user rating

   (0 vote)

Display 1 of 1 comments