How would you describe 'good writing'?

How would you describe 'good writing'?

Enjoyable. Primarily.
My satisfaction is what counts, though I'll let a reputation direct me, so on occasion acclaim should be considered.

It's a lot like the way that painting looks.

sweaty, fast paced, thought provoking and intensely heart breaking

It might be the reason why I chose that image to accompany the opening post.

If the author uses clear and direct voice, places impetus and drive behind the words, and pays homage to what's come before while also rearranging elements into original configurations, I would call the writing 'good.'

is that a painting of the lady of shallot ?

Grasping and profound.

>If the author uses clear and direct voice
gonna vom, tom.

yep

"it sounds good and makes me think" is maybe what I'd say

'good writing' employs a great understanding of language and technique, including diction, rhythm etc., to deliver a fully considered idea in the most appropriate and entertaining manner to its audience.

The opposite of that painting.

What do you dislike about it?

this

I don't like the thematic material, though the execution is brilliant. It was one of my favorite paintings during my late teens. Though I used to enjoy romantic art/music/poetry, I find it does very little for me nowadays, it's like a high fantasy of the emotions, so little of it to be found in a world that is nonetheless brimming with (other kinds of) intensity, its orientation hopelessly adolescent, especially in its vision of romantic love.

So basically you got your heart wrekt?

This is probably as close as I could get to a proper definition, too. "Good writing" is so difficult to define because the best works tend to break generally accepted storytelling rules. Shakespeare didn't show his understanding of language by following the rules, he showed it by constantly breaking them and still ending up with a good story. Determining writing quality means you have to take into account context and audience and author intent as well as audience interpretation and any given work can break every storytelling convention known to man and still be hailed as one of the greatest works of all time. It's all well and good to say a work needs to be clear and direct, or that it needs to make you think, but there are some stories that intentionally avoid clarity and directness, or that are just there to entertain rather than to make you think, and it doesn't make them bad.

tl;dr subjective etc

>"Good writing" is so difficult to define because the best works tend to break generally accepted storytelling rules.
Good writing has nothing to do with storytelling. They are completely independent skill sets.

I love the way Sapkowski write. especially his short stories where main protagonist feels like passive observer who from time to time makes seemingly unimportant decision which has far-reaching consequences in the end.

Huh?

cromulent

Sumthing that is not bullshit

There are several things that indicate good writing to me:

>mastery of vocabulary, full competency of words/idioms used and proper deployment for the task at hand
>artistic creativity demonstrated in the construction of sentences/clauses, full awareness of phrase length developed for precise effects
>demonstrates familiarity with existing literature, illustrates a competency and respect for this by imitation, continuation, response, parody etc.
>avoids a superficial attempt to illustrate the above with cheep references or simple theft of technique
>possesses a meaning behind it which illustrates deep, sincere and convincing thought which guides the aesthetic and is reflected in it