Bad Writing

Mac Beth is better than GOT (even though I enjoy it more) due to the fact the stories are complex but not convoluted and the characters don't need 6 books of text to make them interesting...
Also
>It's kind of like how all east Asians look the same.
XD D'fuq was your point user?

read an essay by Martin Amis called "The War Against Cliche"

or just read the title. bad writing = cliche

Concise plotting isn't necessarily a good thing in and of itself. One cannot know if it is to short or if it is bloated if one does not understand the purpose that the plot is to fulfill.

Yes Macbeth is better that GoT, and yes GoT is terribly bloated while Macbeth is lean. The problem (among many, many others) is that it takes six books towards no purpose. We don't care how many thousands of pages Proust's great work is because it merits it.

What makes Macbeth better than GoT is that Shakespeare is the premier stylist of the English language and provides an exhaustible font for aesthetic contemplation.

What's wrong with this passage?

it produces too much laughter.

>D'fuq was your point user?
>If you're not used to something, the basic features all stick out at you and you can't work out the more subtle (although not necessarily actually subtle) differences.

Also
>due to the fact the stories are complex but not convoluted and the characters don't need 6 books of text to make them interesting
I'd say it's because Macbeth actually runs on --and explores -- a bunch of complex themes, and uses its prose/poetry to show this. The story isn't its main draw (a guy kills some other guys and then dies, spoiler), and the characters -- aside from Macbeth and the Lady themselves, who are God-tier, and Macduff, who has some stuff going on for a bit -- are not amazingly interesting in themselves. It's the dealing with tyranny, and perception, and morality, and free will, and more that separates it from GoT.

vulgar

How can you not recognize if writing is good or bad? Are you retarded or something?

Gatsby is great, regardless of what would be contrarian hipsters say.

ASoIaF is generally bad, but even there Martin manages some very redeeming chapters. A Ghost in Winterfell was compelling, in fact all of the Theon chapters when he returns to the North in Ramsay's thrall are exceptional. You genuinely feel his tortured and haunted frame of mind, everything from the events to the setting to the exposition gives the plot a power and a magic that is normally absent from Martin's world. But these flashes of brilliance do exist.

But why is Gatsby considered well written?

The style is merely a succinct balance of prose and poetic seasoning, and otherwise a vanilla quotidian arrangement of diction and emotional cues. Perhaps it was innovative for its time?

I don't feel that every writer needs to be a Faulkner, but still.

Come on, the man is trying to make a living by selling books. Can you blame him?