I think we should not create anything that sucks. I mean, if I write something that sucks, I don't show it to the public. But this requires that I have what is called `good taste.´ Good taste does not mean fashion sense or market sense. Good taste in writing means I know the difference between the dull, wearisome and inarticulate, and a good story well told.
Don't set your goal to writing a story. Set your goal to writing a good story well told. Then don't say your story is finished until you know it is a good story well told.
I see your point, but I have a different take on this. For me, the point of “Create something today even if it sucks” is to prioritize creation over perfection. It’s more about overcoming inertia and/or building momentum. Rather than be stymied by wanting something to be perfect from the start, just get it going. A flawed start is better than no start at all. Thinking about writing, it’s better to just get the words out; to get them flowing. THEN you can edit/revise to whip things into better shape. It’s a rare writer who can create a “good story well told” right out of the gate.
I don't disagree, but I think we are talking about two different somethings we create. You mean that if you write some words today, you have created something. I mean you haven't created something until it is finished. What you finish writing should never suck. What you finish writing should always be a good story well told.
Well, sure. When writing, you do your best to not end up with something that sucks. And a “good story well told” is completely subjective. But you have to start. A lot of people get bogged down with perfection. And as the saying goes: ‘perfection is the enemy of done’. In writing circles, there’s the concept of “wild writing” or “free writing.” You give yourself a time limit and just blast out whatever comes into your head. No editing, no stopping. Just write, full speed. And a lot of that will be crap, but many times, there will be pearls in there that can be built on.
HJ writes: "And a “good story well told” is completely subjective."
It is subjective in the sense that you don't show it to anyone until you are ready to get an objective opinion. But 'good taste' must come into play long before then, and good taste is objective.
HJ writes: "A lot of people get bogged down with perfection."
I am one of those people. But obsessive-compulsive type thinking, (perfectionism), is an affliction that cannot be bypassed. A perfectionist must make that affliction an asset by understanding what it really is. We could talk about that all day, but that kind of perfection does not equate with a good story well told.
HJ writes: "When writing, you do your best to not end up with something that sucks."
I'm saying you never end up with something that sucks; you only 'end up' with a good story well told, because your good taste will tell you it isn't working and won't work long before you finish it. You should abandon it then and there in stead of ending up with something that sucks.
“good taste” objective? You’re kidding, right? That’s probably the LEAST objective thing there is. And “good taste” will not always lead to something that doesn’t suck. For example, if a genre fiction author does not understand the intricacies of story structure, they will rarely produce a good story. Unless your “good taste” includes that.
I think we should not create anything that sucks. I mean, if I write something that sucks, I don't show it to the public. But this requires that I have what is called `good taste.´ Good taste does not mean fashion sense or market sense. Good taste in writing means I know the difference between the dull, wearisome and inarticulate, and a good story well told.
Don't set your goal to writing a story. Set your goal to writing a good story well told. Then don't say your story is finished until you know it is a good story well told.
I see your point, but I have a different take on this. For me, the point of “Create something today even if it sucks” is to prioritize creation over perfection. It’s more about overcoming inertia and/or building momentum. Rather than be stymied by wanting something to be perfect from the start, just get it going. A flawed start is better than no start at all. Thinking about writing, it’s better to just get the words out; to get them flowing. THEN you can edit/revise to whip things into better shape. It’s a rare writer who can create a “good story well told” right out of the gate.
I don't disagree, but I think we are talking about two different somethings we create. You mean that if you write some words today, you have created something. I mean you haven't created something until it is finished. What you finish writing should never suck. What you finish writing should always be a good story well told.
Well, sure. When writing, you do your best to not end up with something that sucks. And a “good story well told” is completely subjective. But you have to start. A lot of people get bogged down with perfection. And as the saying goes: ‘perfection is the enemy of done’. In writing circles, there’s the concept of “wild writing” or “free writing.” You give yourself a time limit and just blast out whatever comes into your head. No editing, no stopping. Just write, full speed. And a lot of that will be crap, but many times, there will be pearls in there that can be built on.
HJ writes: "And a “good story well told” is completely subjective."
It is subjective in the sense that you don't show it to anyone until you are ready to get an objective opinion. But 'good taste' must come into play long before then, and good taste is objective.
HJ writes: "A lot of people get bogged down with perfection."
I am one of those people. But obsessive-compulsive type thinking, (perfectionism), is an affliction that cannot be bypassed. A perfectionist must make that affliction an asset by understanding what it really is. We could talk about that all day, but that kind of perfection does not equate with a good story well told.
HJ writes: "When writing, you do your best to not end up with something that sucks."
I'm saying you never end up with something that sucks; you only 'end up' with a good story well told, because your good taste will tell you it isn't working and won't work long before you finish it. You should abandon it then and there in stead of ending up with something that sucks.
“good taste” objective? You’re kidding, right? That’s probably the LEAST objective thing there is. And “good taste” will not always lead to something that doesn’t suck. For example, if a genre fiction author does not understand the intricacies of story structure, they will rarely produce a good story. Unless your “good taste” includes that.
Harald, we don’t describe someone as having good taste unless lots of people think he has good taste. That makes it objective.
A storyteller has to know a good story well told when he reads one. That’s what good taste means in this context.