A 'Good' Story

[Etsga]

While 'good' and 'bad' are somewhat relative, I want to know how did they differ by your personal opinion(s).

For example: amateurs' faults which degrades the value of the story, professionals' works and what to learn of them, what makes a fiction truly amusing, et cetera.


- Shyrckt

 

[Ace_Arriande]

I'm of the opinion that, when it comes to creative works like this, there is no "good" nor "bad." Every single story is equal, whether it was written by somebody who has never seen a book before in their life or Tolkien himself (and I'm a Tolkien fanboy). The only thing that could ever even start to be objectively judged is grammar, and grammar rules are free to play with in creative writing so long as you know the rules in the first place. So, really, everything is good to somebody, everything is bad to somebody, and no story is better than another.

Now, as for what I personally like and what will keep me reading a story: characters. I never care about plot. All I care about are characters and how they interact with one another, hence why the Monogatari series is one of my all-time favorites. It's like 90% dialogue and bantering. Just give me more of some characters talking about whatever while going about their daily lives and I'll be happy. I'm also a huge sucker for romance and pretty much will never read anything that doesn't have romance in it.

As for what I don't like that would make me drop a story, inconsistency. Characters can be extremely unrealistic and their actions could make no sense, but I want them to be consistently like that. I'm not a fan of overly describing things with purple prose, either. In my opinion, simple descriptions that leave room for the imagination are the best.

So, to me, a readable fiction is one that heavily features interactions between a cast of characters who stay consistent with how they are written, and an unreadable fiction is one that spends too much time describing every little thing while taking focus away from the previously-mentioned characters. Give me less plot, less descriptions, and more banter. That's what makes a fiction truly amusing to me.

 

[Etsga]

I'm of the opinion that, when it comes to creative works like this, there is no "good" nor "bad." Every single story is equal, whether it was written by somebody who has never seen a book before in their life or Tolkien himself (and I'm a Tolkien fanboy). The only thing that could ever even start to be objectively judged is grammar, and grammar rules are free to play with in creative writing so long as you know the rules in the first place. So, really, everything is good to somebody, everything is bad to somebody, and no story is better than another.

Now, as for what I personally like and what will keep me reading a story: characters. I never care about plot. All I care about are characters and how they interact with one another, hence why the Monogatari series is one of my all-time favorites. It's like 90% dialogue and bantering. Just give me more of some characters talking about whatever while going about their daily lives and I'll be happy. I'm also a huge sucker for romance and pretty much will never read anything that doesn't have romance in it.

As for what I don't like that would make me drop a story, inconsistency. Characters can be extremely unrealistic and their actions could make no sense, but I want them to be consistently like that. I'm not a fan of overly describing things with purple prose, either. In my opinion, simple descriptions that leave room for the imagination are the best.

So, to me, a readable fiction is one that heavily features interactions between a cast of characters who stay consistent with how they are written, and an unreadable fiction is one that spends too much time describing every little thing while taking focus away from the previously-mentioned characters. Give me less plot, less descriptions, and more banter. That's what makes a fiction truly amusing to me.

As I have stated earlier, "'good' and 'bad' are relative."

Notice the single quotation mark. The 'good' and 'bad' referred here not as 'of high/low quality', rather as 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant'.

It might partially be my fault for not explicitly stating so, but I believe that everyone had their own personal preferences, hence the thought that a work of fiction was 'better' (more pleasant to read) than another.


- Shyrckt

 

[Ace_Arriande]

As I have stated earlier, "'good' and 'bad' are relative."

Notice the single quotation mark. The 'good' and 'bad' referred here not as 'of high/low quality', rather as 'pleasant' and 'unpleasant'.

It might partially be my fault for not explicitly stating so, but I believe that everyone had their own personal preferences, hence the thought that a work of fiction was 'better' (more pleasant to read) than another.

I know = P. That was why I spent three paragraphs talking about what I thought was pleasant versus not pleasant. I was simply prefacing that by saying even if I have my own opinions on what makes something pleasant or not, I still see all fiction as equal by default.

 

[Etsga]

I know = P. That was why I spent three paragraphs talking about what I thought was pleasant versus not pleasant. I was simply prefacing that by saying even if I have my own opinions on what makes something pleasant or not, I still see all fiction as equal by default.

Oh. Sorry for not noticing that.
You do have a point, though. There are no real standard for a fiction, and their 'qualities' are merely based upon the preferences of the masses'. One might prefer this fiction rather than those and vice versa, although it does not necessarily lessens nor improves the quality of said works. This, I couldn't agree more.


- Shyrckt

 

[Ninetailed_Furball]

While I'm not as extreme s Ace on the matter in regards to good/bad, I do rather prefer to concentrate on like/dislike.

That said, aside from subjects and genre that I'm particularly interested in, I suppose internal consistency is extremely high on the list of things I like. Characters need to make sense (or not if that's how the character's written). The plot needs to have logical progression. Actions and relationships need to be reasonably believable (or not for the same first one). You can't blatantly brake the fourth wall unless if that's the type of story it is. Genre hopping is a grave sin if the flow from one to the next isn't reasonable. It's still a sin if you do it too much (Unless if you're episodic and that's the whole point).

That said, good spelling and grammar help, as does well written surprises and making me think. But while I think the first two should be striven for as much as possible, the latter two are just desserts after the meat.

In the end, those are what I like, and not what have to be in a story for me to read.

A good story is one the author does their best to write, and a bad one is...lazy trash? I dunno. Even such a thing could be pretty decent. I think no matter how much I personally hate a story, it still has an audience. If it didn't, it wouldn't have gotten written.

After all, the author does count as part of the audience.