How do you know if you are good at writing?

I know that there is not set criteria and that there is always a need for improvement but how do you tell when you had written something good? No spelling errors? or grammar mistakes?

When you have a significant number of beta readers with various interest tell you that it's good.

Really, that's not even a good indicator. You kinda just have to take people's word for it and then dive into the greater reading market and see how it goes, I guess.

Correct - although I'd note that there's a difference between "being good at writing" and having an individually good work.

The phrases "good writer" and "bad writer" are murkier than "good at X" or "bad at X" for almost any value of X that refers to a specific writing skill. For instance, I get my best responses from readers who don't read very many stories, so I think I still have something to learn about the technical aspects of writing. On the other hand, I get very positive responses from highly emotional people, so I must be good at channeling readers' emotions*

edited 22nd Oct '11 10:54:03 PM by feotakahari

It's hard to say, really. You have to find your "X factor," I guess. That is to say I know people who can write with very technical correctness, but the stories tend to be rather boring. I know a girl who can write action, but not romance, etc.

Also, standards tend to change over time. Look at Lord Of The Rings, written today it would probably be critically panned for it's excessive focus on world building and being generally long winded.

Look at something you wrote in the past. A year ago, a week ago, whatever.

If you like it, you have a lot to learn.

If you're wondering what drugs you were on that made you think this was acceptable, congrats. You are now a good writer.

I guess I'm good, then.

But, seriously, even though I think I improved exponentially since I came here for the first time, I still have a lot to learn. I grew out of my anime fangirl/Mary Sue/Marty Stu phase not even a year ago.

My mom thinks I'm a great writer, but it's difficult to tell what's parental favoritism and what's simply her being happy that I'm writing something squeaky-clean and 100% safe from potential offensiveness.

edited 23rd Oct '11 6:45:52 AM by CrystalGlacia

You don't. It's likely you never really will. The moment you start thinking you are rather than that people simply react well to it is the beginning of a long downward spiral towards snobbery and Protection from Editors.

edited 23rd Oct '11 7:11:31 AM by Night

I think this is the wrong question to be asking.

The right question is "How do you know if you are shit at writing?"

Mostly because I feel that there are way more ways to tell.

Getting rid of all the "negatives" does not necessarily make a positive; there's a thing for art I believe in - 'The whole is more than the sum of its parts'. I think if you write true to yourself, if you have some fun in the writing and if your desired audience does feel (sense) something— evocative from your text, you can be satisfied.

Or you can look at some of the things in the So Okay, It's Average section, and while you may not sense anything 'wrong' with it, such as:

It's a dull story anyways.

edited 23rd Oct '11 10:11:43 AM by QQQQQ

Also, trying to be perfect in writing ends up with a writer trying to be safe. And safe can be dull.

So it's better to be daring and risk messing up, because it makes the good parts stand out more. That what I think, anyways.

I personally like to write a story with some degree of technical accuracy and perfection in mind, and then have the beta reader(s) point out where it fails in the entertaining department, so I can figure a good compromise between coolness and realism.

Say if.. there was a survivor victim, recollecting her tale - I would weep, but you ostentatiously correct every time her grammar mistakes as blindly as MS Office's mechanical spellchecker.

edited 23rd Oct '11 10:37:14 AM by QQQQQ

...can we not go into the debated importance of grammar?

Bleh... grammar in dialogue follows different standards than grammar in the narrative itself, IMO.

Dialogue is one thing, but there is no excuse for having incorrect grammar in a narrative.

edited 23rd Oct '11 1:09:20 PM by nrjxll

You don't. So you keep writing until you run out of ideas. Then you know you're good at writing.

Well, not necessarily. If the narrative is POV-neutral, then yes, but strange grammar and syntax can help build atmosphere and setting if the narrative is reflecting the thought process and perception of the world of some character.

For example, using strange and simplistic grammar when portraying a small child and how they see the world. You don't expect little kids to be able to describe things in complex, Purple Prose, do you? Etc.

I consider that the same thing as 'dialogue' - what I'm referring to is 'objective' narrative. Anything coming from a specific character is allowed some idiosyncrasies, though that can be annoying if overused.

Well, I agree, but I was just making sure we're on the same page.

Question: how do you know if you are good at writing?

(One Possible) Answer: when you've spent days, weeks, months, or even years writing, thinking to yourself "This is crap, this is awful, what am I doing, I should have become an architect" over and over again...until one day, when you write something, read it over, and think, "This isn't half-bad."

Probably not the greatest indicator, but it's a step-up from general self-loathing, no?

A good artist never grows out of that self-loathing period.

There's something called the Four Stages of Competence, which are often brought up when referring to the skill of a writer. Most aspiring writers that don't know the craft are "Unconscious Incompetence". Most people on this sub-fora is "Conscious Incompetence" with a few "Conscious Competence".

When you reach "Unconscious Competence", you no longer have to try hard to write hard. It's second nature Either that, or you're moping and not seeing your genius.

Just food for thought.

There's also, if it hasn't been pointed out yet, the question of "good by whose standards?". For instance, I think there are a number of writers on here who are quite good by the standards of Internet amateurs. But if we measure by the standards of published authors (or at least authors who deserved to be published), the list becomes much smaller.

So I'm still in stage 2. OK.