Geni J. White
asked
James Watson:
I should know you better before speaking, but we met ten seconds at Oregon Christian Writers Sat.. I LIKED your talk on writing that resonates for ages. You're a beginning writer? With friends who applaud you? The plot and theme may be GOOD or even great. The writing is NOT. Find a critique group & skilled editor to help you learn the mechanics of outstanding writing, PLEASE? G. J. White geniwhite@comcast.net
James Watson
Hi Geni,
As you can imagine, I considered carefully whether to answer the question you've posed on this public forum. But I know that it was likely given in a genuine spirit of helpfulness, and so I'll answer it in kind-- as sincerely as possible.
1. No, you don't need to know me better before speaking; it was a pleasure to meet you at the OCW conference.
2. I'm glad you appreciated the talk I gave-- in fact, the points I made are germane to the discussion you've raised.
3. I suppose we're all beginning writers. And beginning humans, for that matter.
3a. My friends don't generally applaud me, though a few of them have encouraged me deeply over the years.
4. The plot is certainly above average, in my humble estimation. The theme(s) might be great-- they certainly touch on the widest possible breadth of human experience, and do so in a way that takes, I think, the human person seriously.
5. It's an interesting thing to attempt to define what makes great writing.
5a. In doing so, you're inevitably reifying some particular layer at which the text is operating. For example: an 18th century grammarian would likely emphasize, above all else, adherence to certain norms of diction and syntax that reflected, not a deep understanding of natural language processes, but rather a pale adumbration of Latin or Greek usage. This emphasis would have been, to some degree, fallacious, and would have excluded much of the grandeur of Shakespeare's art (to take one example).
5b. But that is not the way art works. What ought one to do if one is attempting replicate the cadences and thought patterns and infelicities of phrase that would be produced by a particular character? Or what avenues are open to the writer attempting to "make it new" (to quote Ezra Pound) if only the strictest schoolroom composition parameters are fair game? What ought we to say to Shakespeare himself, who created out of whole cloth a not insignificant fraction of the English we're still using almost five hundred years later?
6. I do have a skilled and wonderful editor. For a critique group, I suppose I have the whole world (or those unfortunate enough to have wended their way through my novel).
6a. You're right, though. I would love to learn the mechanics of outstanding writing. I can only imagine the acclaim.
Thank you, Geni, for caring enough to write.
I remain, &ct.,
J
As you can imagine, I considered carefully whether to answer the question you've posed on this public forum. But I know that it was likely given in a genuine spirit of helpfulness, and so I'll answer it in kind-- as sincerely as possible.
1. No, you don't need to know me better before speaking; it was a pleasure to meet you at the OCW conference.
2. I'm glad you appreciated the talk I gave-- in fact, the points I made are germane to the discussion you've raised.
3. I suppose we're all beginning writers. And beginning humans, for that matter.
3a. My friends don't generally applaud me, though a few of them have encouraged me deeply over the years.
4. The plot is certainly above average, in my humble estimation. The theme(s) might be great-- they certainly touch on the widest possible breadth of human experience, and do so in a way that takes, I think, the human person seriously.
5. It's an interesting thing to attempt to define what makes great writing.
5a. In doing so, you're inevitably reifying some particular layer at which the text is operating. For example: an 18th century grammarian would likely emphasize, above all else, adherence to certain norms of diction and syntax that reflected, not a deep understanding of natural language processes, but rather a pale adumbration of Latin or Greek usage. This emphasis would have been, to some degree, fallacious, and would have excluded much of the grandeur of Shakespeare's art (to take one example).
5b. But that is not the way art works. What ought one to do if one is attempting replicate the cadences and thought patterns and infelicities of phrase that would be produced by a particular character? Or what avenues are open to the writer attempting to "make it new" (to quote Ezra Pound) if only the strictest schoolroom composition parameters are fair game? What ought we to say to Shakespeare himself, who created out of whole cloth a not insignificant fraction of the English we're still using almost five hundred years later?
6. I do have a skilled and wonderful editor. For a critique group, I suppose I have the whole world (or those unfortunate enough to have wended their way through my novel).
6a. You're right, though. I would love to learn the mechanics of outstanding writing. I can only imagine the acclaim.
Thank you, Geni, for caring enough to write.
I remain, &ct.,
J
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more