I was reading a book review and one reviewer declared that
the authors writing skills are comparable to that of those who
write fanfiction; very poor.

Albeit, a little disgruntled at her comment,
I couldn't help but wonder...
what is it that says a writer is a "good" writier and the
writing is worth reading?

I love to write, and fanfiction is a way for me to practice
and grow as a writer. There are many individuals on here who
also write exceptionally well. I just thought her comment was
a bit brash, especially with the assumption that writing fanfiction
automatically pins you as a person who cannot write. I was also
a bit hurt because until now I've been confident in my writing, but
now I really am confused as to what makes words on paper "writing".


Thoughts?

Thank you!

'Good' Writing all depends on the person who is writing or viewing a piece of writing or a story.

It all depends on personal preference.

Of course, one who writes more tends to get a better flow and their own style of writing as time goes on and it would be considered 'good'. However, I think with any writer it takes time and a lot of practice to get 'good' in their own eye/mind.

It's always important to love one's own work, because I believe that adds to a piece rather than something that is just written out for others or something that is written following all the 'rules' of writing.

Anyone can learn the rules of writing, but I think any piece, if there is no emotion(or love) in it that it will not be 'good'.

But I think what that reviewer may have been saying was that the author's writing skills are much like a person's who is just beginning to write. It may have been awkward or broken in many places and had no flow to it.

Which usually happens in fan fiction writing, when a writer is just beginning to write. Or if a writer who is new to writing, get's a bunch of reviews stating how wonderful their writing is, but no one happens to correct them on their writing faults and they will continue writing like that which makes it so they do not improve.

Which will sometimes lead to writing to being 'bad'. However, my guess is the person who wrote that only read a few fan fiction stories and decided that anyone who writes fan fiction is a 'bad' writer.

I see. Thank you.

I agree with PRVN. Really it all comes down to the individuals subjectivity. I believe that the reviewer was probably talking about the run of the mill fanfiction writer. I mean lets face it - for every one exceptional story there are atleast 20 craptastic stories. And most, although entertaining, and creative, lack the sophistication that trained writers recieve in both practice and formal teaching. I dont think you can compare the works of any of us here on Dokuga with the writing prowess of great authors of other similur genres... i myself enjoy reading angsty romance, but even the best fanfiction pales in comparison to the complexity of Ms. Jane Austen, or the tortured depths of the Bronte Sisters... At the same token I think many bodice ripper's from moden authors, that you can find on the shelves of Waldens, Barnes and Noble, and Boarders, are complete rubbish compaired to some of the quality i see here on Dokuga. I think much is left wanting in the recreational literary scene today. If you really think about hte reviewers quote you'd see she probably feels the same. It was less a slight to fanfiction authors, and more slight on the quality of published books. Amateaur authors, who in their spare time write a ditty, for fun and not for income, while juggling other jobs and families and lives, shouldn't be at the same quality as a published author who is being paid to focus soley on their art. If anything it might be flattering. But thats the optamist in me.