[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Vivian

All the same, I don't think art is entirely subjective. There's got to be some kind of line one can draw and say, this is quality, that isn't. It may be a fuzzy line, but it exists. Can't we agree, for example, that Arthur Conan Doyle was a better writer than Dan Brown?

Art is entirely subjective. At a particular point in time, there may be a consensus on what is good and what isn't, but it's a consensus based on people's subjective opinions.

If someone is mistaken about an objective fact (i.e., whether concrete has sand in it), you can prove to them that they are wrong by pointing out the presence or absence of sand and they will agree with you. If your sister really likes the Twilight books and you don't, you can't "prove" that it is bad. The best you can do is point out things you don't like about it.

Originally Posted by RolandD

I'll give you MY definition of 'good' writing, and then you can rip it to shreds.

I take a pragmatic view. A writers job is like a teachers. To get the information across to the reader/student in a clear, concise, understandable, and entertaining, manner. For me, 'good' writing equals entertainment received, minus effort involved.

A writer's job is not necessarily like a teacher's. A writer is not a teacher, and there are many kinds of good prose other than expository

Example:

Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.

Originally Posted by teadonkey

I would say the ones that are GOOD are the ones that engaged you without you needing to put forth any effort. If you read a book and felt emotion without needing to TRY to feel it, you've read a good book, regardless of how you felt about the subject matter/type of book.

I think your point about the "effort" part is overbroad. Some reading requires and rewards effort; some things are inherently complex and are best enjoyed that way. Likewise, some writing is more interesting because it is complex (see my "Lolita" example above). Also, people have many different experiences, and what may require effort for a HS dropout to read may not require effort for you to read.

I think that Anthony Trollope is a much better writer than David Weber. But Weber requires less effort to read.

Note however, that effort alone is no sign of quality - sometimes the author makes you work to little point, or simply due to his unclear writing. And that's bad, I agree.