What Good Writing Actually Means

In any online discussion surrounding film, TV, novels, comics, games - stories in general - one of the most common criticisms thrown around is “bad writing.” This is a term I’ve grown to really dislike.
Not only is this term incredibly vague but it also splits the craft of storytelling into a reductive binary. There is bad writing and then there is good writing. Which begs the question, what does good writing actually mean?
Patreon: / rowanjcoleman
Discord: / discord
Special thanks to all Patrons and Members!
#writing #superman #avatar #rowanjcoleman

[@RowanJColeman]

HELP THE CHANNEL GROW: www.patreon.com/rowanjcoleman

[@Ataximander]

*insert sg1 episode 200 scene here*

[@dyne313]

The Man from Earth is one of my favorite movies, and that movie is mostly just dialogue.

[@benstark2982]

Rowan distinguished dialogue from exposition in the beginning and just used the word dialogue later. Lots of dialogue can be fine, lots of exposition is generally annoying.

[@Gengh13]

It's also one of my favorites, it is proof of how little you actually need to make an excellent movie.

[@Sekir80]

So does 12 Angry Men. Still, I loved it!

[@dyne313]

@@Sekir80 Back in January I saw a "12 Angry Jurors" play locally and it was good. Also, Ironically, it was like -20F that day (the story is supposed to be on a really hot summer night)

[@meiketorkelson4437]

I'm a writer myself. I've often said that writing is a creative act. And hence writers should get creative and personalize their process".

[@GeeSee9271]

I think, that the "formula(s)" or "rules" for "good story writing" are a good starting point, especially, when someone is a beginner. But with some experience he/she then can adapt, ignore, bend or even break the rules. Like in photography, start with the rule of thirds so that your "snapshots" become more compelling. As soon as you've mastered the composition and your photos get better and better, you can start ignoring that rule, because you developed the knowledge when the rule can be broken for a better composition overall. How boring would the world of movies and literature be, when every single piece of work would follow the same formula.

[@stoves5877]

OH man this is my biggest pet peeve, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR MAKING THIS!!!!

[@parrot998]

I think a far more useful framing than "good writing" vs "bad writing" Is whether writing works or not... It's like programming. There are many different ways to get to solve the same problem. And whilst some are definitely way more efficient than others which is important, there is no surefire formula that applies to all cases... A storyteller has a goal or goals in mind when they go about writing something. Contrary to the common refrain of Death of the author, I think the only true way to judge a work is in the context of how effectively it succeeds at making an audience feel or think about the story in line with the goals of the creators.

[@MarvelX42]

"I know it when I see it." is apt here

[@matt0044]

Maybe. But not everyone has your eyes.

[@MarvelX42]

I meant that to apply to each individual in their own mind. Not that everyone has to like what I like or agree with everything or even anything that I say, do or think.@@matt0044

[@MarvelX42]

@@matt0044 I meaning not me, meaning the individual.

[@therexbellator]

Eh that works for p*rn*graphy but not for "good" or "bad" writing. The former is more about serving a particular purpose (i.e., titillation), but even weak writing is trying to tell a story. Ultimately what makes strong/weak writing are how the story's constituent parts like characters, plot, themes mesh and how well they support each other and that requires the kind of nuance that is lacking in the binary "good"/"bad" approach.

[@robi7017]

I guess this is the best time to let you know I am writing my second novel and needed a name for one of the characters. While enjoying yet another great video of yours I named this character Rowan. It fits him so well and I appreciate the inspiration. As far as if he benefits from “good writing”, damned if I know yet but I am trying my best. Will refer back to this video repeatedly for help. Thank you.

[@MusicFromAnotherTime]

B-movies are practically the antithesis to good writing. Some of my favorite movies have some of the worst writing of all time. Granted, there's other positives in those movies besides the writing, but it can still be fun.

[@matt0044]

I mean, Rifftrax would be out of a job if that wasn't the case

[@SuicV]

Most of the time when we regular people criticize something for bad writting it's because of inconsistencies in the story, either in the characters' motivations and actions or in the sequence of events itself. I'd struggle to think of an example when the criticism was because of not following a classic three-act structure or something similar

[@commandosolo1266]

Dr. Linda Segar responded to Save the Cat with Advanced Screenwriting, wherein she advises using the three-act as an excellent tool for beginners to learn with, but as one gains mastery, one should build a custom "house" for your story to live in. She cites Memento (back-to-front) Pulp Fiction (one, three, two) and The Matrix (one, one, three) as examples of stories that could never fit into the pre-fab story shape. I would caution that there's a reason she named her book Advanced Screenwriting. Master three act structure before venturing off into the unknown.

[@supsup335]

To me, bad writing can be summed up thus: The problems of the story in question are not related to the explored concepts, characters and basic story. Instead it is because of how said elements were implemented, presented and executed that the story either didn't reach its full potential or just fell apart. It is all about: can you succeed without the guiding tools like three act structure? To me, these tools are more for the writer to stay on track and keep an overview of thier work, rather than something the reader needs. My favourite example is the last jedi. On their own, each of the films elements, story beats and characters are good. The first time i watched it i enjoyed myself. It was just that the longer I thought about the movie and its elements, the more i got frustrated. I could writte a book here listing everything, but most problems can be summed up like this: The elements either didn't fit with each other or didn't flow into eacher other correctly. Like someone wrote a chapter, then went on holidays for a month, and upon returning to the script didn't bother to check their notes and just went with whatever stuck in their mind. There is a timeline out there where this film got all the small tweeks it needed and was phenomenal. Quck example: Poe. Goes with the plan, plan gets canceled because laya says no ( for what is a stupid reason), mutinies, gets people killed (but instead of looking incompetent, it looks like the resistance is inapt). Gets lectured, demoted. Holdo takes over. But instead of looking like someone who wants to teach moderation (which is what i think they wanted to go for) she comes across as someone who only values blind loyalty. Which makes poes second mutiny look justified. Then her sacrifice makes everyone look like a daft cunt instead of celebrating and mourning the redemption of a flawed person. It is like every beat has two competing and opposed intentions that and for every following action a coin was flipped to decide which one was chosen this time. THAT, to me, is bad writing. So yes, to me, it isn't so much goo/bad writing, but rather good/bad planing and execution. Everything is the good writing unti ly the reader/watcher gets frustrated and so bothered by inconsistencies that they just give up. So instead of trying to fit something into a mold, I say, look at a story, look at its elements. Do they enhance or contradict each other? If they contradict each other, is tha in service of the story, or to its detrement? It is a case by case thing, but it does seperate good writing from bad writing. I mean, have you ever read the bob novels? No literary structure in sight. Then again, I'm an engineer and just write as a hobby, but still.

[@andrew20146]

One of the things I feel is a hallmark of 'bad writing' is a lack of internal consistency, and events of the plot happening without apparent cause and effect.

[@user-yv4mm6bx3c]

Good or bad writing is more nuanced as "suspension of disbelief." When a story is being setup in its early act or iterations, people are more wiling to believe what is presented before them, however when the storyteller contradicts or begins breaking the rules of the world they already established; plot, character, etc., that's when you lose the audience. BTW, The episode of DS9 you featured in the b-roll, "Far Beyond the Stars" is one of the best of the series.

[@existentialselkath1264]

For me, sensible cause and effect, for example 'therefore' instead of 'and then' is essential for a story to be well written. Or more specifically, enjoyable for me personally. There are other elements to a good story, but this is the most common failure I encounter that makes me perceive a story as poorly written.

[@andrewbecker1013]

Agreed, but something tells me this analysis looks slightly askance of that argument. It's his attempt to put down the "anti-woke" Star Trek critics' strongest argument without realizing that it's actually the only thing they're right about, but not for the right reasons. Doesn't matter if you call it "bad" or "weak," yes there's a spectrum and most media today has so many, many irredeemable issues because of the corporate restrictions suffocating the craft and the out of touch yuppies who fail upward within that structure.

[@golgarisoul]

"They are more like guidelines."

[@hmmokay.4807]

Thank you, was not looking for this essay, but am glad I found it.

[@KorbinX]

Appreciate all you do mate, thank you.

[@dyne313]

As soon as I heard that guy criticized Memento, that's when I knew he wasn't worth listening to.

[@TheVeritas1]

Amen. Memento is the film that made me a Christopher Nolan fan.

[@jimyoung9262]

Good litmus. Memento is one of the most brilliant films ever made.

[@Matt42MSG]

Criticism isn't necessarily finding fault. And I doubt any film is so absolutely perfect that it has no fault.

[@ianeichenlaub5084]

I had amnesia for three days from head injury. Watching memento gives you nearly the same experience as temporary amnesia. Structure should have purpose. The end

[@trailb4u]

My personal thoughts on memento? The story was interesting and had some funny parts but when the movie was done I wished I had spent that time watching a different movie.

[@kasaibouF29]

Very interesting video. I've learned about storycraft for years, and my biggest takeaway from all that I've learned is just have your story make sense. So your conclusion that internal consistency depends on the context of the story makes sense to me.

[@rtyler1869]

Like any creative form, rules are there to guide, not rigdelly follow. A true artist, knows when to break the rules and how to do so. In my creative outlet, photography we have the rule of thirds, ie the subject should be on a point where the lines that devide the image into 3 intersect - or you must have the model looking at the camera. My best photos breaks these rules. Sames goes for writing.

[@TeaquestSagas]

I really love the japanese style of storytelling more than our modern repetetive 3 acts... ki-sho-ten-ketsu: storytelling without conflict - or: "in western stories the hero begins a journey that will change their beliefs - in japanese stories those journeys test the beliefs they already have"

[@74gould]

Excellent video!!

[@starbird0653]

This is a great video. Some of my favorite stories break the often overused story structures. Also, I got super distracted during the first part of this video because I was wracking my brain trying to figure out the song in the background. Is it from Star Trek: Generations?

[@Malnaxe]

Another common take I see a lot is bad writing = bad story. Depending on the medium, storytelling isn't just conceiving of a plotline but of visual, auditory and often more ethereal elements that, if used effectively, serve to enhance the story being told if not tell stories in it of themselves. Especially with film or increasingly creative digital interactive mediums like video games, it really is a craft greater than plot points on a piece of paper.

[@SavageTactical]

RJ, thanks for the video. It gave me, an inspiring author, some good food for thought. I’d be curious to know if you read the novel specific version of Save the Cat by Jessica Brody. It does rely on the formulaic checklist, but Brody was very upbeat and positive in her writing/narrating (I listened to the audiobook version, narratives by Brody herself). Your chief criticism of the original screen writing version was the author’s attitude. To Brody’s credit, she didn’t berate any other author. I thought it was a good guide.

[@ZigUncut]

Interesting points.

[@glennac]

Sometimes “bad writing” isn’t actually the fault of the writing but the editing process or the onerous influence a studio may have had on a production. Unfortunately, the poor writer is often saddled with the blame for decisions made far down the production line and completely out of their control. 😢

[@Metalisalearning77]

So.... It's perfectly OK to NOT always having to constantly adhere to the 3-Act structure or the Hero's Journey? Though William Shakespeare tended to write in 5-stage acts (or was it 4?) Then there's concepts such as "In Media Res" which are fascinating as it's essentially taking the archetypes & turning storytelling on its head

[@ZedemMonk]

I think for new writers learning to write to form and formula is helpful in learning to structure a story, particularly those writing for the very narrowly prescribed time-frames on ad supported TV and runtime limited movies. When you seek to break the formula successfully its often helpful to know what it is you are breaking and why. Understanding tempo, stakes, tone and mood is made easier for newbies writing within rigid frameworks because by being forced to write to page count those things are baked in. Also, if you are relatively unknown, a tight 120 page script written to formula is more likely to make it passed the first hurdles of production. Most of those writing guides aren't really for people in the audience, they're more for folks trying to get their story made in the Hollywood machine, than a cheat sheet for critique of the finished product; and none of it really applies to novels, or even short stories (the closest analogue to TV shows and Movies).

[@OscarFowler]

When I've criticized shows or movies for having "bad writing", it's usually been for character motivations being unclear or inconsistent and unnatural dialog. There are other common issues, but I've never once thought of "not sticking to the expected story structure" as a weakness itself.

[@repatch43]

What was the music in the background the last minute and half of the video? It sounds alot like one of the tracks from DS9: Emissary, but it's different in a few ways?

[@glennac]

Somewhere in the middle was music from ST: Generations. Not sure if it continued on to the end or changed to a different piece later on.

[@theanonymouscritic1710]

The way I see it, Good writing/bad writing aren’t vague terms if you can back up your arguments.

[@bodine57]

When you showed the "Pulp Fiction" clip while discussing dialogue, I was thinking "Glengarry Glen Ross". There are countless other examples. I think the formulae could help a (new-ish) writer get unstuck, but that's probably the extent of it. How you capture lightning in a bottle is as varied as the number of bottles and writers in existence.

[@terry9819]

There is probably a more modern term but "Suspension of disbelief" has always worked well for me. I can watch/read the craziest story and go along for the ride but when the story breaks its own rules in a way that wasn't earned it quickly descends into disbelief and it's hard to shake.

[@rmeddy]

Glad to see the Blake Snyder pushback I'm not ashamed to say I've had these kinda arguments that got pretty toxic a decade plus ago and of course it was on reddit. With variations like Hard Scifi vs Soft Scifi or Scifi vs Fantasy or a more general version Architechture vs Engineering. I think it's one of those "learned philistine" conversations that you need to have to get to the place of some emotional maturity to realize is that is not as important as you think it is. You can't have light without heat I suppose (please don't @ me on this physics nerds) For me I kinda squared it as an intersubjective socio-deficiency model. So the reason a story maybe attractive is because it has some conceit "lemon" to your emotional "scurvy" aka scratching the itch. Also I looked for general "How" people in term fulfilling that for me as a fan and aspiring writer. Drew Karpyshyn, Ron Moore JMS, NK Jemesin, C Robert Cargill , Neal Stepheson.

[@andrewbowman4611]

I tend to think that the only reason to learn the rules is so that one understands what it is they're breaking. Even then, rules implies restrictions and you shouldn't put restrictions on creativity in the first place. Like you, I get frustrated with the binary qualifiers of good and bad. It strikes me as arrogant, as if the critic could automatically do a better job than the writer themselves. I also think that dialogue is the best way of conveying information to an audience. It's certainly true that in everyday life we listen and understand what people around us are saying without the need for visual representation, certain disabilities notwithstanding. Frankly, formulaic writing is just pedestrian, really.

[@deckofcardboard]

I don't agree that putting restrictions on creativity is bad for everyone. Perhaps you could argue that true creativity is just channelling your unconscious, and anyone who can't be creative without limits is merely suffering from a personal failure to be a conduit for that experience, but a lot of people benefit from trying to solve the challenge of creativity within constraints.

[@joseaguilar3323]

I remember a video essay once claiming a scene was bad because it had characters talking to each other at a diner.

[@SodiumWage]

Straczynski is correct only up to a point. Yes, there is a market to sell people a "get rick quick scheme" that will make them "better writers." However, most people are not good writers when starting out, so teaching them a tried and true structure that is easily followed makes teaching novice writers much easier and makes learning to be a better writer much easier. You have to start somewhere and starting with the bare-bones basics is much easier than telling people to "just be James Joyce".

[@Redrally]

"Only use dialogue sparingly" - so Amy Sherman-Palladino's TV career is a fluke? (for those who don't know, Amy as a showrunner, is infamous for writing scripts for fast-talking characters spilling paragraphs of word vomit in an average conversation. Gilmore Girls, Marvellous Mrs Maisel...)

[@Epistemophilos]

How do you feel about John Truby's "The Anatomy of Story"? I find it helpful and not formulaic.

[@syntaxusdogmata3333]

I'd like to see who views this list as a deterministic guide to good or bad writing. My experience has been that when people point out bad writing, one or more of these things are in play, but I don't recall seeing anyone saying these are hard and fast rules. (EDIT: Ah, Blake Snyder. Fair 'nuff.)

[@jacensilverwolf8953]

Isn't it also true that the idea of the three act structure or the hero's journey a European version of telling stories? (I could be wrong though)

[@guaposneeze]

I don't think "Save The Cat" deserves the heat it gets. There are a ton of terrible movies that are bloated or thin, and when you compare the bad movies to the conventional beat sheet, it's easy to see how it might have been a useful guideline when a story needs to be fleshed out or trimmed down. Every rule is made to be broken. And I don't think a good writer is going to be hurt by learning conventional structures. The only people who read STC and then feel hyperconstrained by it were probably not going to be doing amazing work without it, either. Personally, I found the beat sheet a useful point of reference. And nobody would say my writing isn't weird as heck.

[@CGB_Crash]

People often dismiss Akira Toriyama as a bad writer, to which I simply ask how his work could be so widely beloved if that's the case. As an aside may he rest in peace.

[@GrandArchPriestOfTheAlgorithm]

Let's be clear, it's almost impossible to be a great writer under the Shonen Jump system, and every manga made with it would be improved with another draft. But, to answer you actual question: Akira Toriyama was a somewhat bad writer, but he was also an all time great manga artist.

[@CGB_Crash]

​@@GrandArchPriestOfTheAlgorithmThe point I'm trying to make, and the fact you have already somewhat conceded to, is that what constitutes good or bad writing is *NOT* an objective binary. I fully admit that poorly written works can be popular (Twilight 🤮) but alot of people dismiss Toriyama's work simply because it doesn't follow standard traditions of writing. Plenty of people (TotallyNotMark is the best example I can think of) have articulated why Toriyama's writings ARE good, and should not be dismissed simply because they do not adhere to what the traditional formula for good writing is.

[@ob1quixote]

The funny thing is, I laughed at Rickman's line even without the sound because I could hear it in my head. Which only further illustrates your point.

[@mikecaetano]

Great work! To me "bad writing" means clunky dialogue that runs contrary to the characters. But these days the phrase seems to have become a catch all stand in for "I didn't like the show, but I'm afraid I'll get chewed to bits if I say that. So I need an excuse to justify my tastes."

[@_tographer]

I like the video and the intention behind it but isn’t exchanging Good/Bad for Strong/Weak just a distinction without a difference? You could say good and bad is a spectrum, or that strong/weak is binary. I don’t see how one helps while the other hurts. Seems like there’s some further message that has yet to be articulated for the concept you’re trying to convey.

[@NoFormalTraining]

One of the most confusing pieces of advice I've seen online is the "rule" of "show don't tell" given online by various different youtubers and even some online articles. I say confusing because they all seem to have different takes on what "showing" actually means. Watch ten videos on it, they all have either broadly similar but still different takes on it, or utterly different takes, but they all seem to think "telling" is somehow wrong and must be avoided, and also, all have different ideas on what makes up telling. Some of them will give an example of telling that is actually showing and vice versa. It's a bloody minefield.

[@robertm9631]

Bad writing is when there are plot holes, and the more plot holes a story has the worse the writing is.

[@guygrist4436]

I would say for me a good story is dependent on me finding it is engaging or not. Sometimes a writer can break all the traditional rules and come up with gold and some writers whom follow the formals and end up with a bland predicable run around. Really I've found it to be very much in the eyes of the beholder.

[@TheBeird]

Preach!

[@Majere613]

I think the main thing I would call 'bad writing' (or 'weak', if you prefer, I'd just put 'bad' and 'weak' as one end of a spectrum with 'strong/ good' at the other and 'ok' in the middle) is internal inconsistency. This can take many forms- characters suddenly changing personality, continuity errors like eye colours or middle names changing, nonsensical travel times (e.g. the last season of GoT with the rocket-powered ravens and ships seemingly teleporting about) etc. It can also be when a setting simply doesn't make sense and doesn't bother to help explain why it works. I watched 'The Creator' the other day, and whilst the characters were very strong and the story gripped me, the utterly nonsensical world and the weird way in which things like China, Russia, or ICBMs in general apparently didn't exist really took me out of it. Or, of course, my favourite sci-fi whipping boy, 'Looper', the central mechanic of which simply makes no logical sense whatsoever.

[@michaelstill5184]

3 act structure is often broken down so that the 2nd act is in 2 halves, split by the midpoint. Each half is different from the other. So that's really 4 acts? No, of course not. It's got to be 3 acts. Because.

[@ZigUncut]

I would argue that a sense of what is a good or bad film can be summed up in two criteria. Does the writing serve the story and serve the audience? The movie fails on either of those two points, It's bad now. You can break that down further obviously, but that's like a really good starting point. It also Acknowledges that there are different ways of writing for different genres and styles. Flash Gordon 1980s could be argued that it is bad writing when compared to shakespeare, but I believe it is not bad writing because it both serves the story and the audience. It's a campy story and dialogue and the way it's written perfectly serves both. Whereas apocalypse now, serves both its story and serves its audience. Doesn't betray them in any way, but if it was written in the same style as 1980s Fladlsh Gordon it wouldn't serve the story or the audience.

[@eXtremeStreamers]

Do Brazil that movie needs Explaining lol seen it 10+ times now and still find myself spotting things I missed.

[@jamysmith7891]

I can’t think of a single Heinlein that isn’t absolutely perfect, The flawed hero is an interesting trope and an acceptable crutch

[@martymcnasty6306]

Bad writing = an over abundance of contrivances. Characters who only act a certain way to make the plot go forward, even when it is out of character for where they are in development. Also, I do not at all care for stories that give the reader blue balls for the payoff. Like if you took star wars and watched episode 4 then 5, but stopped right when Vader says "I am your father" and then had to watch all the prequels for the back story. I also see a lot of tv shows now making the sin of not giving their audience credit in the brains department. Like in Death and Other Details, the flash backs have to be "seen" because got forbid the audience uses its imagination while a character is revealing plot to the main detective. "Bad writing" is overused, what I see far too much is dishonest writing. And even though most of the general audience will struggle to articulate it, they know it when they see it. Hence, the massive drop-off in cinema goers for a lot of what should be popular movies.

[@ForlornCreature]

I think your definition of an act break doesn’t exclude three act structure applying to the stories you mentioned. I think there’s value in learning the ins and outs of one structure and then using it as a comparative analysis tool. It doesn’t have to stifle your stories or make them feel formulaic, but rather be a way of labelling and diagnosing them after the initial draft. If your definition of an act is “any time your character makes a decision and can’t go back” then you can break any story into dozens of acts, depending on how granular you want to get. The value of three or five act structure is that it’s basically pop-psychology that can be mapped onto pretty much any story, usually to help refine the architecture. Each rubric is just one way to describe the form of a story, because if you try to define what a story is, that definition will implicitly or explicitly include all the elements that make up something like a three act structure. I’m sure there’s value to defining a story as something like 2 acts or 8 acts or 100 acts, but the cool thing about learning one structure is you can analyse a bunch of stories (conventional or not), and then go “the 2nd act break reversal of my movie isn’t working, what did they do in (for example) Star Wars?” That kind of comparative tool can help give some pointers on how to get more juice out of the things you already have, by allowing you to label and compare elements of story that are otherwise opaque.

[@hamletprimeiro]

Very good.

[@KennethKralyJr]

Great video Rowan as always really enjoy this and I agree with this 100 % percent when it comes to good writing.

[@davidchambers8697]

It seems to me that "rules" of writing are really generalisations, not Laws of Nature. And given any such generalisation, you might fairly ask: 1)How do you know this is true? 2)Why is it true? Or, equivalently, in what circumstances is it NOT true?

[@TK_Brainslug]

To me what is even worse, you write a script filmed the movie and then the studio comes and cut it to bits cause to much talking and to little action. BTW great video

[@andrewbenbow9257]

You keave ben and tom out of this... they are just handsome good boys.

[@archstanton9073]

Let's put it this way. Good Writing is internally consistent. Bad Writing isn't. A hallmark of Bad Writing is "and then this happens" style. Whereas Good Writing is "because of this this happens. Therefore this happens resulting in this thing happening". It's not purely subjective.

[@tristanmccann6838]

3:07

[@nunyabizness6595]

One of the craziest things is when you watch shows like star trek, outer limits and twilight zone that you know has great episodes but then you see bad episodes and think: wtf? What kind of story editor is this?😂😂😂

[@stevena488]

Heeeeeeeeere's my criticism of "Bad writing", PARTICULARLY with the world of television, movies, etc: "You weren't there on the day of the shoot." I've worked in production (not in a writing capacity) and you have absolutely no freaking idea how wrong everything can go. You have to ensure everything is there. Is the actor out of make up? Did the actor read the re-write draft and are they good with it? Do they have ideas? oh christ one of the actors is in hospital with kidney stones, oh GOD and we only have them for three days. Can we get them for more days? Okay so now the main antagonist is currently BACK in rehab and we've discovered that they're allergic to the makeup. Oh no, we don't have the budget to change it. OKAY, can we write them out early and still make the plot make sense? HOW many filming days do we have permits for? Wait, we needed 6, why do we have 4? The council needs 2 days for a rock festival in the area? Okay, and we can't change location. Okay so we may need to change the schedule. OH what do you MEAN the head writers in prison!? Got into a bar fight? OH what do you mean the production house has went *bankrupt* and we've got bought over in a merger?!" Like.... I know people are very very quick to go "Oh it's bad writing" but people have no idea how hard it is to make something. People think "It's there and it sucks because of bad writing." YOU don't have any idea how much compromise was made to make it get to the screen and the amount of luck you have. I think one of the worst versions of that was the rhetoric of people watching Glass Onion and going "IT'S BAD WRITING, YOU CAN'T TRICK THE READER LIKE THAT!"... not knowing that pulling the rug from under you is an old OLD mystery plot trope. The Murder of Roger Ayrkoyd for instance. I get very annoyed because JUST because you don't like something doesn't mean the writing is bad. It could just be not to your taste. I DON'T like I, Claudius, but it is very well written. I love Flash Gordon and yet it's writing is very silly.

[@cartervandenberg4771]

As an artist myself, I understand the gut instinct to go "You don't understand how much work went into it!!" at the first sign of criticism, but I think that's a reductive way of looking at things. Audiences are allowed to hate a movie no matter how much work was put into it on all fronts, no matter how little they understand its vision, no matter how bad they are at articulating their feelings about it. In fact, most audience members understand that films which face the most struggles in production turn out the worst. It's important to understand that when a person says "this movie has bad writing" it's because the way the movie presented it's writing affected that person in a negative way, not because they have negative feelings towards the writer or anyone on the production team.

[@matityaloran9157]

I didn’t like I, Claudius either. That said, your point about movie-making doesn’t apply to media like books which consist entirely of writing. And even if you weren’t involved in the making, you can still judge the finished product

[@KostasHolopain]

As a musician, I get the obstactles which may stand between intentions and actual performarnce. This doesn't change the fact that a bad performance is a bad performance, or that trully great bands, even in their bad performances deliver something that doesn't make the audience feel robbed of their time and money...

[@stevena488]

​@@matityaloran9157 I highly recommend reading Peter Browns blog in terms of his production for "The Last Robot". Took him years to write and the process sounded arduous, tedious, and by the end you feel like you wish the poor guy hadn't put himself through that, with life happening around him. I'm just sympathetic to crearives, especially modern ones, who get attacked for unreasonable demands from people who have no idea the hell it is to go through a production, from books, movies, music, theatre, etc and ALSO have to deal with unfortunately rather unpleasant people who will say "They have a woman as the lead character and therefore it's rubbish." You absolutely can and still WILL judge something depending on your tastes and I'm not there to jump down peoples throats and go "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND", I'm more "I have to respect the fact that this thing got MADE. I may not like it, but hats off to the production for making it".

[@paulfosten2094]

​@@cartervandenberg4771the trouble is we seem to be at a point where the response "I didn't like it, therefore it is bad." No, you just didn't like it. That's fine but it's not the same. And then it's paired with this odd desire to justify it with a social media rant that may last longer than the thing you're critiquing.

[@BenVaserlan]

Is this a reupload? I've heard you say this before.

[@Noms_Chompsky]

Yes, from patreon

[@Jan12700]

2:55 On the Bad side it isn't Lengthy Dialogue, it's Lengthy Exposition Dialogue. If you have to explain a Story Plot to the Audience don't do this with a Lengthy Exposition Dialogue, like the Netflix Avatar does. That's also where Show Don't tell becomes important, show the Audience the things and don't explain them with dialogue. That's also why the part from 7:20 falls a bit flat for me, as you are attacking a kind of straw man here.

[@ThePhantomSquee]

Thank you for making this video public. Too often criticism is made of a story having "bad writing" with no elaboration, or even worse, elaboration that just boils down to even more unsupported assertions. And most of them are built on these bizarre "rules" of storytelling which hold no actual weight except as a convenient tool when someone knows they'd be laughed out of town for saying they don't like it because it's "woke."

[@rtyler1869]

I find most of commentary about bad or lazy writing are from those who actually don't make or work in story telling, but are wanna be critics who are looking for a reason to pan a story because it did not meet their fan based expectations.

[@JeffStevens]

Rowan I love this but it didn't actually answer the question. What does good writing look like?

[@gregcampwriter]

Good writing: The characters are persons with agency whom I want to spend time with and whose actions build to some kind of completion; the language says something interesting in a relevantly beautiful way, and the overall effect of the piece is something I can never let go of.

[@JoaqMan]

Online discourse almost always treats film and television be it good or bad as objective which goes against the idea that all art is subjective. You can like and dislike certain aspects of a movie while someone else can feel the opposite. Most of those videos are mainly made to generate clicks aren’t really essays, they’re just content so they make money.

[@TheVeritas1]

True. Social media algorithms reward influencers who take extreme positions. This made it difficult to find thought-provoking criticism of film and TV online.

[@JeffStevens]

I disagree. There is good and bad art. What my 5-year-old makes in kindergarten is bad art. The Mona Lisa is good art. What is subjective is whether or not you like it. I think what's being discussed in the video when he talks about context is that you have to evaluate a work based on how effectively it executes on its vision. What it attempts to do. You don't evaluate Star Wars on the same basis that you evaluate citizen kane. They're not trying to do the same things. There's a very different criteria for evaluating Dumb and Dumber as compared to the godfather.

[@harvest5218]

At this point when the only criticism is "bad writing" I just assume they hate it for a reason they'd rather not say and I ignore their criticism. As for writing on my own, I always thought of those books as a start. I plan to use typical story structure as a first draft, and then add to it until it breaks, then trim the fat. Of course I'm not a real writer so maybe that's a terrible idea. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[@tctheunbeliever]

"Screw Memento"? Sounds like he missed the point. Thanks for not saying "Mary Sue", It's a buzzword that's ready to die, imho.

[@Kentchangar]

There absolutely is bad and good writing. While the guidelines you presented are good in general, they don't always work (as you said). A good director can use every point that is considered bad writing and create a good movie, while a bad director can use all the points of good writing and make a bad movie. It all comes down to talent of the film maker. Otherwise, I agree with what you said.

[@umjackd]

A lot of people accusing works as having "bad writing" aren't actually critiquing the writing, but just finding reasons to justify why they don't like it.

[@emperorclaudius5499]

There's no science to it. You either like the fiction or you don't. It's all to do with the vibes.

[@bluearcher1559]

?? Vibes and story making sense its complexity different. No?

[@bluearcher1559]

best movie ive ever seen: kzbin.info/www/bejne/pKKzfIyPbNJ4baM

[@bluearcher1559]

best movie ive ever seen: kzbin.info/www/bejne/hKKXfpuVn7momKM

[@TheKeyser94]

Maybe you not realise, but the villain "Superman" archetype had become very popular in the last years, maybe because people are becoming more critical of this kind of character, I personally prefer morally ambiguous characters, they could be fighting for a good cause, but that doesn't mean that wont be collateral damage, it seems that DC is finally is trying what I always was saying, but not how I expect it, like for example The Dark Knights of Steel, I wanted Superman in a medieval fantasy, but they bring the whole DC universe.

[@singularity_josh8063]

I'm not a writer, I'm trying to learn. But I'd say good writing is balanced and relative to the story that is being told, and also every other part is important as well, like the director, and clarity given to bring the vision to life. Recently, I've been watching Farscape and I'd say it has been the best thing I've seen and has the most intelligent writing and execution in its vision.

[@jozsefizsak]

Marvelous dissertation. When I say bad writing, I mean a disastrous mess not worth dissecting rather than a script that diverges from accepted formulas. Surely that's a reasonable use of a vague term. 😊

[@Tom_Kowalczuk]

Bad writing is where you watching movie/tv series or reading a book and talking to yourself - that make no sense, plot goes nowhere, setup from 1st act doesn't matter at the end of 2nd one. Main protagonist is know it all, faster and stronger from anyone (except Superman) so there is no threat that something might happen. Good writing is when you can't stop reading/watching and at the end you sit and think about what just happened.

[@KenMathis1]

I think this video is a bit of a strawman. While it's true that there are some gray areas of good storytelling that can be modified and be fine, although with an increased risk of failure, there are other rules that can't be ignored. For example, plot holes and inconsistent character motivations are always bad. They might not be bad enough to tank a movie if they are minor in an otherwise good piece writing, but that writing would always be better without those flaws. As for the other more flexible rules of good story telling, they are more audience specific. Certain rules, like the need for a strong conflict, are a necessity for certain audiences. If you aren't targeting that audience, you can safely modify those rules to your heart's content. However, if you are targeting that audience, it is "bad writing" to ignore them.

[@ShineyFX]

Almost immediately I’m confused why you’re upset that a way of expressing a thought or opinion is generalised. Which is exactly the point of a simple term. It’s doing its job. Why is that upsetting? These are video titles and quick summaries of thoughts limited to one sentence. Summarising plot structure, character development, messages, world building etc into one sentence requires generalisation and then you go into further detail. Youre throwing it around like bad writing is where the conversation stops but look at these videos and they’ll likely go into depth explaining their problems with the writing. Some of their reasoning might be bad but that’s got nothing to do with the term bad writing being a problem.

[@Lia-zw1ls7tz7o]

What I have noticed recently (ever since the Thirteenth Doctor era and the Star Wars sequel trilogy) is that the term „bad writing“ has become a far-right extremist dog whistle for „the story is bad because minorities are in it/have a main role“. And that led to a whole extreme binary interaction between fans where you couldn’t dare criticizing even one tiny thing because you’d be branded either a hater of the show/film or spreading „woke propaganda“. And that is poison to a fandom and to great discussion about a peace of art. For example, the Chibnall era of Doctor Who is highly flawed and numerous things could’ve been better. Too many companions, which ended up having characters with rather flat personalities compared to a Doctor with a single companion or two at most (like the Ponds or Bill and Nardole), stories with too many characters and too dense a plot that could’ve worked brilliantly as a two-parter. But I felt like none of these things could be criticized because far-right trolls would use them as justification for their reasoning by mixing up xenophobia (racism, queerphobia, Islamophobia, misogyny etc.) as to why the show was bad and had „bad writing“. By now, as we are in a new era of Doctor Who, it feels like I can dare to criticize that era a bit more ironically, when it’s over. Obviously the far-right trolls have by no means shut up and are complaining about the new RTD era as well. Because it’s never about the quality of the show to them - it’s about not wanting any minorities in their show.

[@casualcraftman1599]

The Chibnall era criticism gets worse with idiots thinking they can make nitpicks without realizing nitpicks look stupider alongside right wing backlash. I haven't seen series 13 due to interest dwindled after series 12 and I can say with 100% certainty series 13 ain't bad because of Storm Trooper aiming. Someone stupid Twitter hot take claiming Legend of the See Devils is bad because the Doctor upgraded Dan’s phone to call anywhere offscreen is a stupid nitpick, and that nitpick looks stupider when a dumbass rightwing politician is claiming the show is going to make men commit crimes because of a female protagonist.

[@ThatGuyBrian]

As someone who's been caught between the two positions (disappointment and frustration vs. genuine praise and enjoyment) on the latest installments of the big three sci-fi franchises (Star Wars, Star Trek, Doctor Who), as well as fluctuating between political leanings, I've found the past few years to be an interesting opportunity to develop my media literacy skills: taking the time to look at a given piece and understand why I like it or dislike it. For example, both Picard and Discovery's first seasons often felt unfocused and rushed in their season-long plot structures: leading the audience into a given premise, providing modicums of setup early on, and taking odd detours or making rash decisions instead of logically building up to the final act, resulting in finales that need to make up for lost time. Meanwhile, the second season of either show takes a modest step up, followed by a set of completely new issues bogging them down. DIS season 2 starts out strong, marking a tonal shift that's far more familiar and teases the possibility of a greater ensemble focus, only to get bogged down by the Section 31 subplot and (what I'd consider) a very generic futuristic robot threat. PIC season 2 likewise has a new tone and feel to it, almost as though it's some sort of serialized adventure-of-the-week story with the first three episodes having radically different settings, before turning into an uneasy pastiche of The Voyage Home (which I found both sincerely and ironically amusing at the same time). Then the plot starts to lose focus, hopping between Picard's familial trauma and whatever the cause of the Confederation seems to be from week-to-week, leading back to the present to help the Jurati-Borg stop a cool looking space thing. Then the third season of each respective show feels like a soft-reboot - and again, comes in stronger than the last season before weakening off at the end. I quite enjoyed the premise and concept of DIS S3, it felt quite relevant for the time it came out and I think they could have done a lot more with the premise (acknowledging that the heroes of the past aren't as perfect as we remember them, but maybe they can teach us something we forgot along the way; while at the same time pushing the series forward and taking the time to slow down and build off what's come before), but the finale was fairly underwhelming (though this one probably felt the most fitting/consistent of the show's finales and season-long arcs, oddly enough). My only real complaint was Burnham getting the captain's chair after all the things she pulled off throughout the season - maybe that's because I have a bias towards Saru, but I also think she genuinely should have had another season or so of straightening out and finding that balance between human emotion, Vulcan logic, and personal responsibility before finally taking it up. On the contrary, I felt uneasy about PIC S3 going into it: the trailers gave off an even worse mish-mash vibe than the prior two seasons, and I wasn't exactly a fan of the Shangri-La/Constitution-III design. More than anything it seemed like they were just pulling everything off the shelf and trying to make the ultimate nostalgic cash-in as a half-hearted apology. Needless to say, I was happy that I was wrong after the first two to three episodes. The pacing of the season still had issues (Dominion and Surrender should have been merged into one episode, then use episode 8's slot to let the third act breathe a little), and I still think the finale was far too trite, rushed, and fanservice-y to be genuinely enjoyable (there's still a bit of a disconnect between Vadek and the Borg Queen, personally. Above all else, we already HAD the Borg in season 2). I still think praising Matalas as the proverbial savior of Trek is hyperbolic, but he did a decent job at helming the season and definitely has potential to push Trek into a better direction, only if tempered by other creative visionaries and writers. Perhaps more than anything what I sought after in these shows from the start were what they became in their respective third seasons: ensemble-focused stories with an inadvertently (though still very explicit) optimistic tone - which could then be subverted with darker, more unconventional stories that play off of what's been established. In some sense, I can respect Discovery's first season for trying to do that, but I think it needed more time to establish a new status quo after the Shenzhou's destruction to allow for anything afterwards to hold any weight. Where my opinions begin to diverge from the Fandom Menace consensus though, are with the remaining shows: Lower Decks, Prodigy, and Strange New Worlds. All three of these have really offputting pilots: LD's is basically the exec pitch, ("What if we put Rick and Morty in the Star Trek Universe? Haha cool right? Give us more episodes now pls"), Prodigy's feels remarkably slow and generic ("What if we just tailgated off the Star Trek brand and made it for kids?!"), and SNW's hit me with the wrong vibe right off the bat with Una's speech flat out name dropping science-fiction as though it were some half-baked high school essay. If that's all these shows were, *maybe* I could understand why people like Dave Cullen would be dismissive of them. HOWEVER, what lays beyond these nasty first impressions are probably some of (what I'd consider) the best pieces of Trek since Enterprise went off the air: Lower Decks and Prodigy both provide insight into an era I was deeply curious to see (post-Nemesis, pre-Romulan supernova) while also telling semi-serialized episodic stories from an ensemble perspective and offering their own unique take on the formula. SNW does much of the same (sometimes to an excessively compensative degree), even if it gets a little heavy on the gimmick episodes. Stories like Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, Under The Cloak of War, and Hegemony left me on the edge of my seat and genuinely engaged. I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I can see a lot of flaws with the early slate of "NuTrek", but I heavily disagree with the degree of flak everything post-Lower Decks gets. I don't think it's purely a diversity issue (Sonequa Martin-Green and Michelle Hurd are great actors and play their roles remarkably, but I'd be lying if I didn't say I did not care for how either Michael Burnham or Raffi are written or portrayed most of the time), but my perspective largely boils down to a set of expectations and a semi-rigid structure (not too dissimilar to what Coleman addressed in the video). The newer stuff is getting better at rediscovering the rules, and with that I'll have greater faith in their ability to break/bend them when they deem it appropriate.

[@Lia-zw1ls7tz7o]

@@Walter_Stroud how so?

[@Lia-zw1ls7tz7o]

@@ThatGuyBrian I agree with what you say (although I do like Burnham but I agree that she should’ve become captain at the end of season 4). It’s telling how the modern shows can’t seem to write a good ending (and Star Trek isn’t the only franchise to suffer from this in their modern episodes). I like the pilots of LD, Prodigy and SNW however (though Children of the Comet is far better than the pilot episode of SNW). Also, I so want an updated version of Voyage Home, perhaps with Pike‘s crew (maybe they can save the bees this time 😉). Also, I’d be interested to delve deeper into WW3 and the era between that and Enterprise. Also modern starships (except on LD) are way too dark so I love SNW modernization of the Enterprise and wish that we could see a similar update on the Enterprise-D (as TNG starts to feel outdated to me too technology-wise, especially the keyboard touchscreen without swiping and opening taps/windows and their PADDs, which are basically e-readers with space for only one book. 🤨)

[@keit99]

​@@Lia-zw1ls7tz7oI disagree with you about voyage home. IT's a great Film don't get me wrong, but I wouldn't want a rehash of it.

[@goransekulic3671]

The writing, like acting, lighting etc is only bad when you NOTICE it is bad. At that moment it is putrid. No going back. With that said, I wouldn't say there's been that much bad writing recently. Lazy, mediocre, uninteresting writing? You bet! But flatout bad? Eh, not really. Even Rings of Power are more of mediocre than bad(I do not count disrespecting something as bad ; I mean ... this is a qualitative measurement - not a moral judgment).

[@homoousias]

Well said.🤓

[@jinchoung]

meh. it does NOT arbitrarily split the world up into good vs. bad writing. it is NOT binary or reductive. the critique is about NOTABLE, EMBLEMATIC, SCREAMINGLY BLATANT - BAD WRITING. just because something hasn't been commented on as bad writing does in no way mean that it's good writing. just that it's not so singularly bad as to warrant comment. it's like BO... just cuz someone doesn't say you stink doesn't necessarily mean you smell nice. it's just that you're not eye wateringly offensive to the senses. lot of writing that's not been commented on is simply passable and/or inoffensive.

[@Mr.Graphic3180]

Do you think the Star Wars fanbase is terrible

[@ilejovcevski79]

And yet, if we continue to encourage and stimulate "bad writing", then by virtue of being mass-producible and requiring less effort, the "good writing" will be pushed aside, drowned in all the noise, simply become non-competitive in the global market, and then we as viewers/readers/players, will end up with the short straw, forever doomed with fan-fiction level of quality for our daily dose of culture.

[@Aragorn7884]

*Picard: Season 2* - POOR WRITING...legit truth.

[@JeffStevens]

Okay fair. But why? Without the why, the statement is not useful or compelling.

[@Gengh13]

​@@JeffStevensjust like the definition of p0rnography, you'll know when you see it.

[@keit99]

S2 of picard ignores its own rules that it set for time travel. Avoid changing the past too much. The forget combadges. They leave one of them in the actual past. And it's pacing was suboptimal. There was either nothing happening for an episode or everything happened in one episode.

[@andybrown4284]

My interest in the MCU was starting to wane by the time the black panther movie came out but to me it was the first of the duds from marvel. Still haven't got around to sitting through the rest of the infinity slog. Mostly because rather than using the talents of andy serkis in his portrayal of klau as the main baddie they opted for writing a stereotypical angry black dude instead and the actor didn't bring anything to elevate the character beyond that or was held back by the director/producer.

[@JO-qn8gy]

Rick Grimes of The Walking Dead recently cut off his perfectly good hand in order to escape from the army and get back to his Black girlfriend. The writing is so bad it's Woke and everything Woke turns to 💩

[@kazaloolovesgames]

Rick loses a hand in the comic you racist.

[@JO-qn8gy]

Cutting off his hand due to a zombie bite is one thing. Making himself disabled for no good reason smells like Woke to me 😩

[@ThePhantomSquee]

🤡

[@BradLad56]

​@@kazaloolovesgamesexplain what he said that was racist?

[@TheKeyser94]

Joseph Cambell "Hero Journey" is outdated for years now, no serious writer take seriously, mostly because Campbell was full of his own bullshit, and even his favourite author tell him so, and he ignore it, the "Hero Journey" is a fallacy, there is no hero journey, when it comes to writing, of course that I care about the three acts structure, but also world building, context and substance, what are the factions, what are their agenda, and let the readers judge of their actions are good or bad.

[@JamesSavik]

This is why writing is an art and not a science. Flawless, super-powerful characters can be done right, like Superman, or dreadfully wrong, like Rey or Captain Marvel. You can like Superman's idealism. Captain Marvel and Rey are so unlikeable that you root for the villains.

[@theanonymouscritic1710]

Captain Marvel was not badly done or unlikeable and comparing her to Rey is inaccurate. Rey was just bland.

[@adam346]

lol... why do I feel like this is already a take-down of Critical Drinker?

[@elonmusksellssnakeoil1744]

"Bad writing" is usually used as shorthand for "does not sufficiently conform to mainstream western standards", as though that's the only way to write, and write well.

[@DrAnarchy69]

3:22 Superman isn’t “too perfect”. He is basically a super cop, that’s a huge ass flaw