What Makes Prose GOOD? | Part 2: Defining Prose

[@writerducky2589]

It’s interesting, so what the essayist is saying is basically that, good prose guides you through the text without you even noticing that’s what’s happening. You don’t notice you *are* reading until you’re *done* reading. Which is the same idea as, or at least a cousin to, avoiding showing "the hand of the author," as well as keeping "the movie of the mind" rolling. Basically mastering prose is the author's gateway to keep the reader reading. The moment the reader notices they’re reading, you as the author have lost. It’s funny how prose plays such a pivotal role and still gets seemingly forgotten in the middle of it all. Appreciate your videos on this.

[@jayashreechakravarthy4949]

Give Harini more access. She will shut up and call me personally if she wants to meet us.

[@JLchevz]

Yeah: "show, don't tell". Sometimes the writing gets in the way of enjoying a story: clumsy dialogue, excessive descriptions or simple language describing something profound. Good prose doesn't get in the way of the story but actually conveys the story to the reader, with the characters' feelings and emotions too. Bad prose feels contrived.

[@oofmydude8173]

Dude that paragraph is dope as hell

[@TheLegendarium]

I agree with this sentiment.

[@Sane17x]

I think good prose is adapting. Good prose recognises the scene and the mood and adjusts accordingly. Action uses punchy words. Atmosphere flows. Drama plays with emotional grammar, etc. Bad prose has one narrator voice for the entire text

[@waftsofpetrichor]

That's a beautiful way of putting it!

[@BenLabelle1]

I find Sanderson’s prose lacking, not because it’s too simple or clear, but rather because it’s sometimes awkward enough to become distracting-so it’s precisely because he starts fogging up the windows.

[@icebite9888]

Thank you. That exactly puts into simple terms what's wrong with his writing. The redundancy of his explanations are so jarring that I can not get myself past his writing style to lose myself in the story being told.

[@BenLabelle1]

@@icebite9888 Exactly. A lot of redundancy and overexplaining. He never leaves anything to subtext. Plus he incorporates a lot of modern concepts into ancient worlds, which often comes off sounding awkward to me. That might be why I found the prose better in his modern-set Legion novellas. (Don’t get me wrong; I love his books. But I don’t love his prose.)

[@malcolmhodnett8874]

@@BenLabelle1i just don’t agree with a lot is left to subtext that you don’t know about without a greater understanding of the plot and characters. He doesn’t hide meaning in the words, he obscures it in the story itself

[@kirkwhalen2308]

Thank you for devoting a series to this topic. As both a Rothfuss and Sanderson fan, I've had a hard time articulating why I like different authors, and how to recommend books to people. This has really helped. The Stormlight Archive is amazing, close second for my favorite modern fantasy series, not in small part because the writing is so clear and direct, the story almost jumps out of the page. But there's definitely a balance, and I've found that I personally like when the window has a little color, or especially patterns, that you might not notice your first time looking, but actually relate to and enhance the story being told. People are misusing the term when they try to recommend PR based on his "amazing prose" though lol it's really not. It's poetic, and that's ok. I even think it's funny when he breaks the fourth wall and talks about hating poets

[@5Gburn]

Poets versus poetry, hm? As a poet and fiction writer, I can see how poets who only write poetry can seem pretentious. I'm newly reading Rothfuss and find his style lyrical. There's a definite rhythm and poetry to it. He's also a painter: From The Name of the Wind: "...grey shirt, red blood, white bone." Only the shirt requires a descriptor, as blood is always red (unless you're a Vulcan) and bone is always white (unless, say, charred to a crisp). The "song" of this book is entrancing--and you can't take your eyes off of it.

[@tochen1414]

I would like to add on the matter of balance. If you look at Dante, in his New Life, he writes "Woman who have the intellect of love." Whereas in the world of antiquity love and intellect are seen as opposition, as love as something that is of lust, such as Roma written backwards is Amor, an empire of passion, it was for the first time with Dante that love has been started to see as something that moves us towards intellect. He says after the comment of woman with intellect of love, that he has to go seek himself, to grow capable of speak nobler about a particular woman, then comes the Divine Comedy. I believe that the resolution to the balance between Justice and Love in the essay lies here: It is the power of prose for us to bring into surface the force that gives birth to justice in the first place. Prose is the realm of justice, but good prose often, and always I believe, drifts into poetry, and it is in this outpouring of poetry, through the clear surface of prose, that shows us, and makes us feel, in its truest form, the force that moves us towards justice, and I believe that prose serves this purpose = to show us clearly the love that moves us towards intellect. I personally have this philosophy in my own writing.

[@omaramat4813]

Great video, there is some room here for a third video, maybe with some examples outside of fantasy, Hemingway is a clear example for simple prose, Dickens the other way around. Both great in their own way

[@RYXP_FAN]

@4:00 I am much more into music than I am into literature, but I've been learning more about writing recently and that's why I'm here. This argument for simplicity not still being art is super relevant in music as well. Lots of easy to listen to "pop" isn't the most impressive artistic exploration, but some of it is! That's actually my favorite kind of music: something that is catchy but is also musically interesting. Makes sense that the same principle applies in literature.

[@billyalarie929]

i feel like that paragraph grants writers so much permission, that i kind of feel like has often, in recent years, been specifically denied us (i.e. instant gratification, etc.)

[@gamewriteeye769]

I've heard some people say poetry is pretentious. I believe good prose makes things achieve the goal it sets out to accomplish. If you're trying to be descriptive, poetic, whichever, prose is done well if it maintains a level of consistency.

[@BTypeGuy]

In my opinion if I wanted to experience a story in the clearest, most unambiguous way possibly I will watch a movie, as it leaves nothing to my imagination and does all the work for me. But I also read for the love of language. If I wanted to watch something dramatic that is going outside my house I would want my window to be crystal clear. But I do not merely want to watch the drama when I'm reading. I want to see the art: the vibrancy, the colors, the beauty. That is why I personally find Sanderson's prose lackluster.

[@yapdog]

Very well said. I also think that the bit of Sanderson's writing I'd been able to read seemed wayward, the ideas not flowing in a way that would ever engage me. Jason Fuhrman gives examples of this in one of his videos: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eKTCeWltmamBbpI And if you're curious, in the comments for that video I also take an off-the-top stab at how Sanderson's prose could be modified to attract a cinematic reader like me.

[@ethanwilliamson782]

You’re literally not saying anything. The color? Wtf are you on

[@yapdog]

@@ethanwilliamson782 Are you being facetious or did truly not understand what @Astro Mocha said?

[@ethanwilliamson782]

@@yapdog half and half, he’s being a bit pretentious but his meaning is relatable to most people, I would assume

[@ethanwilliamson782]

half and half, he’s being a bit pretentious but his meaning is relatable to most people, I would assume. I was hoping the acronym and the “literally” would make the comment seem more ridiculous

[@jbpeltier]

I'll throw my hat in the ring here. Based on that description of prose you read, it seems that appropriate synonyms for prosaic could be "exacting" or "fastidious," something picking out the quality of being comprehensive and precise. I once called a particular person's speech "all-encompassing," and I am now realizing that I may have been referring to the prosaic presentation of his polemic (say that ten times fast without feeling insufferable).

[@zachindes]

Glad I came back to this conversation. In my own writing I teeter back and forth between trying to be descriptive and simply stating the facts. Through that I’ve found I’m an underwriter. I like the approach that prose is something that you wouldn’t notice - like the word ‘said’ in dialogue. A great complement would be that my purpose is clear, and that my message/characterization/theme came through over a particularly beautiful sentence.

[@ShadowRoxas10]

Thank you again for another video analyzing prose! I commented on the last video talking about how little content there is on KZbin for prose analysis in fantasy and so I’m really happy you’re continuing with this topic! Much like how some people conflate dense writing as necessarily good writing, there is a similar phenomenon about the fantasy genre overall, where some people consider works of fantasy as less meritorious for literary acclaim that non-fiction works (see: the outrage among the literary community every time Tolkien wins an award/poll for best author of the 20th century over the likes of Steinbeck, Faulkner, and Hemingway). And in my opinion, THIS is why prose analysis for fantasy in particular is so important - because works of fantasy don’t - but should - receive the same level of scrutiny, analysis, and respect as works from other genres. Just wanted to share more on why I value videos like this! Anyways keep up the great work! If I can throw a potential future topic out there, I’d like to see you challenge/scrutinize the idea that the best prose is only what a reader subjectively values. This video provides the spectrum of the clear-view window pane to the stained-glass window pane for prose and says, as many videos do, that a book will fall on this spectrum and then readers will decide for themselves whether they like that prosaic/poetic blend for themselves (I think). And yet, if we’re to say that Sanderson represents the clear-view pane and Rothfuss represents the stained-glass pane, I think there is an overwhelming consensus (though not absolute) that Rothfuss has better prose than Sanderson. But if that broad consensus is going to emerge, could we then say that there is such a thing as objectively better prose, even if on an individual level there may be occasional, subjective deviations of preference? I’ve often that that the common answer of “it’s just preference” could just be the lazy response to avoid actually doing the hard work of determining what prosaic/poetic blend is actually best for most readers. Maybe the spectrum is actually clear view pane - stained glass pane - muddied pane, where there actually is a desirable middle place to land. Just a thought!

[@llr-yk6dl]

Effective writing transcends stylistic labels. A prosaic or poetic style alone doesn't determine "good" prose; the writer's personality does. If I sense a heart and mind behind the words -- loves, hates, quirks, flaws, and curiosities -- then the writing is good. Moreover, I dare say the excerpt by Brock is the epitome of poetic writing. Although not flowery in language, it's honest, rhythmic, and precise. An opinion beautifully distilled.

[@tagg1080]

I think there is an interesting comparison to classic art and modern art. Modern art is an expression that aims to let the observer interpret their own emotional response, classic art is about recreating a specific image or emotion and conveying it specifically.

[@Not_Morgoth]

I find this comparison apt. An interesting wrinkle I see is that with classical art being so specific and precise, it conveys what it seeks to more immediately, whereas prose often will take it’s time. The inverse also seems true of poetry being more brief to convey and modern art taking time to absorb before forming an opinion. A fascinating (if somewhat reductive) contrast between written and visual media.

[@yvesgomes]

When I recently started reading fiction from more contemporary authors I was shocked to find out that proper punctuation is not a given. I'm eclectic about how descriptive or flowery the prose is. What has been standing out to me lately whether the prose has correct punctuation.

[@Feejakka]

Brilliant quote, thanks for immersing us in the full excerpt. As a poet and aspiring novelist, I found this episode interesting and helpful. Thanks!

[@RassaFortuna]

Erickson comes out of the Iowa Writers Workshop -- a group that started with a bunch of Vietnam vets. I feel like his writing tries to create a feeling of being overwhelmed, in too deep. Because in the climactic moments of the stories it suddenly gets short, clear, and direct. And those moments feel like a revelation -- it's used powerfully for emphasis. Or at least that's the feeling I am left with 10 years after reading them. Citation needed. 😂

[@Laylainbloom]

I love that paragraph… thank you for sharing.

[@Ayyavazi13]

I would love more videos on examining aspects of writing such as this. The depth of the video is refreshing.

[@danielkibira4064]

I like your analogy: Good Prose is the clear stainless glass window; Poetry is the stain glass window (and in some cases a kaleidoscope ) as always Barakha 🙌🏾 Shalom 🌾🙏🏾

[@NicoleCreates]

This was a super interesteing duo of videos, thanks for sharing them! My authorial voice naturally tends toward lyrical prose, and my goal is to allow that proclivity it's head when a scene needs to be vivid and affecting, and rein it in when the scene needs to move along or convey information quickly. Whether that will be effective or not only the future can tell, but you'll be in the back of my head as I work on it! Cheers!

[@stephenlogsdon8266]

Good prose is invisible. Bad prose throws you out of the story. Patrick Rothfuss never threw me out of his story, so I wouldn’t classify his as “stained glass.’ However, this is my opinion, and as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I can see others affected differently. Personally, I like flow when I read, and I like it when I write, and the skill in using prose of conveying emotion is a valuable one. I’ve also heard that these differences matter not, and that the reader will eventually get lost in the plot. Terry Goodkind’s first book, Wizards First Rule, was the most difficult book to read because of his prose. His ideas in plot allowed me to finish it. In his second book, it was like he learned to write.

[@psychosis8429]

Thank you for these videos. I never knew of prose but now I understand why writing between authors seems different among authors. It's also helping me to see that my prose isn't very good for the sci-fi novel I've just begun writing

[@imokin86]

Thanks, this was a good video. I think it's a good idea to think in terms of prosaic vs poetic, it is definitely much more constructive than saying "too simple is bad prose" or "too elaborate is bad prose". I disagree with the "window" analogy though, because there is no world outside the written text. It's all in the author's head, even if it's a book about "our" world. And even more so in fantasy. The author shows only what they want to show, no window works like that. It's a flashlight lighting up bits of a fictional reality, one at a time, sentence by sentence.

[@khpa3665]

Yes, but it does help explain why Sanderson is often cited as an example of a boring prose stylist. To make a painting analogy (which makes sense to me because painters, like authors, are the creators of the image), Sanderson writes fantasy worlds like a 19th-century academician painted the Middle Ages. They depict, but they don't conjure.

[@Duckfest]

This is an absolutely spot-on take on prose. Very interesting and entertaining. Thank you.

[@sethrakes1991]

After reading Rothfuss, Sanderson’s prose feels dull.

[@ScribblyDoodle]

At least Sanderson can reliably finish a series 🤷

[@Lauren_12695]

@@ScribblyDoodleoop. U got a point there 🫣

[@richardanderson8107]

@ScribblyDoodle Yes but there are a lot of authors with beautiful prose in the fantasy genre who have finished their series lol

[@ScribblyDoodle]

@@richardanderson8107 Oh I'm sure there are many, is there anyone you suggest in particular? I hear Abercrombie has beautiful prose and amazing character development; he's next on my list. Always looking for more :) I don't understand all the hate directed at Sanderson, though. Like, I get that his prose isn't anything special, but to be honest I prefer "invisible" prose over poetic purple prose. Don't get me wrong, I can appreciate beautiful writing, but I'm there for the story, characters, and immersive world building, and Sanderson just does it for me. I don't think he's perfect, but a lot of people out there act like he's overhyped and unworthy of his accolades. I personally think that what he lacks in prose, he makes up tenfold in creativity, consistency, and sheer epicness. Not to mention the other goodies you get with him like free lecture material, podcasts, and literal progress bars for the fans to see exactly where he is at on the multiple series he is working on simultaneously. His transparency is refreshing.

[@richardanderson8107]

@@ScribblyDoodle Authors like Ursula K. Le Guin, Robin Hobb, Tad Williams, Guy Gavriel Kay, Gene Wolfe and many more, those are just the ones I would recommend off the top of my head :) I quite like Abercrombie, too. What he does isn't far from Sanderson in some respects but I think his prose and dialogue is quite a bit better than Sando's, whose dialogue and internal monologues especially all tend to blend together for me across his books. I don't think of prose as either invisible or purple really. What constitutes good prose is dictated by so many things; the syntax and flow of words, what an author chooses to say and what they don't, subtext-so much goes into a specific author's voice. I wouldn't say Sanderson doesn't have a distinct voice, just that his prose is very simplistic. That simplicity makes it very accessible and readable, but lacking for me in substance. It's straightforward to a fault. To be clear I still enjoy Sanderson's books they're just not my favorites. He does have very creative magic systems and while I think his books are a tad overlong they do provide some thrilling moments that I think back on fondly. I can't say I care much about the progress meters on his books, I can see how it builds hype for releases though and gets people excited, but I don't think that level of transparency is needed nor is it something I hope people come to expect from authors or creatives-things are done when they are done.

[@vincent6489]

This is interesting. I think you can deduce from the style of prose an author uses their estimation of their audience. If the goal is clarity on the window, then there has to be as little friction as possible between the viewer and nature of the lense. So two authors might actually be great at prose but the target demographics are diffent. It wouldn't be too off the mark to deduce that the degree to which an authors prose is deemed great is correlated to the self image he/she assumes and fosters in the audience. Nobody likes an author who assumes they're stupid or pedestrian....

[@Bouxjiful]

I believe he specifically uses the word justice to say -- to capture an exact idea in words is to pay it justice, and that to pay it justice is hard, but worth it.

[@ctcnj]

Holy crap - it took 6 minutes before the content began.

[@DirtyBobBojangles]

Ty

[@Free_Range_Hippo]

More on what makes writing good/work. You have awesome insights.

[@NepticFathers]

Did you all tally the word counts/adjectives/german vs. Latin words by hand or is there software that does this automatically for writers?

[@TheLegendarium]

By hand in this case

[@heatherpedersen8209]

This makes me realize that the people complaining about Purple Prose have absolutely no idea what they're talking about.

[@NonAnonD]

This video/passage is a banger

[@Gennys]

If there was a word we would use for the modern usage of what we think when we say prose today, what would that word be? Prose + poetry = ? If pure prose is a mathematical equation (the description only) and pure poetry is an abstract painting (the color and intangibles), what do we call this combination of description and color?

[@AkosKovacs.Author.Musician]

It's called Prose-poem and it used to be more prominent in older times.

[@Shawn-vv3om]

An interesting argument. I feel like there may have been one more idea in the paragraph not fully fleshed out in this video. That is where he says,”out of the whole work and it’s proportions, so that you must read to the end before you know that it is beautiful.” I read that and I think about chapter 9 in the book Style: toward clarity and grace by Williams where he talks about symmetry and balance at the sentence and paragraph level. He says simplicity and clarity is most important but without elegance in the structure of the work it can never be great prose. The whole excerpt that was read is proof. It’s so good because the author is clear and simple, but the beauty comes from the structure. If you look closely the sentences and paragraphs are well balanced and because of that you don’t realize how good it is until after you read it. It all comes together in its clarity, simplicity, and grace which does the subject matter justice.

[@PerfectHandProductions]

That is a great damn paragraph.

[@imdartson3679]

This makes complete sense. I just finished reading The Wizard of Oz and while I loved the story, I found the writing to be too blunt. The author didn't embellish the imagery of what was happening enough for my tastes. I kept thinking about it after I finished the book and just didn't know what to call it.

[@jamienelson3470]

Rothfuss is the only author besides Tolkien that I have ever bothered to read more than once. I never saw the point before. I mean, if you already know how it ends, what are you reading for? But with both of them something pulls me back over and over, and I find new beauty each time. It's a combination of the depth of the world building, and the wonderful prose. I'm one of the extremely, extremely rare people that doesn't mind how late Doors of Stone is, because I'm happy basking in the first books still. 😂

[@matt_jude]

This is probably the best video on prose I’ve come across. In my own experience, I’ve actually encountered more people who would prefer the regular prose over poetic prose. So much so that I think a lot of aspiring fiction writers are taught to steer away from flowery language, which I’d argue is a mistake. I’m not sure what’s spurting on this change, maybe writers like Sanderson have inspired a new generation of fiction writing. I personally love prose that indulges more in the poetic, but the inverse is also great when done well.

[@pufthemajicdragon]

Ah, that, my friend, is the result of Amazon. The rise of digital self-publishing means **anyone** can write and publish a novel, and if we're dead honest with ourselves, most of them are really bad writers. But being a bad writer has somewhat of an advantage in terms of accessibility, since most of those people are also poor readers. Not only is the average reading level somewhat mediocre (hashtag circular argument), but, since most adults struggle to have time to read, the majority of readers are teens and young adults with still-developing language skills. Elevated prose, even if it's not purple, will always be just out of reach of the average reader. But I agree, regression to the mean is not an excuse, and writers (and readers) **should** stretch their abilities. That's how true art is made.

[@matt_jude]

@@pufthemajicdragon Totally agree. I don’t necessarily believe that’s a bad thing though as it allows more leniency to aspiring writers, therefore increasing the size of the market. However, it’s much less likely we get writers like McCarthy, Faulkner and many other stylist who pushed the boundaries of literature. Very sad.

[@pufthemajicdragon]

@@matt_jude Oh we'll still get new great writers, they'll just be harder to find amidst the milieu of mediocrity. I think we'll also see a growing distinction between writing and storytelling, and a greater appreciation for storytelling apart from writing, as many of those okay-ish writers are gifted storytellers with a knack for narrative.

[@myself2noone]

I'm betting it's because people are increasingly becoming less fond of phudo-profound bullshit. Like it or not, the best place to hide a deepity is behind poetry. And people are tired of nonsense. So, a baby with the bathwater situation. You can have poetic prose without trying to hide the fact that you have nothing of value to say. But if you have nothing of value to say, then poetic prose is the easiest way to hide that fact. And in this day and age, you'll likely be torn apart for the latter. It's almost a shame. Being pretentious is a failure to be deep, but at least, it shows a willingness to try.

[@thomascleveland]

Chat GPT can write scripts for you. I asked it for a script to quantify similes with natural language toolkit and a script to rank words' specificity using wordnet. It has a lexicon of synonyms called synsets and ranks the words on their specificity for example weapon would rank as more general word than sword which is more general than rapier. My guess is that good prose would have a higher specificity ranking, but I would be interested where the sweet spot is for most people, cuz don't nobody want to read holding a dictionary.

[@wyattcole5452]

4:26 I think of Stephen King as simple but I like him, and people often think older is automatically harder to read but Three Musketeers is fantastic and just about anyone with an 8th grade reading level could get through it w a dictionary, which would barely have to be used

[@StarlasAiko]

I am more on the side of poetry. Language in its own right has the ability to invoke emotions, not only through ther content or context. This is why one should avoid certain words in certain contexts, even though they would be appropriate by dictionary definition.

[@remylebae3395]

Excellent video!! This is not something enough people are talking about today! But perhaps this is a little more academic than your run-of-the-mill KZbin channel

[@shipjingle2531]

I couldn't find the podcast you referenced about Tolkien. You said it was episode 181 and it's not on Apple Podcasts. Can you help me? Thank you.

[@thefantasynuttwork]

I was anxiously awaiting this part two and it didn't disappoint! I was curious, would you wanna be a guest on my podcast, Chatting with Nutts? It's a chill freeform livestream I do every other Friday where a guest and I talk all about fantasy and some sci-fi. If you'd be interested I'd love to have you on!

[@Trianglewaline]

Brilliant.

[@TaraDobbs]

Helpful for me like the other video/podcast previously. Thank you.

[@tennoio1392]

To me it seems that dictionaries are right about prose. Poetry is something higher than prose, harder to do, more beautiful. That is why big works like novels are done in prose. When you need to write so many pages, it's impossible to think about a line for hours. So i think it's just wrong to say that prose and poetry are equal. You can give your prose some poetic qualities and it will make it better exept certain situations when you need to be rough. But when you give poetry prosaic qualities it just flattens, it makes it dull and gray~

[@sixtofive]

Great discussion!

[@momojojokoko]

I'm not sure you can say anything all that meaningful about the transparency of prose without first differentiating between essays and fiction. Expressing ideas is indeed an almost entirely intellectual pursuit, but telling a story is not. So whereas clarity - or readability, for lack of a better word - is often an essential virtue when it comes to non-fiction, it is not nearly as central to storytelling. There is beauty in the elegance of a well constructed argument, or the fluid presentation of complex ideas. Just as there can be a highly esthetic dimension to a very blunt, minimalist, or matter-of-fact storytelling style. But in both cases you are not doing the same thing. To be any good, a story has to have an emotional dimension to it. An essay does not. Therefore fiction must necessarily have at least some poetry within it, even if its style happens to be the opposite of flowery. Differentiating between prose and poetry rather than fiction and non-fiction, when it comes to heart vs mind; love vs justice; or romantic ideals vs Enlightenment ones, seems confusing at best.

[@tomlewis4748]

I like these thoughts. I certainly can't disagree with any of them. But are we really determining what makes prose 'good', or are we determining that due to the subjective perceptions of various readers being often quite different, some readers might conflate what is 'good or bad' with what they might prefer nor not prefer? And I think we agree that whether it is good or not is impossible to define using that as the metric. There are a number of things that good prose absolutely must have beyond whether it 'feels romantic' or ascribes only to the intellectual thinking mind, such as the need for a good story, interesting characters, the delineation of those characters to make the reader care about them, structure (nearly as important as plot and character), the ability to write good line-by line, and giving readers what they expect without giving them it so ham-handedly that they can guess what it is before they are shown. That's where the idea of 'surprising yet inevitable' comes from. That's just for starters. And none of those things, things which without question make prose 'good', really has much to do with how poetically or dryly it might be presented, or interpreted. No one is going to love everything. For myself, what makes a story good is whether it is satisfying to read. That's a wide and fuzzy definition, and of course, it also goes right back to what is preferred in how it might be presented, but it is an order of magnitude more important that it serves all those goals mentioned above, which it absolutely must. And the best way to gauge whether it works or not is actually pretty simple, which is 'Does it invoke the fictive dream?'

[@aa-xo6lh]

I don't know what you mean by "conflate" here. "Good" and "bad" only make sense if indexed to the attitudes/preferences/desires of a subject or group of subjects. Stance-independent irreducible normativity is metaphysical woo woo.

[@choocli]

very informative! thanks!

[@stephenlogsdon8266]

Oh, I enjoyed at one paragraph as much as you apparently did. Thank you for sharing. I’d video.

[@briankinsey3339]

It seems to me that we need to distinguish between style of prose and quality of prose. The clear window versus stained glass analogy is stylistic. But, just as you quoted Daniel Green on simple not equating bad, I don't think you can equate simple (as in clear window) with good prose, either. Nor say that more complex (stained glass) prose style is bad. From my own library, I'd put Sanderson very much on the simple end of the spectrum, and Guy Gavriel Kay very much on the opposite end. But that says nothing about the quality of their writing. Both are good . I probably perfer GGK overall, but that strikes me as a personal style preference, maybe. You can certainly have writers at any point on that spectrum that write utter crap, too, though. The quality of a writer's prose seems to me to go well beyond a simple question of style. It has to include sentence and paragraph structure, word choice and usage, sentence length and narrative purpose, and probably more that I haven't identified just yet.

[@danielchapman6032]

Good discussions. Keep it up!

[@Sonucan003]

I would like to add a bit more to it. As you stated, poetry is emotion and prose is intellect. Simple prose is about the story itself. If you want to get from point A to point B in a story then use simple prose. Complex prose is about the journey. If you want the reader to think and if you want to enhance the reading experience, use complex prose. i.e., simple prose is the story itself in focus while complex prose is the act of reading itself in focus. I feel that nowadays complex prose is seen as purple and has a detrimental effect on the story. That is false. It just has different function to simple prose.

[@Flibbeterjibbet]

I immediately subbed after this video. That was great, thanks 👍

[@kredonystus7768]

To me there is a difference between engaging writing and good prose. Eragon has some amazingly engaging wrtiting, you can vividly see the colours of the world as opposed to the words of the page; the prose kinda sucks though, it was written by a teenager and it shows. Prose to me has two aspects. One is the amount of depth you can get out of the minimum number of words, and two is how appropriate those words are to the characters and settings they're from. Dune for example has great prose in both aspects, but terrible engagement. LotR can wear thin on engagement at times but it's got both sides to of prose. Joe Abercrombie is masterful on the appropriate words front but the layered depth aspect of prose can be lacking, though he somehow maxed on the engagement. Cormac McCarthy does everything super well. No-one does prose like Gene Wolfe though. The way single sentences can recontextualise whole paragraphs or even whole chapters or novels embarasses my attempts at writing. The layered depth of a single scene is such that characters are enacting a plasy which is a commentary on a hero which is actually them commenting on Severian (the PoV) directly without knowing, which is actually Severian commenting on himself as a concept without knowing, which is Gene Wolfe commenting on the existance of the novel as a meta construct within the confines of the novel itself, and thats all without you even realising until your second or third time though. The depth you can mine from Book of the New Sun is as profound and deep as what Christians can mine from the bible.

[@JandenHale]

I don't typically say the prose is bad unless it's clearly awful. I describe prose on the basis of how dry or juicy it is. I hate dry prose. I like people who wield the English language like a rapier, rather than a bludgeon. Show some finesse.

[@gentledysentery]

the prose of my own life includes me talking to myself and all the people who'll never read this. "fart noise."

[@TheLegendarium]

I read that.

[@gentledysentery]

​@@TheLegendarium You have indeed. Unfortunately, you are now outside of the prose. Good day to you.

[@BradleyZS]

I'd fight a man for calling me prosaic.

[@PermaPen]

Fascinating stuff! I knew I loathed poetry and poetic styles of writing, and now I know why. I want to see the beauty of the landscape, not the window-panes. Curiously enough, I feel the emotions far more keenly with non-romantic language, and the most poetic piece I read recently had not a single emotional word in it.

[@maximedurante7574]

But isn't beauty in the eye of the beholder? If there's no eye, there's no beauty. Your mindset determines what's beautiful and what's not; beauty doesn't exist by itself... The selection of details an author makes can make anything ugly or beautiful, and that's already a window-pane in itself.

[@ApatheticallyClowning]

You skipped over a synonym for prosaic that I like... "straightforward".

[@StarlasAiko]

So...Poetry is affectionate while Prose is retributional/retallatory

[@kiddtuffy]

When we speak of the beasts of authorship, I believe juxtaposing Justice vs Mercy may be allowing too much of their dogma exposed. The Judeo-Christian themes of grace and consequence are a very small portion of the mosaic that is our morality or our relevance. When an author writes they have one goal, to convince the reader of what they wrote is true. Whether they are telling fables or recounting the lunch they ate yesterday, do so by overcoming their audiences greatest obstacle, the suspension of disbelief. Thus all story, all prose, all poetry becomes one thing, rhetoric.

[@edwardlecore141]

Pros before Poes.

[@michaelhunter2136]

Friend, you must spend less time talking about what you are going to talk about. By the time you actually begin, I'm asleep or so worn by preamble that I'm not paying much attention.

[@eddiebrockington1964]

What exactly is a pro

[@pufthemajicdragon]

oh gawwd.... Your first video was fine, but a little lacking in depth (which you acknowledged at the time, too, cause youtube video). So I was looking forward to the sequel where you might explore those depths further. But I barely get into this one and hear you say (paraphrasing) "The first Harry Potter book is written very well". No. No it's not. There is a huge difference between **reading** level and **writing** level, between a book written **for** a 6th grader and a book written **by** a 6th grader. And JKR has an elementary **writing** level. Did that end up working in her favor because of the target audience **reading** level? Absolutely. An entire college writing course could be taught on how JKR accidentally fell into success by "doing it wrong". You've clearly been exposed to high quality, well-written literature, so to hear you offer "well-written" praise to HP is a little disheartening. It makes me wonder what does "well-written" even mean to you?

[@jamescaldwell2357]

The problem with talking about Rowling is that she is a popular figure in our culture and a political one, as well, due to her trans comments. I have learned that those two factors colors all discussions about her work. I don't know if you're right. I don't have the linguistic skills to understand what makes her an bad writer. All I know is when her name is mentioned, people endless praise her or endless bash her. Your comment reads something like this: I liked you until you praised JK Rowling, now I doubt your understanding of the subject. That's childish. A person can be skilled in a subject and still hold views and opinions different than yours.

[@pufthemajicdragon]

​@@jamescaldwell2357 "A person can be skilled in a subject and still hold views and opinions different than [mine]." True. However, the entire premise of this video is that the "goodness" of prose can be objectively measured, evaluated, and practiced - AND that Craig is going to instruct us in how to measure, evaluate, and practice "good prose". So are we clear, now? We aren't talking about opinions. We're talking about the skill of critical analysis of literary composition. Since the purpose of this video is to teach me the skill of literary criticism, I must first trust that the instructor (Craig) possesses that skill. If he demonstrates that he is **not** skilled in literary criticism - for example, by calling a book "well written" that is linguistically simple, narratively primitive, tonally flat, and internally inconsistent - I lose my confidence in the instructor. If you decided to take voice lessons and your vocal coach sincerely described Animal (the muppet) as "a smooth melodic tenor", that wouldn't exactly instill you with confidence. You'd ask for a different voice coach. (Unless you, too, consider Animal to be comparable to Pavarotti.) tl;dr: Craig confuses "I liked it" with "It is objectively good" and therefore is an unreliable instructor. (He also seemingly confuses "Good storytelling" with "Good writing", which is another common mistake among lay critics.) As for JKR's politics, I have feelings on that subject; but my critical analysis of her writing ability predates any of her problematic public statements. She wrote "bad prose" long before she wrote bad tweets.

[@izanaginomikoto1893]

Had to stop watching this when it became clear you didn't understand the difference between 'prose' and 'prosaic'.