What exactly is "bad writing"?

...

google literary criticism

The writing I don't like

this. It's bad writing when I don't like it, just a fun show when I do :)

Exactly, judgments of quality are inherently subjective

/thread

eromanga sensei

boku no hero academia

SAO

Go to syosetu.com and read some random shit.

With proper published stuff it can be subjective but syosetu is like the bottom of the barrel in terms of quality.

The most objective way to define it:
When stuff doesn't make sense. Everything is held together with bubblegum, exposition being used to introduce things, plot holes, PIS, scenes that are just happening because the audience is watching e.t.c.

No you fucking nigger, bad writing is writing that I don't like, if you don't like it you just have shit taste.

Correct answer
Brainlets answer.

But his post was badly written to me, therefore it's wrong.

>literary criticism
Literary criticism is about the analysis of literary works, not a value judgement or an evaluation of quality therein.

study and observe re:zero, madoka magica, and steins;gate for some popular examples of series with poorly conceived writing. "just because" plot devices, shoehorned justifications, weak/inconsistent characters, interactions to drive the plot instead of as a result of the plot, etc.

these are also examples as well as code geass.

is a superior answer to don't let my massive intellect frighten you

why do you think people started analyzing shit?

I think Madoka Magica isn't as much for the story but more for the characters. However I don't think I will ever be satisfied with Re: Zero at all.

This guy gets it.

Evangelion.

yeah like the character who's immortal but we're supposed to feel sorry for her teenage angst. or the shoehorned sperg tsundere just because we need one for the waifufags.

Writing is bad when it makes poor choices or unintentionally does things which would be poor choices if they were intentional.

What makes a choice in writing poor is largely subjective, though most can agree that choosing to convey essential information to the viewer via character dumping exposition to a silent listener is an example of a poor decision.

There's more nuance to it than that, but there's not enough space in a single post to explain it. Repetition can be poor writing if it accomplishes nothing, or good writing if it accomplishes something. The distinction is both subjective and not subjective --a person may enjoy repetition that accomplishes nothing (so it's not bad to them in a value-sense) but there is still a clear distinction between it and repetition that accomplishes something. Similarly, depth and nuance in a work can be a good thing or simply make the whole thing obscure, esoteric and incomprehensible. Even if someone prefers the latter, it's easy to recognize when depth is effectively communicated and integrated into surface experience vs when it's obscured or hidden and expects the audience to puzzle it out. Once again, both subjective and not subjective. A person might enjoy writing that is bad practice, and thus not bad value.

It might be easiest to just say bad writing is writing which has fewer avenues for an audience to find it good. A story that requires you've read the entire works of Jung to even begin to enjoy is probably bad writing, even if someone who's read Jung loves it. A story that requires you to have never seen anything it borrows its cliches from in order to not find it dull, unoriginal and derivative is probably bad writing, even if someone that's never seen any of that before might find it amazing. Bad writing in this sense is very often popular and commercially successful.

not sure if I can think of better written female characters in anime than in evangelion.

By your logic, every anime is poorly written.

Look I liked Mami OK.

That's right.

Correct

>brainlet
Can someone give me a quick rundown on this meme? I see it everywhere all the sudden.

On point.

not really, it just means you've only watched anime that fits that criteria. perfectly normal for someone who's watched under twenty series.

who?

>What makes a choice in writing poor is largely subjective, though most can agree that choosing to convey essential information to the viewer via character dumping exposition to a silent listener is an example of a poor decision
You're describing intersubjectivity

>The distinction is both subjective and not subjective...
This is just subjectivity

Plot holes, illogical conclusions, "it's a mmo" to justify the rules of a world, world building that doesn't make in context, fluctuating power levels, just from the top of my head.

Or Eva for that matter.

Pretty much

pure contrarianism. I understand your aimless anger, though. it's why you're here. let it out, I'll allow it.

overlord and grimgar are written just fine and are isekai.

>what I disagree with is automatically contrarianism
Eva is still written like shit. The characters are decent though.

...

>a character driven story with decently written characters is written poorly
? and no, calling the best selling single series of all time that completely changed the medium "bad" in any way is as close as you can get to textbook contrarianism.

>appeal to authority
Stop posting.

>the best selling single series of all time that completely changed the medium
Sorry, how does that make it inherently good again?

Please explain this objectivity meme because i don't understand it

The way this anime ended.

>ITT: people who waste their time trying to convince everyone including themselves that anime is a medium beyond beach episodes and onsens

>Everything is held together with bubblegum
>PIS
Could you explain these things, preferably the latter?
>exposition being used to introduce things
>scenes that are just happening because the audience is watching e.t.c
Aren't those pretty much the same thing?

Starts with an S and ends with a K

>exposition being used to introduce things
>scenes that are just happening because the audience is watching e.t.c
>Aren't those pretty much the same thing?
Exposition scenes are always for the audience but the latter include also voyeuristic fanservice and shit like that

Easiest was to spot bad writing is to analyze plot events and try to see if the progression was illogical to the point where it breaks suspension of belief. Samurai Flamenco is classic and extremely obvious case of bad writing after a certain episode.

A story that establishes rules and breaks them at its convenience, has characters that behave irrationally or out-of-character without good reason, or where the viewer is provided a non-diegetic understanding of the narrative to justify the direction of the plot.

Case and points for each:
1. Can't think of a better example than the ending of Ghostbusters. Crossing the streams was established as destroying the universe, yet they do it and everything is just okay for no reason. For an anime example look at anything written by Kamachi.
2. So many anime are guilty of this, but Mayoiga is a particularly egregious example; it's questionable whether anyone behaves in-character at any point, the entire show is a bunch of abstract nonsense.
3. Any show with talking heads and exposition dumps. See: Re:Creators. Meteora's monologues are borderline offensive to the viewer's intelligence.

so what anime doesn't fit that criteria? oh master of knowledge

Raising questions that can not and are not answered, leaving major conclusions to the reader, failing to give adequate explanations for unbelievable plot twists, using symbolism without reason

Childish ideals backed up by plot conveniences (read: plot armor promoting idiocy), forcing character development through poor trauma, melodramatic subplots with scarcely explored side characters

Using low iq information to generate interest (this is the big one, humans with poor intelligence can be entertained by information far less complex than humans with a high intelligence), a standard (median iq) is to be used as the bar separating differences in quality - arguments between those above and below this bar are essentially pointless and as the gap between them grows bigger criticisms such as "your taste is shit" are likely to become more accurate than any objective dispute the two may have concerning the material

Mayoiga was fucking hilarious. I wish we had more anime like that

how do you determine when a character doing something is acting out-of-character, character growth, or something that has always been part of their personality but not shown

People jumping through hoops so that they can push their opinions on others. They hate the simple and correct answer of subjectivity, so they search for a way to say that their opinion holds some objective merit.

>everything is held together with bubblegum
When what's happening is not realistic (from a plot perspective, not superpowers and shit) and is just there for the plot, pretty much deux ex machina, some random examples:
>oh/wow, my old friend/relative/random guy conveniently happens to be a genius/superman/god and can fix this shit we can't normally get out of
>enemies much stronger than the protagonists but the enemies happen to fight each other/step on a banana peel for some reason which weakens them enough to get beaten
>a group of enemies and protaganoists fight each other, but they are matched up in a way that protagonists counter them despite being weaker overall
Plot induced stupidity is when a character forgets something for the plot
>Doesn't use the move that defeats his opponent on purpose because the opponent is neccessary for the story
>Doesn't reveal his true strenght at start and dicks around for no reason "haha, I was actually much stronger than that"

>Aren't those pretty much the same thing?
Pretty much

>Raising questions that can not and are not answered, leaving major conclusions to the reader
That's often good writing. In many cases, the answers are worse than what the reader will think off. Not everything needs an answer.

actually it would be argumentum ad populum if not statistical analysis, brainlet.

nothing, we're just measuring distance from "textbook contrarianism", of which there is no example more reinforced by actual data.

...

You're trying way too hard.

how do you determine when something is realistic from a plot perspective or not?

Bad writing ignores causality.

I like it-100% realistic behavior
I dislike it-Why don't they act like human beings!

"trying" is bad only when it doesn't work for you, mucus-lathered troglodytian insect.

Writing that fails to be enjoyable or entertaining + the content isn't valuable or thought provoking.

Terribly bland scientific essay = still good writing, because the content is more important than style and the dry style is better for presenting facts
Stupidly crazy story like Code Geass = also good writing because it serves its purpose as entertainment

> "just because" plot devices, shoehorned justifications, weak/inconsistent characters, interactions to drive the plot instead of as a result of the plot
If possible, I would like some examples of these from Madoka.

Fiction doesn't have any merit, it is just a lesser form of writing. It is either used for entertainment(ecapism) or propaganda.

Entertainment is largly subjective, therefore there is no objective standart for art.

maybe we could avoid some argument if we started calling it "effective writing"

protip: if it has time travel looping, there are plot holes, no exception. literally harry potter time turner-tier.

>Fiction doesn't have any merit, it is just a lesser form of writing. It is either used for entertainment(ecapism) or propaganda.
What is this cancer? people can't be this retarded right?

is literally anything that has time travel looping bad writing then?

Pokemon Season 1, Sailor Moon, .hack//sign, Code Lyoko, and Dragon Ball. The true patrician's stable.

>if it has time travel, there are plot holes, no exception
FTFY

It comes down to justification.
If it's justified before (or sensibly after) the fact, in a fashion congruent with the tone of the rest of the writing, then you're golden. If you cannot justify it though it falls into the purview of bad writing.

Here's an example: Alice from Re:Creators in the second-to-last episode blindly trusting the evil Ninja chick despite having taken a disliking to, and even having battled her beforehand. Her becoming deaf to reason in the most recent episode makes sense, as she has been characterised as very very unintelligent, but the aforementioned makes no logical sense even for a petulant moron.

>Plato
>retarded

user, I'm sorry to say, but you've been had

Anime writing makes Game of thrones look like a masterpiece.

>Code Lyoko
>anime

lazy at best. the only way to write something like that and have it be good is to move the goalposts, i.e., a parody where the primary point of the writing is to make someone laugh. bill and ted for example. not sure about time travel parodies in anime, though.

fucking Ash uses the wrong pokemon every fucking time

>Here's an example: Alice from Re:Creators in the second-to-last episode blindly trusting the evil Ninja chick despite having taken a disliking to, and even having battled her beforehand. Her becoming deaf to reason in the most recent episode makes sense, as she has been characterised as very very unintelligent, but the aforementioned makes no logical sense even for a petulant moron.
Nice try Alice haters, but Re:Creators is terribly written because it takes itself too seriously while presenting a story full of bad logic. It spends a lot of time on exposition and treats itself as a serious exploration on the subject "What if anime characters became real?" but it ends up using the same pandering tropes like the yuribait pocky kiss or souta's entire existence.

For a book, it's about having a shitty prose, things like coherence, themes, setting and characters etc also matter but not that much.

These are acceptable answers

Mine
>Not fully realized/built up plotpoints and foreshadows
>Plotholes and paper thin justification
>character/personality is being leisurely retconned/acting outside their traits
>pacing issue(90% introduction/exposition+10% plot or any which variety of dumbass composition)
>Inconsistent theme and tone
>Mr. Jargon Infodumpers is narrating the story instead of just showing it to us
>Character has no motivation, story is driven by McGuffins instead.

makes me sad that everybody's watching this filth but nobody's watching twin angel this season.

don't worry, I'm watching neither

The whole anime is just a meta joke. I'm not saying that as an insult, it ironically "takes itself seriousl." Last episode, one the characters blatantly broke the fourth wall and spoke to the audience.

>I don't get time travel therefore it is a plot hole
ftfy

this is blind excuses.

this could ironically only be said by someone that doesn't understand the implications of time travel.

I haven't been watching Re:Creators, but if alice is characterized as unintelligent couldn't that also be justification for trusting evil ninja chick? like I'd believe that a stupid person would trust someone they didn't like and had already fought before

No, and that's not even the only sign.

like other people and famous philosopher have never criticized him and society hasn't moved on from his theories.
In the context of modern medicine we can all see how Humorism is stupid but Hippocrates or whoever the fuck came up with it was probably a smart person. Nobody is doubting that, but humanity's base knowledge has increased and we can separate an authour and hsi theories' value judgements

every post in this thread

technically we haven't moved on from his idea of forms because we can't because it's observation and not hypothesis.

Did you just say gum?

You are trying to say: everything is relative. If everything would be relative then the physical world would be chaos, but there are rules for it. And the "physical" rules for the writing world are how the person's mind work and the moral values.

>or where the viewer is provided a non-diegetic understanding of the narrative to justify the direction of the plot
Reminds me of the new Star Trek movie.
They had Nimoy reprise his role as Spock to come in as a character from a parallel universe to explain to the audience why Khan was bad because they'd forgotten to show him being evil at any point. The whole plot hinged on this weird meta-understanding of his character.

if something is written well, you wouldn't ask such questions related to it.

Plato or Humorism? I think we have moved on from the first, unless you think the Hyperuranion actually exists and the latter is objectively not how the human body works

Came here to post this.

>walk into living room when visiting family as they're watching the new wrath of khan
>see benadict cumberbottom dual-wielding light machineguns in a CG-scape
>walk out of the room