3 ms·
Yes, as long you properly define what it means to be good and make sure it's measurable. Tolkien is a good writer when we define 'good writer' as a writer whos
by wilsonnb3 6y ago
Yes, as long you properly define what it means to be good and make sure it's measurable.
Tolkien is a good writer when we define 'good writer' as a writer whose stories are enjoyed by millions of people, or a writer who is capable of supporting themselves financially by writing fiction.
One of the definitions of good is 'having the qualities required for a particular role', which is pretty explicit in requiring someone to establish criteria with which you judge something as 'good'.
- jasonv 6y agoThere are writers and artists whose work weren't discovered until after their death. Being a "good writer", IMO, is a technical determination.. whereas being a "good author" might be a tactical one -- sales, acclaim, popularity, etc. I think my answer to the OPs question is "yes".. but, just as I'm doing here, there are always detractors, and digressions available in these discussions.
- username90 6y ago> There are writers and artists whose work weren't discovered until after their death. What does that have to do with whether we can call Tolkien an objectively good writer? Just because you can't apply that to everyone doesn't mean that you can never tell.
- muzani 6y agoI think he makes the distinction that those people were good writers but not good authors. Tolkien was both a good writer and author.
- jasonv 6y ago...and, actually, I thought I was replying to one of the other comments, not the OP. Would've made more sense if I placed my comment properly.. :-(
- cocktailpeanuts 6y ago> Yes, as long you properly define what it means to be good and make sure it's measurable. In this case it's no longer about being "good", it's just about "how does it measure according to a rule?" See Vincent van Gogh.