Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/2846
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I was watching a movie at the weekend that made me think about this question. I think when something is "solid" and "well constructed" whether this is proper praise or faint praise depends very much on one other criterion. Whether it is plain that the author was writing to some plan they had dug up from some where and ham-fistedly played a game of join-the-plot-points or whether they had constructed it solidly because of a thorough knowledge of their chosen genre/story and out of an implied duty of care to the reader to deliver a minimum standard of craft in their writing.

Which of these two you mean should really be conveyed before you deliver the compliment i.e. you either give the story a pasting and say that even though it was terrible it showed some knowledge on the part of the author of what a good story _should_ be even though they failed to convey it. Or, alternatively, that the story was filled with imagination, well-crafted characters, deftly executed plot twists and was, in addition, solid and well constructed. In the former case it is obvious the author has paid lip-service to good writing whilst cynically filling out a checklist, in the latter it is clear a dedicated artist has applied technique and garnished it with brilliance and flair.

P.S. The movie was in the latter category, solidly constructed with care and attention to detail.

Original score: 1