|
Hello folks.
To cut to the chase, I'm starting up a little subreddit called /r/GoodWriting to discover, save, share and discuss good non-fiction writing. It's about as simple as it sounds. If you like that sort of thing, you should come over and check it out. You should also share the places and sites you get this sort of thing from.
I love (long-form) non-fiction. I read it on the subway instead of listening to my ipod, I read it at home instead of being productive. I've always loved it.
If you're wondering what exactly it is I'm talking about, you can find good lists of long-form non-fiction here (a best of 2011 list) and here (a best of all-time list). A couple of famous and good specific examples include Federer as Religious Experience and Frank Sinatra Has A Cold.
I've already added over a dozen pieces that I really liked at /r/GoodWriting so check it out and give me some feedback.
There are a million more good examples and that's sort of why I'm starting this up. If you love to read this sort of thing (in newspapers, magazines, blogs, whatever), I'd love it if you shared and discussed good stuff. There's no limit on topic (sports to esports, religion to politics, sex to sanitation) or length (despite the fact that I've been talking about long-form, I'm not limiting anything at this point), I'm just looking for good writing. Simple, like I said.
Generally, I visit sites like longform.org and longreads.com a couple of times per day to check out whats new. From my perspective, whats missing from those places is a community aspect. I'd like to discuss what's written and share more.
What do you think?
 
|
I do enjoy reading good magazine articles, although I never really thought of it as being a genre. But these links are filled with cool stuff. Read the one about "The Falling Man". Will definitely read more; thanks for posting!
|
Kind of weird that none of the works mentioned extend to theorists (does that not count as non-fiction?) Gives me pause when the all time best of list contains only works from the last century (and half from the last two decades), as well. Doesn't help that I recognize none of them.
I've found certain kinds of non-fiction incredibly enlightening and thought provoking, but I'm getting the feeling we don't at all have the same idea of what exactly does that. I don't so much like documentation of someone's life or of an historical event... I find that very dry, perhaps a little narcissistic and masturbatory. I like something that tries to explain much more timeless concepts, like how our societies live, our psychology, our political ideas and debates on how best to go about solving an eternal question.
|
wow... this is like the side of the world that i never belong to... barely pass 50% writing skill in HS ~_~...
but thanks, a lot of good reading to learn from 
|
On January 03 2012 07:18 Chef wrote:
Kind of weird that none of the works mentioned extend to theorists (does that not count as non-fiction?) Gives me pause when the all time best of list contains only works from the last century (and half from the last two decades), as well. Doesn't help that I recognize none of them.
I've found certain kinds of non-fiction incredibly enlightening and thought provoking, but I'm getting the feeling we don't at all have the same idea of what exactly does that. I don't so much like documentation of someone's life or of an historical event... I find that very dry, perhaps a little narcissistic and masturbatory. I like something that tries to explain much more timeless concepts, like how our societies live, our psychology, our political ideas and debates on how best to go about solving an eternal question.
All valid points but that all-time list doesn't really aim for that. It's a list of the best longform journalism, the height of which was certainly reached in the last century.
As far as theorists, sure, I can see it being involved in this subreddit. You should post something there or here in regard to what you mean.
The exact nature of the subreddit is yet to be determined but the stuff you describe in the latter half all fit into /r/goodwriting. The things I've posted thus far are just a smattering of what I've remembered off the top of my head. I'll be continuously adding a variety of stuff for at least a month trying to get this off the ground
|
Fair enough  It's probably worth it to have the major influences, such as Hobbes, Marx, Engels, etc. One of the most fascinating things I read for psychology (and like long-form journalism, this is also recent) was Laing's Self and Other, specifically the second chapter on Phantasy and communication. While not based in empirical research and certainly not what we'd label science, it is great food for thought concerning perspectives and the tyranny of an untenable position in society.
The useful thing about reaching toward older texts is that they are also public domain, so you will be able to easily add them to your site. Moreover, if you've heard of them, chances are they've influenced (directly or indirectly) more recent authors (fiction or nonfiction) which should provide substantial insight to your interpretations.
|
Totally worth it to have those guys. If no one gets to adding them, I'm sure I will. Right now I'm focusing on more recent stuff but like I said, there are no limits and certainly writers of that magnitude will be included sooner rather than later.
14 subscribers. Nice.
|
Could you describe to a math/science person what makes good writing? Beyond the idea of communicating ideas and feelings effectively?
A very basic principle of art is the ability to have this universal connection to the audience. But at some point, when experienced writers talk about books that they like, they go beyond what the everyman feels. What hidden understanding are they talking about?
I'm assuming that having revolutionary ideas is an unnecessary quality of good writing.
|
On January 03 2012 10:14 igotmyown wrote:
Could you describe to a math/science person what makes good writing? Beyond the idea of communicating ideas and feelings effectively?
A very basic principle of art is the ability to have this universal connection to the audience. But at some point, when experienced writers talk about books that they like, they go beyond what the everyman feels. What hidden understanding are they talking about?
I'm assuming that having revolutionary ideas is an unnecessary quality of good writing.
That's a big question that I'd love to answer. When I get home tonight, I'll take a swing at it.
|
On January 03 2012 10:14 igotmyown wrote:
Could you describe to a math/science person what makes good writing? Beyond the idea of communicating ideas and feelings effectively?
A very basic principle of art is the ability to have this universal connection to the audience. But at some point, when experienced writers talk about books that they like, they go beyond what the everyman feels. What hidden understanding are they talking about?
I'm assuming that having revolutionary ideas is an unnecessary quality of good writing.
It isn't a matter of mechanics or of simply communicating without ambiguity (actually it's sometimes the opposite). It is more along the lines of how powerfully a work affects one (even if one needs some form of background to be affected in this way). It's the idea of something having a profound affect on you which is difficult to summarise, and therefore difficult to quantify. It changes the way you think without necessarily trying to convince you of anything. Whether that is because it succinctly provokes a particular emotion in you, or whether it attracts you to a brand new way of seeing the world (or at least did to the people of its time), these are the qualities of great writing. A newspaper can report to you the details of an event, and maybe if you are already connected to the event some feeling could arise in you, but a great work of literature has a great deal more impact and a great deal more thought behind it. Meaning, communication, is not necessarily prescribed by the author. But it doesn't mean that the message you receive, intended or not, is not achieved by the skill of the author (if that matters to you).
That the long way of describing it, the short way is to look at the difference between a typical amateur, maybe grammatically sound author in high school, vs anything studied in English literature. You will see that there is a great deal more meaning, a great deal more interpretations possible, in the work that is studied. The one written in high school is likely to be one-dimensional and fraught with cliches (which provoke an automatic response, rather than a critical one).
|
|
|
Nice. Next time, submit it! ;D
Anyway, thanks to everyone who has hopped on board so far. I'm already liking what we have growing over there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
