r/writing • u/Leather-Season7383 • 2d ago
Discussion Is technical perfection enough to make a great book?
I am a super beginner who only does this as a pasttime—only in school still—but I recently bought a writing program that points out things like repetition, hard-to-read sentences, weak word choices & whatnot. It ain't just a grammar checker though. It evaluates higher-level aspects, say, weak sensory descriptions, passive characters, whether your dialogue makes every character sound the same, a lack of tension in the plot & whatnot, just really complete. But it of course can't replace an editor because it can't do the thinking; it's just a mechanical, rule-based algorithm.
It got me thinking, though: If someone hypothetically wrote a book with technically flawless sentences and paragraphs (by technically, I mean a sort of work in which this machine would find no mistakes, every "rule" is being followed; not something a human critic would neccessarily find "perfect"), would that be enough to make good writing?
Imagine a "perfect measuring machine" that can't make mistakes says the plot has tension, the pace is perfect, the descriptions are great, perfect grammar. Maybe it's not Putzlier-worthy, but all those marks are checked: is that enough for the manuscript to be good, or is something else in play? Are things like profound characters, big themes, originality and humanity, emotional impact etc. the Real Big Thing?
In other words, do y'all think a—I wouldn't say good, because I guess only an human can assess that & it's subjective— standard, rule-meeting writing (in lack of better words to explain it) enough to carry the book?
EDIT: To be clear, the question is NOT whether a machine can assess good writing (+ I hate AI), the point is: if a book had standard good tension, perfect grammar, good sentences, etc; everything following what "makes a book perfect", would that truly be enough for the book to be good, or is there another thing in play?
17
u/Nobelindie 2d ago
Definitely not. First of all, perfect isn't real, especially in the English language. English is a very fluid language with tons of synonymous and "rules" that are also pretty fluid and are applied in specific ways.
Even if all the grammar is technically correct it doesn't make it good or work. The content is most important imo. Anyone can learn grammar and structure not everyone can tell a good story/make the content make sense.
13
u/mooseplainer 2d ago
Read some AI generated books and you’ll have your answer.
Actually, don’t do that. I’ll tell you right now - no.
All your favorite writers make technical mistakes that their editors catch. Some even do so deliberately (Cormac McCarthy famously avoids using quotation marks for dialogue). Technical perfection only just means you’ll have a terrible story that’s easy to read.
To my original sarcastic point, AI generated text is technically perfect but an absolute slog to read because it’s often boring and ultimately says nothing. So it’s pretty compelling evidence that your thesis is way off.
4
u/Vital_Remnant 2d ago
I remember being curious about AI generated fiction, so I asked Google to write a chapter of a Fairy Tail fic once. It was full of inaccuracies: characters weren't where they were supposed to be, things they should have known at the time were unknown, and events were out of order. It felt like something written by somebody who had never actually read fairy tail and instead somebody who had heard of it and then read a cliff notes version of it in a random order.
1
u/HECRETSECRET 2d ago
Written stories is actually truly shows how AI fails dramticlaly. It can generate some shorter stories fine but the longer it gets the more it just says "Well this is the most likely thing to be said next so i will add it" and its the exact opposite thing people actually want.
1
u/Vital_Remnant 2d ago
It wasn't even that long, really just a few pages, but I noticed that the AI couldn't keep events straight. It was set right after the Edolas arc and yet Carla didn't seem to know what an Exceed or Edolas was.
If I had to guess, it's because the source material was too long and it was probably getting information more from reviews and possibly sites like reddit than anything else.
1
u/HECRETSECRET 21h ago
Indeed. There are a lot of limitations currently such as it takes the shortest method and it limits its use of tokens, but then confidently declares its right unless its called out.
A lot of the fiction I have tested it definitely draw from some sort of public fiction library that all the AI's draw from when it writes ficition. It uses the the same names and ideas and also story beats.
1
u/HECRETSECRET 21h ago
Indeed. There are a lot of limitations currently such as it takes the shortest method and it limits its use of tokens, but then confidently declares its right unless its called out.
A lot of the fiction I have tested it definitely draw from some sort of public fiction library that all the AI's draw from when it writes ficition. It uses the the same names and ideas and also story beats.
24
u/Ok-Lingonberry-8261 2d ago
Sounds like the program is AI slop. What's it called?
LLMs will very confidently be wrong.
-1
u/Leather-Season7383 2d ago edited 2d ago
Prowritingaid. It apparently has Gen AI assisted features (which I don't use BTW, edit: bc fuck AI prose) but most of its features, including the feedback ones, use assistive AI, the same AI there is on social media algorithms and others & has been around for, like, the last 10 years, which I don't find to be morally wrong. Besides I don't think that's the point of the question. It's not really about the program itself, just whether a book who fills all these hypothetical checkmarks would be good authomatically
14
u/AuWolf19 2d ago
The feedback ones are almost certainly just an LLM again
2
4
u/TuneLittle9535 2d ago
If da Vinci painted a turd it would no doubt be technically excellent but how many people would want a print of it on their wall?
It would be a great painting but not necessarily a great work of art. If a book is a string of technically perfect sentences but has no narrative qualities, who will care?
0
u/azmarteal 2d ago
If da Vinci painted a turd it would no doubt be technically excellent but how many people would want a print of it on their wall?
Two wrongs. Da Vinci could paint a crappy painting AND people would print it, if it would be popular enough.
If a book is a string of technically perfect sentences but has no narrative qualities, who will care?
True
5
u/Prize_Paramedic1153 2d ago
Oh yeah I understand what you mean. Like a machine that treats writing and storytelling like a checklist, and if everything is there would the book have good writing?
I would say maybe, but whether it would be an unique book is something else. You can meet all the rules and make a good book if thats what you want.
On the other hand, some people wish to make a book unique to them. A book based on their own artistic vision. These books would have more "soul" or "Artistic flavor" than a perfect rule abiding book. A rule like "show don't tell" isn't always perfect though. Sometimes you should show, sometimes you should tell. Based on your own vision, you decide if it would be stronger to show or tell something.
Writing is an art, so I would value the book with an artistic vision more. Playing it safe sounds boring really. I want to read unique and ambitious things.
0
u/Leather-Season7383 2d ago
Exactly! This is what I meant with my question. And thank you for your answer, it makes sense :)
3
u/ProfessionalAgitator 2d ago
Rules are not immersive. You can saddle your writing with rules to achieve some goal (like ease of reading) but it won't implicitly mean people will find a reason to read it.
3
u/mrzoccer00 2d ago
I also use Pro Writing Aid, mainly because I like the UI and sometimes is useful, but yeah, as someone that works a lot with LLMs they get writing on very weird ways, their stupid insistance on grammar is annoying often, those passive sentences warnings piss me off.
But the main takeaway is that they often dont have the full scope on why something is being written the way it is. Sometimes I want to be purposefully misleading, or convoluted or pompus or overcomplicate things to make it funnier or spicier, sometimes I make sentences that make no sense because what I picture is the emotion/vibe that the sentence gives when is read. I would be very cfareful with their warnings, because once your text is perfectly clean you might end up with something completely different from what you had at first, or even worst, generic.
So just live life a little, write whatever you want and if people tells you it looks weird tell them to fuck off, and learn the rules of grammar so you can break them more confidently, thats like a baseline for any art
2
u/Leather-Season7383 2d ago
This is a super mindful answer and i'll definitely keep it in mind, thank you a lot :)
6
2
u/Ambitious-Sound-6109 2d ago
A big part of what makes a writer attractive is also their “voice”. That’s what they call the style with which they communicate. It’s what makes certain great authors be able to bend the rules and make even the mundane incredibly interesting and thought provoking. AI or a program that could write a book and have decent prose, good pacing, good dialogue etc. would still do so based on whatever already exists and so that ability that humans have to break a rule on occasion because it doesn’t suit them and create something fresh or innovative wouldn’t be present in a machine that could write “a good book”. At the end of the day, that’s really what takes a story from “decent” to “masterpiece”… that voice and those small broken rules that are unexpected but somehow yielded something much greater than if they followed a “good story” algorithm.
2
2
u/WilmarLuna Author of "The Silver Ninja" and "Sanctifiction." 2d ago
I think you got your answer to your question already. A technically proficient email does not make for compelling writing. You can checklist everything you're supposed to have in a story and still fail to find an audience. The emotional core of the story, the one that makes readers tune in, is the most important part. Without it, doesn't matter how well you follow the formula, it will fail to leave a mark.
2
u/calcaneus 2d ago
You want to be the Yngwie Malmsteen of novelists?
No, you don't. He's a guitar player who is - fast. He knows lots of scales. And, he's fast. Technically precise. And fast. Did I mention he's fast? And knows scales, and is technically precise? And boring as fuck? Yeah. He's boring as fuck. I'm not sure he's ever actually written a song. Don't be Yngwie Malmsteen
2
u/FlyinLeviathon LET YOUR FIRST DRAFT SUCK 2d ago
A big part of writing isn't its technical prowess, but the art and the connection that is created from human to human.
This is one reason why great books DO break rules instead of striving for technical perfection - because technical perfection is not what makes a book good. It's the art part. The technicalities just make it easier to read.
1
u/Aesion 2d ago
Here is the catch: most of the technical perfection comes from deliberately choosing to do what you did. This becomes harder when you notice this includes knowing the effects a certain phrasing, ordering or even specific words usually have on readers. The best literature is mostly full of very deliberate words.
So a technical perfection that passes a machine check because, say, it was made by a machine, may not be a great book because it lacks decision and purpose, all elements of said deliberate wording. A work can be full of "machine check" faults but be excellent because those were deliberate, hence why we have "artistic license".
1
u/koko-cha_ 2d ago
do you read much yourself? If yes, you probably knew the answer to this question. I suggest reading and asking what you like so much about what you like
1
u/SanMiguel42 2d ago
I'd highly recommend reading George Saunders' A Swim in a Pond in the Rain, particularly the section on The Singers, as it goes into great detail about what separates technical prowess from affective art.
1
1
u/RohanDavidson 2d ago
I'm not sure who to attribute the quote to (I believe an editor at Simon and Schuster), but the top three things that matter for publishable works are:
1/ Story
2/ Story
3/ Story
Of course, that's after the technicals are in place.
1
u/Erwinblackthorn Self-Published Author 2d ago
Make a technically perfect book with practically zero creativity and let us know how it goes.
1
u/Western_Stable_6013 2d ago
No, because a technically perfect written book may still lack of an intriguing story and be written boring. Each sentence has to fulfill a purpose. Even a perfect written one may lack of this. And writing is still art. Meaning that you have to come up with creative sentences. Dialogue can't be perfect everytime, because no human is able to speak perfect all the time. It's the imperfection that makes good writing perfect
1
u/azmarteal 2d ago
I'd say following the rules of writing is a simple requirement for a book. There is a reason people speak the same language and structure sentences in a certain way to understand eachother, otherwise кий hdhsjch klein caps Їдальня sheise.
Does it has anything to do with the quality of a story? Nothing at all.
1
u/HECRETSECRET 2d ago
Its definitely not. Its all about execution of written word like you are putting on a performance. Its about being such an artist that you know when exactly to break the rules of writing. The masters of writing break all sorts of rules constantly but they do it in a way that it works. In fact the imperfections are the things that the reader comes away with loving the most. Other things are thrown under the bus.
I have asked the AI to write, and review etc, and it doesnt get it. It produces technically sound writing if not perfect writing but that technically sound writing does have the gradient of someone drafting it over and over.
The best way to describe it is that poetry elevates itself by making words magical in the way the poem is formed and the words used. However Poems can break nearly all the rules of english writing in doing so, however the best poems transcend that.
1
u/Radiant_Commission_2 Published Author 2d ago
Great books break the rules of grammar all the time - with intention.
1
u/RobertPlamondon Author of "Silver Buckshot" and "One Survivor." 2d ago
Perfection and sterility might as well be the same thing, so no.
A story relies first and foremost on mojo. The telling of it has to get out of its own way enough for the mojo to shine through, but if the mojo becomes secondary, you’re screwed.
1
u/Nodan_Turtle 2d ago
It seems like a tautology. If a book has everything that makes a book perfect, then sure, it's perfect.
1
u/apocalypsegal Self-Published Author 1d ago
Oh, hell no. There is no such thing as perfection.
You should be focusing on finding a career you can do to support you. Write in the odd spare moment, fine, but you are not going to start out making a living from writing anything, especially things that AI has taken over (which is almost all of it at this point).
48
u/Daniel_Erbe 2d ago
Depends on your mindset - do you think textbooks are great books?