I mean when you, neurovore, refer to 'writing' what are you really referring to? There are so many aspects of writing: character development, plot development, pacing, literary devices, voice(s), etc.
It's been years since I read it, and I disliked it enough that I'm really unlikely to go back and reread at this point, so there's a limt to how far I can take this, but as I recall; the prose was uninteresting, and the accuracy of the historical period (to be fair, I'm a hard sell on this one as I happen to know a fair bit about it, probably more than the average reader) is blloody awful; the people think far too much like moderns.
And it's a taste thing, to boot.
I reject that one
a priori; if all there is to Qualitiy is individual taste, nothing can ever be made any better, so there's no point in trying.
But no, I'm not going to categorize people's work as "bad" or "good" or "rotten" because there is bad and good in every piece,
I don't agree here too; there are a handful of books I see no bad in, and probably a larger number in which there is no redeeming feature.
So sorry, but I just disagree that judging is something you 'should' do in Author Craft. You can, surely, but 'should', nah. I prefer discussion to blatant dissing on people's work, personally.
I really don;t see any way to become a better writer that does not start with seeing what's bad and what's good and then figuring out why; nor do I think analysis of why a book fails is necessarily "blatant dissing" - it's nothing personal, it's nothing to do with a personal opinion of the author, it's just the same sort of critique I want of my own work; an
honest assessment of what in it works or doesn't untempered by unhelpful false-kindness.
