I think that well-written implies all of the objective measures of goodness. Like- everyone can agree that there's a difference between there/they're/their. Grammar and spelling aren't matters of opinion. People have different thresholds as to what will end up throwing them out of a story, but overall it's completely objective. In terms of plot and characterization, I don't think it's quite as easy to reach a consensus, but overall I think that people are probably all able to agree on stories that are well-written: good grammar/spelling, good characterization, good plot.
That's different from liking a story though. I can tell when stories have been objectively well-written, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to especially enjoy reading it. We've all got different things that irk us. It really bugs me when people call Brendon 'Bren' in stories, but that's obviously doesn't mean that a story that does that is poorly written; it's just a pet peeve of mind.
I think that good writing is a necessary condition for making a good story. I don't think that a story can be good if it's poorly written. If a story is difficult to read because the writing is so bad (difficult meaning hard to understand, or even just annoying because of the mistakes) it doesn't matter how good the ideas are, it's not going to be a 'good' story. Maybe it can be enjoyable, but that's different from good. A lot of people enjoy ... I don't know, Paris Hilton movies, but that doesn't mean that they're actually good.
However, being well-written also isn't a sufficient condition for making a story likable. A story can be really well-written, but certain characterizations or plot devices just make my skin crawl. I can say objectively that the story is well-written, but I can also say that I don't like it.
Judging a story by how much you like it is totally valid, but I don't think that liking has anything to do with how well-written a story is (though, of course, we're all pretty biased, and I think that people are more willing to overlook mistakes in stories they like). Something can be well-written but not likable, or enjoyable but not 'good'.
no subject
That's different from liking a story though. I can tell when stories have been objectively well-written, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to especially enjoy reading it. We've all got different things that irk us. It really bugs me when people call Brendon 'Bren' in stories, but that's obviously doesn't mean that a story that does that is poorly written; it's just a pet peeve of mind.
I think that good writing is a necessary condition for making a good story. I don't think that a story can be good if it's poorly written. If a story is difficult to read because the writing is so bad (difficult meaning hard to understand, or even just annoying because of the mistakes) it doesn't matter how good the ideas are, it's not going to be a 'good' story. Maybe it can be enjoyable, but that's different from good. A lot of people enjoy ... I don't know, Paris Hilton movies, but that doesn't mean that they're actually good.
However, being well-written also isn't a sufficient condition for making a story likable. A story can be really well-written, but certain characterizations or plot devices just make my skin crawl. I can say objectively that the story is well-written, but I can also say that I don't like it.
Judging a story by how much you like it is totally valid, but I don't think that liking has anything to do with how well-written a story is (though, of course, we're all pretty biased, and I think that people are more willing to overlook mistakes in stories they like). Something can be well-written but not likable, or enjoyable but not 'good'.