The difficulty in writing, for me, is that I feel I can always spot adequate work, but I often have difficulty distinguishing between the very good and the very bad.

I think it’s because good and bad writing have so much in  common.  Both deviate from accepted norms.  Both adopt non-standard formats and approaches.

Sometimes I think the difference is intentionality.  But I’ve constructed many brilliant plans only to see them fall apart in the face of a lucky chance.

Maybe the only difference is the audience.  Do I write to an audience?  Should I write to an audience?  How much do I trust the reaction of the audience to my work?

Being good does not seem to ensure a positive reaction anymore than being bad assures a negative one.  And again, who’s reaction determines the quality of a thing?

And, while I’m thinking about it, how do we get to decide who will be the arbiters of quality?  Quite frankly, most people don’t seem to know what’s good until someone has told them it’s good.  And what does that say about our society?  Are aesthetic and construction matters of personal choice or social imposition?  Both?

Which is stupid I might ad.  Nobody had to tell you that your mobile was beautiful when you were laying in your crib.  It was new and caught your attention, and that was good.

Is that art?  The combination of novelty and attention grabbing?  No.  No, I’m not ready to accept that proposition.

Is this good or bad?  I guess that depends on who I allow to judge it.