What is Good Writing?

There are plays that I love and plays that I hate.

The plays that I love engage me with their storytelling and affect me in a personal way. The plays that I hate have little story, and are best described as ‘intellectual’. I don’t mean intelligent, I mean intellectual.

Actors have to deal with all sorts of writing, ranging from the sublime perfection of contemporary writers such as Aaron Sorkin, Neil Labute, or Alan Ball to classical writers like Shakespeare, Fletcher or Moliere.

What do these writers have in common, aside from unfortunately just being men? They write compelling intelligent drama. They don’t write drama that originates from the anus and only rises from there.

But more and more, the drama that I see written, staged and reviewed is solely for the consumption via the arse hole. It gets lauded and applauded, but it fails to touch the heart. It complies with the Literati’s narrow view of plays.

And this is my problem, no matter the writer, I want a good solid story and I want to be affected by it. Isn’t that what good writing is? Or is it ‘literature’ which is meant to have a more abstract effect upon the audience?

Am I alone? Did Sophocles not write to purge the audience of emotion? Did Shakespeare not revel in a good story? What went wrong? Why must I sit through two hours of intellectual drivel?

I know that many writers feel the same way, their work is exciting, moving, thought-provoking without being ponderously literary.

Do actors prefer this stuff? Do they like it because it gives them a feeling of seriousness? Or is it more challenging? I don’t know, this is a sincere question.

I have a feeling this stuff leaves the actor and audience both feeling empty but potentially congratulating themselves for their interaction with serious ‘art’.