Most people think may think that for any piece of work to be considered "good writing" it must probably contains no errors, is flawless in its writing style, highly researched, included in Oprah's book club, on the New York Times Best Seller list, or ONLY gets glowing reviews from book reviewers and readers. Even though some of that may be true, and again, no one's opinion is wrong,  I, on the other hand, do not think that is completely true; even though I, myself, have had these opinions at one time. I think "good writing" is one that affects people so strongly that it compels them to react. Whether that reaction is positive or negative, whether the writing is considered technically good or bad, there must be something in that writing for people to react so strongly. It is when you "hit a nerve" that people react; being able to "hit a nerve" through writing, I find an impressive feat. For example, Ann Coulter, a very out-spoken right-wing conservative and author, has drawn lots of critics (news personalities, book reviewers, entertainment programs, etc.) to speak out against her, her views are considered highly controversial. However, does that mean her opinions or her books are considered bad or wrong? No, to me this means something else, even though I do not agree with everything Ms. Coulter says, I can't help but notice the affect she has on readers that compels them to react so strongly to her. USA Today contracted her on 2004 to cover the Democratic National Convention, her article began with "Here at the Spawn of Satan Convention in Boston...". USA Today stated that they did not print the article because of editing disputes over the "basic weaknesses in clarity and readability that we found unacceptable." By this time Ms. Coulter was an established author and columnist, was it the actual writing or the overwhelming reaction (most likely negative reaction) they knew they would get from their readers? They knew in hiring her how controversial she was; why would you hire a right-wing conservative to cover a democratic national convention? Therefore, my point is that no matter what type of negative reaction she gets to her actual writing, her writing is obviously affective, which I personally think is a result of good, strong writing. Good writing, I feel, not only compels people to react, but is also honest and forthright. Authors who have the courage to write about their personal opinions and/or experiences risk public scrutiny to bring awareness to controversial issues that other authors or publishing entities shy away from.

My opinion on this topic came about through my own experience as an author. As a first-time author, I have made many mistakes. I hired two different editing services to edit and proof my book and the first version of the book still went out with many spelling errors and chapters that did not properly convey what I thought they had (some words were missing and thoughts were not completely explained). I relied too heavily on the editing services and did not edit my work thoroughly enough, like I thought I had. Therefore, I took full responsibility and revised and re-released the book. I assumed that any negative reviews or reactions to my book, would in deed, mostly reflect the errors that were printed. However, that was not the case. The negative reviews I got, from readers, were extremely hostile, some were were so compelled to react, that besides publicly critisizing the book on the internet, one of the reader's wrote that they returned the book the same day they bought it. "Ouch", I have to say that did hurt. However, with these "hostile" reviews, I realized something very important. No one critisized my informal style of writing or challenged the truthfulness of any of my experiences. My book is a personal diary of many negative obstacles that deals with my mother's side of the family, former friends, co-workers and ex-husband. I write of my experiences, good and bad, mention no names, but do give a very honest account of the experiences, things that were said to me, my opinions and lessons learned. What they all seemed to have a problem with were my opinions, not how I wrote those opinions or what format I used. What also I also questioned was, why would three readers be so strongly compelled to write about my opinions? No one's opinion is wrong, right? And who am I? I am not famous or a celebrity. These readers didn't just write a two to three sentence review - they wrote a two to three page review! They critisized me for coming out against and exposing the wrongdoings by my relatives, co-workers, etc. Why is the truth so controversial? No, it is obvious that I am not a famous writer and was educated at Harvard or Stanford University. However, there must have been something about my writing that compelled these people to react so strongly to it. What do you think? Is good writing one that affects people, whether positive or negative, or is it just supposed to look and sound nice?

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter