Simplification: writing has two primary components; the first being an idea/feeling/concept that you wish to express, the second being the skill with which you express it. These are two separate challenges. Some people (autistic) can formulate ideas with astonishing detail but have no ability to communicate them well. Others (pulp writers) can't formulate an interesting idea well but can describe doing the laundry so well that you get inspired to do your own. If you are a genius at one, you can get away with being sloppy with the other, but both together is super duper fun timez.
This is also where I point out that expressing a story on the page is not the same as expressing a story in a game, and if you want to master the second aspect, then it's better to study great story driven games than to study authors of great books. One of my favourite (and definitely top 10 all time) story driven games is Ultima 7. The expression of the story was so much about level design and interacting with the world. It's totally unlike writing on the page.
There is a third and often overlooked aspect the what makes writing good. It's probably the most important. The ability of the audience to understand and integrate what the author is communicating. Great ideas, great writing + wrong time = unappreciated art. This is why I agree with Paul that you can't look at sales and reviews to judge a games success. Only the author knows if he/she has successfully expressed their ideas.
But that doesn't mean the literarian critique should be dissmiss and forgotten because It doesn't matter what you write since you're making people happy.
If the "literarian" format doesn't work as well as the Stephen King format when you're telling your story, then it's simply not the most effective way of telling it. Maybe it's just poor translation, but I have a hunch that what you're calling literarian format is actually just a form of simplification. Trying to make everyone sound like Charles Dickens or Shakespeare is a way of dumbing things down for academics, changing a story into something that archetypal professor types would feel socially comfortable reading, but that others might shy away from. It's pandering to a niche market, and in this regard it's no different than Stephanie Meyer's girly writing for girls.
I've been reading through your ideas. I don't know, you seem a little overconfident about your take on writing. For one thing, you probably shouldn't think of it in terms of 'leveling up,' or in terms of 'good/bad,' or in terms of 'which audience is better.' You're the only audience that will matter. It's like Bukowski said: writing a book is like smoking a cigarette. Writing is the drag. That's for you. Publication is the ash. That's for the tray.
I think literaarrraiaansiski can be useful because (when honest) it is an attempt at judging the gestalt of the writing process. This can easily degenerate into social club BS, and it does, but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
PS> I love Bukowski, after finishing one of his books for the first time (I think it was Post Office), I thought to myself "what a piece of shit", and immediately got another one to read. I read all his work within a week and read them again the next year.
Community
