>A writer has two tools - dialogue and prose. Saying someone is a good writer despite being bad at these two things (the writing) is like saying a house is "well built despite the crappy building job - but the architectural plan is great!"

You might be able to persuade me that he's not a good writer because he's not good at every aspect of being a writer.

But arguing that plot is not writing just doesn't work for me. Writing is all those factors. Being a good fiction writer has to involve being a good storyteller and being able to plot. If you can't do that, you are not a good writer.

You're right, prose and dialogue are tools. You don't have to be the best user of tools to produce good work. There's some hugely technically competent artists out there that paint photorealistic perfect paintings, they're using the tools almost perfectly. They might not be good artists though because art is more than technical execution. It also includes interesting subjects, composition. Many renown artists might not use the tools so technically well, but portray ideas, emotion, and story so much better with a splash of paint.

>Plot is just a schema - a structure. And worldbuilding is not writing.

Here's where we disagree. What is writing without the content? You're arguing being a good writer is solely about the literal act of writing, it's so much more. What's the point of the writing if the ideas it conveys are shit? Great dialogue, that conveys no meaning, makes little sense etc.

If you study writing, plotting, characters, the thing you're writing is a key thing to study and improve.

A hollow shell of meaningless but technically competent prose is not good writing.

>... He's a good storyteller sure, but not a good writer. That's why I call him a content creator TBH.

You can't be a good fiction writer without being a good storyteller, is what I'm saying.

Calling him a "content creator" is petty as hell. You're gatekeeping the word "writing" so hard someone who's written a whole bunch of books and got them published and thousands of people enjoy because you don't like his prose? Are only "good" (by your definition) writers allowed to be called writers lol?

Depends what you want out of your writing I suppose. He's a good writer if you like plotting and world building (in his style) etc.

I'm not a big fan of fancy prose. Some I can appreciate, but I like the utility. It can be very effective in being invisible - you can just experience the story without realising "oh, that was a fancy bit of writing there" that makes you realise, well, you're reading.

It's more escapist. In that respect, it's good. For those who like it. (But I guess by that respect, 50 shades of grey is good, so maybe I'm persuading myself out of this argument lol)

High literature, it is not. But that's fine.

I much preferred the liveship series, I'd recommend that.