Story or Style?

[shelboselby]

Now, I have my own view on this, but I'm curious to see where everyone else weighs in.

Given recent threads about success as an author, I've been thinking. Many, in their criticisms of authors like J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, Stephen King, and Tom Clancy point out that their stories are not among the better written, style-wise, of those they have read. They can name countless other books, by authors far less successful, that have a richer language and style to them.

So when it comes to writing a successful novel or novels, to perhaps reaching the lightning-strike dream of becoming rich off your writing, is it way more important to have a story than to be able to out-write someone else? Does an intricate plot trump stylistically perfect wording every time?

Like I said, I have my own view on this, but I'm wondering where everyone else stands. Which is ultimately more important: the story told or the words used to tell it?

[Inkspill]

Story, nearly all the way, for me. I once put a book down because it stylistically bothered me, but I will put up through many of my stylistic pet peeves if the plot is good. Especially the ridiculous synonyms for "said." Ejaculated, anyone? I never really got over that one, in HP.
ETA: Not to say that style isn't important--you do have to have control over your writing, and know it very well. However, more people, in my opinion, are willing overlook bad prose for a good story than read a bad story with good prose.

[Use Her Name]

You forget "having a film-able story." All the authors mentioned write dramatic stories suited for motion picture audiences.

To answer: In my mind, the "story" is the most important aspect of fiction writing. Having a straight-forward accessible style is more important then having "artistic" or picturesque language that can only be read by college educated people. Even so you can wreck a good story if you have terrible writing skills. The story needs to be inventive, non-clichéd, and something unusual enough to have not been seen before, or in a while.

It is very nice when a writer has both style and substance, but I'll take substance over style any day.

[Prozyan]

Pen or paper: Which is more important to writing a letter?

You must have both. A story is meaningless if it can't be portrayed to others, and style is meaningless if it doesn't have a story to portray.

[Phot's Moll]

Clever words and a beautiful style are no use if the writer has nothing to say.

[C.M.C.]

Story is more important for success, but I prefer style on almost every occasion.

[maestrowork]

Most often, story and characters come first. It's what make a book memorable and easily accessible to readers. If you intend to sell to as many people as possible, that's probably something you should focus on. Most people read for stories -- they may care about styles, but it's not their primary concern when they pick up a book.

That said, it really depends on what you're trying to accomplish. Do you just want to be rich and famous? Do you want your books to touch someone? Do you have something important to say? Do you want to be considered not just a popular writer, but a darn good one?

[superman skivvies]

I prefer style. The first thing I notice when I pick up a book by an author I have never read before is the style. If I love the style, I'll read the entire book, no matter if it talks about the behavior of goats or whatever. If the style really turns me off, though, I'll stop reading, even if the plot looks promising. However, I think to write a sucessful novel you can not fully rely on one or the other.

[Clair Dickson]

I need a good story. But when the style is bad, it doesn't just detract from the story, it irritates the stuffing out of me. Because I can write better than them but *I'm* not published (yet.)

I think style can also help "the same old story" become something new and interesting again.

So, story's in first place, and style's in second. But they're both important.

[maestrowork]

I think style can also help "the same old story" become something new and interesting again.


So if the style is great, you would enjoy reading "the same old story" again?

What about if the story is great, but the style is not particularly exciting?

[kuwisdelu]

I think as far as popularity and wealth goes, having an appealing, easy-to-read story trumps great writing and style.

But if you want to be read in college classes, remembered fifty years from now, and to have me as a reader, you better have great writing. I don't care if it's the best story ever, if the writing doesn't capture me, I won't read it. I want it all. Yeah, I have high standards :D

[rugcat]

A very successful genre author once told me he considered himself a storyteller more than a writer.

And I see that dichotomy quite often. I really don't see one as more important that the other -- in many ways they are two different things, like jazz and classical music. It all depends on what you're trying to do.

And mostly, your style will be dictated by the type of book you're writing. What's appropriate for one isn't necessarily appropriate for all.

Still, if you can tell a good story, it's hard to go wrong. Except with critics.

[dwellerofthedeep]

I like a good pinch of style. The plot is still essential but the two can and probably should either juxtapose tastefully or blend and compliment each other.

[maestrowork]

I think as far as popularity and wealth goes, having an appealing, easy-to-read story trumps great writing and style.

But if you want to be read in college classes, remembered fifty years from now, and to have me as a reader, you better have great writing. I don't care if it's the best story ever, if the writing doesn't capture me, I won't read it. I want it all. Yeah, I have high standards :D

Oh no, the genres vs. literature debate again.

;)

[kuwisdelu]

Oh no, the genres vs. literature debate again.

;)

Haha. I never said genre can't be well-written! I love well-written genre ;)

[Mythica]

For me, they both go hand in hand. I like a good story, but I have to like the writing, too. If Jurassic Park was written by Anne Rice, it would have sucked. The writing needs to be appropriate for the story.

Just write the freakin book. You can't really write to "get rich." People always say that if you're only writing a book to become famous, then you're in it for the wrong reason. Well, they're right.

There is no formula for writing a ridiculously successful book and become rich beyond your imagination. It's a good story and good writing, of course, but most of all it's luck and good timing.

[Takvah]

You need a decent story, but you damned well better be able to tell it too. That's it in a nutshell. A pinch of this and a dash of that my friend.

[She_wulf]

So if the style is great, you would enjoy reading "the same old story" again?

What about if the story is great, but the style is not particularly exciting?
I'd say yes to this one. I'll point to "The Stupidest Christmas Angel" as an example. There were so many cliche'd plot twists and obvious rip offs of things in it that those amused me, but the style...CM's humor that put it over the top.

When I laugh out loud when reading a book despite "seeing something coming" it's like watching Lucy line up pies at the country fair. You KNOW what's coming and it's still funny because, heck...it's Lucy Ricardo.

That doesn't just apply to humor. It applies to action and drama as well. I read varied stories, some happy and funny, some twisted and funny, some dramatic, some romantic, some sad, some bittersweet...you get the picture. But I come back to authors that can draw something more out of the story.

Style's why people have "favorite" authors. At least it is why I have favorite authors.

Amy

[Eldritch]

If you want to sell to the masses, story AND characters beat out style.

As for JKR, she might use a lot of silly dialogue attributions and she might break a lot of other stuffy writing rules, but there are very few writers who can weave such mesmerizing stories.

[maestrowork]

I guess there's a different answer for different people, and we need to look at our own favorite books and authors -- is it the stories or the styles or both that make them our favorites?

[Fillanzea]

I don't think that style and story can be separated so neatly. There is no story except the story that is created by each individual word choice, each bit of figurative language, each decision about sentence structure. The events of the story and the way in which they are told have to be in sync, have to work together. If you are Tom Clancy, or John Grisham, then you have a story that's strongly driven by linear logic and narrative causality - and then what works is transparent prose. If you say "Tom Clancy is a bad writer," well, I'll agree, but if Marcel Proust tried to rewrite Clancy's novels they would get a lot worse. And on the other hand, if you have a story that relies more on dream-logic, emotional logic, often transparent prose won't support that as well as prose that relies more heavily on imagery, symbolism, and connections that don't make linear sense.

It's true that linear plots and transparent prose sell the most copies, but there are bestselling writers who don't fit into the Tom Clancy model too.

[ishtar'sgate]

So when it comes to writing a successful novel or novels, to perhaps reaching the lightning-strike dream of becoming rich off your writing, is it way more important to have a story than to be able to out-write someone else? Does an intricate plot trump stylistically perfect wording every time?


Your question reminds me of an interview I saw where P.D. James belittled Agatha Christie for the lack of depth in her writing while her own was so-o-o much better. You can form your own opinion of each woman's success but IMO time has proven Christie to be far more successful than James. Despite her spare use of words Christie was a good storyteller.
Linnea

[sanctuary6284]

Story is the most important but the way you tell the story has a lot to do with how wonderful it is. J.K. and Dan Brown may not be the most stylistic writers but they (especially J.K.) have such wonderful story telling skills that you overlook their writing style and get drawn into the story. I say this more about Rowling than Brown. I did have to skip his odd flashback passages that cut into otherwise great storytelling (not writing, storytelling).

I think there are plenty of people who can tell you what happened in a situation. There are only a few who can make that situation seem wonderous and interesting. The same goes with writing. There are lots of people who can write down what happened and what everyone was wearing and what the room looked like, but that stuff just might put you to sleep. But when written with proper flare and with the right audience in mind the story just flows. Brown's story is more important than his writing. People love conspiracies and his was huge, plus he always hinted and never really gave anything away. He built up the reader's curiousity. Rowling touched the inner child in most people and it wasn't just the story. It was the voice she used to tell it.

[dgiharris]

I think there needs to be some definition on what some consider style.

TO me, style is more important because style encompasses execution.

It doesn't matter if you have the best story in the world, if your 'style' is flat and boring it kills the story.

The same doesn't hold if you reverse it. It is possible to sell 'crap' that is polished to a golden finished, and many books, movies, etc have been able to be successful with relatively weak storylines due to an incredible style/execution by the artist.

However, there are many great stories that never see the light of day because the style/execution is bland.

Of course you want both, need both.

Put another way. Imagine two people going in for a job interview. One is extremely qualified, but dressed in rags and smells like garbage.

The other doesn't know his ass from his elbow, but he is dressed nice and knows how to 'fake' it with well rehearsed saidism that really are meaningless.

9 times out of 10, the first person isn't even given the time of day. Conversely, 9 times out of 10 the stylistic person is able to make up for his shortcomings through 'style'

Just my opinion

Mel...

[tehuti88]

I really don't think I can choose between them, or else, depending on the strength of the story or the style, it would depend in every case. There are times when I'm willing to put up with weakness in one area if the other is strong enough; whereas there are other stories that definitely need both areas to be strong. And sometimes if one area is just too weak, it won't matter how much I love the story or the style; I won't be able to bring myself to finish reading it.

I've tolerated some amateur online writing with atrocious grammar and spelling and even cliched/unbelievable plots simply because the stories were on a subject I dearly love and it was so rare to find someone else writing about them!

On the other hand, I stopped reading some small press/self-published-type books on a subject I found fascinating because the author was horrid with basic writing skills and kept jumping to all kinds of moronic conclusions not supported by the facts; ditto with some fiction along the same lines. (And I mean not just technical style but actual writing style, though I can't give concrete examples.)

So I guess it just depends on the individual situation and how strong or weak the story and style are.

[lvcabbie]

I think rugcat hit it on the head!!!
I too consider myself a storyteller first and foremost. If the story's interesting, people will buy it.
(Then, once you've written a best-seller, people will read the rest of your stuff no matter how bad it is!)

[Nateskate]

Lol, this question is not that simple.

It's never "Either/Or" in the sense that you can be great at one and stink at the other.

In Myspace, there are some great writers who can string some great prose. But writing without a plot or story will not bring people back.

And there are people with great ideas but no writing skills. In a sense, they can build a fanbase of people who are highly tollerant of bad writing.

What I'm getting at, is that it depends on how great the one is and how bad the other. Great writing with a subpar story or Great story with subpar writing. You really can't stink at either and succeed. You have to hit a certain level to make it work.

[blacbird]

Your question reminds me of an interview I saw where P.D. James belittled Agatha Christie for the lack of depth in her writing while her own was so-o-o much better.

If P.D. James didn't head-hop so horribly, maybe she would sell more books. Even so, it's not like she's done all that poorly, is it?

caw

[Alpha Echo]

THat is a tough question, I think.

Mostly, I think that it's the story that ultimately matters. But there have been times when I've read a book where the style gets in the way of the story to the point that it's distracting, and I lose sight of the story...and lose interest.

[scheherazade]

Given recent threads about success as an author, I've been thinking. Many, in their criticisms of authors like J.K. Rowling, Dan Brown, Stephen King, and Tom Clancy point out that their stories are not among the better written, style-wise, of those they have read. They can name countless other books, by authors far less successful, that have a richer language and style to them.

I have to say I disagree strongly about Stephen King being lumped in with the rest. There are a lot of popular writers whose style gags me on the first page - Dan Brown, for sure, Dean Koontz, Tom Clancy - and I understand where you're coming from with those kinds of authors. But I do feel that King is unfairly condemned just because his stories make money. He has an incredible colloquial style, he knows how to spin a good yarn, and he can make you laugh or scare you silly. And he's published in the New Yorker, won the O Henry prize, and earned tons of other accolades that suggest that even the literary establishment is slowly coming around to support his writing. He proves to me that you CAN write with both style and story, though many writers haven't figured out that balance.

Now, that said, many of us, especially when starting out, try to make a conscious decision whether to err on the side of more story or more style. This may depend on whether your goal is to sell books or to win prizes. Look at it this way: if you write beautiful sentences, some writer or literary critic is bound to congratulate you on that wonderful, insightful sentence you crafted. Then you can cut out that sentence and paste it on your fridge and admire it as art. If you write a compelling plot, your reader is more likely to enjoy your book as a whole - telling you how they kept turning the pages and how they stayed up all night to finish it.

I'd like to think that the reason most of us became writers was because we were enamored with stories. Sometimes we get lost in the poetry and the words for words sake, but even the best poets are telling a story in a very compact way. As a novelist, if you can make poetry while telling a story, you're going to be creating something that other people will actually read. If you look back over history, from people telling stories in the dark recesses of a cave, to radio dramas that listeners hovered around to hear, to serials in a newspaper that kept readers coming back one week to the next, to movies that pulled you in, it's usually about telling a story first. If you use beautiful language or pitch-perfect dialogue, this will put you in a higher class of storyteller. But if you don't tell a story, then you're pretty much just writing for yourself.

Some good resources on the primacy of story, without coming at the expense of art:

- Robert McKee - Story (the importance of plot; and plot structuring for screenwriters which can also be extended to novelists)

- BR Myers - A Reader's Manifesto: An Attack on the Growing Pretentiousness in American Literary Prose

[txgrl]

Mistakes are mistakes, but there are things that a writer should not trash up, and yet you can find them published.

[James D. Macdonald]

Story will get you through times with no style better than style will get you through times with no story.

[Quossum]

I think there has to be a good story first, then an appropriate style with which to write it for maximum success to be achieved.

Two bits of support:

In college, I had a "famous" professor, renouned throughout the campus for being the best in her teaching and assessment abilities. I was very excited to get to write an essay for her and *finally* be appreciated for my mad writing skilz. Up 'til then, I hadn't gotten less than an "A +--WOWZ!" from teachers on essays since oh, about tenth grade, but some of that from teachers I didn't really respect as being able to give really valid assessments, plus I knew good and well that I often bullshitted and disguised the fact with competent writing.

My first essay for this professor, I tried my hardest to write a *brilliant* essay. I got it back with "B-" on the front. Crushed, I read the many apt and insightful notes throughout. And there, on the last page, were the words, "(You do write well.)" As an afterthought!

That's when I realized that writing well was no cover when the ideas weren't there. (And, incidentally, that I hadn't been stretching myself as much as I could have all this time.) When I did finally earn an "A" from that teacher, I felt prouder than of any A in my entire life, because it was meaningful--the "story" and the writing combined.

Second story:

I'm reading a YA book right now with an incredibly intriguing concept. It has a great story. However, it's not as well-written as it could be. I kept getting the characters mixed up for the first 100 pages or so, as they weren't given sufficient characterization, there are some other minor flaws--but I'm still reading it, because the story is so compelling. If it had been written more skillfully, it could've been SO much more.

I've read several other books like that, were the power of the story gets me past the imperfections in the writing style. They were published, so I conclude that the story has to come first. I imagine that even the best story in the world could be murdered by poor writing, but I think that a great story can compensate for a few writing flaws.

Wait a minute, I just said what James Macdonald said, only with lots more words. *sigh*

--Q

[AdamH]

Without a story there can be no style.

Style is like your signature on the story, and the story is like the paper to which you place your signature.

[ClaudiaGray]

This is another of those false dichotomies. It's not style OR story -- the best writers bring both to their work.

[scheherazade]

Though, on second thought, a lot of beginning writers have a pretty decent plot idea but terrible style. So, it's true, style to a certain extent, and then story. But the best writers know how to make good storytelling their style. It's not about using big words or alliteration, but it is about spinning the yarn thread by thread so the reader can't help but follow it to the end. Mainly that is having a story to tell, but there's also something to be said for the voice, engaging the reader with a storyteller style.

[Keyan]

As long as the style doesn't actually grate, I go for the story and the characters. (And when it does grate, it's often not the style so much as the voice.)

I don't think I've ever put down a book for a surplus of adverbs or wildly inventive conversation tags. Though I might well do for page-long paragraphs and annoying fonts.

[ynoirb]

Generally I go for story over style - if the story doesn't engage me then I'm not going to enjoy it.

Cormac Macarthy's novel The Road is a good example of that for me.

[blacbird]

This is a phony dichotomy. The best writers, defined both by success and longevity of work, almost always have an abundance of both, unified seamlessly:

John Steinbeck
Graham Greene
Carson McCullers
Cormac McCarthy
Philip Roth
Ray Bradbury
Ernest Hemingway
John Irving
Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Willa Cather
Raymond Carver
James M. Cain
John D. MacDonald
Rex Stout
Flannery O'Connor
Georges Simenon
Kurt Vonnegut

caw

[ideagirl]

I've definitely had the experience of continuing to read books that were badly written just because the story was good. "The Da Vinci Code," for example--the writing was just AWFUL, stylistically; the dialogue was wooden; it was ridiculous. Well, I didn't actually read that, but I did enjoy the audio book on a long car ride, and then read a couple of chapters later. The ONLY actual writing ability I perceived in that book was the ability to end a chapter at a point where you wanted to keep going--every chapter ended with some gripping suspense. That's structure rather than style, but it's still a writerly skill.

And "The Mists of Avalon"--I've read that twice, even though there's no style to it at all, the writing is merely competent (way better than the Da Vinci Code, but still!).

But I don't remember ever putting down a beautifully-written book solely for lack of a good story. So I can't say for sure that story is more important, though a good story can outweigh bad writing.

My favorites, obviously, are where breathtaking writing combines with a gripping story. Recent examples: Phillip Pullman's The Golden Compass trilogy; Elizabeth Hand's Mortal Love. Amazing books.

[Fillanzea]

I've already put my two cents in, but I just came back from seeing Rent. So I've seen the musical on stage twice and the movie version once. It's really remarkable how the director's decisions end up shaping how the audience perceives the story. The story itself stays the same, but the story as it exists in the minds of the audience can shift from one thing to another on the basis of some very small choices.

I highly, highly recommend that you look at two different productions of the same play, if you want to see what a difference style can make.

[Jenifer]

Story and characters first, provided that they can be seen through the style.

One writer who has been mentioning in this thread has a style that I really can't deal with... I keep forgetting and picking up an interesting looking book- by the way, you can definitely tell that he doesn't write the blurb on the back of the book ;)- and... sigh. Just tell the friggin' story! Nothing frustrates me more than REALLY loving and being interested in a story that is hidden behind a writer who can't get out of his own way.

Different strokes for different folks. The writer who aggravates me so has some really fantastic stories out there- it just takes a lot of wading to get to them. I'd be happy to shake his hand, but I can't read his books.