Story trumps all . . . why? What about the bad writing?

The simple answer IMO is that fewer people care about quality of language than care about quality of story. As you may have noticed in your daily interaction with the human species many of them use language that is rife with grammatical and syntactical errors. Those same people may have little patience with boring or rambling anecdotes. So story trumps all for the majority of people. Language is certainly important to some people, but not all of them.

I think some people must like adverbs and participles, or at least not mind them so much, because otherwise her editor could have taken that stuff out. Same thing with showing vs. telling. Ask ten different people how much of each a book should have, you'll get ten different answers.

A lot of things go into why an agent does or doesn't go for a particular book. It's probably not worth trying to analyze too much.

Before I started writing. Before I became an "aspiring author", I'd go into the book store, and what would I look for? I'd look for a story that interested me. That's the one I'd pull off the shelf. I never worried about the writing style. I figured, if it's good enough to be in print, it's written well enough for me to read. Agents and publishers know this is how most people shop for books. Of course, the well written ones that also had a good story kept me coming back for more.

If the story is good, and the pacing is quick enough and the voice doesn't want to make you strangle the MC, you don't notice the things that are off about it.

Because most readers don't give a rat's ass about prose style. As long as the prose is clear enough not to obscure the story, they're happy.

Probably the vast majority of readers who DO care about prose style, mechanics and so forth are the readers who are also writers or aspiring writers or language professionals, like teachers and professors. Not the primary target market of most commercial fiction.

Actually, even the story doesn't need to be stellar -- all it has to do is to appeal to enough readers to make the book profitable. This is why we see the same old plots and tropes over and over and over. Readers like them, over and over and over. The ancient plots appeal to deep psychological desires. Like the Immortal Good and Bad Guys you mention, they live forever. All the ashwood stakes and holy water and silver bullets the critics have wielded against them have done the Immortals zero harm with their worshippers.

Meh, what are you going to do? Go on writing your heart out, and beautifully, I hope. A good story told well trumps all, in the end.

A really good story can pull a reader in so he/she doesn't notice the mechanics of writing. It's more difficult if the reader is also a writer because we are trained to look to gain command of elements of the craft in our own writing. The mechanical things mentioned are not going to pull a non-writing reader out of the story (usually). Proof of Uncle Jim's contention comes from my own experience. I can read as a writer or I can read as a reader. If a story is good enough, it will pull me into the reader mode even if the mechanics of the craft are not stellar, or even below average. That's the pull of a damn good story, and of damn good storytelling.

So the next question on someone's lips should be, "If so-and-so can get away with that kind of writing, why can't I?" It may be possible, but who wants to be known as a great storyteller but a below average writer? There is no reason why we shouldn't strive for excellence in both storytelling and in the mechanics of writing. We should always work hard for two-pronged praise of our writing--great story and great writing, even if only the former is necessary to get the attention of agents and editors.

The full idea articulated by Uncle Jim, I believe, is that great storytelling can trump average writing but great writing usually can't rescue poor storytelling. One thing is certain. Really crappy writing probably can't be rescued by anything except a ghost writer.

... if a novel is poorly written I put it down after the first page, no matter how terrific the story promises to be. On the flip side of the coin, I've read some really dull novels all the way through, because of how well written they were, to the point that I wasn't even aware I was reading -- which is what good writing is all about

underthecity said:

Uncle Jim has said, "Story trumps all." Meaning that the story is the most important thing about a novel.

Fine, I get that, but don't the mechanics of writing count, too?

Click to expand...

The answer involves a paradox.

The Mechanics of writing in and of itself doesn't mean a damned thing. The only purpose it serves is to convey the story to the reader. It just happens that 99% of the time, that purpose is BEST accomplished by adhering to certain rules and those rules are the defacto "Mechanics of writing".

This is where the 'art' of writing trumps the 'science' of writing. As long as the mechanics don't get in the way of the story the reader is happy. In fact, the better job the mechanics do of getting the reader the story, the more the reader is likely to enjoy the story.

But there are occasions when bad mechanics actually enhance the story. The most common case is dialogue, but there are some cases for which the narrative can also use this.

One book that breaks EVERY SINGLE RULE OF WRITING MECHANICS is James Frey's Book, A Million Little Pieces > Yes, the book has some fiction in it, but I implore you to read this book. This book is pure genuis, an awesome story and if you read it for the story you will be absolutely knocked off your feet. And you will understand what i'm talking about.

underthecity said:

Without "bashing" other authors with questionable writing skills who write best sellers, why does Story Trump All when the writing itself isn't very good?

Click to expand...

Once the reader has bought into the story, they don't care so much about the writing.

Also, this is where being a writer sorta hurts us. We all have an editor inside of our heads and sometimes that editor is incapable of seeing past bad writing.

Most readers do not have this problem and so 'some' bad writing is just invisible to them. IMHO, this is why many writers can't stand Dan Brown or James Patterson when the reading public absolutely loves them.

Mel...

Redzilla said:

The simple answer IMO is that fewer people care about quality of language than care about quality of story. As you may have noticed in your daily interaction with the human species many of them use language that is rife with grammatical and syntactical errors. Those same people may have little patience with boring or rambling anecdotes. So story trumps all for the majority of people. Language is certainly important to some people, but not all of them.

Click to expand...

This is nothing new. In fact, throughout human history it has always been the same.

Precisely. My Greek prof in college used to delight in pointing out errors in Homer, but I bet nobody minded at the time, because The Odyssey kicks ass as a story.

cubed said:

This is nothing new. In fact, throughout human history it has always been the same.

Click to expand...

dgiharris said:

One book that breaks EVERY SINGLE RULE OF WRITING MECHANICS is James Frey's Book, A Million Little Pieces > Yes, the book has some fiction in it, but I implore you to read this book. This book is pure genuis, an awesome story and if you read it for the story you will be absolutely knocked off your feet. And you will understand what i'm talking about.

Click to expand...

Oh, no. Please, no. I refuse to read a book that was marketed as a memoir after it was turned down by agents and editors in its original (and accurate) form as a novel. I don't care how good the story/the writing is, the author outright lied to publish his book...this in a market where many, many others are struggling (one would hope with some degree of integrity) to land a contract too. On principle, I will never read it.

I think that when most people talk about good writing, they are talking about quality of the language. To me, good writing has nothing to do with quality of the language, it has to do with immersion. If I notice the writing, then the writer has failed to put me in the story.

Think of Jim Butcher. His writing is incredibly basic, yet he puts you right in the story from page one. Contrast this with Cormack McCarthy, whose use of language is much more advanced, but who forces you to struggle with his prose, like trying to figure out when someone has stopped talking and the narration resumes, or hammering you with a barrage of short stubby sentences that bounce off your forehead like hail in a nasty storm.

For example, take a sentence from the article discussed in a currnet topic in this forum about how not to write:

"His foreshortened face appears in profile on the car window like an irregular graph of my doom, merciless as a mathematician, leering accompaniment to all my good resolves."

I like this sentence. Beautiful combination of language, methaphor and structure. Yet I had to read it three times to get it. So while I appreciate the sentence in isolation, seeing it in a novel would be like hitting a speed bump on a highway going 70. It would pluck me right out of the moment and force me to address what I just slammed in to.

This is one reason I can't stand literary fiction. I find myself reading things multiple times to understand them, not because my vocabulary is lacking, but because a different part of my brain has to take over. The part that tunes out the writing and is absorbed in the story can't handle complex sentence structures combined with multiple methaphors and advanced vocabulary.

So yes, story is important, but if you can't get into the story, you'll never know what the story is becuase you'll put the book down. Some people can read a book just to enjoy the language. Others can't.

Ultimately, there are tastes out there to match just about anything.

I think agents are inclined to pick up a good story over good language because they tend to think that many of grammar, syntax, and semantic problems could be fixed by skillful editors. Perhaps they are right.

On the other hand, many agents tend to look for a good "voice," thus allowing numerous plot errors and problems, since, in their opinion (and mine as well) those can be fixed as easily as grammar and punctuation.

Bad writing can still be popular if it's a story people can relate to. I can name a slew of novels I think are badly written but have had major success, namely the Stookie Stackhouse novels (True Blood is a great show though thanks to Alan Ball), Twilight, Eragon, and that Dan Brown guy people speak of.

I read through all of these books and within the first paragraph I knew that the writing was bad. But there's something in the stories that appeals to people. Most people these days don't even read much, so anything they can pick up and understand appeals to them.

I read a recent interview with James Patterson and he said he writes his stories like he was telling them at a bar to a friend, because people appeal to that. They don't want fancy language and impressive prose. I don't want to be a snob or anything, but the rhythm and the grace of language is what appeals to me. I get off on amazing writing that makes me wonder what exactly this author ate while growing up to get his brain to be so damn amazing. It's what makes print storytelling stand out from motion pictures. Perhaps I'm a rarity.

I was talking to a friend the other day about reading Jack London, to which she replied, "Jack London is a bit too heavy for me." My reaction was, "Are you kidding? Jack London is completely straightforward. I read Call of the Wild in middle school." Then she admitted that all she reads is Vampire erotica, so maybe that says something about it.

When I tell people I'm a Lit major I get awkward looks like I'm some kind of a throwback or something. Has the state of quality reading really declined so badly? Maybe I should change my major to iPods.

justAnotherWriter said:

Think of Jim Butcher. His writing is incredibly basic, yet he puts you right in the story from page one. Contrast this with Cormack McCarthy, whose use of language is much more advanced, but who forces you to struggle with his prose, like trying to figure out when someone has stopped talking and the narration resumes, or hammering you with a barrage of short stubby sentences that bounce off your forehead like hail in a nasty storm.

Click to expand...

As a fan of both Butcher and McCarthy, I appreciate your sentiment here. But, I think that it's an absolutely unfair comparison.

For authors like Cormack McCarthy and Frank McCourt, the use of language and layout is incredibly significant in setting the tone of the work. They are not separate from the plot. I think that warrants a different thread altogether.

I reckon the author of the original question was looking at comparing something like well-written vampire fiction with poorly-written vampire fiction, and that's a good way to center this kind of discussion.

I work professionally in the media, primarily television and film. The phrase is "Content is King". Same basic philosophy - if the CONTENT is important enough, if it is compelling enough, people will overlook bad camera work, lousy audio, low resolution acquisition or distribution.

All the world is moving to "Hi Def" - but people will still watch The Zapruder 8mm movie of the Kennedy assasination. No broadcaster will say "Well, we can't put that on the air, it doesn't meet our high levels of technical broadcast standards."

I think that's what is meant by the 'story' being so important. Agents, or the public might be willing to overlook a rough writing style, if the story is compelling enough. Of course, STYLE is a part of story narrative, just as great cinematography, surround sound and high definition format help to make a great story even better.

But good prose, and good camera work - can't make a bad story sell.

In order for a good story to be a good story, it must be executed well. The execution of a story is the writing. A story that is not executed well is not a good story. The two go hand in hand. I reject the notion that a good novel or a best selling novel can have bad writing. It may not be the kind of writing that you prefer, but it is still good writing.

justAnotherWriter said:

This is one reason I can't stand literary fiction. I find myself reading things multiple times to understand them, not because my vocabulary is lacking, but because a different part of my brain has to take over. The part that tunes out the writing and is absorbed in the story can't handle complex sentence structures combined with multiple methaphors and advanced vocabulary.

So yes, story is important, but if you can't get into the story, you'll never know what the story is becuase you'll put the book down. Some people can read a book just to enjoy the language. Others can't.

Ultimately, there are tastes out there to match just about anything.

Click to expand...

It depends on the author for me. Some authors just do elaborate prose well and manage to use it to bring more nuances to the story. Others simply make me scratch my head. Then again, the same happens with basic prose. Strangely enough sometimes I read a sentence that should be simple and I just keep staring at it thinking "huh?" because it feels like it's incomplete and there's something missing. And not all literary fiction is elaborate and not all genre fiction is written so sparse. Hemingway is known for his economy of words while Ray Bradbury often writes in a more elaborate style with prose chalk full of metaphors.

WriteKnight said:

I work professionally in the media, primarily television and film. The phrase is "Content is King". Same basic philosophy - if the CONTENT is important enough, if it is compelling enough, people will overlook bad camera work, lousy audio, low resolution acquisition or distribution.

Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with this. I've been to a number of film festivals and have seen many movies with great writing and clever stories, but the production value and acting were so bad that I couldn't fully appreciate it or watch it without cringing at every boom in the shot or visible wires.

Good presentation is just as important as good story.

I've never bought into that line of thinking. The story is important, but not so much so that I can excuse a writer who doesn't have a grasp of their skill. I liken it to a photographer who forgets to focus before taking a picture. No matter how beautiful the subject, it is junk unless done properly.

Roger J Carlson said:

I reject the notion that a good novel or a best selling novel can have bad writing. It may not be the kind of writing that you prefer, but it is still good writing.

Click to expand...

Can't agree with that. A good story is one thing. A book that has a good story but is full of things like head-hopping, switching POV for no reason with cliched characters and plot holes is another. That's a book with a good story but it's still poorly written.

seun said:

Can't agree with that. A good story is one thing. A book that has a good story but is full of things like head-hopping, switching POV for no reason with cliched characters and plot holes is another. That's a book with a good story but it's still poorly written.

Click to expand...

It very much depends on how you define 'story'. I would contend that it isn't a good story at all.

The statement has to be taken in a context. A great story poorly written won't get published in today's market.

However, the story is the foundation of a novel. Correct verbs that go nowhere inspire nobody. It's like reading a textbook on sentence structure.

There are great stories that will never see the light of day. But it's a better place to start, having a great story that needs to be edited, than no story and a lot of great words.

Roger J Carlson said:

I reject the notion that a good novel or a best selling novel can have bad writing. It may not be the kind of writing that you prefer, but it is still good writing.

Click to expand...

Just because a story is in print doesn't mean the writing is good. Plenty of books and films pass certain channels and make it into production. That doesn't mean the final product is flawless. This is why critics still have jobs.