What's More Important the Story or the Quality of Writing?

To me that question is kind of like asking, "What's more important, arms or legs?" To really enjoy a book, I have to have both. Greedy, aren't I?

Now, language is also very subjective. Some people like the elaborations of Thomas Wolfe, some find them painfully purple. The good new is: they make all flavors. So, I don't get too bunched up in that debate.

Many writers have made good livings re-writing Tolkein over and over again.

The reason they can get away with it is because they write with excellent style.

The real marker isn't the plot -- but the scenes. If you write excellent scenes that lean forward and encourage the reader to turn the page, it doesn't really matter if your plot is a tired hack.

Of course, people who can do that tend to be smart about their plots, too.

Story.

Most certainly story but one must decide exactly what is 'good writing' and what is 'story'.

Too many writers are in love with their own style. If you have to keep a thesarus in arms reach to get through each paragraph then you've got a writer engaging in literary masturbation; a sort of ego-fired compulsion to hide a lack of plot and/or character development by utilizing every imagineable adjective and adverb. You can usually spot this type of author quickly, for they are obviously more interested in impressing you with their vocabulary then wowing you with story and characters. Like a meal at a gourmet restaurant, such tales look impressive on the plate but, when the reading is done, leave an unsatisfied ache in the belly.

At the same time, however, to tell a story an author must write in prose that is enjoyable to read and places the reader inside that story. Sometimes this does, in fact, call for long descriptions but, just as often, it calls for brevity. I guess the best writers can identify the line between the two extremes.

The best writers (IMHO) are those who utilize dialogue to handle much of the story-telling. Let the characters and the plot develop together. Background descriptions are just that--background.

However, as Perks wisely points out, different folks have different tastes, which is why there are as many different styles of writers as there are books at Barnes & Noble.

Since fantasy works are often enormously long, a slow-moving story will not sink the book, but it does have to make some sense of progress. It also needs to be a story the reader cares about. The reader has to care that the villain is defeated, or the evil spell broken, or whatever is the problem is resolved. An interesting story is mandatory. Boring the reader is the cardinal sin in fiction.

However, there are a few elements of good fantasy writing that someone who lacks good writing style can miss out on and ruin the work. The worst offense has to be unintentional anachronism. Not only must the world give the impression that everything presented is from the same time period, but the writer also has to watch out for inappropriate metaphors in the naration (something might hit a character like a lightning bolt, but not like a freight train...) and jarringly anachronistic dialog. This sort of thing can pull you out of the story and get you focused on the goofs rather than the story.

The writing and the story go hand in hand, and if one is inadequate, the other is likely to be also. Unfortunately, premise often trumps execution in fantasy and science fiction, and some really wretched writers get a pass as a result. I wish it would go the other way occasionally.

Also, there's a big difference between "bad book" and "book I didn't like." When people take writers to task for writing above a 6th grade level, they tend to be working from the latter viewpoint, and mistaking it for the former.

Sorry if that sounds snippy. But this "style or story" thing is a pet peeve of mine. In a good book, they should be inseparable.

- Victoria

victoriastrauss said:

... this "style or story" thing is a pet peeve of mine. In a good book, they should be inseparable.

Click to expand...

Hear, hear.

Story

I'd argue that it's much more than just story. Story without good characters gets you nowhere.

Story, characters, and dialogue are certainly mor eimportant that the quality of the writing. This does not, however, mean the quality of the writing can be horrible. Bad writing means bad story and poor characters. The writing doesn't have to be great, but at the very least it must be competent. I don't think very many bad writers get published, whether they're bad in story, characters, or writing style.

But I suppose some do, particulary in fantasy and SF, where the idea often takes precedence over everything else.

And not liking a style doesn't mean it's a bad style. I think writing should be invisible, but it should never be bland. It shouldn't get in the way of the story, but it shouldn't be written to please those who only care about the story, either. There are far too many "readers" out there today who think a book is bad if something isn't exploding, or someone isn't getting killed every five pages. There are far too many "readers" out there who believe a book is bad if they actually have to think to follow the plot.

A book should alway have a good story and good characters, but there's nothing at all wrong with good writing, and with good language use, either.

I think a writer can get very rich writing to the lowest possible denominator, but if you're going to do this, you may as well be a plumber. Invisible writiing, yes, good story and good characters, yes, but bad writing, or writing that simply caters to those who only want action, nope, never.

I think a writer's just is to tell a good story, fill it with good characters, and to write that story as well as it can be written, and to never back away from language use and style simply because some percentage of readers may not like it.

Quote from CaelinPaul: "Some books that I have read recently, allow language and writing style to supercede story."

That's what I was getting at, not suggesting that good writing has to be limited to a sixth grade vocabulary.

Put it is this way. If an author needs a full paragraph to describe a glass of water, doesn't use a lick of dialogue for four pages despite having a group of non-mutes in the room, or forces readers to re-read passages just to find the point, then that's probably going to turn off readers, even those of us who write for a living and have an education far beyond grammar school.

Now, certainly, there are exceptions to this. I guess the question is, is the author writing to impress or to tell the story (which is, of course, inseparable from the characters, as Jamesaritchie points out). Of course, plain old bad writing can't save even the best stories.

Captain_Campion said:

Quote from CaelinPaul: "Some books that I have read recently, allow language and writing style to supercede story."

That's what I was getting at, not suggesting that good writing has to be limited to a sixth grade vocabulary.

Put it is this way. If an author needs a full paragraph to describe a glass of water, doesn't use a lick of dialogue for four pages despite having a group of non-mutes in the room, or forces readers to re-read passages just to find the point, then that's probably going to turn off readers, even those of us who write for a living and have an education far beyond grammar school.

Now, certainly, there are exceptions to this. I guess the question is, is the author writing to impress or to tell the story (which is, of course, inseparable from the characters, as Jamesaritchie points out). Of course, plain old bad writing can't save even the best stories.

Click to expand...

It turns off some readers, but a great many readers love fiction written this way. Long books with lots of description still sell better than shorter books without it. It all depends on how well the writer writes description, what kind of story is being told, and simply how well the writer writes.

I really don't want to see dialogue on every page. No one has enough important things to say for this. I like lots of narrative and fairly lengthy description. I'me much more concerned with the story than with what the characters have to say about the story. When a character has something relevant and important to say, he should say it, but by and large, too much dialogue turns me off much faster than too much narrative.

Style and substance go hand in hand...

Within "Scenes".

I tell any aspiring authors I meet to write one scene a day, and edit yesterday's one scene a day even if you don't have a current project you know you want to pursue.

There's an author who makes his living re-writing plots (Daniel Stern's Twice-Told Tales), but he pulls it off -- when he can pull it off - by writing good SCENES.

Plots are great, don't get me wrong. I love style, too.

But I love great scenes even more.

Yes this is true, just as Thomas Kincaid is to painting. I think his paintings are beyond crap, but he purveys the warm fuzzy. And I believe people get what they enjoy from it. Even the brain needs a plumber from time to time. I'll not knock successful writers that cash in on a formula that involves small numbers and simple equations. It's still better than Paris Friggin' Hilton and The Simple Life.

It's a triangle

From the evidence of what gets printed, a novel needs only two of the following: Plot, Style and Vision.

Sean Russell, for instance has Vision and Plot which go up to 11. I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions regarding his style.

What is it you don't like about Sean Russell's style?

- Victoria

Big paragraphs. Unneeded attributions. Violates tight third unintentionally, from time to time. It's not bad, just full of imperfections. However, the story and vision are so powerful, you hardly notice unless you're looking (or have been workshopping recently).

zornhau said:

Big paragraphs. Unneeded attributions. Violates tight third unintentionally, from time to time. It's not bad, just full of imperfections. However, the story and vision are so powerful, you hardly notice unless you're looking (or have been workshopping recently).

Click to expand...

*nods*

And the silly pidgen words when English would do. I learned a lot about what not to do with a similar setting by reading The Initiate Brother.

Jack Vance's best books, on the other hand: Style 11, Vision 11, Plot 5.
John Ringo's Posleen books: Style 11, Plot 11, Vision 5*

*It's breathtaking when you read it, but really powered armoured marines vs alien cannibal hordes is hardly original or fresh. What's happening is that the Style and Plot are so powerful that they force you deeper into the Vision, making it seem more vivid than expected.

Hmmm. I have no problem with big paragraphs--for some writers, that's a stylistic choice. Ditto the use of a complex vocabulary, or long descriptive passages.

I think Russell has a smooth and evocative prose style; he's able to paint vivid word pictures that really convey the feel and mood of his setting. The problem I've had with some of his duologies--and most recently, with the The Swans War, which is a trilogy--is that they seem to run out of steam in the concluding volume, with plot threads wrapped up too hastily and perfunctory resolution of character arcs. So I'd give him high marks on style and theme, and lower marks on structure and execution.

All proving that these things are largely a matter of perspective. I've never been able to get through anything by Jack Vance, for instance.

- Victoria

Well, OK, to an extent it's subjective, and in my 'flu raddled state I may have overstated my case and perhaps oversimplified. Really, I should have justy answered the OP: "What's more important, Story of Quality of Writing?" by saying "Either. If the story's fantastic, then the writing quality merely has to be passable, and visa versa. Caveat: best try for both, since these things are subjective."

That said, I'm actually in the last 2/3rd of the last vol of the Swan's War and am hard put to read to the end, but my diagnosis differs from yours. I think everything's there to make me want to read on: big clash about to happen, dark powers at work etc etc, plus plenty of reversals in the past to assure me of more to come. It's just that the prose itself lacks momentum. Fine for landscape porn, but a hinderance as the story speeds up.

There are many good reasons to write in the best style you can manage, but most readers don't care and won't notice.

SIDETRACK: Hmmm, I agree with Victoria re: Swan's War. I loved the first one but had to seriously struggle to finish the second one. I just felt like there wasn't much movement in it, no plot development, no action etc. - just a long drawn out scene. The whole second book could've been written in a page basically.

It came across to me almost like the publisher had read the ms and then said: "OK Sean, good story - but we need you to make it THREE books. Do what you gotta do and have it back to us by noon."

So basically I'm saying that Victoria's asessment was spot on for me - Russell had a good writing style but dropped the ball when it came to structure and execution, which I feel is equally important.

The story can be written well, but if it's not told well also, it just doesn't satisfy - and that should be the number one goal of any writer: to leave behind a satisfied reader.