The importance of telling a story

[clotje]

I've been reading comments on quite a few writers' forums and I've noticed something that struck me as odd.

I've noticed that some unpublished writers keep running down certain published authors, saying that their writing is not good.

This made me wonder. Isn’t the story that you’re trying to tell the most important thing about writing? Or do you believe that perfect grammar/spelling is more important?

I for one will read a book that grabs me by the short and curlies and pulls me into the story, even if there are some grammar/spelling mistakes.

I will not read a book that is written perfectly (grammar/spelling) if the story fails to engage me.
So what's your point of view?

[maestrowork]

For me, story first, but grammar and spelling are important, too. It's like building a house -- the design and way it's architected, etc. etc. is important. But you can't ignore that hole in the wall, or the broken wood plank or that crack in the window. They're distraction. They won't make the house "bad" per se, but they marr it.

Grammar and spelling are your tools. Without them, you can't really build a good house.

[CACTUSWENDY]

Interesting concept....but when i read a story i become ingulfed in the whole thing.

If there are too many 'bad grammar' areas or poor workmanship of lines it makes me stumble in the flow.

I wouldn't enjoy the 'street talk' of the super young kids in big cities.
I don't do well with lots of 'slang' talk because it is not part of my world and makes it tuff for me to flow with the story.

I guess it's because I'm simple minded. (sigh)

Some folks like the Old English way of talking and for me it is hard to enjoy. I guess that's why there are so many different types of writing styles. But poor grammar should not be part of it.

I have to watch it because i over do the full sentence which takes the personality out of the speaker. I know 'real' people don't talk like that.

Thanks for the question, it's given me something to think about.

Love you guys........wendy......:Coffee:

[clotje]

I see your points about grammar and I do agree that in a perfect world (where I'm a size eight and married to Johnny Depp ;) ) the story and grammar/spelling are immaculate.
I suppose I was wondering what exactly was wrong with the writing of say Stephen King or Danielle Steel (who both make a good living from writing) but are still dissed (sp?) by unpublished authors.

[maestrowork]

Jealousy. We think we're better writers than them, but they're the ones making millions.

;)

[Steve 211]

I was in a literary college class back in the 80's, when Stephen King was still being dumped on by the NYT Book Review, and so I never even looked at his work.

Then I saw Stand By Me, and wanted to read the book (Different Seasons), and I remember staying up all night to read Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption. I'd never done that before. Certainly not with any of the literary writings I'd been struggling through. I even remember feeling uneasy about it, like, "What's this guy doing? Is he somehow casting a spell?"

And of course, he was, and is. It's called storytelling.

In fact, it's funny you asked this question, 'cause just a few hours ago I typed up some notes of mine and found this bit about David Morrell's Brotherhood of the Rose.


Reading Morrell – "His silhouette disappeared beyond the narrow shaft of light." I don’t get it, but I don’t care. I just skim over it. I get that they’re climbing up, and that’s what matters – the story. What it's leading up to.
So don’t get caught up on the language so much. Simply tell the story.

[preyer]

i used to be a big king fan. then i turned fourteen. suddenly his stuff just didn't start to gel: he'd say things that were supposed to mean something to me in my real life i knew weren't true, some very broad generalizations built on the solid foundation of... assumption. i've said it before: you can't drive by a crack house and pretend to understand that world. granted, all i ever read of king was the horror books. steel's biggest problem, as far as i can tell just skimming through her books, is that she's a simplistic writer who uses the word 'and' in virtually every sentence. seriously. yet my wife loves her books, which on the surface seems to be nothing put pure fluff. i reckon it all boils down to the old saying, 'there's no accounting for taste.'

why do unpublished writers criticize these people so much? jealousy? nah, i'm not jealous of king. his horror never impressed me, and even less so once clive barker came out. just mho, though.

why would a young rocker go up to billy idol and shout in his face, 'you boring old fart!'? probably for the same reason billy idol did it when he was that age and felt he had the chops to fight for the top seat. probably the same reason old gunfighters kill so many kids looking to make a name for themselves. it's a circle of life thing, lol.

jealousy? no. i just want what you got, and i don't think you can hold your crown any longer, ya boring old fart. grandma stopped reading you a decade ago. your time has come and gone, quit resting on your laurels. retire. go to florida and let your blood get so thin you have to turn the heat on when it's a 112 degrees outside. write boring stories for the matlock generation. start ripping your own stories off because you're washed up, wiped out, scrubbed clean of anything new to say. long live and love me... until i start to suck, too, and magazines i've never heard of start bashing me. i've already got my condo in orlando scoped out.

where was i? telling a story... yeah, i imagine that being a storyteller, telling it well might be slightly important, lol. i suppose you could call that technique, eh? this isn't about the importance of characters and plot. storytelling is about how you combine those two, the 'style', the 'voice,' and it's one of the things i look at when reading a book. apparently i'm in the minority of people who don't like knowing within the first 100 pages that the protagonist is going to die by use of foreshadowing. spelling and grammar is important, but, eh, i shouldn't even notice it. if i do, then it's a problem. writers should know how to use a damn dictionary.

[Fillanzea]

Telling a story is extremely important, and it's no coincidence that the best-selling authors are the ones who actually know how to tell a story. People have varying levels of sensitivity to prose (and incidentally, if someone's saying 'he's not a good writer,' that's probably nothing to do with his spelling/grammar, assuming he's published. His prose is probably just...bland). Real awkwardness and blandness are going to trip up some readers, but some are going to be too involved in the story to care.

[Nateskate]

Most of the comments about writers (that I have seen) refer to content over grammar. And content includes writing style.

Some people love flowery description, others want lean and mean. If you like one over the other, that is a matter of taste. Some people like virtually anything. They are easier to please, and don't care. As a reader, I'd prefer to be easily satisfied. But in one sense, you are what you are.

There are published authors who appeal to a specific audience instead of a broad audience. They have an audience, so they get published. But if you liken this to cooking, you have some people who cook for people with a narrow set of tastes and people who have a broad set of tastes.

People who do the former will prepare meals that will make some people gag. But as long as their audience likes it, they stay in business. Honestly, I have a sister-in-law that I call an "Anti-social" cook. She invites you over, and then experiments on you.

And there's nothing wrong in being an experimental cheif. But if you experiment, you'll find a lot more success stories if you experiment with things that you know are likely to work, like a different kind of beef stew, or some dish with chicken. But if you serve up eye of gnewt (sp?) served over toad testicles, don't expect everyone to jump for joy.

But my SIL would say, "I'm having pasta..." And you'd think conventional pasta with some familiar sauce...No Way! I hate to say it, but she finds a way to make any meal a game of "What in the world did she put in this?" and "What are those black things?"

Writing is a lot like cooking. Those who love meals cooked for a broad audience may absolutely hate someone's experimental cooking that some narrow audience loves.

[Coco82]

I'd never insult another writer's work, for such minor cases. I think all writers should get the chance to be read, and not judged over superficial stuff.

[Daughter of Faulkner]

thing. After all, that is why your reader is reading. If you can tell a good story you are home free.

Keep writing!

[JanaLanier]

As I've said before, I don't think it's constructive to point at a successful writer and say, "his/her book sucks."

I look at it and say, "what about this book works so that so many people want to read it?"
I think what you'd find is that it's a great story, well-written or not.

[Shiny_Penguin]

I just finished a book that had wonderful ideas and a great story line, but there were so many formatting problems, grammatical mistakes and awkward sentences that it was extremely distracting. I had trouble telling who was talking most of the time. I don't usually get nit-picky with mechanics, but in this case, the grammar detracted from the story.

So, the story is important, but I think you need to keep an eye on mechanics as well.

[SRHowen]

Story. And funny enough spelling. Grammar if it works for the story, I have no problem with. But if it is just bad grammar then I toss the book.

Shawn

[johnnycannuk]

Personally I think its a balance. If one element (the story) can overpower or make up for the deficiencies of another element (spelling\grammar), then I still think a book will be a sucess. As other have pointed out this is why Dan Brown and Stephen King are so popular and sucessful.

But I don't think it goes the other way - no amount of proper spelling and grammar or even style will make a poor story sucessful.

So for me, its a balance heavily wieghted in favour of the story. The 'sweet spot' is hwere the story is good and the gramma and spelling aren't noticed (or don't detract from the story)

Of course the one thing that's missing, that is almost as important as the story is the style. Imagine if Carrie were written by Jack Kerouac or Hunter S. Thompson. That would be a totally different novel. And my wife wouldn't read it. Same story, but she likes King but absolutely can't stand Kerouac (to each their own :confused: ). In this case the style would negate everything.

So, a balance between story, style and mechanics, heavily wieghted in favour of story and less so in style and lesser still the mechanics.

[Summonere]

clotje:

Story is the first thing that sells in genre fiction. Style is what sells in literary fiction. In the former, it's what is said that is important. In the latter, it's how it's said that's important. I know, I know, very broad and very arguable distinction, but that's why literary authors and critics like excoriating the writing skills of genre authors and why genre authors like excoriating literary ones about things not happening in their stories. Literary writing possesses richness of language and expression that genre writing doesn't often exhibit. The difference has a lot to do with the purpose of each type of writing and its intended audience. Lot's of ink has been spilled on both sides of this fence, but that about sums it up.

[Nateskate]

I wouldn't want to eat everything made just because someone made it. (Fear factor anyone?) The reader/writer relationship is one of give and take. If they give me something good, I take it. Then I give them something good (my money) and they take it. Obviously "good" is in the eye of the beholder.

I anticipate some will like my writing. Perhaps some will love them. But others may use the paper from my book in a "Dances with Wolves" sort of way. (There's a scene where this soldier has to go to the bathroom and...aw forget it!) You get the drift.

[Diviner]

I don't think dissing the masters or the successful is just a old guard-new guard thing. For instance, Virginia Woolf is a famous stylist, not really involved in stortelling IMHO. Mrs. Dalloway has to be the most tedious thing I ever read, and that includes the first chapter of Ivanhoe where the MC is tending pigs. I don't like horror, but Stephen King is a fine writer, worth reading just for his characterizations. Yes, he can tell a story, whether or not it is a story I want to read.

Frankly, I have little patience with sloppy writing, but, if a story grabs me, I skim it, ignoring what irritates me.

[HConn]

I've noticed that some unpublished writers keep running down certain published authors, saying that their writing is not good.


That's because some unpublished writers don't understand why a popular, successful writers is popular and successful. They can see the flaws, but can not recognize the appeal.

It's a weakness.

[Kasey Mackenzie]

Both story and grammar are important to me--but then I tend to be a stickler about grammar when it comes to the written word (written meaning books and business correspondence, not necessarily online). However, I do think story is the most important. If the story is absolutely riveting and there are a few grammar errors it won't bother me much. Now if we're talking repeated grammar errors and typos on each page then the story probably isn't going to be able to counteract that for me.

[Elizabeth]

In a professional, published work, it seems to me that "perfect grammar/spelling" is a given. What's to argue about, there? There's nothing to say. Just do your darnedest to make sure that it doesn't happen to you. That, by the way, is totally within a writer's control.

In my opinion, a good story is also a given. Of course, that's more open to debate (genre fiction vs. literary fiction, all that). Things like spelling and grammar are a lot less open to debate, IMHO.

[Mistook]

You never see them making movies out of books because of the excellent grammar.

[pianoman5]

Oh dear, everyone's heavily into stories, and I seem to be the odd one out here. But that's not unusual.

I've always liked stories, but reading something that's a deliberately contrived pack of lies is appealing to me less and less as time goes by.

Endless repetition of the same old plot lines assembled and told with minor variations seems to me an exercise in futility - writing and reading for the sake of it.

Perhaps it's an age thing, but now I'm only interested in true lies rather than false ones. I'm looking for the 'art' in fiction. Not necessarily arty farty - two page descriptions of a trembling leaf, with the sun sparkling in the dewdrop cupped in its fragile embrace. No, I want the moment of silence - the time when you have to put down the book and absorb the passage that has just stopped you in your tracks, to consider the truth of it in all its revelatory beauty. Something about life that you possibly already knew or half suspected but have never seen expressed in words in so perfect a way.

It's the same moment of silence as the one you get in front of a painting that moves you; or when listening to a favourite piece of music; or the sublime dish with flavours and textures so subtle that you don't want to analyse them, you just want to revel in their sensory delight.

Having written this, I've just realised that I might be barking up the wrong tree in my writing. I'm trying to write mainstream/commercial fiction for the intelligent reader, where the story is OK but not the principal driver. I'm more interested in the milieu and the themes than generating a whole bunch of tortuous cliffhangers 'because one should.' But it's more than possible that I'm writing neither in a sufficiently story-driven way to appeal to popular fiction fans nor in a literary-enough way for the cognoscenti. Back to the drawing board, perhaps.

But there's no question in my mind that in genre fiction the story is everything as far as the reader is concerned. I've compared notes with intelligent, literate friends about certain popular fiction titles we've mutually read, and have been surprised to find they didn't even notice the appalling style, laziness of word choice and overall cheesiness of them. They just 'enjoyed the story as a good read.' Nuttin' wrong with that. But it means that now I have (to some extent) a writer's sensibilities, it's even more important that I should succeed as a writer, because I'm ruined as a reader.

[Azure Skye]

Story is more important to me than anything else. Second is spelling. Oddly enough, I can handle less than perfect grammar but if words are misspelled...pffftt, forget it.

[Mistook]

I think it's all part of the same thing. Is there really a reason why a riveting story should be cheap on the prose? Should a poetic masterpiece always be boring and aimless?


A good writer should know when to switch gears, and how to do it without burning out the clutch. I once made this analogy for shifts in POV. Why shouldn't it be possible to go from 3rd limited, to objective, to omnicient and back again, switching out characters? Why shouldn't it be possible to write things plain and simple when it's called for, and get poetic and flowery in other spots?

The only reason any expert can give for not trying these 'stunts' is that if you do it wrong, you'll suck. Well, that's true of everything. It's no reason not to push yourself and learn.

[victoriastrauss]

But there's no question in my mind that in genre fiction the story is everything as far as the reader is concerned. I've compared notes with intelligent, literate friends about certain popular fiction titles we've mutually read, and have been surprised to find they didn't even notice the appalling style, laziness of word choice and overall cheesiness of them. They just 'enjoyed the story as a good read.'
As someone who reads a lot of genre fiction, I disagree. I occasionally slog through badly written books because I want to see how things turn out, or because I've committed to review them, but by and large I'm no more willing to read badly written stories than I am to read beautifully written non-stories. For me there needs to be a balance of plot and artistry, and the books I enjoy most are a melding of the two.

As a genre writer, this is also what I try (with mixed success I'm sure) to achieve. Prose style is hugely important to me, as are theme and character. Plot is important too, but it's not the main thing.

I think that blanket generalizations about the lack of artistry in genre fiction are more inaccurate now than ever. I'm sure that most people, when they talk about bad genre writing, are thinking of generic sword-and-sorcery epics or typical hardboiled PI novels. But there is much gorgeous writing in genre fiction. Sure, it's a minority of the whole--but mainstream literary fiction is also a minority of the whole.

- Victoria

[MacAllister]

I think that blanket generalizations about the lack of artistry in genre fiction are more inaccurate now than ever. I'm sure that most people, when they talk about bad genre writing, are thinking of generic sword-and-sorcery epics or typical hardboiled PI novels.

Victoria, I completely agree. In fact, I'm tempted to go a bit further and question whether someone ranting about bad genre writing actually READS genre.

Fantasy has a number of extremely literate, intelligent, and skillful writers. I could say the same for horror, science-fiction, and mysteries, for that matter.

I read a farkin' ton of books. I quite literally average four or five novels a week, and usually one or two nonfiction books, as well.

I guess, when I hear, "poorly-written bestseller" I sort of suspect it really means, "I didn't like it."

[Elizabeth]

My goodness, MacAllister... that number of books sounds like heaven. How do you do it?

[AncientEagle]

In my own writing, I strive constantly to achieve one goal: A good story well told. I look for the same thing when I read.

Being well told, in my book (no pun intended), includes a reasonable facility in the use of correct grammar, punctuation, etc. I can overlook an occasional glitch - maybe even more than an occasional one for a while if the story is really good. But I will eventually reach an overload point if the grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors are too glaring to ignore.

I recently struggled through an entire book - this one happened to be a supposedly true account of a crime wave involving key political and high society figures - that was so ungrammatically written and so full of flaws that, although the story kept me struggling along, when I finally finished it, I was angry at the author for writing it, the publisher for publishing it, and most of all, myself for reading it.

[pianoman5]

I think that blanket generalizations about the lack of artistry in genre fiction are more inaccurate now than ever. I'm sure that most people, when they talk about bad genre writing, are thinking of generic sword-and-sorcery epics or typical hardboiled PI novels. But there is much gorgeous writing in genre fiction. Sure, it's a minority of the whole--but mainstream literary fiction is also a minority of the whole.

I'm sorry, Victoria, I didn't mean to diss genre writing in any way. I agree, there are many superbly competent writers in every genre (among which you undoubtedly figure), although I tend not to explore them too much because I'm not terribly interested in wizards, goblins, ghouls, murders, or aliens. I was merely commenting on the fact that among the writers in this thread, the majority agree that story comes first, and I guess that's an object lesson for anyone who seeks to be a 'popular' writer in all senses of the word.

I'll venture the following 5 rules of fiction writing:

* If you want to be successful, write a great story and submit, submit, submit.

* If your story is good enough you can get away with stylistic abominations, because only other writers will notice.

* If your stories and style match each other in their brilliance you can be both a respected and a popular author.

* If your prose is sensational but your stories lack élan, you can be idolised by a smallish circle of academics and literary critics.

* If your writing contains none of the above qualities, learn to enjoy your day job.

[John Ravenscroft]

Ha!

I like your 5 rules, Pianoman5.

Can't argue with any of 'em.

I've tried to write a novel several times, but I've not yet managed it.

One of the reasons is I found it hard to decide what I wanted to write. Genre or Lit Fic?

Most of my gut says Lit Fic, but there's still a tube or two down there that wants to pump out a paranormal thriller.

So I stick to shorts and articles.

[pianoman5]

Cheers, John, and welcome to AW from BBC GW. You'll like it here.

P.S. 'Love your work,' as I gather we entertainment industry fringe-dwellers are meant to say.

[Writing Again]

I also like Pianoman's rules.


What I've always said: It is better to write a great story poorly than to write a poor story perfectly.

[Writing Again]

Ha!

I like your 5 rules, Pianoman5.

Can't argue with any of 'em.

I've tried to write a novel several times, but I've not yet managed it.

One of the reasons is I found it hard to decide what I wanted to write. Genre or Lit Fic?

Most of my gut says Lit Fic, but there's still a tube or two down there that wants to pump out a paranormal thriller.

So I stick to shorts and articles.

Why limit yourself?

Write one of each.

[John Ravenscroft]

Ta, PianoMan. I think a few BBC bods may find their way here soon.

WA, the problem is there's a different mindset involved. At least there is for me.

Once you flip certain switches in your head that turn you on to Lit Fic, it can become very hard to write certain types of genre. The conventions of the genre are at war with the intentions of most lit fic writing.

That's one of the problems I've had, anyway.

[Euan H.]

Once you flip certain switches in your head that turn you on to Lit Fic, it can become very hard to write certain types of genre. The conventions of the genre are at war with the intentions of most lit fic writing.


I'm curious. What conventions and intentions? Do you mean that focusing on artistry in prose means you can't write SF? Please explain. :-)

[John Ravenscroft]

It's not so much a case of artistry in prose, Euan (although it's true that becoming more sensitive to language-use can make it hard to get through many very successful genre novels).

But it's more the intention of the story I'm talking about - and I guess it's in large part the ancient Forda/Forza distinction. Plot based v Character based.

Most genre novels are pretty strongly geared towards plot. To a fair degree, the characters are there to play a role, to get a plot-job done. If they're too complex, too real, they can actually get in the way of the story.

The lit-fic I get most pleasure from (Raymond Carver's shorts, for example) is more concerned with taking an aspect of the reality of the human condition and holding it up bleeding for the reader to examine (and if possible even experience).

In order to produce the most powerful lit fic, I think it may be necessary to dump certain genre conventions, because they tend to be relatively simplistic.

Please note, I'm not 'putting down' any form of writing. Just trying to explain one of the reasons I've found it difficult to complete a novel.

Hey, I even wrote a column about it a while ago!

If you're interested, it starts here:

http://www.johnravenscroft.co.uk/18395.html

[Euan H.]

Thanks for the reply and link--you've got a lot of interesting stuff on your site. :) I particularly like the idea of listing the objects a character's going to be carrying with them--I'm going to give that one a try.

[victoriastrauss]

Most genre novels are pretty strongly geared towards plot. To a fair degree, the characters are there to play a role, to get a plot-job done. If they're too complex, too real, they can actually get in the way of the story.
Again, I protest. It's as inaccurate to stuff genre fiction into the "plot driven, not character driven" box as it is to tar literary fiction with the "empty exercise of style" brush. And I know you didn't say "all" genre fiction is this way. But "most" in this context is almost the same thing, because to apply one label so broadly denies the wide variation in style, subject matter, and quality that actually exists within genre fiction.

I think some of the difficulty of discussions like this is that a distinction isn't made between "literary" as a genre (yes, a genre) and "literary" as a quality of writing. The former is a particular type of book with particular conventions of style and structure--maybe not so easily classifiable as the conventions of science fiction or mystery, but conventions nonetheless. But "literary" is also a characteristic of the writing itself, and as such transcends genre labels. Literary writing can--and does--exist in genre fiction. Again, it's a minority of the whole, and if you decide to be literary within a genre frame, you're probably condemning yourself to obscurity, since I'd agree that what most readers--not just most genre readers--really want is a good story, interestingly told. Nevertheless, genre fiction can possess the quality of literariness--and between the literary stuff at one end of the spectrum and the sort of popular, pulpish writing that most people think of as genre fiction at the other, there is a huge amount of variation. I really think it's time to stop talking about "genre" in this monolithic way, as if all fantasy, or all mystery, or all fantasy/science fiction/mystery/romance could be encapsulated in a single phrase.

- Victoria

[maestrowork]

Victoria, I think conception like that tells us there's still a lot of stigma associated with genres.

[John Ravenscroft]

Hi, Victoria:

You know, I think we're saying more-or-less the same thing.

You say:

Literary writing can--and does--exist in genre fiction. Again, it's a minority of the whole, and if you decide to be literary within a genre frame, you're probably condemning yourself to obscurity

Exactly. Because literary techniques don't sit well amongst the conventions of genre. Most readers don't read for 'literary' reasons.

As I said above:

Please note, I'm not 'putting down' any form of writing. Just trying to explain one of the reasons I've found it difficult to complete a novel.

[brinkett]

One of the reasons is I found it hard to decide what I wanted to write. Genre or Lit Fic?


If you've got a story idea, why not start to write it and discover where it belongs that way.

If your story is good enough you can get away with stylistic abominations, because only other writers will notice.


This is so true. If you flip through the books on your shelves and consciously look for "stylistic abominations", you'll find them. I've found them in my favorite books, many by respected authors. Of course, when I originally read them, I didn't notice because I was caught up in the story. As Uncle Jim says, story trumps everything.

I'm in the "would rather read a good story that may be lacking in style than a well written, dull story" camp. I've read some horribly written fan-fic and enjoyed it immensely because the story was original and captivating. I've also tuned out very early on stuff that I'm sure would be considered superbly written by critics.

[victoriastrauss]

Exactly. Because literary techniques don't sit well amongst the conventions of genre.[/I]
I was trying to say that phrases like "conventions of genre" are inaccurate and even pejorative because they imply that a particular genre--or genre fiction as a whole--can be reduced to a single set of basic principles. I suppose that this is true in the very broadest sense, such as "science fiction involves scientific speculation", but when people say "genre convention" they generally mean something much more specific and limiting, such as the wizards/elves/quest/magical object/medieval setting complex that's supposed to define fantasy. These days fantasy writers are more likely to go to great lengths to avoid that complex than to follow it.

But I've whacked this horse before and it's still dead. So I guess I'll let it RIP.

- Victoria

[RGame]

I take it that discussions like this are the reason that Kurt Vonnegut doesn't like to be referred to as a sci-fi writer.

[Diviner]

About writing two different kinds of stories at the same time, I say why not? I jump back and forth from "literary" short stories to fantasy to historical fiction, not to mention the occasional bits of poetry, and I actually enjoy the jumping. Using BIC as a definite program, if one thing seems a bit sticky, I can edit or write scenes or whatever, knowing that sooner or later I'll be ready to tackle whatever the problem was. Perhaps not everyone can keep their story elements in their heads, but I am assisted by maps, timelines, summaries of my historical research, and character description charts. I don't, can't use outlines, but I would if I could.

I would encourage anyone with good ideas to use multi-tasking. It is no more confusing than remembering the names and eating preferences of your children.

[johnnycannuk]

Kurt Vonnegut just proves that good writing and a good story trancend genre.

[muscort]

I started off reading many of Stephen King's books when I was a child. It is excellent writing and excellent storytelling, for the most part. I just don't like his writing so many books after the 80's. I am of the mindset that less is better. Quality over quantity. So many writers are trying to stretch story ideas and make as many books as possible. I stopped reading Stephen King about 7 years ago when I was turned on to Dean Koontz. Dean has an amazing writing style and I like the content better than King's. Even though I like the ideas of the future Dean writes of, I have been disappointed about just how close some of his ideas were. Some books were only slightly different from each other. I would have been more happy for some of those many ideas being in one book, not spread out over many novels.
I guess I love to be diverse and I only want to make quality books, even if they take longer to finish.
One great storyteller, whose stories are not in book form, is Quentin Tarentino. I like that he has taken the time on every story to make them different from one another and he hasn't saturated the market. The stories are also extremely well thought out.

[Jamesaritchie]

I started off reading many of Stephen King's books when I was a child. It is excellent writing and excellent storytelling, for the most part. I just don't like his writing so many books after the 80's. I am of the mindset that less is better. Quality over quantity. So many writers are trying to stretch story ideas and make as many books as possible. I stopped reading Stephen King about 7 years ago when I was turned on to Dean Koontz. Dean has an amazing writing style and I like the content better than King's. Even though I like the ideas of the future Dean writes of, I have been disappointed about just how close some of his ideas were. Some books were only slightly different from each other. I would have been more happy for some of those many ideas being in one book, not spread out over many novels.
I guess I love to be diverse and I only want to make quality books, even if they take longer to finish.
One great storyteller, whose stories are not in book form, is Quentin Tarentino. I like that he has taken the time on every story to make them different from one another and he hasn't saturated the market. The stories are also extremely well thought out.

I still read King and Koontz. I don't think less is better. Good is good, and I think both of these writers are about as good as you can get.

[Jamesaritchie]

First, you need good grammar and punctuation, but this isn't what makes writing good or bad. You can have perfect grammar and punctuation, and still write horribly. Good writing comes from word choice, from syntax, from structure, from rhythm, from turn of phrase, and from the way it sings. Good greammar and punctuation are only aids in helping a writer accomplish these things.

I don't think there's any doubt at all that story is more important than writing skill. I don't know how anyone could look at all the bestselling novels, or at many of the classic genre writers, and think otherwise.

This doesn't mean writing can be really bad. It can't. It just means that story and characters are more important than writing skill. Some of the more famous writers in genre have had pretty poor writing style, but told such great stories, and filled those stories with such memorable characters, that the writing gets read by millions and lasts after the writer is dead and buried.

If story and character are good, the writing merely has to be competent.

Most readers aren't writers, aren't critics, aren't reviewers, and don't buy a book because of the writing level. They buy it because they want a story and some characters that can take them away from reality for a few hours.

Good writing is a fine thing, and competent writing is a must, but readers at large seldom finish a novel and start talking about the writing. When they say, "He's a great writer," they mean he's a great storyteller. They fall in love with the characters and the story, and it's this they keep thinking about.

[muscort]

Jamesaritchie, I don't want you to think I don't find King and Koontz extremely talented. They are talented. I'm not speaking for everyone when I say less is better, that's just the way I feel. I enjoy multifaceted books that were well thought out and I don't want any repitition or other similar books. I would rather yearn for more stories because an author only wrote very few fresh ideas on every single novel. I don't plan on writing many novels. I want every aspect of my novel to be well thought out: Punctuation, story and every last detail.

[Denis Castellan]

After reading posts here (and there, too...) about both King and Koontz, I'm coming to a conclusion that translators are an extremely important factor in what foreign readers can think of an author.

I guess King is luckier than Koontz on that point. I've read both in English and in French, but they were different novels so I couldn't compare the translations.

I read Koontz's Cold Fire and Mr Murder in English and I found them much more enjoyable (do you say that?) than the others I read in French. I enjoyed King's novels in French as much as the ones in English. And while even my mother knows who King is, most of my friends have never heard of Koontz.

So I was wondering... how are translators chosen for a particular author ? who decides who's best for this or that book ?

[Jamesaritchie]

Jamesaritchie, I don't want you to think I don't find King and Koontz extremely talented. They are talented. I'm not speaking for everyone when I say less is better, that's just the way I feel. I enjoy multifaceted books that were well thought out and I don't want any repitition or other similar books. I would rather yearn for more stories because an author only wrote very few fresh ideas on every single novel. I don't plan on writing many novels. I want every aspect of my novel to be well thought out: Punctuation, story and every last detail.

I suspect it's largely just a matter of taste. I don't find King or Koontz repetitious. I just don't think slow necessarily means better. Quantity is what it is, and can come at any speed. Great novels and very long classic stage plays have been written in under a month, sometimes a lot under a month, and garbage has been written over years.

[Writing Again]

Jamesaritchie, I don't want you to think I don't find King and Koontz extremely talented. They are talented. I'm not speaking for everyone when I say less is better, that's just the way I feel. I enjoy multifaceted books that were well thought out and I don't want any repitition or other similar books. I would rather yearn for more stories because an author only wrote very few fresh ideas on every single novel. I don't plan on writing many novels. I want every aspect of my novel to be well thought out: Punctuation, story and every last detail.

You may have a problem if you become a successful writer. The more successful you are the more money other people make from your writing. They are not going to make money from your sitting around thinking out every detail -- They make money when you produce something they can market.

So the pressure is on: produce, produce, produce.

[Writing Again]

As someone who has been harassed over writing genre fiction I don't find John Ravenscroft's statement "Because literary techniques don't sit well amongst the conventions of genre," pejorative. Even though writers work at expanding and altering those conventions readers do come to the genre with certain expectations they want fulfilled and they are disappointed if they are not.

John Ravenscroft is a skilled and sensitive writer whose position is one many, if not most of us, would envy. He is a recognized short story writer who has had book publishers coming to him asking if he would write a full length novel.

One of his problems is the sheer size of the task of writing a novel after having spent a lifetime writing short fiction -- A problem many of us understand, I myself started writing for the pulp market, max 7,000 words, most were 2,500. The jump to 60,000, 80,000, 160,000 seems horrific. My first novel was written simply to get 80,000 words on paper -- Sort of my own Nano Wrimo in the pre computer era.

Another of his reservations is one of style and message. He would like to write something that has value and meaning, something that is worth his time and effort to produce. I believe I understand his desire although I myself am happy to write meaningless entertainment that is fully disposable in the garbage shoot of life.

[Zane Curtis]

I find that genre, especially fantasy, does not preclude a more literary approach to the use of language. In fact, I find the stylistically adventurous stuff much more interesting than the paint-by-numbers, elves and quests stuff. Here are the works I would recommend if you want to see how it's done:

Gormenghast by Mervyn Peake
Viriconium Nights by M John Harrison
The Blood trilogy by Michael Moorcock (Blood, Fabulous Harbours, War Amongst the Angels)
The Boy Who Hooked the Sun by Gene Wolfe (short story)

SF also has its equivalents: Dying Inside by Robert Silverberg, and just about anything written by Alfred Bester. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say the only thing that distinguishes academic literary fiction from SF and Fantasy is the strictly enforced doctrine of realism, which precludes invention. Literary critical theory draws a distinction between the "novel" and the "romance", but these days, the distinction is all but meaningless to everyone except academic literary critics.

[Jamesaritchie]

It's not so much a case of artistry in prose, Euan (although it's true that becoming more sensitive to language-use can make it hard to get through many very successful genre novels).

But it's more the intention of the story I'm talking about - and I guess it's in large part the ancient Forda/Forza distinction. Plot based v Character based.

Most genre novels are pretty strongly geared towards plot. To a fair degree, the characters are there to play a role, to get a plot-job done. If they're too complex, too real, they can actually get in the way of the story.

The lit-fic I get most pleasure from (Raymond Carver's shorts, for example) is more concerned with taking an aspect of the reality of the human condition and holding it up bleeding for the reader to examine (and if possible even experience).

In order to produce the most powerful lit fic, I think it may be necessary to dump certain genre conventions, because they tend to be relatively simplistic.

Please note, I'm not 'putting down' any form of writing. Just trying to explain one of the reasons I've found it difficult to complete a novel.

Hey, I even wrote a column about it a while ago!

If you're interested, it starts here:

http://www.johnravenscroft.co.uk/18395.html

You've touched on a problem I've faced here. Raymond Carver is one of my favorite short story writers. Definitely in the top three. The writing skill needed to write such fiction is one thing, but I can't for the life of me find a way to bring the subject matter to genre writing in a way that isn't overpowered by the conventions and demands of a given genre.

[muscort]

I understand people who only want to write novels to make money must produce, produce, produce. I'm just not one of those people. I have many different business ventures so I don't have to be pigeonholed. I'm kind of stubborn, too.
I like geniuses such as Quentin Tarantino who only make well thought out, totally original stories. I don't see him making a crappy romantic comedy or some other crappy story just to keep the agents happy.

[fallenangelwriter]

To me, the requirement is that the writing be entertaining. I think the sotory is the most significant part of most books. for that reason, i don't spend much time thinking abouyt good writing. most of the time, i think good writing is unobtrusive writing. if i can read a book without noticing the writing at all, i consider it extremely well-written. occasionally, i come across a book where the writing itself is entertaining, like snow crash or candide, in which case that becomes part of the story.


this isn't to say that good writing isn't important to me, but the story comes first. I have an unusual reading style. unlike most people i know, i read through the words directly into the story. I read more quickly than any of my friends, but i'm not conscious of individual word choices. thus, i can tolerate poorly written books, because i see through them directly into the story. the only time writing really bothers me is when it has so many glaring errors that i can't concentrate, or i can't figure out what it means. however, i think writing has a subconscious effect on me. the story is all i remeber, but bland prose causes me to remember the story as bland. often, a poorly written book leaves me feeling that it was a good idea but not an interesting application of it. good writing certainly helps by adding color to the story, but if thee is no story, no amount of writing will save it for me.

i'd also like to address the plot vs character dichotomy. i don't belive there is one. honestly, i feel that characters are the plot. a story with the most fascinating characters doing nothing is not terribly interesting. watching someone's daily life is not interesting uness he person is so unique that thier ordinary life is an adventure or crisis, in which case the character is the plot. similarly, a plot populated entirely with bland sterotypes is rarely an intersting plot, because there isn't much that can develop or change. the more interestingthe cjaracters are, the more complex the plot naturally becomes and the more enveloping.

[Writing Again]

To me, the requirement is that the writing be entertaining. I think the sotory is the most significant part of most books. for that reason, i don't spend much time thinking abouyt good writing. most of the time, i think good writing is unobtrusive writing. if i can read a book without noticing the writing at all, i consider it extremely well-written. occasionally, i come across a book where the writing itself is entertaining, like snow crash or candide, in which case that becomes part of the story.


this isn't to say that good writing isn't important to me, but the story comes first. I have an unusual reading style. unlike most people i know, i read through the words directly into the story. I read more quickly than any of my friends, but i'm not conscious of individual word choices. thus, i can tolerate poorly written books, because i see through them directly into the story. the only time writing really bothers me is when it has so many glaring errors that i can't concentrate, or i can't figure out what it means. however, i think writing has a subconscious effect on me. the story is all i remeber, but bland prose causes me to remember the story as bland. often, a poorly written book leaves me feeling that it was a good idea but not an interesting application of it. good writing certainly helps by adding color to the story, but if thee is no story, no amount of writing will save it for me.

i'd also like to address the plot vs character dichotomy. i don't belive there is one. honestly, i feel that characters are the plot. a story with the most fascinating characters doing nothing is not terribly interesting. watching someone's daily life is not interesting uness he person is so unique that thier ordinary life is an adventure or crisis, in which case the character is the plot. similarly, a plot populated entirely with bland sterotypes is rarely an intersting plot, because there isn't much that can develop or change. the more interestingthe cjaracters are, the more complex the plot naturally becomes and the more enveloping.

Hey, I could have said that, not sure why I didn't.

[muscort]

I'm curious. Are there any authors out there that only wrote very few novels, and all were exceptional? I was speaking of a movie maker like Tarantino but wasn't sure about novelists. If you have any authors like that, do you yearn for more novels from them?

[fallenangelwriter]

Hey, I could have said that, not sure why I didn't.

what part of my post are you referring to?

[maestrowork]

Stories are about people. If you get the characters right, give them the right motivations, desires and conflicts, the story will come and it will be natural and real. If you force your characters into a plot, you risk having a stiff and unreal story...

Take Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice for instance. It's been borrowed, made in to many movie versions, etc. with various different take on the plot (really, basically a boy meets girl story). But the themes and characters (Elizabeth, Darcy, Bingley, etc.) stay the same because they're the glue to the story. Same with Romeo and Juliet -- many people probably don't remember the precise plot, but they remember the central themes, the general story, and most important, the characters. It has resurfaced as different stories or movies, but we recognize the source -- now that's impressive.

[Jamesaritchie]

I understand people who only want to write novels to make money must produce, produce, produce. I'm just not one of those people. I have many different business ventures so I don't have to be pigeonholed. I'm kind of stubborn, too.
I like geniuses such as Quentin Tarantino who only make well thought out, totally original stories. I don't see him making a crappy romantic comedy or some other crappy story just to keep the agents happy.

He makes what he likes. So do writers. Though to be honest, I'm not real fond of most of Tarartino's work, and see very little orginality in it. But it's largely a matter of taste. We all love those who make or write what we love to watch or read.

You may think romantic comedies are crappy, but many love them and think they're great, and you may love Tarantino's work, but others think it's crappy.

It's a mistake to think writers just produce, produce, produce for money, or write what they do to make an agent happy. Try this and you probably won't get very far.

Writers who produce, produce, produce, usually do so because they're capable of writing both fast and well, and every writer I know writes what he wants to write. Within reason, slow doesn't make you one bit better, and fast doesn't harm the quality.

And I wish I were as prolific as Tarantino. All you see are the hits, not the reams that went nowhere.

[victoriastrauss]

you may love Tarantino's work, but others think it's crappy.Last night I watched both Kill Bills back to back (what can I say, I have insomnia). The films are technically breathtaking--the photography, the sets, the choreography, the cutting, the use of animation--really stunning. But what a crock the rest of it is. Dumb story. Ridiculous characters. Yes, I know that's the point, a sort of comic book/anime/spaghetti western/martial arts pastiche. But all I could think was, What a waste of artistry.

- Victoria

[katiemac]

I'm curious. Are there any authors out there that only wrote very few novels, and all were exceptional?

Muscort, I could be wrong but Jeffrey Eugenides has written only two novels, The Virgin Suicides and Middlesex: A Novel and they have both been widely acclaimed by critics.

Actually, I should say he has written only two published novels.

[maestrowork]

I think Thomas Harris only had four published novels? 10 years between Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal.

[Julian Black]

I'm curious. Are there any authors out there that only wrote very few novels, and all were exceptional?...If you have any authors like that, do you yearn for more novels from them?

Katherine Dunn's Geek Love came out in 1989. It's one of my favorite novels, but after 16 years I've finally given up on her ever publishing another.

[sigh]

[Denis Castellan]

Last night I watched both Kill Bills back to back (what can I say, I have insomnia). The films are technically breathtaking--the photography, the sets, the choreography, the cutting, the use of animation--really stunning. But what a crock the rest of it is. Dumb story. Ridiculous characters. Yes, I know that's the point, a sort of comic book/anime/spaghetti western/martial arts pastiche. But all I could think was, What a waste of artistry.

I usually like Tarantino's films, but I felt the same about this one (well, these two.)

It's like "Nouvelle Cuisine" : classy restaurants and nicely displayed dishes but nothing in your stomach at the end of the meal...

[alanna]

I think the story should come first. In some cases, having proper grammar doesn't make sense, especially in the first person or in dialogues. Like, for instance, in Ayn Rand's Anthem she uses horrible grammar, but it's a first person narrative and the improper grammar serves a crucial purpose to the story. On top of this, if the story is really interesting I won't even notice most grammar mistakes until the second or third read through. Short answer: the story's more important then the grammar. But sometimes, the grammar's crucial to the story.

[Sunny7L]

I think you need both. If you can't communicate the story then it's simply lost. And, if you don't have something specific you're trying to relay then what's the point?

As an avid reader, I've found that the occasional misspellings or grammatical errors don't take away from a good story. The reader will be too lost in it to care. But, a story littered with mistakes may bring into question the competency of the author, and that definitely distracts from the story.

The worst you could do though is having a poorly thought out story with plot holes and other inconsistencies. That's more significant than having proper sentences.