What trumps what? Plot more important that good writing?

For me, it depends on teh genre.

Thrillers, mysteries, whodunnits etc, there has to be a solid plot. If I can guess the end too soon, it won't work too well .


Fantasy, I'm less bothered, as long as I have good characters, and and good writing. BUt a good solid plot always helps.

To me, plot or storyline. If the writer can make the movement of the story exciting or original, I can put up with sub-par writing.

Many people have looked down on Edgar Rice Burroughs' writing, but his stories are just so exciting, the characters so compelling, the action so relentless, that I never once noticed how good or bad his actual writing was.

I wish I were a little more handy at graphics I'd do a graph to show my opinion on this issue. Basically, there is a point at which the plot won't help if the writing is bad enough. Similarly, there's a point at which beautiful writing won't help if there's no story. Somewhere in between, I can be happy either way, with good writing and lackluster plot, or lackluster writing and a compelling plot. (Although my preference is for the former.) Of course, I really prefer both areas to shine, but we can't always get a pony for our birthday, can we?

Plot or Characters. If I don't care about the story or the people in the story I don't care about how well written it is and I can't get into it.

What makes you think there is a single answer to this question? It depends on the reader and on the genre and on the times and on...

And what's the usefulness of it? As writers we should be trying to have strong characters, plots and writing. I'm not exactly looking for a formula showing me where I can slack off. It's sort of like asking which food group is least important.

Charlie Horse said:

Which is more important? Or should they share equal standing in the development of a novel.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Click to expand...

This debate comes up every couple of months (along with POV, outlining, chapter numbering, etc...).

Some authors excell at plotting. Some authors are great writers. Every now and again, one writer is both.

And the above is entirely subjective, as is the definition of great plotting or great writing, based entirely on the reader and the material in their hands.

Hi, I'm new here. (Yes, I'll introduce myself up in the intro thread shortly. lol)

For me, I think I lean more towards plot being more important than writing. If the plot intrigues me enough, I'm more likely to forgive sub-par writing. But if the plot bores me, I'm more likely to put the book down, despite how well crafted it is. (Although, the better the writing, the more chance of me putting up with an average plot.)

For example, Robert Jordon's Wheel of Time series had some good writing. But the plot turned so glacially - in my opinion of course - that it turned me off. On the other hand, I'm re-reading Susan Cooper's The Dark Is Rising series again. The writing is geared for young adults but the plot moves fast enough/well enough to keep me interested.

Just look at The Da Vinci Code. I didn't like the characters and thought the flow of the book was rough but it still sold like hot cakes because of the plot.

If you have stellar writing but a boring book, people wont finish it. But if you have an exciting book with subpar writing, I'd think the average reading would glaze over it.

They go hand in hand. I'd say characters are the most important but if you don't have a good plot, you're going to bore everyone. But if you have a good story but your execution sucks, it's not so good either. I've seen so many good stories/premises go to waste because the execution and treatment are so bad.

You may have the best ingredients, but you still need cooking skills to bake the best cake.

Straka said:

Just look at The Da Vinci Code. I didn't like the characters and thought the flow of the book was rough but it still sold like hot cakes because of the plot.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Dislike it all you want but Dan Brown is really good at stringing the readers along, what with his skills at cliffhangers and suspense. It's a very effective treasure-hunt story and he did everything right with regard to the genre. The "plot" itself actually is not that spectacular -- it's a run of the mill treasure hunt, chase, mystery. But he has a great premise -- controversial even, that intrigues people. And like his style or not, his execution is excellent for the genre.

So I'd say in his case, the execution trumps the actual plot. The premise, however, trumps it ALL.

Style is what grabs me first. It's like hearing what the author has to say rather than the characters, so if the author can entice me with her words, I'll read it regardless. Failing that, I look at characters, and failing that, I'll look at plot.

If I don't like the plot but the style of the writing still flows, I'm still reading.

Although, there's a difference between 'style' and 'good.' Writing can be plenty good, in a sense, and not really have a definite flair. The style has to be ambitious and daring and interesting enough, and not merely 'good.'

maestrowork said:

I disagree. Dislike it all you want but Dan Brown is really good at stringing the readers along, what with his skills at cliffhangers and suspense.

Click to expand...

To each his own. I personally felt some of the cliffhangers were abrupt and forced. But I cannot disagree that I read it very quickly in a few sittings, despite my issues it still had me turning pages.

Charlie Horse said:

There's a few other threads referring to plot holes, plot vs. character, etc. I woke up this morning thinking I've read some very good books with plot lines that didn't necessarily intrigue me. But the writing was so good, so well crafted and imaginative, that it almost didn't matter that the plot was lacking. On the other hand, I've read books where the plot was fantastic but the writing was lacking (my own included).

Which is more important? Or should they share equal standing in the development of a novel.

Discuss amongst yourselves.

Click to expand...

I think story or plot is what matters most. Writing is important too, but if I don't like the story or plot, I likely won't even pick up the book.

Sean D. Schaffer said:

I think story or plot is what matters most. Writing is important too, but if I don't like the story or plot, I likely won't even pick up the book.

Click to expand...

But if the writing is not good, you'll most likely put it down and move on and never buy the author's next books.

So does it mean a good story helps the initial point of sale but the writing determines if the writer has a career?

maestrowork said:

But if the writing is not good, you'll most likely put it down and move on and never buy the author's next books.

So does it mean a good story helps the initial point of sale but the writing determines if the writer has a career?

Click to expand...

You make a very good point, Maestro. Back in October or November, I bought a book that I thought would be good because of the plot, but like you pointed out, the writing turned me off.

Still, I believe the plot is slightly more important than the writing. The book I'm reading right now has decent writing, though not outstanding (he's not R. L. Stevenson, for example). Though the writing has some issues, I find myself caring more for the characters and their adventures than the writing.

I think the problem I had in my previous post, is that I didn't clarify how much more important storyline or plot is than writing. I agree, actually, that writing is important, just not as important as story or plot.

So the bad was on me, for not having clarified my position more thoroughly.

isn't a plot, basically, the reason you buy a novel?
Quite honestly, and this is my opinion, a book about someone with cancer can be expetionally written, I'll pick up the fantasy book first.

I agree with Sol Stein, that the most important factor is neither writing nor plot, but characterization. He points out that if you ask someone what their favorite book, movie, etc., is, then ask them what they liked best about it, they'll usually name a character, not cite a plot point.

I think it's the typeface that's most important.

Too small and I squint and can't enjoy it. Too large or fancy and I become irritated and indignant. It's like Goldilocks says; it has to be "Juuuuust right..."

I'm going to have to vote for good writing on this one. It's probably a symptom of my long patronage of fanfiction.net, listening to young writers extol their storytelling abilities while I cringe at their abuse of the English language. I've left critiques for more than one author who angrily wrote back insisting "it deosnt matter how u wriet, u shuld read teh story an not B so mean abt grammar n stuff. Who cares?"

I once read a short story the plot of which was simply a person watching raindrops roll down their window-pane, which I think is about as close as you can get to writing about watching paint dry. But the prose was so beautiful, so haunting and thick with sadness, with beautiful imagery and a very poetic flow that made me as though I was being rocked gently to sleep while listening to the sound of the rain (in a GOOD way, not in a boring way), that I've never forgotten that short story. I can't find it anymore, which saddens me, but it resonated so strongly in my memory that it's stuck.

In the same way, there's a passage in one of my favorite stories ever, The God Eaters, where the main character is imagining his hometown in the snow. All he's describing is snow, fog, and buildings, but his wistfulness and the quiet, dripping peace of the place are so PALPABLE, it's stuck out in my mind as a uniquely beautiful passage.

To write something unique, you have to see things in a unique way, demonstrated in 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance': A student finds herself utterly blocked when it comes to writing a report about her hometown, so the teacher tells her to narrow it down to the main street. When she also fails to find anything to write about on the main street, he tells her to narrow it to a single building - town hall. This also fails to produce any inspiration, so in a fit of exasperation, he instructs her to write about a single BRICK in the front wall of the town hall. Later, she bewilderedly hands him an extensive paper she's written about the brick, saying, "I don't know what happened... it just started coming out of me" or something to that affect (I don't have the book on-hand for the exact quote at the moment).

Marcel Proust said "The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes." So in conclusion, I say that a truly good writer can make any plot interesting as long as they present it with a 'new set of eyes', that is, in a unique and interesting way.

I think a great novel has a strong organizational structure (plot), a fresh idea with a unique perspective (even if it is a tried and true plot), believable characters, a strong sense of place, and well crafted sentences. I like plots with twists and turns and surprises. I want to be able to make reasonable predictions, but I don't want it so predicatable I could have written it myself. I want characters with depth and complexity. I want to read words which are crafted for imagery.

I don't want much, do I? )
I also tend to want this for my own writing which might explain my problem...

Given that plenty of books out there deliver both, why would I ever choose?

If something is badly written the mechanics or the story--I can't finish it, I keep cringing and think what if they had this or did that, why is this out of context--gawd this sux! I have read a bad plot novel becaue I cared for the characters, go figure :}

I make sure to never have big plot holes or anything but I still feel my writing style and characters are my strong suits. Sometimes I think I would have an easier time selling my stuff if it was more plot-centric but who knows?

What trumps what? Plot more important that good writing?

Click to expand...

If your name is Dan Brown, apparently so.