Story or Style?

shelboselby · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

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

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

Inkspill · Jul 12, 2008

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

Kalyke · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

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

Prozyan · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

Phot's Moll · Jul 12, 2008

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

C.M.C. · Jul 12, 2008

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

maestrowork · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

superman skivvies · Jul 12, 2008

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

Clair Dickson · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

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

maestrowork · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

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

kuwisdelu · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

rugcat · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

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

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

dwellerofthedeep · Jul 12, 2008

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

maestrowork · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

Oh no, the genres vs. literature debate again.

kuwisdelu · Jul 12, 2008

maestrowork said:
Oh no, the genres vs. literature debate again.

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

Mythica · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

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

Takvah · Jul 12, 2008

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

She_wulf · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

I'd say yes to this one. I'll point to "The Stupidest Christmas Angel" as an example. There were so many cliche'd plot twists and obvious rip offs of things in it that those amused me, but the style...CM's humor that put it over the top.

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

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

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

Amy

Eldritch · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

maestrowork · Jul 12, 2008

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

Fillanzea · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

ishtar'sgate · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

sanctuary6284 · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

dgiharris · Jul 12, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

Of course you want both, need both.

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

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

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

Just my opinion

Mel...

tehuti88 · Jul 13, 2008

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

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

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

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

Story or Style?

One Girl Mediocrity Machine

Are you one, Herbert?

Archetype

Fear the Death Ray

Wannabe Writer

A dark core to every cloud

Fear the Death Ray

Revolutionize the World

Lost in the Fog

Electric Alien Fish Machine

Fear the Death Ray

Revolutionize the World

Expert Gerbil Wrangler

Not a D list ego massager...

that's me

Fear the Death Ray

living in the past

Mental Supernova

Disgruntled Scientist

Mackinac Island Fanatic