The story vs. the writing

Elwyn, I'd rather read a good story badly written, than a bad story well written but I would prefer to read a good story written in such a manner that I could follow what was being said without scratching my head, which generally means one written using generally accepted grammar and construction of sentences.

I agree with Bufty. That's not to say, however, that the occasional ungrammatical sentence doesn't have its place. In dialog.

I should add, Elwyn, that I'm not sure how you reach your conclusion when by your own admittance you don't read.

I hate anything badly written. It makes me throw the book across the room in disgust, wondering how someone who can't spell or use correct grammar even got published in the first place. I can't enjoy a badly written book, even if there's allegedly a good story in there. However, as azbikergirl said, these rules may be broken in dialogue - if this is how your characters really speak.

I'm a greedy reader. I want both a good story and decent writing.

i'm fine with poor grammar. if i'm writing a first person piece, i will utilise it often to protray the character's education in general and their emotions in the specific scene.

It's not about the grammar so much, for me, but the word choice. I'm a sucker for a good story, but I can swoon over crackling combinations of words.

If it's a good story with great characters, I don't mind if the writing is less than stellar. Many "popular" authors are not the best writers, IMHO, but I enjoy their books. On the other hand, I have a hard time reading purely literary fiction. I'm not a Eng Lit. major; I don't have to subject myself to that. Obviously, if it's a great story, with great characters, and well-written, all the better.

There's a difference between sloppy writing and rule-breaking. It's one thing not to know the rules and present the poor reader with a cluttered vision of an otherwise fascinating tale. It's another thing to know what the rules of punctuation and grammar are and then break them on purpose, for a good reason.

Sloppy writing makes me insane, but intentional rule-breaking is a-OK with me if the author is good at it.

Actually, English majors (and other folks who study literature on a collegiate level) enjoy a good read just like everyone else. And a surprising amount of literature studied by English majors breaks some of the grammatical rules of English--not because the author didn't know any better, but (and this is the important thing) because the author was so confident of his command of the English language that he knew how to bend the rules to make the prose more powerful.

The problem is, many people who make the argument that they're bending (or breaking) the rules to make their prose more powerful actually don't know the rules in the first place. Therein lies the difference between the amateur and the master.

scarletpeaches said:

I hate anything badly written. It makes me throw the book across the room in disgust, wondering how someone who can't spell or use correct grammar even got published in the first place. I can't enjoy a badly written book, even if there's allegedly a good story in there. However, as azbikergirl said, these rules may be broken in dialogue - if this is how your characters really speak.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

Great writing can mask a poor story for only so long -- usually when the reader takes a break and says, "What the hell just happened?"

Poor writing can kill a great story before it even gets off the ground if the reader can't figure out what's happening.

That being said, forgivable grammatical errors here and there won't make an agent or publisher stop reading.

You can learn to fix poor writing. You can't fix a poor story.

first of all, good writing and good grammar are not the same.


"know the rules before you break them" is the advice i would give. In my latest WIP, i take a numbe rof grammatical liberties and coin a number of words- but it's first person narration, the protagonist has a propensity to fiddle with word sna dlanguage, and it's only enough to add color or add punch to important points, not throughout the book.

EDIT: for an example of poor grammar and great writing, try Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"

I'm one of those literature major folks, and I had to stop reading a book a few weeks ago because the prose was long-winded, wordy, flowery...in short, it was just too literary. I enjoy the Bronte gals, Huxley, Dickens, Twain, Morrison, and other great literary minds...but...I have to feel like the story is gaining positive ground. The writers I just mentioned use wonderful language, but their stories tend not to falter. Fancy language for the sake of fancy language doesn't impress me.

I'm a fan of the sentence fragment, if used sparingly and appropriately. And THAT, my friends, would be considered a grammatical no-no under normal circumstances.

Elwyn said:

So what do the successful authors strive for – telling a great story or writing to satisfy the grammar police? Can one get the point across better by defying some of the hard and fast grammar rules? I would certainly think so.

Click to expand...

It's the same difference between a really good steak versus a juicy thick hamburger (or for you vegetarians out there, a really good carrot versus tofu ). It's a matter of preference and whatever goes down easier. I prefer a great story any day to perfect grammar. "The Colour Purple" is a great example of excellent writing but terrible grammar. It was to serve the character. I don't think the story would've been as good if it was flawless.

The whole point of having a standard way of constructing sentences is to aid reading comprehension. If I have to work to understand what a sentence means, I "come out of" the story, and I tend to lose interest in the story line. I might finish the book, but I wouldn't buy book #2.

However, I think if every sentence in a novel was grammatically perfect, the writing would seem stilted, particularly the dialog. That's the difference between a technical book and fiction; there's no excuse for poor grammar in technical writing, but "bad" grammar and unusual word choice can be used to great effect in fiction. The art is knowing when to break the rules so that story flows naturally.

I agree with fallenangelwriter that "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" is an example of good writing with "poor grammar". The story is told in the first person, by a protagonist who thinks and speaks in a kind of English dialect. It's just different enough from "standard" English to show that the people living on the moon have a distinct culture (it's not a slog like "A Clockwork Orange"). Of course there is also an entertaining story line.

If I read the first page and mentally re-write more than say, 10% of the sentences (for whatever reason. To make it flow better, strong word-choice, passive voice, adverb-overkill) then I won't know how good the story is because I won't bother with the second page.

Language should never get in the way of the story, but if you find yourself mentally re-writing or noticing the language and style that is not a good sign. You can stretch grammar so long as it does not become annoying, especially in dialogue, but if you annoy the reader with stylistic quirks, too much odd dialect, too many sentences that contain gramatical mistakes, you lose the reader. There are too many well-written books that tell good stories to make it worth plowing through the poorly written ones. Plus, as writers, I would think that we would want to read good writing to make outs better.

It seems to me that there's some confusion between 'good writing' vs 'perfect grammar' vs 'flowery prose'. Neither grammar nor elaborate prose constitute good writing. IMO, a basic understanding of grammar is a requirement for anyone who graduated high school; it shouldn't even enter the discussion. As many people said, grammar rules can be and are broken every day for great effect, but they are broken by people who know what they are doing, not because they couldn't figure out a way of slapping two words together.

Elaborate prose can be used to great effect by good writers; many other good writers opt for simple, clean prose. Either works, if -- again -- the writer knows what s/he's doing.

Good writing however is something separate -- it's not just perfect grammar; otherwise we would consider scientific articles well-written. Good writing demonstartes a certain feel for the language, its cadence etc. Good writing does not hurt. Good writing is not achieved by reading a book on writing, but by many years of indiscriminate reading, and acquiring an instinct for when sentences sound right. They can be wordy or spare, grammatically correct or not, but any prolific reader recognizes good writing -- it resonates. A good writer makes a stylistic choice, not lets the words sort of tumble out.

And it is necessary for the story. If the writing is too painful to read, the story does not matter. Stories ARE made of language, no matter how much scorn you heap on the literary academic eggheads. By the same token, if the book is not interesting, it is not well-written. A well-considered language is the necessity, IMO; this is the whole point of reading.

And before anyone asks, no, I'm not an English major. I'm a reader annoyed by ill-conceived prose and misbegotten novels that are justified by 'great story'. How you tell it makes a difference.

Fishmonkey said:

Good writing however is . . . not just perfect grammar; otherwise we would consider scientific articles well-written.

Click to expand...

Don't we? I've copy-edited plenty of scientific articles. My job included making them better written than before they hit my desk; some needed lots of help, others didn't. A scientist needn't have a tin ear for language.

Rules

Elwyn said:

I’ve come to the conclusion that some folk would be satisfied reading a boring book whose author is a word master extraordinaire. I’m talking about the purists who are English majors and look for perfection in sentence structure, etc.

On the other hand, there may be those who overlook someone taking liberties with grammatical purity and actually have a good story to tell. And, before anyone jumps in yelling that a good book should have both, with that I agree. But, I think there could be some compromises.

So what do the successful authors strive for – telling a great story or writing to satisfy the grammar police? Can one get the point across better by defying some of the hard and fast grammar rules? I would certainly think so.

Click to expand...

I am an English major, but I think you're confucing proper grammar with good writing. Grammar should be correct where grammar should be correct, and incorrect where it should be incorrect.

The problem comes with writers who can't construct a proper sentence, who don't know the difference between good and bad grammar.

Unintentional bad grammar means bad writing, and bad writing means the greatest story in the world is going to be hidden beneath the bad writing. Writing doesn't have to be great, it merely has to be competent. But it can't be actively bad, or no one, English major, grammar police, or garage mechanic, will want to read the story.

Good story, wonderful characters, and great dialogue are always the most important parts of fiction, but none of these can be created with writing that is at least competent.

When grammar should be poor, good writers make it poor. "Huckleberry Finn" is often called the greatest American novel of all time, but when Huckleberry is speaking or narrating, there isn't a single gramattically correct sentence to be found.

But where good grammar is required, good writers strive to make it perfect.

In other words, defying hard and fast grammar rules is a good thing, IF it's done intentionally, and IF it's done for a good reason. Greart writers do this all the time. They always have.

But breaking hard and fast grammar rules without a good reason, or simply breaking them through ignorance, just means bad writing, bad characters, bad story, and bad dialogue.

In dialogue, and in first person narration, which really is dialogue, grammar should reflect character. Dialogue and narration should use the same grammar that particular character would use. But even here, it needs to come out right, it needs to be intentionally wrong, or it won't sound like the character, it will sound like the writer.

In thrid person narrative, there's darned near never a time when incorrect grammar and punctuation is called for, and darned near never a time when any excuse for getting it wrong is justified.

But there's a lot more to good writing than grammar. A sentence can have perfect grammar and perfect punctuation, and still stink on ice. Proper grammar and punctuation are just the foundation. Good writing comes from word choice, from flow, from rhythm, and from cadence.

Good doalogue comes from writing sentences that are ones the character spekaing would actually use, written in the way that character would actually use then.

But unless the foundation is solid, everything else will come tumbling down.

Good story, good character, and good dialogue are always more important than great writing, but bad writing is another story. Bad writing hides story, characters, and dialogue.

You can't break the rules successfully unless you first know the rules. Rules need to be broken for a reason, and "I don't know them" isn't a reason, it's an excuse.

It makes no more sense to think a writer can perform his craft without a working knowledge of grammar and punctuation than it does to think a carpenter can perform his craft without knowing how to use a hammer or a saw.

Successful writer don't have to satisfy the grammar police. Successful writers ARE the grammar police.

Over the years, at one time or another, I have been looked down upon for being a white male, a redneck, a Southerner, a professional soldier, and a few other things. Now, at long last, I am verbally abused for being an English major. I feel so ashamed. If only I had spent that difficult four years, hard years working my way through college, learning something more real and down-to-earth, like writing incorrect sentences for fun and profit.

It's pretty easy to spot a writer who doesn't know his mother tongue, as compared to one who knows it and bends it deliberately and to good effect and not just because he or she can't be bothered to learn the rules. English is an incredibly rich and useful language, and I can't imagine anyone setting out to use it professionally who would choose to limit himself or herself by using it carelessly.

But then I may be wrong. After all, I'm an English major.

SCREW GOOD GRAMMER AND ALL THAT TRASH. I DON'T EVEN NEED A GOOD STORY. JUST MAKE ME KEEP TURNING PAGES-AFTER YOUR PACKAGE MADE ME COUGH UP HARD EARNED CASH TO BUY YOUR TRASH. ENTERTAIN MY BRAIN; THATS ALL I ASK. IS THAT ASKING TOO MUCH?