This is like a Holy War thing over at Scribophile, beaten only perhaps by the Jihad of Adverbs. So, since I fancy this place to be more open to the discussion, and to be also more craft-oriented, what say you people?
Is pretty writing more important than story?
Is a good story capapable of carrying a book written by an idiot?
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Not to be cheeky, but both have been successful. I've read ultra-simple stuff that was fun and I've read pretty nonsense and liked it. I don't always like or hate either. Some people's idea of a good story seems trite to me and some people's idea of pretty writing is grating and absurd.
I flip. I flop. I neither acknowledge nor disclaim any general writing mantras. Only specifics.
I think there needs to be a balance, as with all things. Pretty writing won't mask a dull a story, and on the other side of the coin, a great story that looks like it was written by a drunken baby won't make the cut either (In my eyes, anyway).
Unless, of course, by "writing pretty" you mean something else entirely? I'm assuming you mean being knowledgeable of the craft. But if not, I think the writing style is dependant on the story.
I do mean craft, yes. I think over flowered writing (Eugenedes, for example) won't cover anything. I'm asking if a well written story trumps a story that perhaps has a better plot, but terrible writing by comparison. Does the voice, and the writing of someone like Clevenger give him more room to breathe with you than someone whose writing is limited, say Susanne Collins?
In my opinion, yes, how it's written is very important.
Take BEE's Less Than Zero for example.
Equally important.
I say they are both important. Perhaps equally important to me and my writing, but not equally important overall. I will excuse mediocre writing if there is a really good story, but the most beautiful writing in the world won't hold me for more than a few pages if the story sucks.
Obviously really, truly, horrible writing takes away from the story.
What it really comes down to is taste. What does the reader like? I thought Eugenides Middlesex was an amazing book, one of my favorites actually. While I write in, I guess what you'd call a minimalistic style (Noir/Pulp), I can still enjoy a book written in 'flowery prose.' Like Bradley said above, both are equally important. But, I think to make a story really work, there needs to be a balance. I tend to use straightforward writing when moving the plot along, but can get a bit flowery when describing characters, settings, etc...
Authors like Collins, Rowlings and Meyer have obviously tapped into a trend. Is the Twilight series a display of wonderful writing? IMO, no. But, having read all four books, the story is engaging. Despite the fact that I do like a book like Middlesex, I prefer a good story with simpler writing better than a long drawn story full of big metaphors, similes and flowery prose. But again, that's just my taste.
I respect the well-written stories. The plot-driven ones usually make more money I guess, but good writing is important to me and the people that matter to me. You can have well -written and a page turner, but I think you hvae to get the good writing down first to be able to do both.
Moon - Read The Marriage Plot,and tell me it doesn't make you hate the author, lauded though he may be...
.
For me, the writing makes or breaks or a book. I will put a book down if I don't like the way the sentences flow, no matter how amazing the plot is. Bad writing is like nails on a chalkboard to me, but my preferences for writing are also different than other people's.
For me, the writing makes or breaks or a book. I will put a book down if I don't like the way the sentences flow, no matter how amazing the plot is. Bad writing is like nails on a chalkboard to me, but my preferences for writing are also different than other people's.
I think I love you
Depends on what language (who's language) and what story. There are many books I've loved that had less plot but were still excellent stories, even if they didn't have as much driven narrative or twists, turns, etc. But I do have a tendency to hate poorly-written stuff even if the story is great. So I guess I favor something beautifully written, but this is in part because I really don't believe everything needs fixed, forced, driven plot to be strictly compelling.
I think I love you
It's mutual.
I've read books where the writing was so good I finished it in a day. But by the end, I asked myself, what was that book even about?
I've also read books where I picked up and was like "Oh this sounds really cool!" But couldn't get beyond the first few pages cause it was so poorly written.
In the long run, I prefer a story character/plot-driven but I can get that from other mediums of story telling, like comics or movies. I won't get through a book unless the writing intrigues me.
The way it's written is more important. Of course, the story should be there, a little bit at least, but a great character/plot driven one is a plus, and a really good one at that. So I try to look for both. If unamsaying ~~
Both, to a point. The plot-driven novel has to have a minimum competency. If the writing is horrible, I can't read it. But if the well-written novel has little plot, it's difficult for me to get out of the first 50 or 100 pages. Great language will only take me so far before I want the novel to do something. So I tend to read well-written in short form and plot-driven in long form.
Of course, the ideal is a strong mix of both (language and plot).
I look at literature as food. The plot is what's on the menu, and the writing is the way the menu has been prepared. I absolutely hate spinach, but I'll wolf it down if it's cooked in the form of spanakopita, or a really great chip dip. I can't get enough of really good buffalo wings, but if the only wings available are microwavable Tyson wings, fuck it, I'll starve to death.
I absolutely hate westerns, but jabber on like a school girl worshipping Bieber when it comes to Cormac McCarthy's writing.
The right writer, using the right style/voice/language, can make any plot compelling in my less than valuable opinion. Yet, the best plot in the world cannot be saved by a hack at his 'My First Sony' laptop.
Does any of this make sense, or are the painkillers fucking up the clarity of what I'm trying to say?
The Marriage Plot was fine to listen to on my mp3 player. He does a good job of describing mental illness and the lack of control that it brings. I did not care for a third of the book (and not just like the last third or the first third, but probably every third chapter). But it was still a good listen. I don't know if I would have finished it if I were reading it.
I loved Middlesex, though.
And good writing with bad story is a chemistry text book. It's interesting, but only if you're already interested in the subject. A good story with bad writing is a New York Times Bestseller.
If the writing's 'bad'--'bad' being completely subjective--then I can't get past the first few paragraphs without forcing myself.
If the plot's 'bad', I'll put the book down within the first few chapters, no matter how much I like the style.
@Tony: Completely agree.
Ultimately, a balance of both is the best policy. I think, in my opinion, that an amazing plot will carry a reader through sub par writing. Not horrible writing, though.
If forced to choose which is more important, I'd go with story.
Yeah, it's all about balance but I'm in the story camp. If I had to choose one, it would be story. Engaging characters doing interesting things barely outweighs perfect writing. Then again, you're asking a group if writers this question. We have an intense love of the craft, so the result would be different if you asked Joe Schmo reader.
great story: interesting tale well-told. Or something like.
In a room filled with people debating literature, you can tell who's been there before by counting the invitations that were not responded to.
