Whats more important good story or perfect writing?

[Dozmonic]

It all depends because different audiences want different things. What is good writing? Is it flowing and poetical prose, or fantastic characterisation? Perhaps it is writing that's alive with rhythm, or full of awesome imagery. Or it can simply be a story that's written clearly, with no clever gimmicks, with no outstanding quality except that of keeping the reader absorbed.

As for the story, again, different people like different things. I like a story to be well threaded. I love to see elements planted at the start that are carried through or expanded upon at a later point, and I try to incorporate this into my writing. I have elements people will understand short term, and that will take on greater significance long term.

Others think that if a story has an idea that's similar to another idea, it is no good. Others thrive off characterisation, others adore plot. Some love the spirituality they can take from a work, and others wish to get lost in lives from another world.

We all want different things from our reading, and our writing. It's too broad a question to really answer ;-)

 

[kale]

I think essentially it's very important to maintain both criteria. It's more or less a fragile pack of cards if you don't adhere to both.
Teresa sums up the whole concept really. Once you're distracted either by bad writing, characterisation or plot, interest and desire to continue with the story begins to wane.
And ultimately it does feel like our intelligence is being insulted when any of the above fail our expectations.
You have to have good characterisation, story and the rest to appeal to as wide an audience you possibly can. To me, none of them are any good without the other.
It's a cast iron template that can't be sacrificed. If it is, all we are left with is words on paper.

 

[CBellenis]

The story's what counts. I can cope with poor quality writing if I want to know what happens next. On the other hand I find paragraphs of beautiful prose to be a time-wasting turn-off.
I think that in a well written book you don't notice the writing, just what it has to say.

 

[kale]

I think beautiful prose has its merits. For me it can add to the atmosphere and define the writer from other writers. Meandering descriptions can drag a story into an early grave but when the two meet, good prose and good storytelling, it can be a marriage made in heaven.

 

[Clansman]

It was said well enough above, so I won't bother quoting. Good writing necessarily requires a good story, and a good story necessarily requires good writing to communicate it. They are simply different sides of the same coin. If one side is thin, the whole coin is thin.

 

[ratsy]

I don't really find a story good unless it is written well. They work together and if you comprimise on one you comprimise on the other. When I can pick up a book and read it with ease for a couple hours and I feel engrossed in the writing then I know I have a great combination of story and skill.

 

[The Ace]

Unfortunately, story depends on language, written stories more so.

The greatest story in the world is no good to anyone if the writer is incapable of stringing together a coherent sentence in his native language.

Vocabulary, spelling and grammar are the tools of the writer's trade, and the basic tenet of any trade is, 'Learn to use your tools properly.'

 

[jojajihisc]

A good story.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

When I see sloppy writing I expect sloppy storytelling, and inevitably find it.

I will also say that there is great deal more art and skill even in the writing of the authors who aren't really known for the excellence of their writing than even their fans realize most of the time. A lot of authors get by on their compelling writing when their stories are actually trite, predictable, and poorly plotted.

 

[Omphalos]

Often when I read a book that has a great plot, but bad writing, I will take the author to task. But usually if I read a book with plot holes and some implausibility, I will come out happy on the other end if the writing is superb. In SF I dont often gush about a writer's skills. Johanna Russ, Connie Willis, and Lois McMaster Bujold come to mind as great writers, but their books are great too.

Then again, some authors who are not so hot get a break from me when they write a good story. Stephen King for example. His writing is meh. Some of his stories are awesome, and yet I give him kudos.

Wow. Looks like I have no standards.

 

[Prefx]

I can tolerate a moderately entertaining story if the writing is excellent. I'm a fan of authors who pull out very unique and interesting sentences. Unfortunately I'm turned off by "mainstream fiction" because it consists of short, fragmented statements. James Patterson drives me up the wall. I'm not even sure if his stories are good because I can never finish them.

That said, I think everyone is in agreement a truly good book needs both.

 

[jojajihisc]

I don't think you need perfect writing in a book. Perfect writing is rare. There are loads of books where the writing is just fine or better, but the story is just boring. This gets mentioned much less than the reverse - good story but lousy writing.

 

[citri]

I think that a book to be readable has to have at least a little of both. If it sucks horribly in the story, it'll suck horribly no matter how well it's written in style. It'll either be perfectly clear how horrible it is or it will be horribly convoluted how horrible it is. Personally, I think that prose and style do not matter too much if the story is decent but if the style is nice, it just might make me more interested and absorbed. I usually can't get myself too immersed in a book if it is the same exact generic style as most, third person with overused descriptors in past tense. I have found that in the past, I have been more interested in books with interesting prose. If it is in first person, I usually give it more leeway with the story since it is different from all the other books (yes, I know there are a fair amount of first person books, just not as many as third person). I think there is a balance of it with both of them being beyond a certain level with the scale tipped towards story over writing style.

 

[HareBrain]

For me, there are three aspects to a book that determine how much of an impact it has on me and whether I will ever want to revisit it: (1) the quality of the prose; (2) the ideas/plot; (3) emotional impact (character). A book has to have at least two of those to be really worth reading, but one that has (2) and (3) will live with me longer than one that has (1) and (2). OTOH if it's badly written, chances are I won't get to find out if it has the second two.

 

[Moss]

I see the basic story as quite unimportant. Clarke's "A Fall of Moondust", for example, could be described simply as "resourceful man leads group to safety from a sandy hole"; Watership Down as "a bunch of rabbits find a new home". For me, what makes a book is the blending of exceptional writing with skilful handling, development and merging of the narrative themes within the basic story - the story teller's craft. An example could be William Golding's To the Ends of the Earth trilogy. The basic story is that of a sailing ship lost for a year, but the writing is wonderful, and the numerous themes flow, interact and merge brilliantly.

 

[Dozmonic]

But to me, those themes are the story ;-)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

For me, there are three aspects to a book that determine how much of an impact it has on me and whether I will ever want to revisit it: (1) the quality of the prose; (2) the ideas/plot; (3) emotional impact (character). A book has to have at least two of those to be really worth reading, but one that has (2) and (3) will live with me longer than one that has (1) and (2).

But surely it's excellent writing that gives a story much of its emotional impact? The right word in the right place can turn a sentence that would otherwise be flat and emotionally sterile into something that knocks your heart down into your shoes.

 

[Clansman]

This argument does go in circles. You simply can't have one without the other, as Moss points out so accurately above. I think Moss equates the word "story" with "plot". To me, you can't have a good story without good writing, which is why I used the coin analogy above.

Many of us here at the Chrons would agree that George R.R. Martin tells a great story in A Song of Ice and Fire (especially if he would get on with it!). However, the skill that he brings to the written word is an essential part of creating that story. His plot, however, could be mapped out in a flow chart (as some authors do to keep them on track), but it would be dead boring to read, because there would be no artistry.

It is the writer's craft that brings life to the story, that makes it last. That is what separates literature from pulp fiction. Literature transcends its age because of the writer's ability to breathe life into the prose. Most pulp fiction cannot hope to do that, because it is not written well enough to endure.

Without good writing, the "story" proper cannot exist. Q.E.D.

 

[HareBrain]

But surely it's excellent writing that gives a story much of its emotional impact? The right word in the right place can turn a sentence that would otherwise be flat and emotionally sterile into something that knocks your heart down into your shoes.

You're right, but I think that a lot of the time, where a story delivers most emotional impact, the writing isn't obviously excellent, and can seem quite workmanlike; if the style itself was notable in those sections, it would be distracting. What I meant by (1) are the bits of description and so on, where you have space to notice the quality of the prose because you're not involved at a deeper level. (So really I wasn't suggesting that good writing is the least valuable of the three, though it probably came across that way.)

As an example, I would compare David Mitchell with Susan Cooper, just off the top of my head. I would say that Mitchell's prose is of a higher quality than Susan Cooper's, and I remember several times while reading his books being amazed and delighted by a particular turn of phrase or whatever; but I can't remember what they are because they didn't have much lasting (ie emotional) impact. On the other hand, I've been looking back over a section from Cooper's The Grey King which I found emotionally earthquaking as a child, and I still find it very effective, but there is nothing poetically striking about the prose - it does its job perfectly, partly because it seems ordinary, and there is no "kapow" in the language itself to distract from what is being revealed.

 

[Moss]

I am probably incorrectly using the term "story" to describe an outline summary of the plot, where others are more accurately taking it to mean the totality of the narrative themes.
Reading a book, I hope to be taken on an entrancing journey by a masterful storyteller who can weave together multiple themes of narrative, description and character. If they can do so in a beautiful voice, then I don't really care what the book is about.
For instance, I would rate Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian as the most astounding fiction I have ever encountered. A summary of the plot is almost an irrelevance, and is very nearly impossible, yet the book is filled with captivating themes which flow and merge, all told with magnificent and breathtaking writing. I cannot expect this from all the books I read, but I do hope that every word, phrase, sentence and paragraph has been generated with careful thought about its impact.