Whats more important good story or perfect writing?

Beautiful, lyrical writing has to have a solid plot foundation. Otherwise the whole point is missed and we have nothing but metaphors and sentence construction to be awed by. We can find this in poetry.
Plot is essential for the narrative that pulls us into a believable landscape. Without that we are marooned in writing excellence, bereft of interest.







 
The writing must be at least competent, but I'd say a good story was more important than perfect writing.

Isaac Asimov's characters were never very deep, but he made his name because of the intriguing ideas in his stories. I'd say the same was true for Arthur C. Clarke, and, of course, George Lucas' writing was known to be awkward.
 
I think I might be inclined to disagree a tad.

The ability to TELL an intriguing story is the more important than either writing or story line.

An excellent story can overcome poor writing e.g. Heinlein
Excellent writing can overcome the limitations of an otherwise passive or dull story e.g. Wells.
But in both these cases the writers were great storytellers.

On the other side I would submit Greg Egon or Hamilton who are technically good writers, sometimes with good and active story lines behind the flannel and science, but they seem incapable of actually telling a story. I'd rather read the telephone directory than their works
 
Isn't the ability to TELL a story part of excellent writing? Is not a good plot part of excellent writing? Is not basic construction of a sentence so that the author's intent conveyed to the reader part of excellent writing?

A deconstructionist analysis of what is more important in a book to me is fruitless. The best novels ever written have it all, and those novels that lack some of those things we desire in excellent literature are judged by the standard of those excellent novels.

Trying to say that plot, writing construction, or story telling ability is more important is like saying what is more important in a ship: the hull, which keeps it from sinking; the power source, which drives the screws and allows forward motion, or the instruments of navigation, which allows it to go where the captain intends. Without any of these things, the ship is not a ship, but a disaster waiting to happen.
 
We've given examples of good story tellers who are not the greatest writers. Do we have any examples of good writers who are not great story tellers? I can't think of one, and maybe that's the answer in itself - great writing, without a great story, just won't sell.
 
But that is my point. You don't have great writing without a great story. The two necessarily go hand in hand. And there are a lot of crappy books that have a crappy story and crappy writing that sell gagillions of copies, because they are marketed well. Terry Goodkind's drivel is a perfect example. Would that the good writers with good stories got the kind of support that Goodkind received, we'd all be better off for it.
 
Do we have any examples of good writers who are not great story tellers?

Now there's a challenge :). Probably not within the genre, but Salman Rushdie and Alan Hollinghurst fall within this category in my opinion, and of course there are many wonderful writers of non-fiction who have never published fiction, and it's a fair bet that many of them wouldn't be good story-tellers. SFF is a genre where beautiful prose alone won't cut it, and it's probably the better for it.
 
I think there must be lots of English professors who are good at their technical skills, but just can't have anything interesting to say. No offence to English professors, of course.
 
They go hand in hand for me. I can't get into the story if horribly executed writing keeps interrupting the flow of my thoughts and reading. I have a near-eidetic memory when it comes to words and spelling mistakes really stand out. Almost as much as mistakes with homonyms (were/where/we're or discreet/discrete) which spell checkers can't catch do. However, although it's the duty of the writer to ensure there are no mistakes like that in the writing, a decent editor will catch mistakes like that.

However, even perfect grammar won't help if the writing is all over the place and the author has no idea where he or she wants to go with the story.

I can enjoy masterful language for its own sake, however. Plotwise I find LotR dreadfully dull, but I've never come across a writer with better control of the tools of his trade. Tolkien's language is a joy to read.
 
A good story to me MUST come first, but an effort must be made for the reader to be able to read it. I've heard rumor that most writers place the comprehension level of their writing at 8th grade. To ensure the majority of their readers can understand what they've written.
 
It seems like, as I read through various posts about many books or authors, I find some readers are more interested in finding flaw in technique or style of writing rather then the story itself. I read to escape reality. To me its all about the story. I lose myself in the story and if perhaps the author did not paint the perfect picture or completely show us a characters thoughts and motivations, who cares. Isn't that what our imagination is for.
If a writer's work is clunky enough that I notice the work, they've pulled me out of the story and ruined my suspension of disbelief. I'm no longer dwelling in another world, I'm reading someone's writing. If a writer can't paint a picture or characters well, they've failed.

Both are of equal importance. A great idea for a story isn't worth squat if the writer can't deliver the goods, and a writer with magnificent technique doesn't have much to offer if he or she doesn't have a good story to tell.

If the technique or style is an obtsacle to enjoyment then it's a legitimate problem that deserves critique.
 
Okay, time for another metaphor!

The story is the gas, and the writing is the vehicle that takes the story down the road. The road is the plot.

If the story (gas) is of poor quality, the writing (vehicle) does not run well, and itself appears to be poor. If the story (gas) is of high quality, but the writing (vehicle) is in poor shape, the gas cannot make the vehicle run well, and the story cannot go anywhere. If the story (gas) and the writing (vehicle) are of high quality, and the road is in good shape, the story and the vehicle move quickly and reach their destination. Even if the road (plot) is full of holes and in bad shape, a good story and writing can overcome it.

Again, you can't have one without the other, and be satisfied.
 
Give me a character I can get interested in and decent storyline and unless you really screw up the writing I am quite happy. But on the other hand if the character no matter how well crafted does not appeal to me, or the story no matter how well written fails to catch my imagination, then the story is a bust.

Glad to see the basic question generated this many opinions though.
 
You can't have one without the other. Bad writing detracts from the story. When I read a badly-written book I'm always distracted from the story, no matter how compelling the plot may be.

The point of a well-written and/or well-edited book is that the reader can enjoy the story without the distraction of navigating poorly constructed sentences.

On the flip-side...a grammatically correct, beautifully constructed story isn't much fun if the plot and characters aren't interesting and entertaining.
 
In general I reckon story comes first, no matter how well you can write if your story sucks, then I will put it down. But I have to admit it is rather awesome when you get both a great story and great writing too. I am reading Dune and am pleased that both requirements are being satisfied. Great book too one of my top 10 definitely.
 
Here is my definition of perfect writing:

It's the writing that tells a particular story in the best way possible. It may be very simple, it may be very ornate, but it suits the story. Above all, it's writing that is effective, compelling, moving, involving. If it's dull (excellent grammar and sentence construction but no emotional impact), it's not perfect. If it's sloppy (so carelessly written that it's ineffective), it's not perfect. If it distracts or detracts from the story in any way, it's not perfect. If it doesn't bring the story to life and fire the reader's imagination, then it's not perfect.

So I think I would like to reframe the question: What good is a good story if the writing is confusing, lifeless, flat, and sterile? How would you even know it's a good story if the writing is genuinely bad?
 
So I think I would like to reframe the question: What good is a good story if the writing is confusing, lifeless, flat, and sterile? How would you even know it's a good story if the writing is genuinely bad?

What's really going to bake your noodle is if I didn't tell you you were going to break the vase would you still have broken it - Oracle
 
I think you are missing my point: If you like a story, the writing must have connected with you on some level. The rest of the writing may be absolute drivel, but at every point where the story caught you and pulled you in, some word, some phrase, some image that was just right, made you feel something. Even a bad writer occasionally stumbles into good writing, however briefly. Without those moments, even the most forgiving reader would eventually lose interest.

Perfect writing (which doesn't actually exist, any more than a perfect plot or perfect characters) would make you feel that connection on every page, in every sentence.

Who wouldn't want that? Why would they prefer something that just plodded along most of the time, and only gave them occasional glimpses of what the story could be like if the writer was writing at his or her best in every single scene?
 
A good storyline can compensate for poor writing. The opposite cannot be said to be true.

Either way , both come down to a matter of opinion
 

Similar threads


Back
Top