Whats more important good story or perfect writing?

[Teresa Edgerton]

The opposite cannot be said to be true.

It can be said, and it has been said right here in this thread.

But as you say, opinions may differ on whether or not it might be true.

 

[j d worthington]

A good storyline can compensate for poor writing. The opposite cannot be said to be true.

It can be said, and it has been said right here in this thread.

But as you say, opinions may differ on whether or not it might be true.

As Teresa has said, it can and has been said several times within this discussion. As for the second part of her statement, I'd be willing to take it a step in the other direction, and say that it is undeniably true. Here are a few instances, just off the top of my head:

"The Striking of the Gong", by Robert E. Howard
"Ex Oblivione", by H. P. Lovecraft
"Shadow -- A Parable" and "Silence -- A Fable", by Edgar Allan Poe
"The Shadows", by Clark Ashton Smith
The chapter concerning the dead vigil by Judge Pyncheon, in The House of the Seven Gables, by Nathaniel Hawthorne
numerous tales and sketches by Washington Irving, including several of those from Bracebridge Hall and The Sketch-Book
"The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tartarus of Maids", by Herman Melville
"The Beckoning Fair One", by Oliver Onions
"The White People", by Arthur Machen
A Rebours (Against the Grain), by J. K. Huysmans
"On the River", by Guy de Maupassant
"The Willows", by Algernon Blackwood

Now, in none of those cited above is the storyline particularly strong; often it is negligible or even nonexistent (if by story we mean plot, characters, character development, thematic development, denouement, and the like); often where it is there, it is rather stereotyped or even hackneyed. Yet these are all quite powerful pieces of writing which have stood the test of time and influenced many writers, readers, and critics since they were written... rather belying the position that it "good writing cannot make up for a poor storyline".

And, as I said, these are only a handful of instances which popped into my head immediately -- literature is chock-full of such instances.

I would also take issue with the idea that a good storyline can make up for poor writing. As can be seen by any number of long-discarded literature (largely popular literature, it must be said), such is hardly the case. The problem, as has been noted here, is that at least a certain level of writing competence must be present in order to make a connection with the reader on any level, be it intellectual or emotional (or, preferably, both). Without at least that level -- at which point we are dealing with good, if not great, writing -- then the piece fails. No matter how good a story idea or plot may be, without that connection, no one is likely to give a damn. Good writing isn't just the pretty phrases, it's the ability to imbue life into your characters or scenes, to engage the reader's attention and hold it, and to handle the actual written sequence of events (often quite different from their chronological sequence) in such a way as to build a certain suspense which drives the reader on to want to see what happen (or has happened), among many other things.

Therefore, I maintain that good writing is the absolute sine qua non here, which can both make up for a poor storyline, and make even a mediocre (or possibly nonexistent one) great.

As for perfect writing... well, Teresa has already handled that one very well:

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?

 

[Mostlyharmless]

As Lois McMaster Bujold was mentioned much earlier in this thread, perhaps someone might like to comment on the differences between her two stories centred on Cordelia Naismith, Shards of Honor and Barrayar. My feeling is that Bujold's writing had developed between the two and that Barrayar runs more smoothly (certainly only Barrayar won a Hugo). However, while liking both, I prefer Shards of Honor because the plot of Barrayar is a standard caper while Shards of Honor has a truly malicious plot which reveals after 90% of the book that what is actually going on was not at all what you thought was happening.

 

[paranoid marvin]

It can be said, and it has been said right here in this thread.

But as you say, opinions may differ on whether or not it might be true.

Actually , with hindsight , I can't believe I said what I did. I have read several novels of which I had absolutely no interest in the subject material (Wise Children and The Bell Jar being two) for literature courses , and enjoyed them simply because of the quality of writing. Any book , even with the best of storylines , can be ruined by incorrect pacing , textual cohesion or an inability to suspend the reader's disbelief. I mainly siad what I did because I tend to choose my reading by the type of story rather than by the writing quality of the author , but of course with consideration , good wiritng is not neccessarily just using clever writing techniques.

I'll just go and stand in the corner for 10 minutes.

 

[j d worthington]

On that topic, there is a quote from Robert Aickman -- certainly one of the most noted twentieth century writers of "strange stories" -- that it would behoove aspiring writers to keep in mind:

Not to be able to phrase things finely, is, in general, not to be able to feel them finely.

-- The Attempted Rescue, p. 133​

The more keenly and "finely" -- catching the nuances and shades of emotional resonance and depth -- one learns to feel things, the more one becomes able to express these subtleties to the reader, thereby increasing the impact of what one is writing about on numerous levels.

 

[chongjasmine]

I think both are equally important, but I will prefer a good story over a perfect writing. I am more of a plot kind of person. Good writing is important for me, but a good story is even more important.

 

[paranoid marvin]

A good narrator can make any story entertaining. Richard Burton could be reading a recipe foe rice pudding in Jeff Wayne's War Of The Worlds , and still have me entranced

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Thinking about the thread title and the discussion here, I find it interesting that so many people are willing to accept something that is merely good at the expense of something that is perfect.

If the writing were perfect (or, more feasibly, near perfect) it would make for effective storytelling.

And a story (good or bad) can usually be told in a few pages. I could probably describe everyt single thing that happens in Romeo and Juliet in one. No one would be particularly moved by it, but I could do it. Of course Shakespeare's way, it's a story that resonates for readers and audiences four hundred years later. It's the writing that expands a plot and set of characters into a novel, a short story, or a play and makes them worth reading.

Say that you're a Martin fan -- do you think you would love the story he's telling over several large volumes nearly as much if you were reading it as a detailed outline? It would still be the same story. Just ... written differently.

 

[ghost8772]

Thinking about the thread title and the discussion here, I find it interesting that so many people are willing to accept something that is merely good at the expense of something that is perfect.

If the writing were perfect (or, more feasibly, near perfect) it would make for effective storytelling.

And a story (good or bad) can usually be told in a few pages. I could probably describe everyt single thing that happens in Romeo and Juliet in one. No one would be particularly moved by it, but I could do it. Of course Shakespeare's way, it's a story that resonates for readers and audiences four hundred years later. It's the writing that expands a plot and set of characters into a novel, a short story, or a play and makes them worth reading.

Say that you're a Martin fan -- do you think you would love the story he's telling over several large volumes nearly as much if you were reading it as a detailed outline? It would still be the same story. Just ... written differently.

Actually I would rather the writing not be english class perfect. Colloquial english works perfect for me. Think back to the books that are "classic literary pieces" I have never been able to get into any of them. On the flipside, I attempted to read the Deerslayer a number of years ago, and kept stumbling over darter. It took me two chapters to finally figure out that darter=daughter. Basically the writing has the be in something like current vocabulary. I prefer lower level english, and a minimum of polish. but hey, thats me.

All that aside, there is one thing that offends me in reading. Its when an author takes a common item, old and dusty, and tries to make it new and exotic by making up a name for it.

 

[Interference]

Unquestionably good writing.


How many times have you read a good story by a bad writer?

How many times have you read a bad or average story because you love the sound of the writer's voice?

Which requires more effort for a publisher to bring a story to the public eye? One without a voice or one without a point?

A good writer will always say something worth remembering.



(Shakespeare's word-choice almost always makes me grateful to the British Empire for making English my first language)

A good narrator can make any story entertaining. Richard Burton could be reading a recipe foe rice pudding in Jeff Wayne's War Of The Worlds , and still have me entranced

Another thread, perhaps: Whats more important; good tune or perfect lyrics?

 

[Ursa major]

If the writing were perfect (or, more feasibly, near perfect) it would make for effective storytelling.

The ideal is a story worth telling, tellingly told. (Seriously, in case anyone thinks it's just a pun.)

But the thread seems to be asking us a somewhat biased question: good story versus perfect writing. Is there a book of significant length whose writing is perfect, cover to cover? I would doubt it, but there are plenty with good stories.

As a reader, I'd be reasonably happy if both writing and story were good and would be highly satisfied if one were good and the other excellent. (As a perfectionist manqué , I find it hard to envisage either story or writing being perfect, except in short passages.)

 

[Connavar]

If the writing were perfect (or, more feasibly, near perfect) it would make for effective storytelling.

I qouted that for the truth of those words. The thread can be closed with that. Near perfect writing cant be what it is if its not effective storytelling.

The way you described Shakespare and Romio and Juliet is made me think about how in middle school i thought whats the big deal about this overdramatic love story. Then you read the writing aloud,listened to them from a tape recorder,in a film about the story. The story was more moving than the synopsis of it make it sound.

Reading Lord Dunsany's The King of Elfland's Daugther i thought the same every time i read the book.

The story was really not original not then or today. The synopsis didnt make it sound good. Reading i wasnt impressed by the story at first but the quality of the writing made for effective storytelling. The writing being high quality made an unoriginal story become so moving. When it ended i wanted to read more great writing about Erl,Elfland etc

Of course there can be quality writing in a story without good storytelling usually in shorter stories like the ones J.D mentioned.

 

[j d worthington]

Mmmm. Some of those aren't particularly short, really....

Thinking about what Teresa said just a few posts ago, and given my current posting of links to numerous old Gothic tales, I couldn't help but think of a (if you'll pardon the use of the word) perfect example: the old chapbooks that were put out in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries (well, actually, well into the mid-nineteenth, in some places). These were often nothing more than a retelling of a famed Gothic novel in very brief form, with occasional snippets of the original writing here and there, while most of it was rewritten to simplify the thing and make it accessible to the less (or non) educated classes. The writing on several of these is not necessarily bad (though it often is) so much as... uninspired. They often hold the entire plot of the novel, most of the action, and a fair amount of the character development. Yet they are all but unreadable nowadays, while the originals continue to be read with considerable enjoyment by many people, of all classes.

As has been said before, it's the writing that brings it all to life. Without at least moderately good writing, there will be no interest, no connection to the characters, nothing. So it doesn't even have to be "perfect" writing (whatever that is); but it does have to be "good" to at least a certain standard... no matter how great the storyline is....

 

[jojajihisc]

A good story is more important for me. What makes a story interesting seems more subjective than perfect writing which can be quantified somewhat. I can enjoy a story that becomes alive in my mind without the author necessarily being a perfect writer. On the other hand, an author could be technically perfect in his or her writing and bore the crap out of me with the story.

 

[Connavar]

As has been said before, it's the writing that brings it all to life. Without at least moderately good writing, there will be no interest, no connection to the characters, nothing. So it doesn't even have to be "perfect" writing (whatever that is); but it does have to be "good" to at least a certain standard... no matter how great the storyline is....

That was what i was trying to say in my last post. The writing is the tool, how cant it be great or near perfect if it doesnt create a good story. There isnt a real choice.

I can see a value in a short story where the writing is great but the story isnt good but novel lenght no....

It will be empty words,pointless without everything you mentioned that is the story.

 

[Mostlyharmless]

I suspect that science fiction has a special problem not seen in Romeo and Juliet. For example, George R.R. Martin is believed to be a competent writer and I have enjoyed many of his novels. However, I gave up "Hunter's Run" because the story was too implausible. I am not sure why. I didn't have a problem reading Greg Egan's "Quarantine" just because I disagreed with his interpretation of quantum mechanics or with the "zones of thought" in Vinge's "Fire upon the Deep". More generally, I strongly dislike the feeling at the end of a science fiction story if I think that it did not make sense.

 

[Ursa major]

Not that I want to divert the thread, but what did you find so implausible, MH?

(If I might assume you mean the genetic memory, isn't that a major part of the Dune universe, not to mention the symbiants in Star Gate SG-1? By the way, I think of this as a fantasy, not SF, capability, but it didn't stop me enjoying the book.)

 

[j d worthington]

That was what i was trying to say in my last post. The writing is the tool, how cant it be great or near perfect if it doesnt create a good story. There isnt a real choice.

I can see a value in a short story where the writing is great but the story isnt good but novel lenght no....

It will be empty words,pointless without everything you mentioned that is the story.

Don't be too certain of that, Connavar. A really good writer can hold a reader's interest with just about anything. It really shouldn't need clarification, but I suppose it must be said: any such generalization does not apply to every reader. There will always be those who will find these digest versions better than the original, no matter how poor these digests may be; or who need a strong, action-oriented plot to hold their interest. But many a novel has been written which has either a very thin or no plot to speak of, but which is nonetheless a brilliant and fascinating work. Beyond Life, by Cabell comes to mind (though it is difficult to quite call that a novel, in some senses), Vox is another (of quite a different stripe, I might add).

 

[Connavar]

Having no plot is not a problem i have read brilliant works that didnt have action or plot like the way you describe. They do have connection to characters,getting your interest in other ways though. I have been reading an Irish writer called Ken Bruen whose series is suppose to be crime thrillers. But his books dont really have plots and anything but a brilliant character, talking about his city,its people,themes like immigration etc

He could have told the same story writing like writers like Bukawski,Nelson Algren he dont really need crime genre setting.

It seems like we are talking about the same thing what im saying the connection,interest to a work is the story.

If it didnt connect in anyway it would be just fine words and nothing else.

 

[j d worthington]

Yes, we do seem to be more in agreement than otherwise.

Vox (by Nicholson Baker), though, is a particularly interesting example because of the nature of the book: it is simply the conversation between two people having a phone-sex encounter. That's it. That's the entire book. Not even a "he said" "she said" within sight, let alone anything else.

But the way it is written, you gain all sorts insight into these people, and you see the genuine human emotional connection two strangers can make (even if briefly), which makes the book anything but "just about sex". Erotic it definitely is -- it is very explicit -- but it is also an excellent example of how any subject, if handled properly, can achieve noteworthy artistic merit.

Richard A. Lupoff, in his afterword to his "With the Bentfin Boomer Boys on Little Old New Alabama" (in Ellison's Again, Dangerous Visions), puts it this way:

The style is not something that the author has lying around, that he sticks onto the work at whim; the style is an organic part of the story, as much an aspect of the whole as the chaarcterization or the plot itself.