Whats more important good story or perfect writing?

... and integrity is the most important of all.

This from Ruthless Peoples (sic) Magazine (recent publishers of SJAB's story "The Dance") submission guidelines: "...readers will be opening their hearts and minds to you, so it is your duty to give them a stunning reading experience."
 
In an attempt to move this thread towards less elevated topics than integrity (and lest Marlowe or Byron suffer criticism), may I suggest that we can see the relative importance of the story and its telling by the success or otherwise of translations. For example, Schiller is accepted as one of the greatest German writers but is much less frequently read or performed in translation. By contrast, Aristophanes' plays remain very funny after translation.

ps. Yes, Ursa Major, it was what Lamarck might have called “genetic memory”.

pps. After failing to send you a message and reading previous messages, can you think of an excuse for telling The Judge to stand his Constant Plank on two pies to calculate better?
 
You can't send private messages until you have a certain number of posts -- I think it's 15. Oh, and The Judge is a she.

I took the remark about integrity to mean the integrity of the writing. Maybe I misinterpreted that?

And the point about translations, surely that demonstrates that the quality of the writing does effect the reader's perception of the plot and characters? If the story was the main thing, then it would be just as compelling in an uninspired (though technically correct) translation, but if it falls flat, then we can see that something essential disappears when the writing is mediocre.

On the other hand, if the translator is extremely skilled with language, the translation can be a work of art in itself. Edward Fitz-Gerald's translations of the poems in The Rubaiyat comes to mind.
 
I took the remark about integrity to mean the integrity of the writing. Maybe I misinterpreted that?

Integrity of intent. Artists saying what they feel needs to be said, rather than merely what they feel is marketable. I think I can forgive sloppy writing if I feel the writer has their heart and soul in what they're writing.

Sorry if there was any ambiguity :eek:
 
No, I didn't think you were ambiguous. It was just the subsequent reference to Byron and Marlowe that made me wonder if I was the one who was missing the point of what you said.
 
I apologise for letting slip that the mention of integrity caused me to think of whether I would lend money to an author. Clearly artistic integrity was the topic under discussion, and on reflection, perhaps it favours my preference for strong plots. For example, why is artistic integrity necessary if "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"? On that basis an author can confidently agree to produce another sequel despite the minor problem that all the tensions inspiring the initial story have long since been resolved.
 
Yet another quote on this subject; this time, from Victor Hugo, from a piece "On Style":

If the name here inscribed were a name of note --if the voice which speaks here were a voice of power -- we would entreat the young and brilliant talents on which depends the future lot of a literature for three ages so magnificent to reflect how important is their mission, and to preserve in their manner of writing the most worthy and severe habitudes. The Future -- let them think well of it -- belongs only to the masters of style. Without referring to the admirable works of antiquity, and confining ourselves to our National Literature, try to take from the thought of our great writers the expression which is peculiar to it. Take from Moliere his lively, ardent, frank, and amusing verse, so well made, so well turned, so well finished -- take from Lafontaine the simple and honest perfection of detail -- take from the phrase of Corneille the vigorous muscle, the strong cords, the beautiful forms of exaggerated vigor, which would have made of the old poet half Roman, half Spanish, the Michael Angelo of our tragedy if the elements of genius had mingled as much fancy as thought -- take from Racine that touch in his style which resembles Raphael, a touch chaste, harmonious, and repressed like that of Raphael, although of an inferior power -- quite as pure but less grand, as perfect though less sublime -- take from Fenelon, the man of his age who had the best sentiment of antiquity, that prose as melodious and severe as the verse of Racine of which it is the sister -- take from Bossuet the magnificent bearing of his periods --take from Boileau his grave and sober manner at times so admirably colored -- take from Pascal that original and mathematical style with so much appropriateness in the choice of words, and so much logic in every metaphor -- take from Voltaire that clear, solid, and indestructible prose, that crystal prose of Candide, and the Philosophical Dictionary -- take from all these great writers that simple attraction -- style: and of Voltaire, of Pascal, of Boileau, of Bossuet, of Fenelon, of Racine, of Corneille, of Lafontaine, of Moliere -- of all these masters what will remain? It is style which insures duration to the work, and fame to the poet. Beauty of expression embellishes beauty of thought, and preserves it -- It is at the same time an ornament and an armor. Style to the idea is like enamel to the tooth.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top