Exquisite writing or rip roaring story telling?

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm somewhat confused why this is a writing topic rather than a reading one. If one can produce exquisite writing, why wouldn't one?

After all, exquisite writing must mean the writing that best allows the reader to immerse themselves in the fictional world. Defined thus, it's just as appropriate to rip-roaring tales as any other type of story (simply because it is appropriate, by definition).

I stuck it in gwd because I was musing to myself if we writers try, sometimes, too hard to make the prose perfect.

It was set off partly by Bick's comments in another thread that he wouldn't reccommend Bujold because the writing wasn't good enough. I can sympathise with that, she's set my teeth on edge a couple of times with things that could be just a bit neater.

But, she can tell a story. She can keep it pacey, close. She can make a character very real and a world real. And then I thought of some of the threads about getting things just so and how to do it, and how much stress it can cause, and it made me wonder if us writers get too het up with perfection and forget that, ultimately, it's the story that matters.

 

[HareBrain]

And then I thought of some of the threads about getting things just so and how to do it, and how much stress it can cause, and it made me wonder if us writers get too het up with perfection and forget that, ultimately, it's the story that matters.

It's what matters to you that counts. You'll work on the prose to the extent that you feel it's important -- trying to do anything beyond that is pointless, because if your heart isn't in it, it'll be a chore. That Chuck Wendig article a while back stressed that you shouldn't aim for perfection, because it's impossible. (Having said, that, I read a line in a story this afternoon that stopped me in its tracks, it was that good -- not flowery, just ... well, perfect. I have no idea whether the writer worked hard on it or not, or if it just came out that way in the first draft. To me, it was the best thing about that story -- many others might not even have noticed it. It's quite possible the author didn't. Every reader will find something different to admire.)

 

[Hex]

Neither, if it's one or the other.

Awful writing (and I mean sub-Dan Brown -- believe me, there are many books out there that are rushed, clumsy, painfully flabby far worse than Dan Brown) and I find I have to stop reading. OK writing I'll read as long as the story is good -- I don't mind Bujold's writing, though I'm having a break just now because it gets (like HB said) sort of brain numbing.

Beautiful writing with no real story... well, I read The Unconsoled...

Prose that flows and is strong enough to show the story and make me feel it is what I look for. I don't mean flowery literary fiction, either. I'm re-reading a Robin Mckinley just now (The Blue Sword) and she brings (good) tears to my eyes with the phrases she uses and the story she's telling. I don't think anyone would claim she's on a par with Rushdie, but I love the language she uses -- it's beautiful for me.

I love it when you re-read a paragraph or sentence over and over again, just because it's perfect.

 

[ratsy]

I prefer a great rip roaring story and I think that many of the best sellers out there are more story tellers than great writers.

I see Dan Brown mentioned a lot. I actually enjoy reading his books. They are so light and I can read them so fast with out thinking. As for his writing skills...they are not really high standard but it's a simple style that allows a lot of varied people the ability to read them.

On the opposite side of the gambit is someone like Janny Wurts, who writes beautifully and with complexity that makes me have to read some sentences a couple times to grasp what she is saying. While I appreciate it as an art, I like a fast paced, smooth flowing story better.

A good example of a book I just read that was a rip roaring tale would be Among Thieves by Douglas Hulick. A first person adventure that was fast paced, happened over a couple days and was under 400 pages I think. Good ol' fashion fun fantasy.

 

[Boneman]

Storytelling, every time. Read Shogun and see what I mean - dreadful head-hopping, combined with close 3rd person pov thoughts creeping in all the time, but oh... what a fantastic story, told so well, you hardly notice, because it all seems to fit seamlessy, though you know in your heart of hearts that it shouldn't.

 

[Tyburn]

I go for the storytelling. It takes a certain mindset to create great chunks of heavy prose, I'd rather the story were told with interesting characters and to know when to laugh instead of having to get a dictionary out to figure out if this bit is supposed to be funny, sad, or whatever.

My approach is like that - I get the story going, the jokes fall into place along the line, when it's over I hope people will like the characters enough to ignore any mistakes that slipped through the net.

 

[HareBrain]

Er, as always when this question is raised (as it frequently is) there's a massive straw man being erected here, ready for people to shoot at with their fiery arrows of scorn: the idea that "exquisite writing" must mean dense, heavy prose the average reader needs a dictionary to understand. The fact is, almost no one would think writing like that was any good.

One of the first lines that impressed me (at the time I was really starting to learn to write, and taking note of such things) is from Iain Banks's The Wasp Factory: "The bulldozer revved and pushed." That's it. Did anyone need a dictionary to understand that? Yet I would class it as exquisite writing, because you can't imagine any alternative doing the job better. To anyone who's seen a bulldozer at work, it captures it perfectly. I suspect the choice of those two verbs came naturally to Banks, but I also suspect they did so because he'd trained his mind to search out the precise words he needed. He cared about his prose, a lot. That doesn't mean he placed it above story, but I bet he didn't place it below.

Another example, one of my favourite lines of all time, and a line of description the book it comes from could easily have done without: "A log shifted in the grate, quickening a constellation of sparks in the dark chimney." To me (and perhaps only to me, I admit) that is massively evocative. It has stayed with me when the rest of the book has largely faded into a blur -- but many other books I've read have also faded into blurs, and left me with absolutely nothing, even if they gripped me at the time (The Da Vinci Code included).

 

[Jo Zebedee]

To be honest, I didn't mean it to be seen as exquisite = dense. Sometimes I stare at lines longingly and mark them to go back, too. My ideal is a good balance - enough pace to keep me going - and beautiful lines slow me down to look at - but with some interesting twists of language.

 

[Mouse]

I think because when people say 'exquisite writing' (not that I've ever heard anybody say that apart from here now!) they mean cleverer somehow.

"The bulldozer revved and pushed."

That's not exquisite to me. It's normal.

"A log shifted in the grate, quickening a constellation of sparks in the dark chimney."

This one gave me absolutely no image in my head at all.

I like clear, easy to understand, sometimes clever but not full-of-itself-clever writing. I don't think you should notice the writing, myself, cos then it's not doing its job.

 

[Hex]

Yep. This [<-- what HB said but the others type faster than me]

"Exquisite" writing -- like some people have said -- is well-chosen, skilful writing that works.

For me as an example (sorry, Mouse), much of what Mouse writes is exquisite. Her style is careful and spare but has a rhythm and flow that seem effortless -- almost like someone is talking to you. Bet they're not as effortless as they seem.

 

[Mouse]

Ah, Hex. Will you be my agent? (I don't agree, I always complain that my style's too child-like and simple).

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Yes, but the rest of us don't!

 

[HareBrain]

That's not exquisite to me. It's normal.

Yes, it is -- or at least it seems so -- but the point of the OP was (I think) whether we should spend time and effort worrying about prose at all, or concentrate wholly on story. The "revved and pushed" example seems very ordinary, but I bet most other writers would have put something more long-winded and less effective.**

This one gave me absolutely no image in my head at all.

Then I suspect you've never witnessed a log shifting in a grate and quickening a constellation of sparks in a dark chimney.


**Edit: that's how I would define "exquisite", I think: maximum effect with fewest words. Although the fireplace image might not seem particularly spare, it conjures (again, to me) an entire atmosphere in one line.

 

[Mouse]

springs, yeah, but you're all being nice! I wish I was cleverer so I could write better, but I'm still learning so one day I will achieve awesomeness. I hope.

I like Neil Gaiman's writing style - I think it's simple and clever, and he tells a good story. I'm not sure people would call that exquisite though.

edit: I don't do long-winded. I don't like writers who do long-winded. I know some people love that stuff though.

 

[Abernovo]

I'm not being nice when I say your writing's NOT child-like and simple. You're plenty clever enough. You just don't believe you are. And, you are pretty awesome.

I can take occasional long-windedness, but as I've said previously, to me great writing can be a single sentence or two. A single touch of imagery that puts me in the scene and takes my breath away. You managed that in TBM. I've seen other examples from people here, published and otherwise.

 

[Mouse]

Aber, you are nice. TBM is the best thing I've written and I'm pleased with it, but it's not up to the standard of any of the stuff I've beta-d for others here. Nowhere near it. A lot of the stuff I've read for Chronners reads to me like it's come straight out of a novel.

And I know I just said I don't like long-winded writers, but thinking about it, I love Oscar Wilde. And he's pretty damn long-winded but makes up for it with the story-telling and the characters. I love Dorian Gray cos he's such a little sh*t! The way that OW describes characters is pretty exquisite to me.

 

[Parson]

Can I say, "It depends."? When I am reading a novel the story trumps all, but sometimes there's just a beautiful nugget that you can take with you. From David Weber's Flag in Exile: "Her eyes said "I am death." For me that evokes a powerful image that I still remember clearly 20 years later.

On the other hand when I am reading non-fiction the writing is everything. I am reading these kinds of things to glean knowledge and any way I helped to remember is much appreciated.

Mouse: If you were as bad a writer as you seem to think you are no one would bother with trying to help you. If you ever realize how good you are the sky's the limit. (Parsons don't lie!)

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I have to agree with those who say that the language is the story, and that exquisite writing need not be dense and flowery.

Although I do love writing that is dense and flowery if it is done, very, very well. If it strikes me that it is written that way to impress readers rather than because the writer takes joy in what he or she is doing, then I find it unbearable.

But, OK, to answer the question:

If the prose is truly exquisite, I'll forgive quite a bit when it comes to the story and characters.

If the prose is terrible, then I won't be able to settle into the story and find out whether it is good or not.

So at the extreme ends of the scale, I have to say I prefer the exquisite prose.

In the middle of the spectrum, it shifts. So long as the prose is OK, I'll go for a great plot with great characters over better prose with a plot that stumbles and characters that don't engage me.

And yet, how am I going to feel with characters and get those weepy and emotional bits springs referred to, if the writing is just mediocre? That's very unlikely. Possible, but not very likely. How is the book going to make me laugh if the writer doesn't describe what happens with a certain amount of wit? I prefer wit to slap-stick, so that puts me at a disadvantage where humor is concerned, anyway.

And yes, it sounds like a cliché, but the books I love make me laugh and cry, and usually that takes better than average prose.

But I recently read a book (it was a Regency romance/comedy of manners) that had me in tears a lot of the time. And it made me laugh a lot of the time. The prose wasn't exceptional but it did the job, and the plot and characters did the rest. Maybe it was just a case of the right book at the right time.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Ah, and that brings me to the point at the centre of this that I didn't enuciate and Teresa hit perfectly. It takes skill to write a character we like and to keep a story going. Maeve Binchy - I love her stories, especially her early ones, and her characters. She didn't do fancy, she just pulled me so close I cared. But that takes skill, and I wonder does that skill get disrupted if we get too intent on perfect words every time and perfect punctuation. I think we should strive to write the best we can, but I also wonder is there a time to let it flow.

Eg i had a crit recently of a rough first draft to see if a technique worked. I honed it and put the tidy version up and it seems the rougher version did a better job. Do we stand to lose something by over perfecting?

 

[Mouse]

Mouse: If you were as bad a writer as you seem to think you are no one would bother with trying to help you. If you ever realize how good you are the sky's the limit. (Parsons don't lie!)

I don't think I'm bad, I just know I'm not good enough. And I think we must all think that or we wouldn't be here questioning everything we do.