In the comments section of last week’s post about the one question writers should never ask themselves when reading (retroactive spoiler: the question is “do I like this?”), some people took the post to mean that I was essentially saying that if a book is popular it must be well-written, ergo the most popular books are the best written.
Not what I meant!
Now, partly this is a confusion of terms, because are we talking about “writing” as in prose or “writing” as in overall craft or are the books we like the ones that are well-written and the ones we don’t like are the ones that aren’t?? Everyone tends to mean something different when they talk about “the writing.”
But for the most part, and you’ll see below what I mean, I think when people criticize the “writing” they mean the sentence-to-sentence prose, so let’s just go with that definition for now.
And let’s also get one thing clear up front: there absolutely has to be a certain level of writing for a book to work, and I personally think the degree of writing quality in bestselling books is underestimated by many aspiring writers. I host page critiques because smooth and polished prose aids storytelling and in today’s publishing world you need an extremely high degree of craft in order to be published.
But once you’ve reached a certain degree of professional-level writing, the further levels and degrees of writing is not the be all and end all of a book’s success.
What I meant by last week’s post is not that every popular book is written phenomenally well, but a popular book is doing SOMETHING very well, and it’s far more valuable to try to pinpoint what that writer is succeeding at rather than simply dismissing a book as being horribly written just because you don’t like it or just because the prose isn’t top notch.
It might be the suspense, it might be the tension, it might be the pacing, it might be the setting, it might be the characters, or even more likely a combination of several different elements. But if a book is phenomenally popular, something is working that is attracting readers, and no, it’s not just the marketing.
Several people mentioned this part of Stephen King’s (in)famous interview about Stephenie Meyer in the comment section: “The real difference is that Jo Rowling is a terrific writer and Stephenie Meyer can’t write worth a darn. She’s not very good.”
What people don’t seem to remember is this part of the interview:
“People are attracted by the stories, by the pace and in the case of Stephenie Meyer, it’s very clear that she’s writing to a whole generation of girls and opening up kind of a safe joining of love and sex in those books. It’s exciting and it’s thrilling and it’s not particularly threatening because they’re not overtly sexual. A lot of the physical side of it is conveyed in things like the vampire will touch her forearm or run a hand over skin, and she just flushes all hot and cold. And for girls, that’s a shorthand for all the feelings that they’re not ready to deal with yet.”
Whether or not you agree with King’s assessment about Meyer’s writing, at the very least he’s making a distinction between writing and storytelling, or at least what I assume is a distinction between prose craft and storytelling craft, and is acknowledging what he sees as working in Meyer’s books.
Yes, good writing aids storytelling, you need a certain level of writing for a book to work. But just because you don’t care for the prose doesn’t mean there’s nothing that’s working and nothing to be learned.
Do you have any thoughts on the distinction between writing and storytelling? Do you see one as being more important than the other?
As so many others have already said, in the end, it's about the story. But if possible, let's have the gorgeous prose, too.
Just a reminder to those who say all YA writers who complain about Twilight are jealous–not true. Some simply think it's badly written or passes along problematic subtext/troubling messages. And they're allowed to think that. 🙂
I love this point.
I am unable to put down a good story,but I have walked away from good prose when I could not locate the story.
A main differences: I may ignore the less skilled writing, but only if the story is popping
and
I may try harder to follow when the writing is dense or sophisticated because I think/hope it may take me somewhere.
The last anonymous is very right. Honestly, if you told me that through an Amazing Body Switch I could be Stephenie Meyer right now, I wouldn't take you up on it. She's written what former LDS people assure me is almost a direct crib of the Book of Mormon and inflicted it on a lot of young women who aren't old enough to understand the line they're being fed, and a lot of older women who should really know better. It offers a deeply conservative (and destructive) worldview and tells us that there are no consequences for holding it. Oh, and the characters are lame stereotypes of themselves, there's basically no conflict, and it's completely skeevy in almost every way, from Jacob's forced kiss (and Charlie's non-reaction) to the theme that you should have babies even if it will literally kill you.
Sometimes, books break out despite the best efforts of their writers to assure that they don't. This woman got very, very lucky, for reasons that only the universe understands. It's a testament to the skill of her agent and the marketing department of her publishing house. Think about it. Why are a million little kids wearing those rubber band bracelets around? Because it's a unique and lasting fashion statement? No, because it took off for some dumb marketing reason. Ten years from now, nobody will remember it. And let's hope nobody will remember Twilight.
In the meantime, thinking about why a book is good or bad helps me improve my storytelling and my prose. Critique, self- and otherwise, is an essential part of the writing process. It helps us position ourselves as writers and think through problems that other people have encountered and dealt with, successfully or unsuccessfully. If all we ask ourselves is "what is working here?", we miss out on the other half of the equation–what isn't. Just because something got published doesn't mean that we need to do exactly that to get published ourselves. But too many people ask themselves just that, which is probably why the YA shelves are loaded down with Twilight clones at the moment: they are trying to follow the Stephenie Meyer formula, and not trying to produce something new and innovative.
Now, if you're offering me a body switch with Cory Doctorow, another hugely successful YA writer…let's talk.
I guess in this sense, writing is more about the syntax and diction and language that is used when doing the actual storytelling. In my opinion, storytelling can often be more important in making a reader engaged than the sophisticated writing, especially if it appeals to the reader (like Meyer's Twilight appeals to preteen girls).
I see what you're coming from, Nathan. Meyer may not use very impressive writing, but she tells the story of Edward and Bella in a way that attracts many readers. Thus, she is a successful author.
Also, several classics such as Little Women, Hucklberry Finn, etc. tend to have some
grammatical errors and use unnecessary verbose that we would scold at today. However,
because the books' authors were so good at storytelling, their works were considered "classics" and have been very popular for hundreds of years.
~TRA
https://xtheredangelx.blogspot.com
This is a great point. I'm acutely aware of it in my own writing. Most writers say they have an indefinite well of story ideas. Not me. I enjoy the craft of writing, but I have yet to imagine any truly compelling story.
Smirk. Giggle. Chuckle. Guffaw. Harrumph. The two great irreconcilable conundrums of literature: What's good; what's bad? The other conundrum, of course, popularity or language artistry and sophistry. Both pitted in a battle royale high-brow and low-brow class war, the diehard human nature need for self-worth at the expense of others' self-worths. You think you're better than me. on the one hand, You are beneath my station. on the other, and maintain the entrenched status quos at any expense by any means to an end. Divide and conquer. Those who would maintain class distinction foster dissent among the class they are not of, and thus elicit rationales and excuses for preserving the status quo. Isn't it time enough to put paid to the last bastions of class stratification?
No brow recognizes facility with language in all publish-worthy work. Not just diction and syntax, but purpose and point, method and message, content and form, expression and construction, entertainment and challenge, structure and aesthetics.
High brow tends toward sophisticated language arts. Low brow toward invisible language arts. But low brow is no less sophisticated. The sophistication comes from deft facility with backgrounding language arts for the sake of a narrative's purposes and points. The main purpose of a plot is evoking readers' emotional and intellectual responses for entertainments. A subtle subtextual purpose is packaging a message, taking a stand, making a credible point, and delivering it. The methods successful writers use to deliver messages are the art of persuasion. I haven't read a published novel, short story, or nonfiction narrative that lacks for artistically persuasive facility. And I've read a few.
Sophisticated language narratives are read by readers who take delight in sophisticated language. Popular narratives are read by readers who take delight in spectacle and scandal and slapstick and drama and comedy entertainments. The latter more popular and therefore more commercially successful, duh-huh. The former more challenging and niche oriented.
But here's a distinction worth noting: Sophisticated language narratives create reader surrogacy with author viewpoints and maintain distant narrative distance for the purpose of keeping readers thinking intently, consciously, and critically. Popular narratives create close narrative distance and reader surrogacy with narrators' viewpoints, or the more intimately engaging and popularly desirable reader surrogate, with viewpoint characters living their dramatic, private larger-than-life lives.
This post is awesome and raises some interesting questions. Yeah – I do see a distinction between storytelling and prose. The prose itself, at least for me, is different in style depending on what I am trying to acheive in a project. There are writers who do incredibly intricate things with very simple, straightforward prose (I am thinking of Paul Auster) and then there are other writers who do some simple but poignant and honest things with extremely intricate prose (David Foster Wallace – some of the short stories )
On the 'jealous' issue — one reason why I would not be jealous of someone who had an interesting/compelling idea but wasn't really up to decent level of skill, but got published and sold a bizillion copies — Her lack of skill is now out there for EVERYONE to see — and for some sadly well-earned mocking.
On top of that with the kind of sales she saw, she then had to face the pressure to produce novel after novel FAST when she didn't have the skill set to handle that kind of speed. When we're still fairly early in learning any skill, how many produce better work when forced to do it really fast?
Who would be jealous of that? To me, that's like some kind of nightmare. Some of my early stuff (okay, some of my middle stuff too) that was published tended to suck. I was delighted with publication (since I had bills to pay) but I would HATE for my skills NOW to be judged by that work forever because it sold millions of copies.
Sure, those sales show something in the story hit teen girls (and some adult women) where they live, and that's great. But a writer can't be comfortable knowing her training novel is now her "masterpiece" — no matter how she grows, she's going always to be tied to that level of work because of sales.
Really, for me, that's right up there with the nightmare about stepping out on stage for a play and realizing you not only don't know the words, but you're naked too. For me, yes, I'm delighted when I get letters from kids who read my book and loved it — but it's the places where I see my own stumbling skills that ultimately make "ME" recognize my place as a writer.
The comments here are fascinating, and I liked what John Jack had to say about class stratification as well as his distinction between sophisticated language vs. invisible language. Rang true.
Terin Tashi – that's okay, we can disagree! 🙂
And I definitely didn't mean to imply that men weren't sensitive, or couldn't identify an archtype. It probably depends upon the individual, but I think most people tend to see the world through gender viewpoints. It's difficult to transcend.
For example, Toy Story. That is very much a male archtype about competition between men. I can tell you that much, but without researching it, I would be hard pressed to really elaborate on the archtype and what it means. It doesn't speak to me in the same way that the Sleeping Beauty/Snow White archtype does. I could expound on THAT one for hours. Without research.
In terms of Twilight and the damsel/rescuer fantasy, I think it still strikes a chord because it's not really about adult romance. It's about child/father dynamics. At least in the first book. I'll admit I haven't read the others.
What's interesting is that the vampire archtype – that of a sexual predator/devourer – is a very different archtype. So, it's sort of funny that writers are encouraged to write vampire books in the wake of Meyer's success. She didn't write a true vampire story. She wrote a romance, and the archtype for that is very different.
It's fun to discuss this. 🙂
I'm a storytelling guy.
To me writing is like a double edge sword. It needs balance otherwise it'll dampen the whole experience.
Style also plays a part. I just finished a book that someone said was jumpy. She didn't like it, and would probably put it in the bad writing category. I however enjoyed the book. I can see where she got jumpy. The writer does jump a bit and uses a lot of sentence fragments, but that was part of her style. It worked for me.
@ anon 6:04 a.m.
As far as time spent on the craft of Meyer's novels, especially the last, to a publisher it doesn't matter. A lot of these questions could be easily answered by thinking like a publisher. Meyer has a huge reading audience that is willing to spend a reasonable sum on anything she writes. As a publisher in a highly competitive field, whose business is further jeopardized by the advent of e-publishing, am I going to spend a portion of the company's budget on our in-house editing team to polish an A-listed, fantastically selling author? No. Keeping the company in the black is the pidgeon hole to aim for.
Terin – actually, I thought about it some more, and I may be wrong…there are men who read romance and resonate with the archtypes in it. It may depend more on the individual and what they are working through, then on their gender. So, I might agree with you. 🙂
Okay, I've posted enough on this thread. 🙂
For me personally, a book has to have both good writing and good storytelling to make it to my "personal faves" list. Good writing alone will sometimes keep me reading; good storytelling alone, if the writing is really subpar, will not. But that's because I'm a literary writer with a high degree of sensitivity to good writing compared with the general public. I think for the average reader, good storytelling is much more important. Literary writers neglect it at their own peril.
Well…I think writing and story telling are equally important. A writer needs to be able to find the best part of the story, and he also needs the skills to put it on the page such that the reader can connect to everything. Personally, I don't see how it's possible for one to be more important that the other. FYI, I'm saying this as a writer and a reader–a non-writer might have a different perspective/preference.
In SM's case, her books clearly connected with a large audience, both positively and negatively. Some gush about her books, and some rant about how evil/horrible they are. I don't particularly like her books (they trigger my own issues, which clouds my objectivity), but all we need to do is look at the very vocal reactions to her stories and we can see the chords she's struck in so many people, which means SM created a vivid enough story with vivid enough writing that elicited such strong responses. So, she's doing something right. Quite a lot, actually. 🙂
Anyway, back to the topic. 🙂 There is so much that goes into writing a book (characters, story arc, subplots, tension, dialog, voice, transitions, pacing, description, setting, the list goes on), and all of these pieces are equally important. I think the truly amazing stories are the ones that balance everything and still create that connnection to the reader. It's *really hard* to do, and I always end up with a healthy respect for an author who can do this. 🙂
AS LONG AS I love to read a book, as long as I keep turning the pages with excitement or passion, I don't care to distinguish between writing or storytelling.
I am a choosy person and if I am tolerating a book, that means its good for me. And till now most of the published work I have read, I have read it completely without putting it down in the middle or after a few pages.
I've often described myself as being a story teller rather than a writer. I always think of a writer as someone who delves into sentence structures and word usage as an art form. I however am inclined to tell the story in such a way that is more story oriented. Not sure if I'm explaining myself clearly or not but hopefully you understand.
Sincerely,
Daniel L Carter
Author of The Unwanted Trilogy
I wrote a short piece in my blog a couple of months ago on the basic difference between between story (storytelling) and narrative (writing)that I think speaks to the discussion here. When I think about the books that speak to me, whether it is Beloved or Ulysses, I connect to them immediately, on an emotional level, but now that I think about it, I don't know if the emotion or how much emotion comes from the book or if and how much of it comes from what I bring to my interaction with the book. The better the book, the less emotion I need to bring to it, the more I draw from the emotion of the book. When I do not connect with a book, I usually think that the emotion is flat, which is just another way of saying that I do not recognize the emotion of the book as expressed by the book. Now if I am reading an emotionally "flat" book, but that book happens to be "southern" fiction, then I can fill in the emotional gaps with my own emotions. If it is Twilight, I cannot do this. But other people will not be able to do this with southern fiction and they will with Twilight because southern fiction is not their thing and vampire fiction is. So maybe that's it (not entirely sure, as I have been thinking and making this up as I type, but it is worth thinking more deeply about).
I will say this – for me story is about emotion, and narrative is about providing a structure to interpret that emotion. Story is the flow of events and experiences that connect to an emotion. And narrative is the art of ordering these events to uncover the meaning behind the emotion (which is also theme). This is why it is the experience of the story (the oral storytelling component) that compels the emotion, but there is little effort or need given over to interpreting the meaning of the emotion because it simply is. The emotion becomes the experience. Through narrative, however, when writers have the opportunity to order or re-order experience, then the emotional depth we feel is the emotional depth of many moments, many stories, layers and layers of experience – and hence meaning.
I think it's very important for an author to have a substantial level of writing ability but I agree that it's possible for a book to work with even subpar prose. So many elements go into a book, some are strong and others suffer but that's the nature of all things. It can't be perfect 100% of the time (if anything can ever be perfect).
If millions of people across the world are reading a book or a series, then you're absolutely on the mark: something is working. No matter who it is making it work, we need to respect that.
Very interesting topic; I've never really considered it before!
Nathan-I wholeheartedly agree with your explanation. Talent in putting beautiful sentences together is not enough to write a gripping story with interesting characters, it's more like poetry. Storytelling is a whole different thing.Of course it is perfection when the two intertwine.
I have never read the Twilight books because I happen to be working in the same genre and I didn't want to be influenced in any way, but I did read many of their reviews with many mentioning King's statement about Meyer's bad writing. I am glad you posted the rest of the interview. No matter how bad her writing is, she obviously struck a certain cord with her readers, and that takes talent too.
-Livi Wells
"Do you have any thoughts on the distinction between writing and storytelling? Do you see one as being more important than the other?"
Yes. All the time.
Yes. Story. Characters.
If a story is powerful enough for the reader to forget about the words, it can work, regardless. However, a great story with great writing skills can certainly elevate the chances of successful publishing.
Structuring great sentences does not always make storytelling successful if a writer has an MFA but no imagination.
Draw the reader into the story to a degree that they forget they are reading making it difficult to put the book down.
On the other hand, I find that if the story is good, but it isn't written well, the book won't be a favorite of mine and I will never want to re-read it again.
^ AR, this is me too. The writing doesn't have to be Somerset Maugham-worthy, but it has got to be better than serviceable. It's got to be at least good.
With regards to Twilight, my issue with those novels was the writing in conjunction with the storytelling and the characters, which I personally don't think are that great either. They certainly aren't good enough to redeem the writing (just my opinion as a reader, not necessarily an editor – if you like the novels, I give you joy of 'em).
Twilight is a blockbuster because it hit an untapped vein in the YA market, pure and simple. This is its observable magic for me and the aspect of "bad books" that is worth study.
It's not a blockbuster because it tells a good (or new) story – other authors have done vampire romance and/or vampires vs. werewolves, and better. [Laurell K. Hamilton jumps to mind, even though she's adult fiction and not YA.]
It's not a blockbuster because it's lyrically written either. I don't think anyone is trying to make that particular claim.
It's a blockbuster because most Americans don't read on the regular and aren't trained to differentiate good writing from bad, so prose quality doesn't necessarily factor in as heavily on their book-buying decisions. Which means in the market, story absolutely trumps prose, hands-down.
Which is more important, good writing or good storytelling? I won't read a book that has one without the other. There are too many writers out there that can and do regularly pull off both, whether or not they hold the heart of the mob. There are also hundreds of books on my "to-read" list that have stood the test of time as classics – why read a serviceable book when you can read a great one?
It all comes down to subjective realities, really. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and people trained in literary critique are, naturally, going to tend to hold prose to a higher standard than those who just grab a book for the beach.
Beach-goers buy more books because they're a bigger demographic – guess which way the market is going to trend?
Great topic Nathan, I really enjoy reading your discussion and everybody's opinions.
Sheesh, I agree with Stephen King's analysis so much, even if I'm not a TWILIGHT fan. He nails it with this one. I've had many writing-related conversations where someone ponders how TWILIGHT could have been published, and what editor was out of their mind to pick it up. I counter that I can totally understand why; it had enormous potential to be popular, as it's proven to be. I don't have to like it to understand why large segments of the population do.
If a published book doesn't have the best writing in terms of craft, it was published because it did something well: appeal to people's emotions, capture their imaginations, present interesting ideas. I think these things, and storytelling skills in general, are more important than the technical aspects. If you write beautifully but your stories don't captivate anyone, they'll be recognized as empty as abandoned. But if you've got a great story, you might be able to get people to look over your could-be-better prose.
@S.R.
"She's written what former LDS people assure me is almost a direct crib of the Book of Mormon and inflicted it on a lot of young women who aren't old enough to understand the line they're being fed, and a lot of older women who should really know better. It offers a deeply conservative (and destructive) worldview and tells us that there are no consequences for holding it. Oh, and the characters are lame stereotypes of themselves, there's basically no conflict, and it's completely skeevy in almost every way, from Jacob's forced kiss (and Charlie's non-reaction) to the theme that you should have babies even if it will literally kill you."
I would really love to hear your examples of how Meyer's storyline is a "direct crib" of the Book of Mormon. If anything, I'm sure you'll come up with typical values present in many Christian denominations (and other religions, as well). I'm not sure how a conservative viewpoint is destructive, so I'd like your elaboration on that, too.
As for your baby comment – there are many women out there who, faced with a dangerous pregnancy like Bella, would make the same choice she did. If anything, Bella had a somewhat easier choice, since she had the "vampire card" in her back pocket to ensure her survival. The other characters tried to convince her to give up the baby, even her beloved Edward and Jacob tried, so you can't say that Meyer didn't present another viewpoint.
I'm sure I'm wrong here, but it seems as though you're suggesting that Bella should not have been given a choice over what to do with HER baby in HER body, since it's apparently such a "skivvy theme."
Feminism is all about women making their own choices, and Bella chose (totally of her own volition) to get married, have a child, and then become a vampire all at a very young age. Anyone who disagrees with that choice is being decidedly against feminism, even if Bella's "choices" aren't typically those of the feminist movement.
It's not like Bella wanted to get rid of the baby and Edward forced her to keep it. Everyone was against her having it, but she stuck to her guns and made her choice, which is actually quite admirable.
…why do I have a feeling that I'm about to get flamed for this?
So many modern short stories focus on stylistics and neglect fundamental storytelling. In these stories, nothing much happens in terms of conflict or the characters changing. Writers expect their readers to drift along with their characters, enjoying a turn of phrase or a bit of dialogue. Storytelling draws readers into the story's world. Without this element, readers remain outside this world, looking in but not involved.
My bad, Nathan. I was one of those guys! But now I see what you mean.
I still don't think it constitutes soild, intelligent literature, however. Is it good at something? Yes sir! Is it good writing? Is the plot intelligent, are the characters actually real? With many of these books, It's debatable, but in some cases, many cases, it's also opinion. (I'm not talking about Twilight; just in general, so ease off the trigger twihard fans!)
I think both of them are equally important. Story first, however, as Stephen King says (write with a "closed door") then worry about fixing the prose when you come through again.
I have to say that when I hate on Dan Brown's sentence structure, it ain't 'cause I'm jealous of the man. It's 'cause he can't write a sentence to save his life. And I can't imagine being jealous of someone's inability to write a sentence.
I know that some hate does come from envy – I've been a target of that sort of thing online. But it's possible to not be impressed by a creative work without being jealous of its creator.
It's also possible to put together beautiful sentences in an exciting story, and that's my personal expectation of a book.
I wish Stephanie Meyer and Dan Brown all the happiness in the world, but they have nothing to teach me. I'm not trying to write a badly written book that will make a lot of money. At the moment I'm not even trying to get published – I'm sharing my stuff for free online. Which yeah, Valley is a Sims story, but I've started a full text serial now.
I've thought about the social stratification too. I don't have a MFA. I have a two year degree in information systems. Does that count?
I think that story and language are equally important. But that's subjective – I'm sure you've heard of Nancy Pearl's theory about doorways into stories. My main doorway is definitely language.
I see writing as art. I have spent eight hours on a paragraph. I have agonized over a sentence that needed just the right adjective, with the right letters to fit the rest of the sentence. Words are notes, and I use them to create symphonies.
I don't hear literary snobs congratulating me on my pretty turns of phrase, though. I hear teenagers fangirling over my villain. I hear adults saying they were just going to read a few chapters and ended up reading the whole thing. A fellow author has me on her blogroll and advertises my story as "thrilling and suspenseful".
It's not a dichotomy between pretty sentences for literary snobs who only read for social status versus badly written bestsellers for the people, who read it because they pride themselves on not being able to read or on not being fancy like them rich folk with their metaphors and suchlike. Story and language don't cancel each other out. You can have both.
When I was a kid, I got bored with Sweet Valley and the Baby Sitter's Club and wandered over to the classics section. Without social status ideas, without literary criticism classes, with nothing but a child's innocent curiosity. My parents were factory workers and my father died when I was seven. It's not like my mother was pushing me to be well-read to score points over the other mothers down at the country club.
I went into them with only the idea of enjoying a good story written well, and so I learned my trade from the Brontes and Austen and Dickens and Poe and Hugo. Couldn't ask for better teachers. 🙂
I guess my point is – you get out what you put in. If your goal is to write books that sell well, then yeah – study what's selling well. But some of us have different goals. And so we have different teachers and different examples and different books we should read for analysis and craft. And different is just different, not better or worse.
Great thread. I judge a book based on whether it drew me in and held my interest. Dan Brown does it for me, even though I snicker at some of the writing. But I keep turning pages.
I don't do this with all thrillers.
Could not get through Twilight, tried several times, but think the movies are a guilty pleasure.
The Host, her adult venture, is really hard to get through. Am sure it wouldn't have been bought as is by a publisher if she hadn't been the author of Twilight.
thank you for the article, nathan. this is very acknowledging.
As a big fan of the Twilight series nyself I would say Meyer owes her immense succes to her story telling abilities. Anyone who says they read Twilight because of Meyer's writing abilities is simply absurd. This is not to say that Stephenie is a bad writer. Her talents as a writer prove far superior to many fellow best selling authors. In conclusion., although I agredd with King's inquires pertaining to the reason behind Meyer's sucess,by no means do I agree with his insights about her ability to write. The manner in which he phrased the insight was rude and insensitive. After years of dealing with the media, King should know the importance of how things are phrased. If the article is any consolation, King may be a good writer, but he's not the best speaker.
If you want a good story read my own novel tittled Fallen that i have sent to you.
Rose
I'm greedy. I want good story-telling AND good writing. The lack of the latter can derail my enjoyment of a story (and apologies to the fans, but Twilight is a good example of that for me. Okay, I also couldn't relate to the characters and I don't like sparkly vampires, but still…) no matter how compelling the story.
With so many comments saying so many wise things, the only piece I want to ad is that I read the first Twilight book, and finished it, because of the VOICE. Stephenie Meyer has a compelling voice. She sounds like a teen and writes like a teen. The story wasn't particularly compelling and I thought she could have used a good editor, but the VOICE – well done! I believed her.
I was born in Wales, but moved to Norway when I was 6. I still speak English, but I guess I talk like a 13 year old, and I have to mix between both languages to make myself understood. In other words: For me to write a novel in English is a big risk which I am willing to take, in the hope that I find a good editor and that my story is exciting enough for YA.
If I were to read a novel written by an author who has a high degree in English litterature, I'd probably be sitting with the English dictionary and trying to translate the words in to common English. So I'd prefer the story to be exciting, rather than it being well written. And I know that I'm not the only foreign speaking reader out there!
I can understand what you're saying about what makes people read YA versus not. I read Twilight about four years ago, and at the time, I loved it. It practically made me an insomniac. But New Moon was good, not overly exciting, and after I talked to some people I realized the writing was what didn't stick with me.
Meyer obviously knows what she's doing because her books sell like crazy and she's got a tremendously loyal fan base. I don't think it's fair to say she's a horrible author or to completely disregard the books, but I think some people focus on the story and other people want to focus on the story but the writing bogs them down. I tend to look at the writing. When I pick up a book, the first thing I do is read over the beginning and see how I feel about the tone. If that's the kind of reader you are, Meyer's writing might not cut it for you. That doesn't mean it can't work for someone else though.
I love stories. To me, a good story involves great plot, a scenic location,some suspense and of course a bit of romance. As a reader, those are things I look for- not prose style or if the sentence is in perfect shape.
As a writer, I hope to write well, but be true to story and not fret over too much writing mechanics. I just write. Sometimes writing has to be adjusted to get the style across correct and thus provide understanding of the story better, but storytellers are only interested in…telling the story. Period. If you get it, you get it.
Twilight is a hit because of the power of story and the complex characters, but mainly because it is based off of SM's dream. How profound is that.
The "Twilight" series works so well because it's an engaging story that appeals to teenage girls (and women). Stephenie Meyer can wrote worth a crap, because the style she uses is perfect for what she does. The timing's also perfect, as porn is so readily available and it has, in many ways, cheapened sex and love to this mechanical paint-by-numbers fantasy. Girls and women love "Twilight" because Edward and Jacob want to protect Bella, and they do not expect her to put out and perform on the first date.
You know, I love this. When I heard of the "Twilight" phenomenon, I went straight out to get a copy and find out what all the fuss was about.
During the first two paragraphs, I just wanted to scratch my brains out. Something about scraping bits of cells out of my skull was much more appealing than listening one more time to Bella whining and espousing her virtues. However, I soldiered on determined to find out what was drawing fans. Than I found it, quite simply, where Stephenie Meyer found it.
Ms. Meyer has always said that her story grew from a dream in which she was in a meadow of flowers. You know, that perfect meadow where Edward glitters and Bella falls in love. When you read that section of the book, it's blindingly clear what makes Stephenie's story worthwhile – the dynamic between Edward and Bella. *That* is something she manages to convey well in her writing.
When I plunked myself among members of my critique group and criticized the writing skills of Ms. Meyer, I was filleted by slitted eyes. When I mentioned to friends who are part of Stephenie's fandom my dismay at the daunting editing task left to her publisher and agent, I was branded a traitor.
But the reality is, Stephenie Meyer writes poorly. The proof is in the lackluster performance of her other work. Bella is less than appealing as a heroine, which doesn't surprise me. As a Stephenie-archetype, she was doomed. I'll be honest, when I've tried to write myself into a piece, I come off pretty unpalatable as well. There's something about using one's self so completely as a main character that, well, reeks. (Yes, fish rotting in the now empty Tempe Town Lake kind of stench.)
Still… where the strength is in these books, it's there in spades. Say what you will, I went on to read the rest of the novels and, yup, I saw the movies. (Thank goodness for Kristin Stewart who makes Bella much more bearable.) On top of that, if I was an editor or an agent, I would have handed a contract to Ms. Meyer as well. Granted, I probably would have insisted on more edits but, considering one dedication Ms. Stephenie wrote in her books, perhaps the amount of time invested in them had already proved prohibitive to further improvements.
So, we have an alluring story, poorly crafted. Proof given by people who want the books rewritten from Edward's viewpoint (most likely a result of conscious or subconscious reactions to Bella's melodramatic angst) and intimated by Meyer's confession of inexperience with writing. Still, I found a lot to learn from Ms. Meyer's work. I mapped out the intention for Bella's character (she's really set up to be a motherly figure – parenting her parents; the staid, reasonable voice among friends) and rewrote part of the story by hand. If you haven't figured it out yet, the best way to improve your writing is to edit other people's work. 😉
Since she's mentioned… Seriously, people, you've gotta give MAD PROPS to J.K. Like her work or not, read anything she's written and it's clear the lady has skillz. WORD! ;-p
–Wendy
You know, I love this. When I heard of the "Twilight" phenomenon, I went straight out to get a copy and find out what all the fuss was about.
During the first two paragraphs, I just wanted to scratch my brains out. Something about scraping bits of cells out of my skull was much more appealing than listening one more time to Bella whining and espousing her virtues. However, I soldiered on determined to find out what was drawing fans. Than I found it, quite simply, where Stephenie Meyer found it.
Ms. Meyer has always said that her story grew from a dream in which she was in a meadow of flowers. You know, that perfect meadow where Edward glitters and Bella falls in love. When you read that section of the book, it's blindingly clear what makes Stephenie's story worthwhile – the dynamic between Edward and Bella. *That* is something she manages to convey well in her writing.
When I plunked myself among members of my critique group and criticized the writing skills of Ms. Meyer, I was filleted by slitted eyes. When I mentioned to friends who are part of Stephenie's fandom my dismay at the daunting editing task left to her publisher and agent, I was branded a traitor.
But the reality is, Stephenie Meyer writes poorly. The proof is in the lackluster performance of her other work. Bella is less than appealing as a heroine, which doesn't surprise me. As a Stephenie-archetype, she was doomed. I'll be honest, when I've tried to write myself into a piece, I come off pretty unpalatable as well. There's something about using one's self so completely as a main character that, well, reeks. (Yes, fish rotting in the now empty Tempe Town Lake kind of stench.)
Still… where the strength is in these books, it's there in spades. Say what you will, I went on to read the rest of the novels and, yup, I saw the movies. (Thank goodness for Kristin Stewart who makes Bella much more bearable.) On top of that, if I was an editor or an agent, I would have handed a contract to Ms. Meyer as well. Granted, I probably would have insisted on more edits but, considering one dedication Ms. Stephenie wrote in her books, perhaps the amount of time invested in them had already proved prohibitive to further improvements.
So, we have an alluring story, poorly crafted. Proof given by people who want the books rewritten from Edward's viewpoint (most likely a result of conscious or subconscious reactions to Bella's melodramatic angst) and intimated by Meyer's confession of inexperience with writing. Still, I found a lot to learn from Ms. Meyer's work. I mapped out the intention for Bella's character (she's really set up to be a motherly figure – parenting her parents; the staid, reasonable voice among friends) and rewrote part of the story by hand. If you haven't figured it out yet, the best way to improve your writing is to edit other people's work. 😉
Since she's mentioned… Seriously, people, you've gotta give MAD PROPS to J.K. Like her work or not, read anything she's written and it's clear the lady has skillz. WORD! ;-p
–Wendy
{hides with shame}
Sorry about the double-dip. Got an error that it failed to post. Props to Nathan if he deletes the doppleganger as well as this one. ;^)
–Wendy
I have to say,slightly sheepishly, that I'm prose's greatest henchman. A strong story gets a gasp; strong prose alters body chemistry.
Clearly, though, if you have a unique story, then it doesn't matter *that* much how it's delivered. Take Cecilia Ahern's P.S I Love You – so simply delivered; almost rudimentary, and then it sells gazillions.I don't think there's a golden formula. Our musings are as subjective as our personal taste. Fun, though 🙂
For me, writing is paramount. There have been too many instances where clunky writing or similes and metaphors that don't make sense have pulled me out of the story, even if it was a good story, and I was unable to finish it.
Thanks for adding that bit about what SK said in the interview. All I had heard was that he said she couldn't write, and did wonder why he made such a comment.
Great post.
A good indication of a good, well done piece would be to say it as a storyteller. Storytelling has history, there's the use of tone and gestures that can make the method far more viable and enchanting to the reader. Writing is relatively new and infinately more difficult as a result of the lack of communication. In writing the words have to be the gesture. You remember the words just as you remember a good storyteller. The best writer can combine the two.
When I saw the title of this blog I was sucked in because about six weeks ago, I wrote something similar although it was personal to me. My blog was titled "I'm Not A Scholar, I'm A Storyteller." Although some reviews have given both my story and my prose high praise, a small group of others have disliked both. As with everything else in life, beauty – be it a story or prose, is in the eye of the beholder.
Your shared an interesting thought. In face i have always wondered about the relationship between one's proficiency in a given language and the ability to tell a story that get rapturous attention from readers. After years of hard work in my attempt to achieve a reasonable amount proficiency in English language i have almost come to the conclusion that one's ability to craft a sentence well enough does make him good storyteller.
The ability to tell a good story to a great extent rely on a combination of factors including a penchant for social observation, uninhibited imagination, a friendship with fantasies and flair for creating suspense to name a few are perhaps what is necessary to become a good story teller. I have come to realize that our skill to craft a good sentence may help writing a good thesis or essay but it may not necessarily be sufficient to create an interesting character or conceiving a unique and intriguing setting, with all the twists and turns to go with the story. It is indeed a fact that the expression would involve a great amount of writing but such crafting is like a supplement. To make the reader stay glued to the story we need more than our word power and it absolutely rests with what exactly we are trying to say and how we say it.
Many well known classic and popular novels many not qualify to be categorized as such if they had lacked the right plot and settings and characterization. I feel the language element is secondary when it comes to contributing to good story telling. A good example is the visual portrayal of a story where language often becomes a handicap. Every Painting and a piece of music in a way attempt to tell a story in its own way sans language.
However if a story is told in written words , then your ability to express in the given language plays a bigger role in providing the details. The poetic language may not be a guarantee for the acceptance of a story by its readers.
If the possession of language proficiency were a criteria that ensure the transformation to becoming a good story teller, then all the English professors would have turned into modern Shakespeares and all the journalists and essayists would have churned out fiction books with wide fan following . But it doesn’t seem to be working that way. On the other hand we have as many examples who have been dropped out of school writing novels that have later become classics . The craft of weaving a story sprinkled with elements which generate a level of anxiety, a sense of empathy with loads of suspense and a climax that jolt the reader is far more important to be accepted as a good story teller that just being able to write a sentence well.
So what exactly make a good story teller ? Well the answer lies in the question. It is the story.
Of course, envy is a factor. But I don’t think that’s everything.
My theory: Certain readers, including many writers, find it harder to suspend disbelief when the writing is clumsy. They feel cheated.