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?
Lila Swann says
I'm 17, so I'm right in the middle of Meyer's target audience. I'm not really sure why everyone bashes on her prose. I understand that it doesn't stack up to the classics. But why would I ever want to read a romance vampire story with snooty prose? Gross.
Adults love to bash on Meyer's "lackluster" style, but honestly, her audience doesn't care. If someone decided to rewrite Twilight using the exact same story with elevated prose, I can guarantee you that the original would sell more.
Teens – Meyer's target audience – do NOT like snooty prose. We are force fed that enough in our English classes. I do think that classical, well-written literature has its place (I just finished Ellison's Invisible Man) but in terms of reading for pleasure (and choosing books that we're willing to spend money on)…we'll go with the entertaining, common language every time.
Sorry to all of the language snobs.
S.R. says
I guess I'd say that what King is getting at here is the distinction between literature for all time, and something you read on an airplane and and throw away once you reach your destination. Ultimately, it's Rowling's writing–clear, compulsively readable, simple but sophisticated in the way that Raold Dahl's is, for instance–that will assure that people read the Harry Potter books to their kids, and their kids to their own kids, etc. Stephenie Meyer may tell a story that appeals to girls (and, let's face it, only girls) at a certain period in their lives, but is ultimately an ephemeral pleasure. (I'd even argue that it's a dated one, likely to go away once we all come to our senses and realize that what we call teenagers practicing abstinence only is "parents.") It's the difference between eating a really good cut of prime rib and cheap, sugary Dairy Queen ice cream. The first is nourishing; the second is just empty calories. It's also about characterization. Bella, I'm sorry, is just a cardboard foil who doesn't change or develop from one book to the next. It's not so much a coming of age story as an anti-coming of age story. In a way, she seems almost to regress as she falls deeper in love.
You can certainly make a million bucks telling a good or at least a resonant story; just don't expect your books to outlast you. There's no shame in it. People have different goals for themselves and their work.
I'd also point out, though, that good prose is not synonymous with "snooty" prose. In fact, I've always thought that there's something ineffably snooty and condescending about Meyer's prose, as if she knows she's writing a bestseller and you won't be able to control yourself once you get your hands on it.
robinC says
Story is absolutely essential. You have to have a hook, a compelling reason for the reader to keep turning the pages. Of course both writing and storytelling in balance is a win/win, but pretty words without anything happening…may as well read a thesaurus.
The Frisky Virgin says
Excellent post, Nathan. I love when I can lose myself within the pages of a good story. I love characters I can relate to, sympathize with, cheer on, etc. The book may not be what some consider brilliant writing, but it's effective writing…effective storytelling. As for Twilight–it's a fun story with fun characters, and isn't that half the battle?
Brian says
I remember when I first started taking writing classes, I'd spend hours working on making my sentences as "artful" as possible.
When it came time for my critique, the professor always skipped over my toiling by saying "the writing works fine" and would then spend the rest of the time making suggestions about the plot and characters ect. More "story" oriented.
It used to drive me crazy! All I wanted was a ten minute discussion about how cool my similes were. It took almost a year for me to realize that without a good story to tell, with pacing and rhythm and flow, I wasn't going to connect with any readers.
It's been many years since that revelation, and I still haven't gotten the storytelling part figured out….
Mira says
Great post, Nathan. I completely agree!
For best-selling commercial fiction I believe you need two things:
a. smooth writing that keeps the reader engaged without a break.
(It doesn't have to be great writing, just smooth so the reader is immediately immersed and 'captured.'
As a side note, most readers, unless they have training in the craft, won't really know the difference between good and great writing. And lest you think I am a snob, I include myself in that. I'm grammar challenged.)
b. a story that hits on a shared archtype.
Men probably won't 'get' the archtype of Twilight, and that includes Stephen King, unless they are very in touch with their feminine side. Meyers hit on the same feminine archtype that you find in Cinderella and most romance. Edward is a protective father figure, and most women with distant fathers who yearned to have their fathers finally cherish and protect them will find the story speaks to them.
It's the archtype of being seen as special and loved and then rescued by Prince Charming.
Meyer's writing is very smooth, the story speaks to an archtype and it totally makes sense that it was extremely popular.
Ishta Mercurio says
Beyond the very basics, storytelling is more important, for the reasons that everyone has already mentioned.
Mira says
Oh, I want to add one thing.
Just as a balance, there are other reasons to write than the desire to entertain and sell well.
In fiction, some may write for high ART. They are exploring the beauty and artistry of words. Although high art doesn't sell well, since you usually need training to really appreciate it, it's still extremely valuable to the culture as a part of the on-going artistic dialogue.
And then there is another catagory. The creation of a masterpiece.
A masterpiece is so beautifully crafted and speaks to the human condition so profoundly that it…….well, it usually sells very poorly at first. And then picks up later on.
Okay, I'm done now.
Very much enjoyed your diplomatic, thoughtful and clear-thinking post and the chance to pontificate, Nathan. 🙂
Terry Stonecrop says
I understand what you mean about prose craft and I work on it. Maybe too much. I still think storytelling trumps prose craft.
Maybe it's because I so loved my grandmother's stories about her life. She told the stories, orally, didn't write them. But maybe she was good at craft, too, now that I think about it.
Maybe there's also craft in the oral tradition that makes or breaks a story. She had insight into characters, and made observations about them and her descriptions brought her time and place so alive for me as a child. I was entranced and saw it all in my mind's eye.
Beth Barany says
I absolutely think there are no absolutes… And that storytelling trumps craft just about every time. That said, there is a point at which I will put down a book because the writing doesn't flow.
Lila Swann says
Oh, and I'd just like to clarify my word choice from my previous post… I used the word "snooty" multiple times to describe the high-concept prose that we're all discussing.
I do NOT think the authors are actually being snooty themselves. While there are, undoubtedly, language snobs in the world, I would never assume that all those who write spectacular prose are snooty.
However, teens will always perceive that as being snooty, just as we think our parents are out to get us and that everyone is secretly talking behind our backs. In the YA market (which is Meyer's audience), I don't think classical prose would work well at all.
Timothy Fish says
Storytelling always comes first and always has. Look at the classics. While they may have more interesting prose than what we see today, they didn't become classics because of their prose. They all have something important to say.
RJ Hipling says
Storytelling definitely keeps me reading but the writing is equally important. It's usually the stories with good, if not great, writing that has me returning to a book over and over again, never tiring of either aspects.
The ideal would be to have both but if I were to settle on anything, I would go with storytelling and hope that the writing is good enough to get me through at least one read of the book and have me thinking about the story long after I've turn the last page.
LeAnne says
I believe that in commercial fiction, storytelling nearly always comes out on top. Look at some popular novels written in first-person. Authors will write short, conversational sentences without the overwhelming complexity of some prose writers, yet their book is deemed 'complex' and is praised as a fabulous work of art.
Here, for me, it's the how. How does an author tell a story? How does the plot attract the reader? It's how the writer lays out the story and attracts the reader; story-telling. You can have absolutely amazing prose, but if your characters are unlikeable and the plot moves nowhere, what is it worth?
Hence, I'm putting my wager on storytelling over prose.
And, as a lurker and first-time commenter, I do have to randomly ask you; Do you offer suggestions for an author's query letter even when you reject it? I've never submitted one before and I was hoping when I finish my novel that I can have the hope of getting a one-liner or so of advice if my letter doesn't work out. Is that possible?
Nancy says
I like what Jeni Decker said: "Simplified. The Twilight Series, the Sookie Stackhouse series, Evanovich—these books are simple and the commercial masses tend to buy simple."
Most readers today fall into the mass reading market and this simplicity, which I think is a reflection on the fact that not many people have the time to read flowery, victorian prose anymore (think James Michener, carryover from those times). We live in an internet and TV world of ten-second blurbs. We want to see it and hear it now and we want it fast. We have to pick up the kids in a few minutes. We have a few minutes on the subway. Or we read long enough to fall asleep at night. That kind of life pacing leaves us with needing to get to the story right away; no long side tracks of prosey explanations or descriptions.
So in reality, the storytelling comes first. On the other hand, when I pick up a book (or first pages) for the first time and the writing lacks professionalism I will usually put it down and go on to the next book. For me, both writing and storytelling are essential if I'm going to get into the tale. Otherwise, I'm constantly distracted by the writing errors (such as 'alright' instead of 'all right') which ruin the story for me.
bsgibson says
A story comes from the imagination of the writer and of life experiences to enhance the storytelling. Not everyone has an imagination that can flow into words and capture the pictures in the writer's head. That said, storytelling first, then writing it. Pacing, beginning, middle and end with a good plot. That holds my interest. If it's not perfect writing, but the story is interesting, I'll read and enjoy.
Josin L. McQuein says
Writing is words on paper in a specific order. It's an exceptionally broad action rooted in habit. Storytelling is a bit like "X" factor. It's an infusion of flavor not called for in the recipe and something rooted in feeling your way without knowing your exact route.
You write in English lit, but you rarely tell stories.
To be a storyteller, you not only have to pour your blood and breathe into the characters you create, you have to allow them to breath it back into you.
Terin Tashi Miller says
Nathan: your blog is always thought provoking, and I find it difficult to refrain from thinking out loud.
I consider story telling first and foremost the job of the writer. To me, language is for communication–to transfer ideas, concepts and perhaps, experiences to readers.
That said, to me great writing communicates a story, or stories, so well the reader may not even be aware, at first, that some sort of understanding has passed from the writer to the reader.
And I don't know, or don't necessarily believe, that even those who can and do tell stories artistically, that is, with great care and consideration of what they're doing and how they're doing it, for a certain effect, become stars either in their time or later.
Perhaps, as Mira suggests, such writing is for the few who "get it." But it does add so much to our culture, to humanity and, hopefully, to our understanding of ourselves or others.
And Mira, agree with you as I do on most other subjects, I have to object to your suggestion Men won't get Twilight unless they're in touch with their "feminine side."
This always seems to imply, to me incorrectly, that sensitivity is solely the purview of women. Archetypes, on the other hand, are universal (or they wouldn't be archetypes).
And one with an inkling of understanding of symbolism can't help but see the very basic archetype of the male prince and protector, or a girl just at or about to emerge into womanhood.
What perhaps is more intellectually interesting is the fact such an archetype still strikes a chord with so many, in a world where one might believe women seeking such from men (or girls from boys, daughters from fathers or father figures) long ago passed into history.
There is the other, always subtle subtext of Vampire stories from the time of Stoker's original "Dracula," however–the desire for immortality, the cost of immortality, and the lust for whatever it is that gives youth its flower. And the danger "beautiful" men pose to "impressionable" women (young or old), or even men…And the lure of "experience."
Xena says
great post, i guess it does put hings into perspective
scarlettprose says
First of all, I agree with Lila Swann's posts.
Secondly, I once had the flu. Rather than hoist my lifeless body from the couch to get more tissues, I ripped out a page from my English Lit book and blew my nose on it. Then I set it next to "The Host" on the coffee table.
Nuff said.
BrownEyed says
I am reading "Twilight" presently, and I must acknowledge that fact that I don't like the way she writes. Some things are off but not everything is up-side-down in her prose. Definitely, I see the difference because the plot and the characters are really brilliant, unlike the style and writing. I am not disliking her completely, but yes, in comparison to Rowling, Meyer is not close. However, both the authoresses have a great story to tell–so that makes Meyer a winner in one sense.
-BrownEyed
S Yarns says
@Lila Swann. I would completely agree with you. Meyer's audience was YA and that is who she wrote to. I enjoyed the books myself, and I am well above the YA market. The story is what got me.
But what about The Host, also written by Meyer? To me, the language was more mature, not so simple. I found it to be a very interesting book, and have reread it multiple times.
Ahh, here is that s word again. How subjective it all is. I adore Dean Koontz and Stephen King. Koontz is a master of prose to me. King is a master of storytelling. Both equally compelling.
Ok, that's enough of my late night ramblings.
Oh, wait! One more thing!
If I never here the s word again, it will be too soon. Why can't everyone just think like me? It would be so much easier getting my novel published…
Anonymous says
Writing vs. storytelling–this seems like a false choice to me. Where does the story exist if not in the writing? We look to the Twilight series or Dan Brown as absolute proof that story matters more, and yet, suppose that Dan Brown's writing *were* more than merely competent. Suppose it were more sophisticated, more pleasing to the eye and ear–how much better could the story be? How much longer would he stay relevant? How many more readers might he attract? Answer: at least one more (me).
"The Sun Also Rises" is one of the best books I have ever read. The beauty comes just as much from the prose as it does from the story. Maybe more so. No, definitely more so, because the story is nothing but a condition of the prose. The story *is* the prose. The story is authorial choices, interesting phrasings, vivid details, poignant and heartbreaking revelations. It would not achieve the same beauty if offered up by a lesser writer.
Just my 2 cents.
–Chris
JDuncan says
I believe there are far, far more good storytellers out there than good writers. The knowledge and precision required to craft great prose is, in my opinion at least, much more difficult than creating a good story. If the litmus of bestseller was on the prose, we'd have very few. There's also this whole art versus craft discussion, which is another post entirely. The point is, there's a whole level range of writers out there whose stories are marketable. And given the public's vast subjectivity on writing and storytelling, it's a good thing.
I for one, am an adequate writer. Good enough to have sold or at least pique the interest of a publishing house. I have a looong ways to go to be a great writer, and to be honest, won't likely be one. And I'm ok with that. I don't have to be a great writer. I do however want to be a great storyteller. I love creating stories, and want to be good enough at presenting them for people to enjoy the experience along with me. I have a wee bit of envy for those who are great at both. Those are one in a million.
Lila Swann says
@S Yarns –
Oh, how funny! I actually despised The Host. I bought it in the month before Breaking Dawn was released as a way to pass the time. (I was ridiculously excited.)
Umm, yeah, I don't think I got past the first five chapters. Hated it.
The difference, I think, is that The Host is actually not a YA book, it's marketed for adults and (I'm pretty sure) is sold only in the Adult section, unless it gets grouped in with the "Stephenie Meyer Table."
I'm simply not a big Science Fiction fan, so in this case, the story didn't do it for me.
So yes, that's why you liked The Host more and found it more "mature." It was Meyer's attempt at an Adult novel.
🙂
Luc2 says
I know Miss Snark always used to state: "Good writing trumps all." Given the discussion here, I believe the more accurate statement is: "Good storytelling trumps all." If a story is compelling, many readers will forgive less than stellar prose. I believe that fewer people will enjoy a novel with meticulous prose but without an interesting story. I know I do
Jovanna says
Normally, I just concentrate on getting the story down, before I try to figure out the writing itself. The story to me, is much more important. On occasion though, I focus instead on the writing… and then I get some interesting pieces. For some reason, they all come out flowery and poetry like. It's weird.
Anonymous says
LeAnn, clue — 1) don't post a personal, off-topic question in a comment's section of an agent's blog.
2) the answer is no. You will not get feedback on your query letter from agents and you should not expect it (or you'll be very disappointed). Agents are not your teachers, your writing group, your beta readers, your family or your friends.
They are very busy people who have learned not to spend time with rejection emails to queries, explaining what was wrong with your query. Think of all the queries they reject in a day and you'll figure out why.
Your first lesson as a professional writer (because that's why you are querying agents) is to suck it up, and get your feedback from support groups. There are plenty online if you can't find one in your area.
Other Lisa says
I'm really tired, I have a cold, I'm on Benadryl, but, WTF.
Both.
Good writing and good storytelling are bound up together. Good writing adds complexity and depth to storytelling…or maybe it's the other way around.
The better the prose craft, the better the story. I honestly don't think you can separate the two.
Stephen Parrish says
I'd like to think that writing and storytelling are equally critical, and certainly I want both from the next novel I read. But whereas I can't get through a great story told poorly, I can be moved by a mundane story told beautifully.
Poetry provides a good example: often I don't know what the author is trying to say, but the words make me shiver all the same.
flibgibbet says
Some level of writing competence and story-telling ability is required, no doubt about it.
But a great/catchy premise, and a true understanding of your target audience is worth an awful lot more than all the "rules" we're constantly being lectured about–at least if we're talking about best-sellers.
I don't think Meyer is a great writer or a great story-teller, but she more than succeeded when it came to understanding what her audience craved. (Teenage girls with forbidden love fantasies). Right time, right place.
And I'm not poking fun at that. I couldn't do what she did if you gave me a lifetime.
In any case, it should be pretty obvious where writer frustration lies in discussions like this. The experts pontificate at length about the "rules", then those same experts extoll the virtues of yet another book which reads (to many of us) like a first or second draft.
I just wish more experts would admit this simple truth.
Phyllis says
This post made your point very clear: There's a quality threshold in writing that makes it publishable. I would argue there's a similar threshold for storytelling, too.
We writers who are unpublished and still honing our craft do well in assuming that our abilities may lie below the quality achieved in published novels, even the ones we consider the pit of literary achievement. Even they can teach us something. It pays to read outside one's own comfort zone, and I found I learned lessons in most unlikely places.
Still, I'd like to add a point that makes your statement a little less provoking: You can choose your masters. There's no need to spend hours with Dan Brown to learn the craft of a high-stakes thriller if you hate The Lost Symbol, take a Ludlum instead. There are many great and successful authors out there, and each of them has a lesson to teach.
Elie says
The story and the way it's told are so meshed together I find it hard to separate them. I've had the strange experience recently of being physically unable to finish a couple of books because the story & writing style were incompatible (IMHO). I wanted to read on, but I really couldn't.
I'm going to some live storytelling events this summer, and listening to a story told by a real live teller is a different experience again .. interesting to compare it to reading, and it's worlds away from ipads & such.
Scott Foley says
Great post Nathan. To me the difference between prose and storytelling is like getting a present all wrapped up. The wrapping (prose) must look attractive and want you to open it, but it's really all about the present (storytelling). Wrapping with no great present inside sucks 😉
Hillsy says
Anecdote + Paraphrasing of Nathan's post + Personal example of opinion/own writing = Comment
Now THAT's formulaic
Word Verification – Inativ: How ingenious people get across what they have in only 6 letters
G. Jackson says
Love this post. Good writing alone can't carry you. Storytelling means you have to make story choices that work – in a way you have to intuit your readers' needs and emotions, just like in product development, and make decisions about your story based on that. You have to do this while writing a story that you feel connected to, not one that someone else owns.
I may be a strong writer, but that doesn't mean I am a strong storyteller. It always goes to defining craft, practicing, and always striving to be better.
Great topic, Nathan!
Sheila Cull says
Great Post Nathan. Fantastic way to explain the success of Meyer and I agree (now, after hearing the way you explained it!) that the charm is in her story.
Gabriela Lessa says
Great post, Nathan.
I do think there is a difference between writing and storytelling. Both are very important, but it seems to me that, in the end, storytelling will take you further. It's exactly the comparison between J.K. Rowling and Stephanie Meyer. J.K. Rowling has both. She knows the craft of writing and does it beautifully AND she is able to create a story that people want to read. Meyer doesn't write as well, but the storyline attracts readers. Now, can you find a recent example of someone who wrote beautifully but didn't tell a good story, and still got published? I can't think of anyone.
Will I recommend someone who can both write and tell a tory over someone who is not that great on the writing? Always. But the ones doing great storytelling and average writing will get places. The ones who think their writing is so damn good they don't need an attractive storyline won't.
Teresa says
Good writing is about good communication. I can have the greatest story in the world, but if I can't effectively communicate my characters feelings, environment, or plot, then I've failed as both a storyteller and a writer.
For me, in both my own writing and in novels that I read, there must be good writing and good storytelling. Good writing doesn't mean the author has to use tricky phrases and creative prose. Cormac McCarthy uses very simple prose to convey his stories. However, my all time favorite novel for both storytelling and beautiful prose is Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. The novel's prose is lyrical from beginning to end with a powerful story behind it.
As writers we must strive for both good storytelling and excellent prose. Otherwise, we've killed the very art we've chosen to honor.
J. R. McLemore says
The only distinction that comes to mind for me is in some stories I read where the writer tries to sound too literary and uses big vocabulary words in order to impress the reader. While it is nice that the writer may have an extensive vocabulary, it severely detracts from the writing and pulls me out of the story. In most situations, the story might be very good, but told in this way, I can't see that fine storytelling because I'm running for the dictionary.
Nathan, not sure if you've already done a post about this, but it might be nice for many writers to know that impressive vocabulary doesn't make for a impressive storytelling. Case in point: Ernest Hemingway.
J. R. McLemore says
Maybe I wasn't clear when I mentioned Mr. Hemingway. I meant that he uses simple vocabulary and told great stories…just a clarification. 🙂
Anonymous says
Yes, the Twilight saga is a hit, and its storytelling is compelling and page turning — but does that excuse a writer or editor from working to improve their basic grammar knowledge?
Repeated adjectives, zero transitions, incorrect grammar, characters suddenly having nicknames (Jazz) when they've never had a nickname in the three books prior, banal, repeated dialouge, characters acting against type, and canons broken right and left…
She's a masterful storyteller, but shouldn't you, as a writer, take pride in your work enough to continue to grow as a writer? I saw no difference in grammar/repeated phrases/etc in the beginning of the series than I did in the later books. I think that's a shame, really. Either her editor didn't give a damn, or she had to hurry to meet oppressive deadlines — there's SOMETHING going on there.
I don't think that's jealousy — I think it's mind boggling that something can make that kind of money and be so uncared for by seemingly all involved. Book 4 almost read like a rough draft.
If something that makes that kind of money gets shoddy editing, where's that leave the rest of us?
King did insult her — by saying she's a great storyteller (which is hard to do) BUT THEN saying she's "just not very good" about WRITING. That's a huge insult. Because the one thing you can practice and refine is the writing — page critique, anyone? And either Meyer didn't take the time to do that, or her editors didn't expect her to, but how much better would the books be if she had?
Janny says
1) Short answer? Story trumps all.
2) I'm still spitting-nails angry about the assertion that we "ought not" to ask ourselves the question, "Do I Like This?" on the grounds that it's somehow "not important" whether we "like" something or not. Of course it's important…we're readers as well as writers. If we DON'T like something, we won't buy it–and affecting sales in the marketplace is hardly unimportant to the business, to the craft, or to us who are trying to make our mark in both.
Yes, I understand that whether we like something or not isn't the be-all and end-all of whether it "sucks." But I also think it's disingenuous to pretend that we're all reading–or SHOULD BE reading–with our analysts' glasses on all the time, either. That's simply not true, no matter how much we protest otherwise–not if we're truly reading, at least part of the time, for enjoyment.
And if we're not reading at least part of the time for enjoyment's sake, then, in the end, what's the point?
A bit of analysis goes a long, long way. But approaching the craft cerebrally all the time may be part of the reason so many so-called "classic" books are so colossally boring to some of us. No, it has nothing to do with whether we've "studied" them or not. You can "study" something that bores you, if you have to. But life is too short to spend any more time doing that than necessary.
On our deathbeds, I doubt if any of us is is going to say, "Darn, I should have spent more time studying that mawkish, badly written stuff by the author who sold a gajillion copies, just so I could learn something from what they did." I think we're much more likely to say, "Darn, if I'd just remembered that reading for enjoyment was how I got started in this business in the first place…and trusted my own instincts more."
My take,
Janny
gsfields says
I read The Road a few weeks ago. The prose was good, almost too good for my taste. I was looking for a good end-of-the-world story but by the end of the first chapter I began to suspect the book was all prose and no story.
However, I stuck with the book and was not disappointed because the story was excellent and I think the prose simply helped elevate the story telling experience.
Nicole says
Right on, Lila! And whoever made the "know your audience" comment. I think this is something a lot of writers forget. Your writing has to resonate with your readers – whoever your particular readers are.
No one will care about your beautiful prose if they don't first care about your characters and your story.
Sommer Leigh says
Wow how timely. I just posted about this on my blog yesterday because I went to a sci-fi convention last week and even though I do not like Stephanie Meyer's writing, I ended up in several heated arguements about why she works as a storyteller. The Meyer bashing by other authors at the convention made me crazy, as if millions of readers who found entertainment value in her storytelling were just somehow misguided.
Missives From Suburbia says
I always thought the interesting part about that King interview was that he thought Rowling was a good writer. I think the first Potter book was terribly written, but the story was fantastic. She improved dramatically as a writer as the series progressed.
Magdalena Munro says
I am glad you followed up with this blog as the last one bothered me enough that I thought of the topic for HOURS (bravo for eliciting such a response) and decided not to respond. I'm glad as your current blog clears things up for me. You're not ascribing judgment/good/bad on success, simply that something is being done correctly. I agree.
Regarding writing and storytelling, I am a snob and can't read books that aren't excellent on both fronts. I need both. The Book of Evidence by John Banville (The book is about an amoral scientist who murders a servant girl during an attempt to steal a painting from a neighbor) has both superlative prose and kick ass storytelling. I demand and want it all as my time is limited and I need to immerse myself in literary luxury. Sorry for the long winded answer.
Adele Richards says
I love what you say about the author doing 'something' right.
I've just finished reading a novel in which the writing sometimes made me roll my eyes because it was erring towards cliche (in my opinion!) and yet when I think about what the author was doing really well and what kept me reading – it was the characters and the romance that kept me going.
For me 'The Book Thief' is an example of a novel in which the amazing writing matches a fantastic story. I read it recently and absolutely loved it.
Gregz says
To me, good storytelling is the ability to draw me in, make me care about the characters, and transport me into the fictive dream. King is an absolute master at this, even if his tales sometimes are a little gross. Bad writing disrupts that process and throws me out of the dream, leading me at times to give up on a book.
Reading fiction is about reading good stories for most people. People have different tolerances for, and definitions of, bad writing, and each of us will make our own subjective decision about whether a book meets that standard.
I don't have any opinion about Twilight, as I have not read it. Kudos to Stephanie Meyer for writing something so popular. Knowing what I know about the story, I could not be less interested in reading it, but as I am a 41 year old male, I'm not the target market.