# Story > Writing Skills?



## Androxine Vortex (Nov 1, 2012)

Take your favorite novel/book and use it as an example. You obviously know you love the story but lets pretend it was your first time reading it. It still has the same story but suppose the author made lots of "mistakes" or you just thought it was poorly written. Do you still think you would like that same novel? How much of a factor does writing skill make when you decide to start reading a new book?

I don't think it would bother me too much. There have been many times where I have read something I didn't like but continued on because I loved the story so much.


----------



## Chilari (Nov 1, 2012)

My favourite book has both brilliant writing skill and great story. As one of my previous front page articles her on MS has explored, I didn't think much of it when the story was changed by a certain Japanese filmmaker, but when some British playwrights retold it I loved it. But that's not the question you asked.

I think it would depend on how many mistakes or bad bad the telling of it was. I will forgive the occasional typo as long as the meaning is clear by the second reading of a sentence. Mistakes in continuity, like changing a character's description in a noticable way, or having them appear somewhere they couldn't possibly have reached from where they were last in the elapsed time, are less forgivable. I think bad storytelling in terms of pacing will get rid of me quickest.

There's a book I've recently bought on my sister's recommendation, and the events went by so quickly that I could not keep up with all the new information. What I did read was pretty kick-ass, but there was a lot of telling instead of showing at the start as the author clearly wanted to quickly establish a relationship before getting to the point where one of the two individuals concerned dies. I gave up about 10,000 words in, by which time a lot had happened and a lot of information had been dispensed and a lot had been shown to be kept back by some supernatural force that controlled a ghost character, and I just couldn't take it. I have no idea what happens in the rest of the story but my sister promises it's good and generally her opinion on books is fairly close to my own. But I didn't find the characters compelling because there wasn't the time to introduce them, so I didn't really care about them, and not knowing what cause they were in fact fighting for while they were doing all this kick-ass stuff just... urgh, it wasn't good writing.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Nov 1, 2012)

I usually try to turn the "writer" part of my brain off when reading something for fun. (Same goes for movies, etc.) So I normally only notice very obvious and obtrusive mistakes. It's not healthy to be too critical of things, if it comes at the cost of being unable to have fun.


----------



## CTStanley (Nov 1, 2012)

My favourite book is River God by Wilbur Smith, I think the writing and story are equally awesome


----------



## Leif Notae (Nov 1, 2012)

Sure, i go through that every day when I read Martin's work. I thought it was fantastic in the beginning, but now it is meh...


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 1, 2012)

I can read for fun without being critical.

I don't think story trumps writing. Story ideas are a dime a dozen. I do think "storytelling" trumps writing. If you tell a story in a highly engaging manner it will do well even if there are technical problems with the writing.


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Nov 1, 2012)

Androxine Vortex said:


> Take your favorite novel/book and use it as an example. You obviously know you love the story but lets pretend it was your first time reading it. It still has the same story but suppose the author made lots of "mistakes" or you just thought it was poorly written. Do you still think you would like that same novel? How much of a factor does writing skill make when you decide to start reading a new book?



I find that 'mistakes' interfere with my enjoyment too much. I'm easy about the odd typo, but beyond that it gets in the way. I like to immerse myself in a story, really get transported to the author's world, and anything that disrupts that - abrupt changes of pace, info-dumps, poor character motivation, clunky phrasing, anything where I have to reread to understand what's going on - it's a bit like the phone ringing. It just drops me out of the story. A book like that is never going to become a favourite.

When I'm evaluating a new book, I look for something positive to make me want to continue reading - something unusual and intriguing in the setting, characters, situation - but if I find any negatives in the writing, that'll be enough to put me off.


----------



## Kit (Nov 1, 2012)

The story is more important to me... but I do notice every little misspelling and grammar error, just because that's what I'm good at. If there enough errors that it becomes distracting, I will quit reading. I sometimes make exceptions if I know that the writer is dyslexic or if English is not hir first language.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 1, 2012)

It's hard to have this conversation without clearly defining the terms "story" and "writing skills."

If a story has lots of tension and really makes you feel for the characters but has a bunch of technical flaws (physical impossibilities, character inconsistencies, poorly constructed sentences, etc), is it the story or the writing skills that are in question?

You need writing skills to create tension.  You need writing skills to make a reader feel for a character.  You need writing skills to avoid making a bunch of technical mistakes.

Even if you substitute "story telling" for "story," what exactly makes up each component?


----------



## Twook00 (Nov 1, 2012)

I always think about the Hobbit movies.  Of course, I've only seen trailers of the new version, but I feel pretty safe in assuming it will be far better than that 80's cartoon (I wasn't a fan).

I mean, If I were to try and write Wheel of Time or ASOIF or American Gods, knowing all of the scenes and all of the characters, I can promise you it would not be half as good as the original.  Not at my skill level.  There are little things at play that make a story what it is.  A character is a character, but if one person is presenting that character in better ways than another (or showing one character's personality while the other is telling about it) you will get a very different book.  Same story, but different book I think.

I also think style plays a big factor.  Some people just write a different way.  It doesn't make them better or worse, just different.  And that means some people will like them and others won't.  I guess it all depends.


----------



## Weaver (Nov 1, 2012)

Androxine Vortex said:


> Take your favorite novel/book and use it as an example. You obviously know you love the story but lets pretend it was your first time reading it. It still has the same story but suppose the author made lots of "mistakes" or you just thought it was poorly written. Do you still think you would like that same novel? How much of a factor does writing skill make when you decide to start reading a new book?
> 
> I don't think it would bother me too much. There have been many times where I have read something I didn't like but continued on because I loved the story so much.



I _stop reading_ things that are particularly poorly written.  Not the small stuff that only happens once (recent example:  something about "the taught cables" of a ship's rigging), but repeated and stupid mistakes that make me wonder how the publisher let something so badly edited/proofread get into print.  I'll also stop reading something that bores or offends me, so good writing alone isn't enough, but it has to be at least _competent_ writing.  It takes more than an idea to make a story; the presentation of that idea also matters.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 1, 2012)

It's partly how you define skill. One of my favorite books is _The Battle Sylph_, which utilizes a very plain and unadorned style. I consider this a complement to the narrative, but my creative writing teacher would think the author rankly incompetent to pass up so many opportunities to play with language.


----------



## MadMadys (Nov 1, 2012)

I don't think I could ever read a story that was poorly written because, if the author was not very good at getting their ideas across, I wouldn't think the story is all that good.  I mean, good writing begets a decent story, usually.  I won't have any idea of the story if the writing is bad because the author won't be able to get elements across that are important to the plot.

I think a better question would be, Writing Skills > Plot?  If a story was really well written, but nothing was really "happening" in terms of the plot, would it still be a good story?


----------



## Ankari (Nov 2, 2012)

I don't think its a matter of storytelling versus great writing but the amount of poor writing someone can take before the great story is forgotten.  Good writing can manifest in many ways.  There is technical skills, tone, character development, world building (I consider this part of good writing) and vocabulary use.  I tend to favor, in order from most to least, world building, tone, character development, technical skills then vocabulary.  If I see holes in an author's world, I start grumbling.  If I can't get into  mood from the writing I get angry.  If I don't care for a character I throw the book away.  That is my breaking point.

As many have said, good stories are actually quite common.  Further, they are almost all alike.  When stripped to the essence of the story, there are only so many options.


----------



## Wanara009 (Nov 2, 2012)

I always say there is no such thing as Bad Idea, only Bad Execution. To me, a Story=Idea while Writing Skill=Execution. You could conceive a story so epic that it'll make Vyasa weep in jealousy but if your writing skill is poor, it won't fly at all. However, take a bland, formulaic storyline and hand it to someone with excellent writing skill and you'll get an emotional roller-coaster that leave you wanting more.

For example, Scott Westerfeld's _Leviathan Trilogy_: the basic concept boils down to standard, boring Flesh vs. Steel fare we've seen in Starcraft, Warhammer 40K, Planetscape: Torment, Conan the Barbarian, Rise of Legends, and Starship Trooper. However, it sits at #3 of my "10 Best Books I've ever read" just below Wayne Barlowe _Expedition_ and above _Bas-Lag Cycle_ books by China Melville because it's well written.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Nov 2, 2012)

In my experience, story trumps all.


----------



## Zero Angel (Nov 2, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> I usually try to turn the "writer" part of my brain off when reading something for fun. (Same goes for movies, etc.) So I normally only notice very obvious and obtrusive mistakes. It's not healthy to be too critical of things, if it comes at the cost of being unable to have fun.



This is what I do as well. When I am reading for enjoyment (and not studying), I typically fly through texts, absorbing entire paragraphs at a time while missing most of the details. In fact, "skilled writing" can sometimes be too much work to read, even as I admire the ability demonstrated and the perfect word choices and phrasing.

That being said, if stuff is written poorly enough that I am not able to read entire paragraphs at a time, or if there was a small detail mentioned that I skipped, then that generally bothers me. Still, if I'm invested in the characters, I will usually push through. I find story mistakes to be 100000000 times worse than writing mistakes. If at the end of WoT we find out that it's just going to repeat because it's a bloody wheel of time I will never forgive the late Robert Jordan. Or if we find out that it was something simple that could have been done earlier and didn't need all of the set-up that was given to it.

As a reader, I want my writing competent or better and my story good or better. Typos and spelling mistakes are jarring to me (especially since they are generally the easiest to correct), but I am much more forgiving on grammar (as long as it makes sense) and using "accepted writing style" or not.

Since I started writing I have not become any less forgiving of _language_ technique (which is what I think the original post is really referring to when we are talking about writing technique). What I have become less forgiving of are bad stories, especially boring ones or with crap characters; I put them down and save myself the trouble. This happened recently in a Sanderson book I started reading. I couldn't make it past the first chapter--even though I *know* I love his writing. The characters came off too stupid to care about (and not "stupid" in the _Flowers for Algernon_ sense).


----------



## Griffin (Nov 2, 2012)

Writing skills and writing style are two different beasts. Tolkien and Dr. Seuss have two completely different writing styles. Their writing skills made them masters of their respective styles. Whether the writing is elegant, simple, or has a habit to rhyme all the time, it is the skill of the writer that makes the story.

That said, I do believe that writing skill is a huge component in a work. Unfortunately, a lot of recent and popular works lack that component. All personal feelings aside, I'll use the example of Twilight. I first read this before it became super popular and I hated it. The way it was written reminded me too much of bad fan-fiction written by 13 year olds. However, that same style made it popular. The character Bella was so bland and flat, the readers could project themselves into the story and 'become' Bella. That is why the Edward vs Jacob thing became ridiculous as the readers let their personal feelings of the love interests get in the way. 

Would I recommend this style? No. I would never recommend that you, as the writer, let the reader become the protagonist. Is this writing style becoming popular? It seems like more and more popular works have this juvenile style. I could also argue that the fanbases of these works have the majority of teenage girls and middle age moms. But that's a completely different topic.

Long post concluded, I do believe that writing skills are important and severely overlooked. A book can have an amazing story, but if it's told horribly, then it fails. On the flip side, a story can be told beautifully, but it's story lacks luster, then it still fails. It is never a win-win for writers.


----------



## Zero Angel (Nov 2, 2012)

Griffin said:


> Long post concluded, I do believe that writing skills are important and severely overlooked. A book can have an amazing story, but if it's told horribly, then it fails. On the flip side, a story can be told beautifully, but it's story lacks luster, then it still fails. It is never a win-win for writers.



So to sum up: the writing technique is important to you, but doesn't seem to be important for success and thus probably not important for the majority of people that will be reading your book?

I think we get too much into this art-house critique bullcrap. Not to pick on artists, but I originally went to school for art. Before all of my artist friends went to school for art, they were fine. Afterwards, (actually after just a semester or two usually) they just seemed full of crap. That's how it seems to the layman, and that's how it seemed to me, even though I had the same technical training as they did. 

Could I see the points they were making? Yes. Did it detract from my enjoyment? Only if it lacked other appeal.

EDIT: Apologies if I came off harsh. I just wanted to bring us back to what we do. We do not produce a single book that will only exist in a single collection and maybe have viewings. We produce material that will only be successful if it is attractive to the mainstream. That said, good writing technique is cool and fun and enjoyable (although sometimes tiring), but good storytelling IS the key. The technique just needs to support the story. If it lifts it up even more, that's great and I think that should really be our goal as artists (which I do consider us, just a different art form--it's pop art). 

Or if you're fine with only having a cult following, then focus on language skills beyond storytelling.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> I think we get too much into this art-house critique bullcrap.



This is exactly what happens.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Nov 2, 2012)

> So to sum up: the writing technique is important to you, but doesn't seem to be important for success and thus probably not important for the majority of people that will be reading your book?



Huh?  I didn't get that at all from the piece you quoted.  I read:

If the story is good and the writing bad, end result = fail.
If the story is bad and the writing good, end result = fail.

I agree with this sentiment.

EDIT: though I still contend that the discussion is somewhat pointless given the lack of definition of the terms "story" and "writing."


----------



## Griffin (Nov 2, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> So to sum up: the writing technique is important to you, but doesn't seem to be important for success and thus probably not important for the majority of people that will be reading your book?
> 
> I think we get too much into this art-house critique bullcrap. Not to pick on artists, but I originally went to school for art. Before all of my artist friends went to school for art, they were fine. Afterwards, (actually after just a semester or two usually) they just seemed full of crap. That's how it seems to the layman, and that's how it seemed to me, even though I had the same technical training as they did.
> 
> Could I see the points they were making? Yes. Did it detract from my enjoyment? Only if it lacked other appeal.



To be fair, art critique is crap. A five year old's finger-painting can be taken as a masterpiece (and has in the past.)

I am not saying I support the notion that writing skills are no longer important. I simply pointed out the popular works of today lack said writing skills. For me, I do not write so I can become a household name or make lots of money. I do it because I love telling stories and I wish to share them. For all those readers who prefer reading horribly written books, I do not care for them. I am not writing for them. I even doubt that they would even pick up my works. And that's okay with me.


----------



## Steerpike (Nov 2, 2012)

Griffin said:


> I simply pointed out the popular works of today lack said writing skills.



I don't think this is accurate. To me, this reflects what Zero Angel is talking about, and in the end it is a fairly self-serving, as well as inaccurate, analysis.


----------



## Griffin (Nov 2, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think this is accurate. To me, this reflects what Zero Angel is talking about, and in the end it is a fairly self-serving, as well as inaccurate, analysis.



Ah. I apologize if I came across in that manner. Allow me to rephrase, a lot of recent works do not reflect the same writing skills as past works that we consider to be masterpieces. I try to read everything, new and old. I have read both Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray. Perhaps I am merely flabbergasted that these works are popular despite the over simplistic writing style. However, when I see these works compared to the works of Harry Potter and Ann Rice's books, I cringe.


----------



## Zero Angel (Nov 2, 2012)

Griffin said:


> To be fair, art critique is crap. A five year old's finger-painting can be taken as a masterpiece (and has in the past.)
> 
> I am not saying I support the notion that writing skills are no longer important. I simply pointed out the popular works of today lack said writing skills. For me, I do not write so I can become a household name or make lots of money. I do it because I love telling stories and I wish to share them. For all those readers who prefer reading horribly written books, I do not care for them. I am not writing for them. I even doubt that they would even pick up my works. And that's okay with me.



Right so, if that's what you want to do, then that's great. I don't want to discourage you from doing that at all and if you are able to do that, then that is spectacular. If you are not able to do that (because of things like food or living arrangements) and still go after that, then that is noble and artful.

I would like to be able to make a living writing, and I am working on my language skills along the way; I also do not see Twilight or Fifty Shades of Grey as something to emulate definitely, but they are successful by the mainstream. So going back to the original post's question: this tells us that your specific viewpoints are that language skills are more important, but to anyone that wants to be successful, story skills are more important.



Griffin said:


> Ah. I apologize if I came across in that manner. Allow me to rephrase, a lot of recent works do not reflect the same writing skills as past works that we consider to be masterpieces. I try to read everything, new and old. I have read both Twilight and Fifty Shades of Gray. Perhaps I am merely flabbergasted that these works are popular despite the over simplistic writing style. However, when I see these works compared to the works of Harry Potter and Ann Rice's books, I cringe.


See, I thought Harry Potter's stories were borderline insufferable. I still enjoyed them because of the characters I think (although I found them tiresome sometimes) and the world itself. Her writing ability is OK, but there was far too much foreshadow and a cheesy film quality in the way she avoided Deus ex Machina. It left a bad taste in my mouth.

I've read two Anne Rice novels (Interview with a Vampire and The Vampire Lestat) and I would say her writing technique is good, but I don't care for the characters overly much and the world felt slightly arbitrary. Still, I've had Queen of the Damned for as long as I had the first two novels; it took me about 6 months to build up the energy to move onto the second book from the first, and it's been another year since I finished the second and I have yet to build up to wanting to finish the third (besides the completionist part of my personality).


----------



## Feo Takahari (Nov 2, 2012)

I think there's a distinction to be made between works that do one thing really, really well, thus appealing to the niche of people who like that one thing, and works that do a lot of things decently, appealing to a broad audience but not necessarily enthralling them. (For instance, _The Hunger Games_ combines intriguing but occasionally half-baked dystopian worldbuilding, a well-executed but generic love triangle, and a surprisingly powerful multi-layered metaphor about the ways in which people allow themselves to be controlled.) Most of the would-be authors I've encountered have wanted to focus on one passion, and that arguably creates a better book, but you have to be aware that not everyone will share your passion enough to want to pay for an entire book about it.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Nov 2, 2012)

I think sometimes because we are writers that we view books differently than "regular readers" the same way a musician hears a song differently than the average joe, so to speak. In no way am I saying or suggesting that someone should just focus all on their story development and not really worry too much about their actual writing skills. You both of these aspects to be a "good author."

There was one point when I was reading what is now my favorite fantasy novel where at the end of the book a character reveals that everything that had happened in the story was all part of her scheme. But it was to the point of where literally every single thing that happened down to the thoughts of the characters was part of her plan. Granted she is a powerful sorcerer but I was really unhappy. It just made the story lose all credibility. I don't know how someone could plan a scheme that takes months and your taking into account thousands and thousands of variables down to the level of thought and opinion. But besides that, I still enjoy the book. I just tend to overlook that XD

There are many times I read something that I think is worded funny or I maybe thought wasn't well constructed or thought through and yes I think we all have those moments where we exclaim, "Ah-Ha!" when we find a typo, but aside from these things, it is still the same story basically. And I really doubt a novel will get published where it is so poorly written that a large majority of people would immediately turn it down.


----------



## Zero Angel (Nov 2, 2012)

Androxine Vortex said:


> There was one point when I was reading what is now my favorite fantasy novel where at the end of the book a character reveals that everything that had happened in the story was all part of her scheme. But it was to the point of where literally every single thing that happened down to the thoughts of the characters was part of her plan. Granted she is a powerful sorcerer but I was really unhappy. It just made the story lose all credibility. I don't know how someone could plan a scheme that takes months and your taking into account thousands and thousands of variables down to the level of thought and opinion. But besides that, I still enjoy the book. I just tend to overlook that XD



From a mathematical perspective, this is virtually impossible unless you have control over most of the variables. If the sorceror was supremely powerful, then it is feasible. Otherwise, planning alone is not enough unless you're God.


----------



## Androxine Vortex (Nov 2, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> From a mathematical perspective, this is virtually impossible unless you have control over most of the variables. If the sorceror was supremely powerful, then it is feasible. Otherwise, planning alone is not enough unless you're God.



No she was not godlike. That's what made me call BS. She basically claimed that everything that transpired within (aprox) half a year was "done by my machinations." The book does explain foresight and divination as a means to foresee the future, but only being able to see possibilities, not what is actually going to happen. But still, it was very unbelievable.


----------



## Kit (Nov 2, 2012)

Zero Angel said:


> Still, I've had Queen of the Damned for as long as I had the first two novels; it took me about 6 months to build up the energy to move onto the second book from the first, and it's been another year since I finished the second and I have yet to build up to wanting to finish the third (besides the completionist part of my personality).




I just finished that book. It seems like there was a slightly interesting story buried in there somewhere, but it was astonishing how long-winded it was. I have to grade it rather low.


----------



## amy12 (Nov 3, 2012)

yeah, getting a strong storyline on paper is tough. Sometimes, you have ideas but making a good story out of them gets challenging. You have to plans and write many drafts to perfect the story. It takes time, patience and a whole lot of imagination. If you're havign trouble putting together a griiping plot then a good idea would be to get help. Read blogs and boosk that teach about writing. Spend some time practising everyday. These are just a few tips, but there is loads of stuff that you can do to become a better writer.


----------

