# Story vs. Writing



## Spider (Jun 12, 2013)

Sorry if this thread has been posted before, but if it's somewhere out there I couldn't find it. 

I know both the story and the way it's written is important, but if you had to pick one above the other, which would it be and why?


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 12, 2013)

The way it's written. I can think of examples of books I've read where the author's voice carried me (examples: Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or Saul Bellow) where I just didn't care much about the plot. I can think of no examples of where the plot was so brilliant that it carried me past poor writing. The closest I can think of is someone like Arthur C. Clarke, where the writing is dry and the characters are cardboard, but the concepts were so thrilling that I was carried along. But the writing was nevertheless good. It was unobtrusive, which requires no small skill in itself. Genuinely weak writing, though, will cause a KindleClose quick as lightning.

I was all done, then I saw you asked the Teacher Question: ... and why.

Why does weak writing trump weak plot? The best I can do is to illustrate by analogy. Think of a song. It can be a trite song, but if the phrasing is good, the mix is good, the musicianship is professional, then at worst it's just another pop song and it troubles not my ears. But let the lead guitar be clumsy, let the horn section hit wrong notes, and I'm taken out of the groove at once. You'll never hear this on a record (old school), but you can hear it by going out to any of the self-publish music sites. One wrong note will jar. Let those wrong notes pile up and you can't even make it to the end of the song.

So it is with novels. It can be anything from misspellings to poor word choice to anachronisms to wooden dialog to Tom Swiftys, if they start piling up, I'm so distracted I am no longer engaged in the plot.

FWIW, I don't believe a poor writer can come up with a good plot anyway. There is a close correlation between the ability to think clearly and the ability to write well. Those who cannot think clearly, cannot plot well.  I cannot think of an exception, in fifty years of reading novels.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 12, 2013)

When discussing story versus technique, I find it hard to categorize some of the elements.  For example: your story and writing are going to be dreadfully dull if you have no tension.  Is adding tension a technique element or a story element?  To me, it's kinda both.

This hardship with definition is one of the difficulties in generating intelligent discussion of this topic.

That said, it's hard not to say that both are extremely important.  If you can't engage me enough with your technique, I'm never going to get to your story.  If you engage me but don't give me any true story, I'm going to be left disappointed.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 12, 2013)

I agree it is a combination of the two. If I had to go with one, I'd go with writing. A lot of great stories end up being very simple or straightforward when you boil them down, but good writers are able to make them work. I give up on quite a few books that seem to have interesting story lines, but where the writing just isn't engaging. This is especially true with the more generic, lifeless writing I see on the shelves these days. I'm not really interested in it, no matter what the story is. I want to find writers with unique, engaging voices that they use to tell a story. If you can do that, you stand a much better chance of keeping me reading than someone who comes up with great story ideas but has flat, uninteresting writing.


----------



## brokethepoint (Jun 12, 2013)

I have always thought of writing as the ability to use correct grammar and the ability to tell a story is to draw a reader in and have them experience something.

As an example, speech tags are grammatically correct.  It is if and how you use them that is part of story telling.

I said as I kicked back and took another sip of tea.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Jun 12, 2013)

You know, I think Broke nailed it there.  It's technical vs. art.  Writing is HOW you do it, and there is a right or wrong way.  Story is WHAT you do with it, and there is where we enter the quantum foam - all the rules get fun and strange.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 12, 2013)

brokethepoint said:


> I have always thought of writing as the ability to use correct grammar and the ability to tell a story is to draw a reader in and have them experience something.
> 
> As an example, speech tags are grammatically correct.  It is if and how you use them that is part of story telling.
> 
> I said as I kicked back and took another sip of tea.



My view of writing tends to be more complex.  For example, the decision to show instead of tell is, to me, one of technique, not story, and that's a much more complicated subject than grammatical correctness.

I consider story to consist of decisions of character and plot and overarching concerns.  Is your protagonist a 22 year old female who teaches karate or an 80 year old man who loves watching Oprah?  Story.  Is the significant situation the discovery of a body or trying to determine if a potential significant other likes you?  Story.  Is that scene significant enough or necessary enough to include in the book or should it be cut?  Story.

Writing, on the other hand, I define as the way you choose to relate the story, ranging from sentence structure to adverb use to the aforementioned showing vs. telling.

So, if your story lacks tension, it could be a technique problem - you need to make the protagonist's goal more obvious and increase the opposition.  It could also be a story problem - you should have chosen a different scene in which to relate the information you wish to convey.


----------



## Alexandra (Jun 13, 2013)

Spider said:


> I know both the story and the way it's written is important, but if you had to pick one above the other, which would it be and why?



Writing over story, every time, no hesitation. Good writing has saved many a bad story but a good story never saves bad writing.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 13, 2013)

Alexandra said:


> Writing over story, every time, no hesitation. Good writing has saved many a bad story but a good story never saves bad writing.



True enough (and I'm not arguing otherwise), but don't you hate it when you get to the end of a well-written book and discover there was not "there" there, that it just made no impact on you at all?


----------



## Philip Overby (Jun 13, 2013)

This is a toss-up for me. On one hand, I think writing in a technically good way doesn't necessarily make you a great writer. I always compare good writing to good guitar players. There are tons of awesomely proficient guitar players in the world. But when you hear Jimi Hendrix or Eddie Van Halen play, they have that "sound" you can't describe. You just know it's them. For writing/storytelling, there needs to be a real blend. If your writing has the ever elusive strong voice, then that can carry your story a long way. 

There is such thing as good writing that doesn't go anywhere. I'll agree that stories need tension, conflict, resolution, etc. If a good writer doesn't know how to do those things, then the story isn't connecting the way it should. 

For me, Gene Wolfe is a brilliant writer. However, due to his verbose style, I've found it difficult to get into his work thus far. On the other hand, someone like David Gemmell for instance is good writer, but his storytelling is easier to connect with for me. Maybe my opinion will change one day, but I'd rather read a great story told by a good writer than a good story told by a great writer. My belief is that both Wolfe and Gemmell are excellent writers, it's just they're aiming at two different audiences. I think Gemmell's work is more accessible, therefore easier to read, therefore is easier to convey the story, therefore I finish the book, and therefore I buy more of his books. 

Therefore, story>writing with a very, very, very slight edge.


----------



## wordwalker (Jun 13, 2013)

skip.knox said:


> FWIW, I don't believe a poor writer can come up with a good plot anyway. There is a close correlation between the ability to think clearly and the ability to write well. Those who cannot think clearly, cannot plot well.  I cannot think of an exception, in fifty years of reading novels.



I'd say this is key.

To put it another way, the real reason for asking if plot might be more important than technique could be, is it better to take more time to be sure the plot's perfect or to give that time to the hard work of getting it written out right? Except, the best ways to get that better plot are Inspiration (meaning luck plus the judgment to know the muse was having a good day), or else:

Legend has it a mechanic once submitted an itemized bill of:


One tap with a hammer-- $1.
Twenty years learning where to tap-- $99.

The "writing" part of writing is where the main payoff is, and the hard work. It's also the best way to get to a place where the "easier" choices come out right too.


----------



## Alexandra (Jun 13, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> ... don't you hate it when you get to the end of a well-written book and discover there was not "there" there, that it just made no impact on you at all?



Yes, but fortunately I've been able to avoid that unfortunate circumstance since reading Anne Rice's _Vampire Chronicles_. _Interview with the Vampire_ was brilliant, _The Vampire Lestat_ was bearable (just), the subsequent books were utterly awful–I mean throw the book across the room in disgust awful. I'm a little more careful with my choices now.


----------



## Spider (Jun 13, 2013)

I believe the story is more important, but only slightly. Like skip.knox said, a poor writer probably couldn’t come up with a good plot. That being said, if we’re comparing one writer with a better plot and one with better writing, we aren’t talking about any poor writers. I personally would read the book that has the better story and interests me more, because I would assume the writing isn’t bad at all.



Phil the Drill said:


> I'd rather read a great story told by a good writer than a good story told by a great writer.



Agreed.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 13, 2013)

I disagree that a poor writer can't develop a good plot. In fact, I've seen it happen.

Clear thinking may be a prerequisite of good writing, but it does not therefore follow that all clear thinkers are good writers. Maybe all good writers are clear thinkers, I don't know, but I don't believe the converse to be true.


----------



## Sandor (Jun 13, 2013)

Hi! 

Being a "non-professional" writer aside, I'm a musician too and this discussion is a costant clichÃ© in music too. Tecnique vs. Emotion, is the same thing in different words.  It's the eternal war between "Being" and "Appearing", "Good Box" or "Good Present". 

It may seems stupid, but as always, truth's in the middle. You can't creat great melodies with no idea of general rules; at the same time, you can't create great stuff with no emotion. There are exeptions, yes: people with a very little tecnique still being able to creat wonderful songs (Bruce Springsteen, Sigur Ros, etc.) and people with limited empathy still able to do nice stuff (Yngwie Malmsteen, Periphery, etc.).

But if you spend some time listening to some great albums, you'll find that, especially in genres where tecnique is important as everything else, they all came out from minds with a little bit of everything in it (Opeth, Tool, Ludovico Einaudi). 

In writing, we have the same result: Martin (my spiritual master and favourite writer) is not a monster in originality nor in writing (is an "info dump" victim, change basic writing rules with no criterias), but still an involving writer, capable to compensate originality with tecnique and vice versa.

Another writer that comes to mind is Gene Wolfe: I've read the first three books of the "New Sun" and I'm managing to finishing it one day or another...that's not my style, but it has some good personality and I guess a lot of "hidden" tecqnique, but still it's not the perfect writer: he combines some odd choices (odd here stays for "original way to put common things") and some "intellectual" parts to create his unique voice. You won't find a totally compelling story, you won't find an awesome tecnique, but you'll find a great saga to read.

The truth is that we spend a lot of time following a platonic perfection that has NOTHING to do with REAL art: you can read all existing WRITING or PLAYING manuals, but you'll never be able to write anything special with no emotion; then, you can't write anything if you have no idea of punctuation rules. 

My 2 cents
Cheers.


----------



## Alexandra (Jun 13, 2013)

When I say good writing trumps good story tis important to realize that I'm not talking about writing technique—properly dotting the 'Is' and crossing the 'Ts'—I'm talking about the quality of writing that elevates it from a mode of communication to an art form, the kind of writing that tugs at your heart strings, makes you laugh out loud, or makes you so upset you find yourself talking (or screaming) to the characters in the book. The kind of writing that makes you sleep with the light on, or forgo sleep altogether.

_To Kill a Mockingbird_ by Harper Lee is a fine example of what I'm talking about. The story is very small and simple, the writing is fabulous, and the book became a classic of modern American literature—deservedly so.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 13, 2013)

> To put it another way, the real reason for asking if plot might be more important than technique could be, is it better to take more time to be sure the plot's perfect or to give that time to the hard work of getting it written out right?



If you look at it from the perspective of is it best to spend your time learning techinique or learning plotting, I'd break it down like this:

1. Work on technique until you become competent enough hold a reader's attention.  Nobody will read your story if you can't engage them, and story is intuitive enough that you probably already grasp at least the basics.
2. After attaining that competency, concentrate on how to tell stories until you can produce an emotional reaction with your story.  Once you can engage a reader, the success of your work depends on the reader's reaction when he puts the book down.  Will he proclaim to his friends that it is awesome or will he go, "Meh?"
3. Spend the rest of your life mastering each.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 13, 2013)

The general idea here is kind of what I get at when I talk about storytelling v. writing. It's a hazy distinction in some ways because the two overlap, but I think it is an important one nonetheless. A great storyteller can get by with mediocre technical proficiency. Someone with great technical skills but who can't tell a story isn't going to be successful.

Perfect example, which I've mentioned numerous times, is _Twilight_. Writing is competent, but mediocre. Similar stories had been told before by writers who were much more proficient, technically, than Meyer. But Meyer his the jackpot, and the reason is that she told her story extremely effectively, particularly with respect to the target audience. It's down to deciding how to present the scenes, the characters, the emotion, and the dramatic events of the story. You could do all of these things in the same way with numerous different styles of writing and varying levels of technical proficiency, and if the effectiveness of the storytelling were preserved the story would still succeed. 

After a few years of not being interested in books at all, my daughter at around 13 went through those books non-stop, sitting in bed with a flashlight rather than going to sleep. It's something I hadn't seen out of her before or since. If you can figure out how to develop your storytelling to that level, you stand a good chance of being successful whether or not your technical abilities have all kinds of flaws that people in writing forums can pick apart.

So if it comes down to one or the other (which is shouldn't, but let's say it does hypothetically), go with storytelling over technical proficiency every time.


----------



## Fantasy Writer (Jun 25, 2013)

I created a story world, "The Orb."  But the first novel, "A Myth for the Reality Challenged," only contained the parts of that world that fit the story line.  Later, I came along and created a 15k prequel that told the events that launched the first novel.  (It's a promotional piece I'm trying to figure out how to publish for free.  Amazon wants me to charge $2.99 for it.)  

So, the story is all the stuff that makes your world.  The writing of it consists of only those elements that are germane to your current plot.  If you fill in all that other stuff in an authorial aside it will be BORING.


----------



## Xaysai (Jun 25, 2013)

I think it has to be writing every time.

I feel like writing is the tool we use to build a story, and if you don't have the proper tools, you can't build it.

It would be like trying to build a house with a toolbox of full of kitchen utensils, or trying to cook a four course meal with hammers and screwdrivers.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 25, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> I think it has to be writing every time.
> 
> I feel like writing is the tool we use to build a story, and if you don't have the proper tools, you can't build it.
> 
> It would be like trying to build a house with a toolbox of full of kitchen utensils, or trying to cook a four course meal with hammers and screwdrivers.



Personally, I think that can be shown to be empirically false. Just take a look at all the massively-popular works where the writing is of mediocre quality at best. The authors are clearly tapping into something else, and I think that is via story-telling. You can get away with mediocre writer if you're a great story-teller, but if you're a fantastic writer in terms of technical proficiency but can't tell a story, no one is going to read your work.


----------



## Xaysai (Jun 25, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Personally, I think that can be shown to be empirically false. Just take a look at all the massively-popular works where the writing is of mediocre quality at best. The authors are clearly tapping into something else, and I think that is via story-telling. You can get away with mediocre writer if you're a great story-teller, but if you're a fantastic writer in terms of technical proficiency but can't tell a story, no one is going to read your work.



I think "empirically false" is a little heavy handed, especially when whether or not writing is good or not is, to some extent, is a matter of opinion.

There are many popular books out there for which I have little respect for the writing, but that's not to say the writing is terrible.

So let's take something like 50 Shades, and assume (obviously for the sake of argument), that it had been written by someone with a 6th grade education.

Would they have still tapped into that "something else" that make it a bestseller?


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 25, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> I think "empirically false" is a little heavy handed, especially when whether or not writing is good or not is, to some extent, is a matter of opinion.
> 
> There are many popular books out there for which I have little respect for the writing, but that's not to say the writing is terrible.
> 
> ...



I haven't read it, so I don't know about the quality of the writing, but I doubt anyone will contradict me if I suggest that there are works out there that are much better written than 50 Shades, or Twilight, or Hunger Games, or Potter, &c., and that nevertheless have fared poorly in the marketplace. Thus, something must trump technical writing ability. I'm suggesting that it is storytelling.


----------



## Devor (Jun 25, 2013)

Every time I pick up a book, the same process happens.  I read for X numbers of pages slowly, hesitantly, like it's a chore, off and on for a week or two.  Then something clicks, and I can't put it down until it's finished like a day later.

It's likely that poor writing technique is a big part of what slows that process up and makes me put some books aside.  But if I reach that point where the book clicks with me, technique doesn't matter anymore.  I can plow through a terrible book at lightning speed, and only remember the story.


----------



## Xaysai (Jun 25, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I haven't read it, so I don't know about the quality of the writing, but I doubt anyone will contradict me if I suggest that there are works out there that are much better written than 50 Shades, or Twilight, or Hunger Games, or Potter, &c., and that nevertheless have fared poorly in the marketplace. Thus, something must trump technical writing ability. I'm suggesting that it is storytelling.



So let's say that instead of using a pass/fail system of writing or storytelling to determine why people enjoy a book, we say they exist on a spectrum of quality:

Poor Writing ----------a---------Technical Proficiency---------b----------- Poor Storytelling

Books that land between "Poor Writing" and "a" are too technically deficient for the storytelling to carry, and anything between "b" and "Poor Storytelling" is too poor of a story to be carried by the writing?

Anything between "a" and "b" have enough of a combination of each for the book to work, even though it may lack in certain elements?


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 25, 2013)

Xaysai said:


> So let's say that instead of using a pass/fail system of writing or storytelling to determine why people enjoy a book, we say they exist on a spectrum of quality:
> 
> Poor Writing ----------a---------Technical Proficiency---------b----------- Poor Storytelling
> 
> ...



Yes, I think that makes sense. I think both are important, it's just that if you have to pick one of the other, it seems to me that good storytelling ability can carry you through lesser writing ability, and I don't think the converse is true (or at least not to the same extent).


----------



## Svrtnsse (Jun 25, 2013)

What if there's something else?
Something that's not quite story and not quite writing? Then again, that would lead into the discussion of what's story and what isn't.

I've read most of the Harry Potter books and I have a decent grasp of the story and can't really recall anything in particular about the quality of the writing. What I do remember is the feeling of reading the books, how the world and the characters felt and how much I liked that.
This is probably more because of how the story is told but I do believe that the way its written factor in as well. A different writer telling the same story, with the same events and characters, would have created a different feeling - a different atmosphere.


----------



## Sheriff Woody (Jun 25, 2013)

Story, without hesitation. 

Interesting things happening is what makes a story, a story. And thus entertaining, engaging, and ultimately worth reading.


----------



## Jamber (Jun 26, 2013)

I feel you're really asking what kinds of books people prefer. I'm definitely in the 'writing ability first' category. For me, no amount of plot can make up for indifferent characterisation. Plot might deepen my sympathy for a character, but it can't make me feel unless I already care. It's very much to do with writerly skill.

Really though, as I see it, plot, character and style all come under the umbrella of technique. They're all devices we can use in writing. Perhaps you're really meaning to argue against imagery, language that draws attention to itself, dazzling phrasing etc? As I see it those are just another set of devices, which writers can choose to use or not use (and which of course can be used ineptly). Still, there's no reason to count them as necessarily less valuable than plot.

Speaking personally I like books that are rich in imagery, have plausible as well as intriguing (and empathisable) characters, and have plots that go somewhere I haven't read before. I'm very forgiving of a dull plot if characterisation is brilliant, but pure wordcraft (in terms of wordplays, style or phrasing) will only take me so far if there's not much else to give momentum. I have to say, the books I put down without reading to the end recently have all been plot-driven. I simply didn't care for the characters, and doubt the writers thought much more about them than as wet props. Still, looking at reviews, these seem to be popular works, which just emphasises how much reading tastes are involved.

For what it's worth, I suspect that what Twilight and 50 Shades both achieved really well was connection with a readership via characters people could identify with. That they weren't characters who appealed to me doesn't matter; they really gripped those readers (often using strong sensuality -- there's a certain gift in being able to employ that effectively).

Just my 10c worth,
Jennie


----------



## Nameback (Jun 26, 2013)

I'd say at this point in my life, it's story that matters most (it used to be the quality of prose). 

I'm surprised to see so many people on a fantasy writing board espousing a preference for writing quality over story; honestly, one could argue that the defining feature of genre-fiction, versus literary-fiction, is a preference for story over technique. I'd say that a good majority of the fantasy I've ever read is written poorly. Probably the only fantasy author I can think of who I would say writes with genuine skill would be Ursula LeGuin. Virtually every other fantasy book I read, I find myself trudging through great swaths of dreadful prose just to find out what happens next, or because I'm invested in the characters and the world. 

At best, genre fiction is generally marked by a workmanlike quality--and this is true of other media besides writing. I really enjoyed Fast & Furious 6, because it was a fun story rendered with exceptional competency. But David Lynch it ain't. From Star Wars to LOTR to Aliens, some of the most treasured pieces of sci-fi and fantasy filmmaking are riddled with bad writing, bad acting, bad editing, and so forth. But they have other appeal. And as Steerpike said, it's generally these stories that reach the widest audiences, not a P. T. Anderson flick. 

My truly favorite works of fiction, however, are those exceptionally rare pieces where genre storytelling and artful execution collide. To my mind, the Coen brothers are the quintessential example of this. Whether making a stoner comedy (The Big Lebowski), a crime thriller (No Country for Old Men), or a black comedy (Fargo), they tell engaging, somewhat archetypical stories with the flair and talent of auteurs. Tarantino also falls in this category for me, as does a lot of excellent TV, such as Breaking Bad and The Sopranos. 

In my own work, I know I don't yet have the ability to write gifted, literary prose, but I strive for a writing style that is competently-executed and does not detract from the story--the story being where my best talents lie, I think. I would be happy if my book turned out like something in the vein of _The Dark Knight_, or _The Avengers_--two recent examples from film of works of fiction that competently executed their visions, even if those visions were far from literary, and even if that execution stumbled from time to time.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 26, 2013)

Spending years writing poetry has given me a comfort with metaphors and a imagery. What it didn't give me was a leanness of prose that I had come to admire.

Although not my favorite novels of all time, I devoured The Firm by John Grisham in one day and The Materese Circle by Robert Ludlum in two. Their prose is tight, lean, and they both have a technical ability to create suspense and tension. They weren't the greatest stories I've ever read, however. They employ techniques that are used widely to get us to watch television and movies that are lacking in good story. They use writing skill and psychology to get you to turn the page or watch the programme. Like eating fast food, it fills up the space, but it's lacking in nutrients.

My favorite writers remains Hermann Hesse who wrote in _German_. I've only ever read translations of his writing. I've never read the originals, so I don't know what his grammatical style was like. I do know that I've read Siddhartha at least 10 times, and listened to the audiobook at least 20 more.

The stories that struck me the most growing up were The Iliad, The Odyssey, the tales of the Greek gods, the Norse Eddas, the story of Arthur. I have no idea what the essential writing skill of any of the authors of these had. From what we know, they had _no writing skill at all_. They were from earlier oral traditions that predated writing.

Ursula LeGuin's Earthsea is an excellent example of well-written fantasy with a strong story. Mary Stewart's The Crystal Cave also comes to mind, though the story is not originally hers, being the legend of Merlin.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2013)

Jamber said:


> I feel you're really asking what kinds of books people prefer. I'm definitely in the 'writing ability first' category. For me, no amount of plot can make up for indifferent characterisation. Plot might deepen my sympathy for a character, but it can't make me feel unless I already care. It's very much to do with writerly skill.



I think the ability to create sympathy for a character is story-telling ability, not technical writing ability. Plenty of people may write flawlessly from a technical standpoint, but can't develop a character to save their lives.

Also, story-telling is not the same as story. You can give a great story to someone who can't tell it and it will fall flat. A great storyteller can make a run of the mill story engaging. 

As for Twilight and the relationship to characters, I agree. But Meyer did it through good storytelling. Her technical writing skills are mediocre.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 26, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I think the ability to create sympathy for a character is story-telling ability, not technical writing ability. Plenty of people may write flawlessly from a technical standpoint, but can't develop a character to save their lives.
> 
> Also, story-telling is not the same as story. You can give a great story to someone who can't tell it and it will fall flat. A great storyteller can make a run of the mill story engaging.
> 
> As for Twilight and the relationship to characters, I agree. But Meyer did it through good storytelling. Her technical writing skills are mediocre.



I find myself wanting definitions now! Would you agree with these?

*Story*: what happens -> your creative idea

*Writing*: how you tell us what happens using words, sentences, paragraphs, and chapters -> your technical ability

*Story-telling*: your ability to charm the reader ->  your voice


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2013)

Scribble said:


> I find myself wanting definitions now! Would you agree with these?
> 
> *Story*: what happens -> your creative idea
> 
> ...



I think that's close. Story-telling isn't just voice and charm, but I suppose how you present the tale, what you focus on, and so on. But yeah, it's the ability to engage and interest the reader in what you're writing, regardless of the underlying story you are telling. It combines narrative voice, how the story unfolds, what you emphasize, how you present your characters and what you emphasize about them, and probably some intangible qualities I can't think of. It's probably the hardest of the three to learn, but the most important in terms of acquiring readers.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 26, 2013)

If I can't make it through the story because the writing is dreadful, the ability of the writer to tell a story is pretty much irrelevant.

If I blow through the book because the writer keeps me turning pages (an attribute I consider primarily due to technique), I will recommend the book to others even if it's a popcorn story.

If I both blow through the book and am left with an emotional response to the book (which I attribute to a good story), I'll proclaim from the rooftops how awesome the book is.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 26, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> If I can't make it through the story because the writing is dreadful, the ability of the writer to tell a story is pretty much irrelevant.
> 
> If I blow through the book because the writer keeps me turning pages (an attribute I consider primarily due to technique), I will recommend the book to others even if it's a popcorn story.
> 
> If I both blow through the book and am left with an emotional response to the book (which I attribute to a good story), I'll proclaim from the rooftops how awesome the book is.



I say both instances of blowing through the book you cite are due to story-telling. None of them, for the typical reader, will ever be due to technical writing ability. It would like blowing through a physics text just because the technical writing ability of the author is outstanding. Not going to happen.

We're not talking about dreadful writing. Just the fact that, overall, mediocre technical writing ability can still get you tons of readers if you're a good story teller. If you're an excellent writer from a technical standpoint, but can't tell a story, the same won't be true.


----------



## Scribble (Jun 26, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I say both instances of blowing through the book you cite are due to story-telling. None of them, for the typical reader, will ever be due to technical writing ability. It would like blowing through a physics text just because the technical writing ability of the author is outstanding. Not going to happen.
> 
> We're not talking about dreadful writing. Just the fact that, overall, mediocre technical writing ability can still get you tons of readers if you're a good story teller. If you're an excellent writer from a technical standpoint, but can't tell a story, the same won't be true.



It seems that we need all three for successful _and satisfying _fiction.

I've read some excellent non-fiction books, where there wasn't much in terms of story. However, the writer delivered in clear language, using an organization that led me through the concepts at a good pace. I was not presented with walls of text of complex topics, but rather paced from example to exposition to summary with skill. Writing skill. That can be said of any good text book. 

What is different in a good non-fiction book is the narrative voice of the author, the ability to use images to enchant, to evoke emotion, curiosity, and laughter. I use the word _charm _or _enchant_ because to me it seems to come from the domain of charisma, of human understanding, of psychology. The voice of the author coming through the words to grab hold of your emotions, is to me the essence of story-telling.

When we add a good story, we have good fiction, with all three elements.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jun 26, 2013)

Technical writing skills aren't important to me. I don't mind adverbs or passive voice as a reader, for instance. Storytelling skill is, however, essential. As pointed out above, that goes far beyond knowing how to put together a sentence. I think one has to think back to the oral storytellers of other eras to understand it. 

I have a book called Hibernian Nights which is a collection of the stories told by Seumas MacManus, a real Irish shanachie (storyteller), often called the last. In his preface he laments the lost art of the told story. There are certain qualities of the told story which the read story can never possess, he says. For one, the told story is a living story. The storyteller can alter it each time he tells it, adding details or flourishes or whatever he wishes in the moment. The read story, he says, is dead on the page. He describes the told story as "glowing, appealing and dancing with energetic vitality- the personality and inspiration that the good storyteller can always command into the tale he tells." In addition, he says that the read story possesses alone the value of the story its self while the told story also benefits from "the golden worth of the good storyteller's captivating art and enhancing personality- trebling its worth."

Now I agree with him to an extent. These are real problems with the written down, read story. However, I disagree that these are unchangeable qualities of the read story. I don't think it has to be that way. I think authors have been taught to write that way. Yet I have read many stories in books where the author's voice came through so well that I did feel I was being told a story and it felt alive. I love those stories more than any others. Yet across the internet I see the advice to stay far away from the feeling of the "told story", to keep yourself separate from the story. I think this is terrible advice. I think it is a real detriment to literature. In addition, the advice I see across the internet focuses on technical aspects of writing. We are told to improve our storytelling by avoiding certain types of words to avoid any storytelling technique that presents even the slightest challenge. Our tools are removed from our hands by the so called experts and we are patted on the head and told to be a good little author and write things that appeal to critics (agents and editors) instead of readers. 

We have certainly all but lost the art of good storytelling, which, as Seumas MacManus says, "was ever a propagator of joy". I think that in losing the art we've also lost the joy. My goal, at least, is to try to find it again and do what I can to propagate it a little. That's what's important to me as a reader and a writer.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 26, 2013)

> I say both instances of blowing through the book you cite are due to story-telling. None of them, for the typical reader, will ever be due to technical writing ability. It would like blowing through a physics text just because the technical writing ability of the author is outstanding. Not going to happen.



This is a point where we definitely disagree.

To me, if you want a reader to blow through your book, you give them a fast pace, tight writing, and lots of tension.

The first of those is purely a technique issue.  I tend to think of tension as both a story-telling element and a technique element.  You create tension in writing by the technique of giving your character a goal and presenting opposition to that goal.  You can use writing techniques to create a fast pace as well.

However, both those elements are also story elements.  You keep tension high by making good decisions about what to include in your story.  You keep the pace fast by deciding not to include elements that slow the pace.

On the balance, then, I tend to consider an engaging book that I blow through to be primarily due to technique.  If I stumble through the book but love the characters and emotions, I attribute that to good story telling.



> mediocre technical writing ability can still get you tons of readers if you're a good story teller. If you're an excellent writer from a technical standpoint, but can't tell a story, the same won't be true.



This all depends on your definition of writing skills versus story telling.  I expect we disagree quite a lot on those definitions.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jun 26, 2013)

Scribble said:


> I find myself wanting definitions now! Would you agree with these?
> 
> *Story*: what happens -> your creative idea
> 
> ...



I define it as follows:

Writing (techique) - Your choice of words, tight writing, creating tension and fast pace by using fundamental technique, understanding how to present your story so that it flows from scene to scene without being choppy

Story-Telling - Your fundamental story and the choices that you make in how to present it, which scenes to include, what characters to include, what characterizations to emphasize, creating tension and fast pace through making good choices about what to include


----------

