Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Which is more important: Story or Style?

This is topic Which is more important: Story or Style? in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=003948

Posted by InarticulateBabbler (Member # 4849) on :

Which is more important: a good story or how it is told?

My favorite authors keep me reading. If I'm submersed in the story, I don't pay attention to the type of prose. Reading djvdakota's reply in What do SF reader expect?, I couldn't help but nod in agreement. Thus the question -- in my mind -- arose:

If a story is great, can it be told bad? I mean, How can you call a tory great that is a horrid read?

Posted by ChrisOwens (Member # 1955) on :

This is an age old question. Thus, a topic that's come up before. I think OSC said that if the style isn't that great, the story better be golden--and vise versa.

Unless someone is writing for writing's sake, the best style for storytelling is transparent. The story flows and propels the reader on, the words vanish, and sounds and pictures pop into thier head without effort. A poor style, of course, ceases to be transparent. The story stops flowing. It becomes a drudgery to read. An adequate(passing) style is just a vehicle to get to the story, not an end in itself, and it can't cover up lack of story, characterization, plot, and so on.

[This message has been edited by ChrisOwens (edited May 17, 2007).]

Posted by Corky (Member # 2714) on :

Not having read any of his books means I can't say for sure, but I've heard that Clive Cussler is a mediocre writer who tells great stories.

I have read some of Stephen King, though, and I think he is a sloppy writer who used to be better (or maybe he used to be edited and he isn't now). People keep buying his stuff because he's another great storyteller, regardless of whether his writing is sloppy or not.

Posted by RMatthewWare (Member # 4831) on :

Given the choice, I'd rather be a better story-teller than writer.

That said, you should do your work well and make sure that your story is readable. Most friends that read my book can't tell me what my specific mistakes are, but they can tell me if they could visualize and understand it or not.

Matt

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Arguably a good story is in how it's told.

As for telling a good story badly...well, there are a lot of writers out there, who don't really write the best of prose, but who can still keep you turning the pages till the end.

Maybe you can get away with telling a bad story well, but I wouldn't put money on it...or maybe not for the sequel...

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

It helps if they're both good.

At boot camp, OSC said that good story could forgive mediocre prose much easier than good prose could forgive mediocre story, and I tend to agree with him. His example was JK Rowling. He explained that her stories are what sells the book, but she has a weak writing style, often using adverbs in unnecessary places. (Most of her dialog tags have adverbs.)

Now, if one or the other is downright BAD, then I'm likely to put the book down. If a story is unreadable, it doesn't matter how good the story is and if a story is utter nonsense, it doesn't matter how good the prose is.

But generally, you can get away with ho-hum writing better than ho-hum stories.

Posted by Balthasar (Member # 5399) on :

A story must be well told, which means it must be put together correctly in order for it to be an intriguing read. So it's good to keep a distinction between events in the order of their occurrence and events in the order of their narration.

Both the story and the way it's told are different from style -- by which I take it to mean the prose itself. Here I make a distinction between technique and eloquence. I may not have the talent to write eloquent prose, but I can learn to write technically sound prose.

Christine brought up the Harry Potter novels, and Rowling's use of adverbs with dialogue tags. Okay, so now we have a technical rule: Avoid dialogue tags other than "said" and "ask" unless for the sake of clarity you must use "shouted," "whispered," etc.

So when I approach a novel, I'm looking for two things -- how well the author presents the story in the order of narration, and how technically sound his prose is. If the order of narration is done well, then the reader will ask the correct questions and keep reading; and if the prose is technically sound it won't distract the careful reader from the fictional dream.

If the writer happens to have an eloquent style, that's even better in terms of reading -- but it doesn't replace a poorly ordered story.

Posted by DesertComet (Member # 5414) on :

When I read a book it's the story that I remember years and years later, not the style. But it doesn't matter how good the story is if I'm distracted by bad writing or problem with the dilivery. I think that story is definitely more important, but style shouldn't be neglected altogether.

Posted by NoTimeToThink (Member # 5174) on :

If either Story or Style is outright bad, then nothing can save it. Having thrown those levels of entries away, a superb Story with adequate Style will trump an adequate Story with superior Style.

I never viewed Asimov as having a superb style (I believe in one of his own forwords he admitted as much), yet I believe he is considered one of the Masters because of Story.

It's wonderful to be able to say things in a way that really bowls people over - but you have to have something great to say, or it won't be remembered. Sort of like those wonderfully styled comercials that leave you in awe - but you can't remember what the product was....