# The Story vs The Telling



## Gavrushka (Oct 12, 2013)

Sometimes, when I am reading a new book I struggle through the first few chapters, but the power of the story carries me along. There comes a point that I am more tolerant of the author as I can see their tale is a good one, even if they don't relate it as well as could be.

And then there are the books that I start reading on a wave of enthusiasm, which diminishes to the point where I surrender... Crisp prose, crap story... 

My question is, can a proficient but not exceptional writer carry it off if they have a very strong story*? Can the story make up for inadequacies elsewhere? (I do accept that it must be technically perfect, regardless!)


*I appreciate that a good story for one reader, could be something far from it for another reader.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 12, 2013)

I believe in "the hook."  Just like in sport fishing, once the hook is set, the fish stays on the line.

I used to begin lots of books, and then get bored.  One day I picked up a science fiction book with the best opening line I had ever read.  It went something like:

_"Nothing clarifies your attitude towards another more than killing him.  From there, the rest is up to him..."_

It was a bold statement, and a little confusing.  How can a dead man react to you?  But I do know one thing, I did not put the story down.

Fast forward.  My wife and I go to the gym every day, even on Sundays.  When Favre was the quarterback I always told her not to hurry.  As always, it took Brett the entire first quarter to get his head in the game and to stop throwing interceptions.  Same with books.

Yeah, I'll nurse a book though a bad first chapter.  I do that with Dan Brown books, and I force-fed myself The Hunger Farce.  But you get the literary gaff into me, and I'll take the ride with you all the way to the epilogue.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Oct 12, 2013)

I think your question may be rooted in fear. After all, why settle for an imperfectly dilivered but good story? If you're story is good, then you owe it to yourself to tell it in the best way possible.

Of course, having said that, it's unreasonable to expect perfection. You're not going to get a perfect delivery of any story. Nevertheless, the proper words are never perfect, and the perfect words are rarely proper.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 12, 2013)

You will find, on many writing forums and discussions, statements made about various best-sellers and how terrible the writing is. Yet, they are still best-sellers (legitimate ones, not just ranked high by some mysterious math equation). The reason? The story. You've probably heard "Story trumps all." and it's true. Readers will forgive mediocre, even bad writing if the story itself is good/excellent. Yes, a writer should always try to write their stories the very best they can - but they should never get so engrossed in good mechanics that the story gets lost.


----------



## J Anfinson (Oct 12, 2013)

I'm another believer that the story trumps the mechanics. That being said, the mechanics had best be at least decent. Misspellings and awkward sentences in every paragraph will surely make anyone give up and toss your book down no matter how good your plot is. There's tons of ebooks on Amazon and elsewhere that may very well have a great story, but it saddens me to see them with 1 or 2 stars because they're written terribly.


----------



## Myers (Oct 12, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> I believe in "the hook."  Just like in sport fishing, once the hook is set, the fish stays on the line.



I often wondered why people use the word "hook" when they're talking about writing. Now I understand; it's a fishing metaphor! Thank you.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 12, 2013)

I once dated a woman so beautiful I had to pinch myself.  She was vain, "romantically" incompetent, and despite her parents' gift of an expensive education was frankly quite dense.

The story doesn't always trump the mechanics.  Some stuff is so glaring it's gets in the way of everything.


----------



## Myers (Oct 12, 2013)

I think when you're saying that story trumps mechanics, the assumption is that the writing isn't so awful that it's unreadable. Obviously, if you carry it to extremes, it doesn't apply. A little common sense goes a long way.


----------



## J Anfinson (Oct 12, 2013)

^exactly


----------



## Myers (Oct 12, 2013)

And I’m pretty sure Shadowwalker was talking about traditionally published books, including bestsellers; so some vetted level of competency, even if it doesn't meet everyone's standards. Some people might want to watch how they throw around the word “dense.”


----------



## Sam (Oct 12, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> The story doesn't always trump the mechanics.



In terms of readers, it most certainly does. If it didn't, rubbish like _Twilight _would never have become the 'success' it is today. Most readers don't care about mechanics, or spelling, or grammar, or anything beyond the desire to be entertained. Unfortunately, that's the state of the book world at the moment. Tawdry and egregious work will sell if Jane Publisher feels there's a chance that the cliched and one-dimensional characters and story will appeal to a mass demographic. 

That said, one should always strive to make one's writing the best it can be.


----------



## Myers (Oct 12, 2013)

Sounds like an overstatement to me. I don't think you can judge what "most readers" want based on a few fluke mega-sellers. Most bestsellers are at least competently written, which leads me to believe that both Jane Publisher and a lot of readers do have some standards it when comes to mechanics, grammar, etc.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 12, 2013)

We overlook the fact that there are lots of books that have good stories and are carefully crafted.  I was an English minor in college, and yeah, I've been known to butcher the language.  But I certainly wouldn't leave major errors in a work, fiction or non-fiction, nor should anyone else.  Considering the number of re-writes, polishing, beta hours and publishers' input, it's a wonder to me how drek gets to the market, at all.

Sounds like an excuse to pass scrap.


----------



## Myers (Oct 12, 2013)

I'm not overlooking it. I just thought that was obvious and that it should go without saying on a writing forum. Once again, it's about pointing at a few mega-sellers that are poorly written as evidence that publishers don't care and readers are stupid. On top of that, I'm sick to death of people harping on _Twilight _or whatever book it is that people love hate, Dan Brown or _Hunger Games_ or yada yada yada.  It's just too easy, and it's not at all useful or interesting in any way that I can see.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 12, 2013)

Myers said:


> On top of that, I'm sick to death of people harping on _Twilight _or whatever book it is that people love hate, Dan Brown or _Hunger Games_ or yada yada yada.  It's just too easy, and it's not at all useful or interesting in any way that I can see.



Same here.

In the case of Stephenie Meyer, I find it unfortunate others attack her. Especially among writers, I feel her success should be celebrated. Here was someone who made it. If only we could all be so fortunate.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 12, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> I feel her success should be celebrated.



This is actually a two-fold issue.  A guy winning the lottery is "successful."  He might have been a total failure up until that point.

The problem is that in a freemarket country we attach excellence to being wealthy.  The books mentioned were successful in the marketplace, but were they "good"?

The other aspect of this freedom is the right to choose what to buy within that market.  I'd rather wash my truck than waste several hours reading THG or Twilight.  They made money, so does selling one of your kidneys.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 13, 2013)

To say that a book succeeded in the marketplace without being good is another way of saying readers are stupid. Those books may not be to your taste, or my taste, but that doesn't mean - again - that the story wasn't good enough for readers to overlook the mechanics. There have been best-sellers I've loved, and best-sellers I've been bored to tears with. Does that mean the readers who disagreed with my humble opinion were stupid? Absolutely not. They just happened to like/dislike different things than I did.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 13, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Does that mean the readers who disagreed with my humble opinion were stupid? Absolutely not. They just happened to like/dislike different things than I did.



Right now it is projected that the movie "Gravity" will make the most money of any story ever told.  Does that mean it's "better" than The Bible or "War and Peace"?

Money vs. quality means absolutely nothing.  My guess is that Disney World makes more money that the Guggenheim.  Hookers make more money than Sears.

That's a stark financial reality.  It's still not quality.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 13, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> This is actually a two-fold issue. A guy winning the lottery is "successful." He might have been a total failure up until that point.



That's true, but a lottery winner simply purchased a ticket. A hit-it-big-author doesn't just get paid for putting their name into a drawing. The author has written something that millions of people are willing to pay to read. 

There's a big difference between the two:



A lottery-winner stumbles into fortune through chance.
A best-selling author earns a fortune by creating a product that a large portion of the population wants.



			
				The Tourist said:
			
		

> The problem is that in a freemarket country we attach excellence to being wealthy. The books mentioned were successful in the marketplace, but were they "good"?



In my opinion: Yes. A best-selling book is "good." To answer why, we'd have to examine my definition of what is "good" in this case.

First we have to determine a way to measure the merits of a book, or an author.

The most obvious measuring stick, in my opinion, is the reader. The consumer. The one who purchases and uses the product that the writer creates. Or, more specifically, the reader*s*. 

Readers know what they want, either consciously, or intuitively. They gravitate toward the authors who give them what they want and they move away from those who don't. Like customers, they will give their business to the writers that provide a reliable and satisfying experience.

If an author's writing is poor or "bad", readers will leave and look for someone else. The flip side of that is, if an author is good, readers will stick around. A fan-base grows. Sales rise. The author's name elevates to the coveted _New York Times Best-Sellers List_.

That doesn't mean everyone will like said author's writing. They don't have to. Just as not everyone has to shop at the same stores. We all have our own tastes and preferences.

But, as long as the author satisfies their readers on a successful level (and being a Best-Seller fits into the realm of success, in my book), the author falls into the category of "good."

Good, at least, in the business of satisfying readers.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 13, 2013)

In traditional publication, there is a filter between the subjectively rated good story and the public, and that is the agent. - Surely, for a first novel, a new author must stand above an established author when clambering for an agent's attention? - In other words, a début novel must be even better than follow up novels. - After all, the public are more likely to trust an author they know, so I'd guess it is the same with an agent.

And you know, reading this thread, I wonder if I would spot a badly written novel when I am engrossed in the story? Did Dan Brown write poorly? - Along with Stieg Larsson and Robert Ludlum, he is the author who I'd read another chapter when I was desperate for the toilet, followed by another and a promise to clean up later.

But perhaps an author only gets that chance if they have worked a little harder on their very first book... Or maybe just the first 50 pages an agent reads in the first instance...

Thanks to everyone that has posted on here. - I've an oversized imagination, but a limited pot of writing experience. - It's quite easy to become disillusioned considering the time scales involved in rewriting a story, but I think I feel a little less so now. As Wechleinuns said in an earlier post, fear motivated this thread.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 13, 2013)

Don't let us discourage you from writing.  Just remember, this is an age old debate.

_"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Henry Mencken_


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 13, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> Don't let us discourage you from writing.  Just remember, this is an age old debate.
> 
> _"No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." Henry Mencken_



I doubt anything could discourage me from writing, but thanks for the kind words 

I stand far closer to my mortal exit than arrival, so I feel very much at home in a debate for the venerable!  - This thread has been a source of encouragement. I feel a good story I can do, but only time will tell if I can match the story with the telling. (But I am still learning.)


----------



## Sam (Oct 13, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> Same here.
> 
> In the case of Stephenie Meyer, I find it unfortunate others attack her. Especially among writers, I feel her success should be celebrated. Here was someone who made it. If only we could all be so fortunate.



She's sold books, for which you believe she's 'made it', but is she critically acclaimed? Is she lauded by all and sundry? No, because her work is not held in high regard by her peers. That should tell you everything you need to know. I'd rather have my work be studied a century from now than make millions and burn out a couple of years down the line.


----------



## Myers (Oct 13, 2013)

Yeah, well I’d rather win the Nobel Prize for literature, make a billion dollars and be married to Megan Fox. I guess we'll see what happens when I publish my ebook.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 13, 2013)

Sam said:


> No, because her work is not held in high regard by her peers. That should tell you everything you need to know.



Concerning excellence, it's funny how we meld it into our lives with excuses, but then live in the world that ideology creates.

If you're a writer who believes making money as a hack is a valid way to live, consider your "success" in the world of the mediocre.  Think about your life as "the next big drek author."

Fortune comes but quality never finds your work.  You go cash your first million dollar check and then buy a Lamborghini.  Two days later you have to take it back to the shop because the brakes don't work.

The pressure for your sophomore novel is intense.  You wake up one morning with a touch of angina.  The cardiac specialist says not to worry, but you find out he got his degree based on affirmative action.

You mansion is finally completed, all accept for the major foyer leak that just ruined 1.2 million dollars of carrara marble.  Gee, doesn't anyone strive for excellence anymore!

And finally, this isn't the first thread we've had trying to justify the mundane, the trite and the substandard.  But if you feel that way, imagine that all-thumbs cardiac surgeon has to crack your chest.  Pretend that I'm his polisher.  Gee, sorry for the inconvenience, but I was really hung-over when I sharpened his scalpels.  I hope he doesn't slip forcing an incision and nick a major artery...


----------



## Myers (Oct 13, 2013)

Yes, because heart surgery is so much like writing popular fiction and there’s just as much as stake. It’s all clear now.


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 13, 2013)

I really agree with Kyle - it's _very _tiresome listening to people point to certain authors as evidence that readers are dumb. Implicitly and sometimes explicitly, they pronounce their own tastes so superior they can make these pronouncements. 

Just because you don't like something doesn't mean people who do are stupid. Get over yourselves.


----------



## Myers (Oct 13, 2013)

Say, I know what’s missing here. Someone needs to post an excerpt or two from _Twilight_ so we can all see how bad the writing is. Any volunteers?


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 13, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Just because you don't like something doesn't mean people who do are stupid. Get over yourselves.



Until the issue touches you.

I mentioned surgery.  'Shadow, you seem to be a nice lady, but let's face it, you're not a world leader, a doctor unlocking the mysteries of HIV or even a famous actor.  There's only a handful of guys like me in the USA who polish, and we certainly do not have the time to prepare medical equipment for some average Joe in a creative writing forum.

Extreme?  Not a bit.  We can all name a dozen books that made money but were worthless chewing gum for the mind.  And when we make excuses for substandard performance in any segment of human endeavor sooner or later all of our scalpels with come three-for-a-dollar at K-Mart.

If guys who profess to love the written word as much as we do believe drek is acceptable, then imagine how our shelves will look in a scant few years as we race to the bottom.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 13, 2013)

Myers said:


> Say, I know what’s missing here. Someone needs to post an excerpt or two from _Twilight_ so we can all see how bad the writing is. Any volunteers?



I have to say, I've never read Twilight. How far did you get before you threw in the towel?

Is it told poorly, or just not your genre? - I know my niece (aged 16) loved it.


----------



## J Anfinson (Oct 13, 2013)

I think every writer wants to be successful, but the thing is that success is defined differently by every individual. For some it's daring to be original and writing their story to the best of their ability with the slim hope that their work will become the next bestseller, and for others it's to ride the tidal wave of someone else's bestseller, jumping in on the current trend by rushing to publish something similar in the hopes to make money. Then there's those who come up with an original idea and rush to publish it, spell-check be darned. Am I forgetting anyone?

Anyway, I have no problem with whatever path anyone wants to take. That's their business. I would hope that people would care enough about their own book to polish it till it shines, but that obviously isn't always the case. We have the freedom to take any path and the one I'll choose is to take my time and try to write something of quality, but if the next guy/gal does something different then I hope it works out for them.


----------



## Myers (Oct 13, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> I have to say, I've never read Twilight. How far did you get before you threw in the towel?
> 
> Is it told poorly, or just not your genre? - I know my niece (aged 16) loved it.



I haven't read it either, but I have read plenty of excerpts. I really don't like much in the way of speculative fiction. And while the writing is not up to my personal standards, I don't think the popularity of _Twilight _means the end of civilization as we know it.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 13, 2013)

Myers said:


> I haven't read it either, but I have read plenty of excerpts. I really don't like much in the way of speculative fiction._* And while the writing is not up to my personal standards,*_ I don't think the popularity of _Twilight _means the end of civilization as we know it.




You know, one of the biggest issues I have is my writing is not up to my personal standards... I have a very tempestuous relationship with myself, I can tell you. 

Perhaps Twilight, and similar, have an important place. - If they could be considered 'trendy' or 'fad' reading, then such books could well introduce non-readers to the written word. 

And let's face it, if Twilight is as poorly written as you suggest, anything else the converts read afterwards will be nectar!


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 13, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> I mentioned surgery.  'Shadow, you seem to be a nice lady, but let's face it, you're not a world leader, a doctor unlocking the mysteries of HIV or even a famous actor.  There's only a handful of guys like me in the USA who polish, and we certainly do not have the time to prepare medical equipment for some average Joe in a creative writing forum.



Sorry, have to confess I have no idea what you're saying here. I have to be a world leader, doctor or famous actor to have an opinion you deem worthy of consideration? Because you sharpen knives you're some kind of expert on quality writing? 

Nope. Sorry. No idea what you mean. Perhaps I'm dumb or perhaps your command of the written word needs some work.


----------



## Sam (Oct 13, 2013)

Enough of the personal comments.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 13, 2013)

I feel it's important for writers to check their egos at the door, especially when lambasting the successful works of others. It's easy to criticize the best-sellers because they have the largest targets on their backs. 

Statements like, "I don't like _so-and-so's_ writing. It's terrible, vapid, mindless drivel. I'd rather scoop my eyes out with a spoon than read another sentence from this author" are completely justifiable. We're all free to like and dislike what we wish.

The problem, in my opinion, comes when we presume to tell others what is good and what isn't, as well as what they should and shouldn't like. As if we are somehow qualified to decide such things. We aren't. 

Only the readers can decide what they like and what they don't, and that's how it should be, in my opinion.

Authors like Stephenie Meyer, Suzanne Collins, E.L. James (a few of the recent mega-successes that get slammed a lot by critics) have written books that are often attacked, for things like adjective/adverb abuse, poor grammar, shallow character motivations and behaviors, et cetera.

I find those discussions illuminating, but not for the reason one might expect. For me, it often highlights the naivete of the critics. By focusing on the negative aspects of the writing, they sometimes miss the bigger picture: the positives in the writing that have made such books mega-hits within the reading population.

I don't believe the answer is to dismiss the readers as unrefined, or having a lack of exposure to "better" writing. There's more to it than that, and the first step in pinning it down, in my opinion, starts with identifying the aspects of the writing that resonate with the readers.

Because, in the end, the best-selling authors, most especially the ones who consistently and repeatedly top the charts, book after book, these are the authors who are doing something right. 

It's harder to learn what those things are if we automatically dismiss certain authors/books as being beneath us.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 13, 2013)

Kyle - I did a lot of nodding whilst reading your post, and not through tiredness. - It just goes to show how hard it is to define what makes for a good book...

...AND more importantly, if what makes a good book is at odds with what makes a popular read, then who is the more likely to be wide of the mark, 20 million readers or a few dozen critics?

I came here seeking a formula, but the more I read, the more I feel that we've yet to define it. Perhaps these popular authors that many consider aberrations, are the exceptions that prove the rule for many... -BUT if our goal is to formulate prose that entertain, then are we really doing that if our work appeals to a few thousand rather than a few million? Have we, in seeking to become masters of our trade, lost the literary plot in the process? - I don't know, and I am not seeking to denigrate the writing of any author (let alone the most popular), but surely bad prose is more likely to be the stuff that people don't want to read, rather than the stuff they do!

The formula is elusive, but perhaps we do ourselves no favours by dismissing certain elements within literature that seem to have come far closer to an answer.

IF we are not prepared to accept success as a measure of a good story, well told, (in the eyes of readers) are we not in danger of eliting ourselves into extinction?


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 13, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> I feel it's important for writers to check their egos at the door, especially when lambasting the successful works of others. It's easy to criticize the best-sellers because they have the largest targets on their backs.



The problem is the phrase "best seller."  That doesn't mean anything other than success in dollars.

The Yugo probably made millions in total sales.  It was the worst car in history.  My Dyna Glide is the most perfect bike I've ever owned, and technically I lost money.

Some of the works you mentioned will be forgotten in a decade.  If you're younger than I am I could name a dozen books from the Age of Aquarius that were considered "important" and you probably never heard of any of them.


----------



## Myers (Oct 13, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> The problem is the phrase "best seller."  That doesn't mean anything other than success in dollars.



Kyle is talking about what makes the books popular. In that respect, best seller is about the number of people who have read the books. He's not talking about success in terms of dollars.


----------



## Sunny (Oct 13, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> The problem is the phrase "best seller."  That doesn't mean anything other than success in dollars.



To a writer, does success not mean having your words, your novels, sitting in millions of homes on bookshelves everywhere? 

If Stephenie Meyer's books were free, I bet there would be more of them in circulation than there already is! Her big bank account is not what makes her a success. The fact that millions of her books are sitting in homes across the globe (translated into 13 different languages) _proves _it.  

Just because YOU don't want to read them, doesn't mean WE don't. Just because YOU think they won't be around or remembered, doesn't make it so. 

We all like different things and just because I happen to love _Twilight _and it's the reason I became a lover of books, doesn't make me simple or dumb. It doesn't mean I don't know the difference between good and bad writing. 

The success of any writer, no matter what they write, is proven by the readers that want to keep reading their stories. You can't have millions of people enamoured and in love with something and think we're all simpletons because we don't like to escape into the same fictional worlds that you do.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 13, 2013)

Sunny said:


> Just because YOU don't want to read them, doesn't mean WE don't. Just because YOU think they won't be around or remembered, doesn't make it so.



This goes beyond singular choices.  You cannot have a business success unless lots of folks make purchases.

But is that how we decide to judge ourselves?  For example, when a new movie comes out shows like Entertainment Tonight announces the gate receipts.  Well, of course they do.  A studio makes money by the old Broadway adage of "butts in the seats."

It doesn't surprise me that a publisher would use the same criteria.

However, we're writers.  Frankly, we could make more real, spendable dollars selling washing machines at the mall.  If you peruse our thread topics the thrust of our interests center on writing better stories.

If your interest is primarily making a living from writing then I could understand that finding the quintessential magic bullet formula bodice ripper would be concern.  But if you're thinking of impressing a reader(s) with thoughts and insights then another knock-off zombie story is not the path.

And if "money" is the final measuring tool we intend to use, well then, The Mafia must be up there with Twilight and THG.


----------



## Sunny (Oct 13, 2013)

Money is not the measure of a writer's success. Readers/fans measure success.


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 13, 2013)

Sunny said:


> Money is not the measure of a writer's success. Readers/fans measure success.



And I agree.  But there's a world of difference between the phrases "critically acclaimed" and "best seller."

I always found that being the best took care of financial concerns.  But selling out was short-term at best.


----------



## Myers (Oct 13, 2013)

Sunny said:


> We all like different things and just because I happen to love _Twilight _and it's the reason I became a lover of books, doesn't make me simple or dumb. It doesn't mean I don't know the difference between good and bad writing.



Yes, I think it's important to remember that people read for different  reasons. I'm more of a literary fiction kind of guy. I love beautiful  writing and poetic description etc, and I like to be challenged to a  degree. On the other hand, my wife likes light reading for the most part  (that's what she calls it) and she generally reads to relax and wind  down before bed after a stressful day. (I like to wind down too; but I  don't read to do it. The other night I watched two episodes of Chef  Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares, which is pretty ridiculous.) Anyway, she  really liked _The Hunger Games_, and she reads Nicolas Sparks and Jodi Picoult (heavier subject matter) and chick lit books like The _Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants _etc. And yes, she even read _Twilight,_  although it wasn't her cup of tea. I may be biased, but she's a  very sharp woman, and  she's an excellent business writer and  communicator. Her choice of reading material has nothing to do with her  intelligence or command of grammar and the English language. It's simply  about what she enjoys.


----------



## Sunny (Oct 13, 2013)

Myers said:


> Yes, I think it's important to remember that people read for different  reasons. I'm more of a literary fiction kind of guy. I love beautiful  writing and poetic description etc, and I like to be challenged to a  degree. On the other hand, my wife likes light reading for the most part  (that's what she calls it) and she generally reads to relax and wind  down before bed after a stressful day. (I like to wind down too; but I  don't read to do it. The other night I watched two episodes of Chef  Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares, which is pretty ridiculous.) Anyway, she  really liked _The Hunger Games_, and she reads Nicolas Sparks and Jodi Picoult (heavier subject matter) and chick lit books like The _Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants _etc. And yes, she even read _Twilight,_  although it wasn't her cup of tea. I may be biased, but she's a  very sharp woman, and  she's an excellent business writer and  communicator. Her choice of reading material has nothing to do with her  intelligence or command of grammar and the English language. It's simply  about what she enjoys.



I am not a fan of Sci-Fi (for the most part) or Horror books, but I would never presume to tell someone else who loves that kind of reading material that what they like is garbage or swill, or what-have-you. I would never have the audacity to think my dislike for something automatically makes it bad or proves it doesn't belong as a best seller. 

I am a smart person. I am intelligent. I'm not just a young teen that doesn't know any better. I am just as articulate as the rest of you. I just happen to like romance and supernatural fiction when some people don't. I also love beautiful and poetic writing too. I am a huge lover of Ray Bradbury (after being introduced to his writing from my boyfriend) and I have the capacity to appreciate the elegant prose in his writing (or others'). 

It comes down to fans liking what they like. None of us are better than the other for having different tastes.


----------



## Myers (Oct 13, 2013)

Sunny said:


> It comes down to fans liking what they like. None of us are better than the other for having different tastes.



Yes. And there really isn’t much point to arguing about quality with someone who’s just pointing at easy targets and calling them bad without offering any insight beyond that. It doesn’t even rise to the level criticism.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 13, 2013)

Success in anything is measured by the standards of the 'doer'. Has the writer, musician, doctor, dock worker, or parent achieved what (s)he set out to achieve? That's it. Any other criteria you and I try to put on it is just argument.

If an author sets out to write a book that readers will enjoy, then it doesn't matter if the book hits it big as long as the feed back is good. If she sets out to make money and ends up with a Twilight, or Harry Potter, mission accomplished. If S. Meyers set out to write a literary masterwork, then, by all accounts, she failed. I doubt if that was the case, however.

Readership doesn't define success. Money doesn't define success. Critical acclaim does not define success--unless that's what the author was trying for. Success is achieving a goal. How do we know what goals others have set?


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 14, 2013)

Terry D said:


> Success in anything is measured by the standards of the 'doer'. Has the writer, musician, doctor, dock worker, or parent achieved what (s)he set out to achieve? That's it. Any other criteria you and I try to put on it is just argument.
> 
> If an author sets out to write a book that readers will enjoy, then it doesn't matter if the book hits it big as long as the feed back is good. If she sets out to make money and ends up with a Twilight, or Harry Potter, mission accomplished._* If S. Meyers set out to write a literary masterwork, then, by all accounts, she failed. I doubt if that was the case, however.*_
> 
> Readership doesn't define success. Money doesn't define success. Critical acclaim does not define success--unless that's what the author was trying for. Success is achieving a goal. How do we know what goals others have set?



I take a lot from this line. - I am still floundering around, attempting to take value from people's posts. This one little gem, I'll keep with me. - Perhaps what she did was shot from the hip. - Perhaps she didn't get so bogged down in 'the rules' or try to second guess what would make it 'great' and just wrote. - Perhaps she didn't try _too_ hard.


As I start to build up a picture of the personalities that contribute to this site, I can see we mainly seem to argue from pre-defined positions and restate what we feel, and perhaps never really challenge it.

What many people seem to be suggesting is they would rather produce a critically acclaimed masterpiece lauded by few than a story that reaches to the masses. - Is that not the same as saying, we'd rather receive the adulation of our peers than write something that people want to read? 

I started writing for the pleasure the written word gave me, and I'm not so far away from that day that I've lost that amazing feeling. - If it were a choice between the two, I'd rather feel I created something that people wanted to read, rather than something that elicited polite applause...

...And if I did that, would other writers lambast me, perhaps without even reading my words?


----------



## Morkonan (Oct 14, 2013)

I'll echo the comments of some and maybe add a few observations of my own.

Yes, there's a certain minimum mechanical quality, both in grammar and construction of the novel, that must be met. I don't think anyone can reasonably disagree with that. After that, anything goes. I have to paraphrase Forster's definition of Story and Plot, before proceeding: IIRC, here: "A story can be summed up as something happens. A plot can be summed up as something which happens due to a cause."

I don't care much about what happens in a book. Sure, some of the things that happen are really interesting and fun to read. But, ultimately, what matters to me is _why_ they happen. I'll give an example I'm sure you are all familiar with: There's a titanic struggle, the stakes are high, the protagonist is in the most extreme of dangers... Suddenly, from out of nowhere, comes a rescue! YAY!... Uh, "yay?" 

That's a plot problem, not a story problem. It's also not a "construction" issue. The text may be grammatically correct and all the various mechanical efforts of introducing the Reader to the basics of character, setting and the like are done just fine. Scenes are written well, tension is appropriate... What gives? At this point, there's only one fault - It's the plot and it sucks. Book flies across the room to land in the fuel pile, Mork goes to the bookstore and slaps the purchasing agent.

For me, a novel is the entire package. A novel just has to be well written, all the way around, before I'll truly praise it or offer to take it out to dinner. Can a book have a wonderful plot, be told badly, and then appeal to me? NO - I can't get past the ineptitude of the author, no matter how good their imagination is. In grade-school, I knew a boy who was the most brilliant automobile artist in the fourth grade. He could draw any car, straight from memory. This guy knew what a car should look like. But, at nine, he'd probably make a terrible mechanic.

In order to do well, a writer has to be able to know how to craft a story as well as how to create one. It's up to the Reader, after that. Not everyone likes "Citizen Kane", but it's probably the best movie ever made. Why is that? Why is there such contention on that issue, with some lauding the masterful direction in C.K. and others citing the appeal of "Raising Arizona." That's all we really need to know in order to figure out what's most important inside the covers of our favorite books - It's all in the eye of the beholder. But, as a writer, you can use your skill in order to make your work as appealing as possible to your target audience.

 A word on crap: Crap is crap. It's also crap. Sometimes, I like to read crap. You know, books that are just fun to read, despite the lame plot or unrealistic characters? Sure, it's crap, but I also eat junk food. Gotta problem with it?  Yet, if someone asked me whether or not the crappy book I was reading was worth recommending to them, I'd probably have to be honest and let 'em know is was just crap. But, you'd be surprised how quickly they'd rush out to buy it, if something about my description of it appealed to them. That's how I look at much of the crap that's gotten a lot of notoriety, lately. Yes, it's crap. But, somehow, despite the crappy crafting, people enjoyed it. That's fine, it's not a crime or anything. What would be a crime would be a MFA Professor using those works as examples with literary merit in their classroom. Michael Bay throws too many 'splosions around and his movies have little sense to them. But, he's laughing all the way to the bank. If that's what I cared about, I'd do well to learn from him. For those who want their books burning at both ends, for a short while, go see if he's ever written anything on writing...

In all honesty, all I want to do is entertain people. I want to share stories with them and have them laugh and cry at the appropriate parts. Maybe I'll get to do a little more, somewhere in there, from time to time? Maybe I'll get to comment on the human condition, every five chapters or so? Maybe I'll make someone, somewhere, think about something interesting? That would be nice and I'll surely try to accomplish it. But, if all I do is entertain people with a story or three, then I'm satisfied. If some say the books are "crap", then it will probably hurt my feelings for awhile. But, if I make someone else happy or give someone a bit of cheap enjoyment on a particular bad day, that's enough for me.


----------



## Myers (Oct 14, 2013)

Terry D said:


> Readership doesn't define success. Money doesn't define success. Critical acclaim does not define success--unless that's what the author was trying for. Success is achieving a goal.



Not necessarily. For example, if I set out to simply write a novel that people will enjoy, but it becomes a bestseller and I make a lot of money, I would most likely acknowledge that as a form of success after the fact, even though it wasn't my initial goal. And I'm guessing that's the way it usually works.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 14, 2013)

Someone important to me has followed this thread and made an observation based on book sales... 



			
				Stonesinger said:
			
		

> I kinda think no matter what way you look at it, if as a writer... you don't attract readers.... that's a fail.



It's difficult to argue with, I feel. - Perhaps it is possible to place too much emphasis on a personal opinion/ critics opinion IF we are seeking to write for the public. -IF we are writing for the critics, I can appreciate that success is based on their approval and not on sales figures.*

Is there a single one of us here who did not start out writing in the hope of producing a million seller? Are there many who changed that goal to write for critical acclaim instead? And am I right in thinking that popular approval and critical acclaim are often opposing forces?

Perhaps what I am really asking, is it not easier to get the approval of our peers than of the public, so we've changed our focus? - Isn't it harder to write a Twilight or a Fifty Shades of Grey than it is to get a pat on the back from the learned few?


*edit* - I do know this is a highly contentious question to ask, but it is just a question. - I am sure people have been banned from the site for less! 


* I know that sales figures are related to genre and other matters, but it still must be considered a yardstick, surely?


----------



## The Tourist (Oct 14, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> * I know that sales figures are related to genre and other matters, but it still must be considered a yardstick, surely?



It might be considered a yardstick, but it really isn't.  But you have to remember that I'm lots older than most of you are.  Let me explain.

As a boomer, I was raised by "The Great Depression Generation."  Every opportunity was a life lesson for them.  And showing up early and doing a good job were the morals to most of their cautionary tales.  Just watch the "bank failure" scene in "It's A Wonderful Life" and you'll see their fears.

When I retired I wanted my own business.  But I did not advertise or schmooze the public with glossy advertisements.  I perfected my craft and made some business cards.  Now I get work from all over the United States.

The "moral" to my story is a rehash of what the previous generation taught me.  _When you worry about the quality you never have to apologize about the price_.

Lousy grammar, misspellings and excuses for plagiarizing Stephen King?  Why not worry about writing the best book you can?  Everyone tells a story about that one book they picked up and read to the end in an all-nighter.  When Tom Clancy passed away we praised him for his research, his creativity and the manner in which he told a story.  That's where we should devote our time.


----------



## Myers (Oct 14, 2013)

Of course, no one has said anything about not trying to write the best you can.

As I mentioned, my wife reads bestsellers. I pick them up, sometimes I read them. Stylistically, they may not be to my liking, but the idea that popular novels are riddled with bad grammar and typos is just wrong. Keep in mind too that publishers no longer employ armies of editors and proofreaders and they're cutting back on quality control in general because of economics. If you see typos or a transposed word or something like what I saw recently in published collection of short stories, a reference to a name that clearly was left over from a previous draft or version, then you can't automatically blame the author.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 14, 2013)

I think it is a given that we all write the best we can.

You know, I am more minded to believe now that successful writing is more down to a very good story, with some latitude as to how well it is told. - What this means for me is that I will now spend as much time as I feel necessary improvement my writing skills, and then will rewrite the half million words of stories I have done to date. - IF an agent accepts the rewrites, I'll be delighted. IF they don't, I will concede that the stories weren't of an acceptable standard, throw them on Amazon for a low price and start on something fresh.

Yes, I'd read that agents now expect the prose they receive to be somewhere near publication standard from the off, and I've recently read a book (by Raymond E Feist) where the editing was woeful!


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Oct 14, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> My question is, can a proficient but not exceptional writer carry it off if they have a very strong story*? Can the story make up for inadequacies elsewhere? (I do accept that it must be technically perfect, regardless!)



It sounds like you're saying, "I have a great story in my head, but I don't have the skill to convey it well.  Is this alright?"  The simple answer is no, it's not alright.  I've said this a few times on this forum now, but the thing that makes a writer any bit attractive at all is their ability to write well.  Almost everyone can think of a story.  It's the rare exception that can actually distill that story to a publishable state.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 14, 2013)

No, it's not quite what I was saying. Although old to the world, I am quite new to writing, and know I lacked the skills to articulate a story in a benign fashion. I don't know how far my skills can evolve, but I'll work on them for a little while first. After that, I will rewrite three stories, and try them with a few agents. - If they are rejected, I can accept I am sub par, and will then self publish.

I'm not quite ready to concede I'm inadequate just yet, but am both pragmatic and realistic about my prospects. 

*edit* What I am led to believe, is that there are a range of abilities within published authors, and a popular story can mitigate a less than flawless recital.

I'd not really appreciated that good stories were so common, or perhaps that is more to do with the fact a story may not feel 'good' until it is told well.


----------



## Jeko (Oct 14, 2013)

> Although old to the world, I am quite new to writing, and know I lacked the skills to articulate a story in a benign fashion. I don't know how far my skills can evolve, but I'll work on them for a little while first. After that, I will rewrite three stories, and try them with a few agents. - If they are rejected, I can accept I am sub par, and will then self publish.



Why accept a position of skill if you can improve it? The longer you spend trying to improve your writing, the better it will get. Keep working on it and it'll eventually get to publishable quality.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 14, 2013)

Oh hell, I am striving every day to write a little better than I did the day before. - I stagger to my desk long before dawn each morning, and work at  the very edge of my ability. 

- I think we all keep on improving, but with diminishing returns. - What I meant was that I'd self publish the three stories after one more rewrite IF there is no other option...

...And then I'll start on a new story, and give the agents another burst of grief when that is finished.


----------



## Gavrushka (Oct 15, 2013)

Communications from Stonesinger by proxy... - She joined this site, but lurks rather than posts... Her words:



			
				Stonesinger said:
			
		

> *I kinda think for all the worry authors seem to do about perfecting technique/getting it right... they kinda forget what it is to be a reader... they're more worried about impressing other writers. Readers I think generally, are a lot more casual. *




I know almost all here are both readers and writers, but I think I have to agree with Stonesinger. - I read some very clever prose on this site, but some of it does come across as a little over-embellished, like a natural beauty hidden beneath an inch of make-up. - I can't critique a story in a particularly meaningful way, but can merely read it and relate whether I felt it was good or bad. - Isn't that the most we can expect of an average reader? - Or do some writers shun the typical reader in favour of a far more selective group?

All I want to do is write a good story in a reader-friendly fashion. This is the right place to learn how to that a little better, of that I am sure. 

And you know, it seems more books seem to get critical acclaim than become best sellers... If that really is the case, is the reader is actually a lot more discerning than the critic? (I am sure I must be wrong in my initial assertion, but it would be a chuckle if it was otherwise.)


----------



## shadowwalker (Oct 15, 2013)

Gavrushka said:


> I know almost all here are both readers and writers, but I think I have to agree with Stonesinger. - I read some very clever prose on this site, but some of it does come across as a little over-embellished, like a natural beauty hidden beneath an inch of make-up. - I can't critique a story in a particularly meaningful way, but can merely read it and relate whether I felt it was good or bad. - Isn't that the most we can expect of an average reader? - Or do some writers shun the typical reader in favour of a far more selective group?



I think Stonesinger hit the nail on the head. Writers in groups (not forums only but any gathering) tend to get philosophical and, quite frankly, puffed up about writing. Everybody gets that mindset on occasion, that we're writing for other writers instead of for readers. Or that readers are some strange subset of humanity that need study or educating or whatever. If all one is doing is writing for oneself, for fun or hobby, and doesn't really care if anyone else reads it (let alone enjoys it), then that's fine. But most of us who want to get published - and if we're truly honest - want readers, lots of them, and we want them to enjoy what we write enough that they'll come back and read the next book. Which is why looking down on readers or writers who are successful in spite of one's dislike of their work is really counter-productive.


----------

