# What makes for a great story?



## LeeC (Jul 23, 2017)

Most of the books authors send me to read and review fail to hold my interest. Of course a good writer with a great story likely wouldn't bother contacting me ;-)

In any case, I finally found a simple explanation of what I consider great stories. That is stories where 1 + 1 = 3, as Ken Burns puts it in this five minute video:
https://youtu.be/H37yNkrw3_4

You might have a different explanation, and/or different expectations to offer, but I've become a bit jaded over the many years I've been reading.


----------



## lmarie (Jul 24, 2017)

I always wondered if there is a formula for what makes a book great because then why do people have so much difference of opinion about books? I do not like most books either, including ones by some great authors. I love the way he states it though. Personally I think it could be that there is a formula, and as he says the story has to add up to more than the sum of its parts, but because of personal differences not everyone agrees about what the sum is or what more would be.


----------



## CrimsonAngel223 (Jul 24, 2017)

Just saw the video. Inspiring.


----------



## Sam (Jul 24, 2017)

I've seen that one before, and while it is good advice, one should remember that there is a vast difference between film stories and novel stories. 

Screenplays run about what -- 5,000 to 20,000 words? And that translates to about 90 minutes' airtime, on average, which is one of the reasons why great novels rarely make great films. 

That said, a lot of what he says there is applicable. Making flawed characters, compelling villains, and complicating every possible thing are mainstays of our profession, to say nothing of manipulation and growth/change. 

For me, great storytelling is that which compels you to keep reading and that, when you've finished, leaves you with a different perspective than when you started.


----------



## The Fantastical (Jul 24, 2017)

I think several things at least contribute to a good story -

1. Plot/s (very important)

2. Likeable Characters (also a must)

3. Have a clear conflict, two if you can push an extra one in. (a real must or else or point is lost and you might as well just give up)

4. A linear storyline (it is just sad that I need to say this at all)

5. A storyline (storylines are a wee bit different than the plots)

6. An Editor! (preferably one who can proof read your novel!)

7. READ GOOD BOOKS! (If you read junk you write junk!)

8. The X factor, that indefinable thing that makes a star or great author.

9. NO VAMPIRES!

10. NO UNDEAD, WEREWOLVES OR OTHE SUPERNATURAL THINGS!


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 24, 2017)

1+1 never equals 3.

If you have 3, then it's 1+1+1. Maybe most people ignore one of the items, but it's there.

So if what he said is changed to "seeing the whole picture" or "seeing the truth", then there's merit.

What do I think makes for a good story? Or what's popular?

1. Believable main characters. (Nobody really cares if supporting characters are flat.)

2. Good triumphing over evil. Cliche? Perhaps. But popular.

3. A main character that the reader, or viewer, identifies with. 

4. Comedy. Even in a drama, a chuckle now and then will keep the reader engaged. 

The rest is nice. Being "tight", well polished, etc. will not get you very far if your main character is so off the wall that only a few people can relate. Will those that relate like it? Probably. But if it's a small percentage of the population, then you won't sell it to many people. Having an "Everyman" type of main character translates to more sales.

And that takes us directly to the reason the author writes in the first place. For some, it's to sell books, movies, etc. For others, it's to convey a message. (But even for that, the more who buy it, the more who are exposed to the message.) For still others, it's to please themselves. There's no right or wrong reason. It's simply personal preference.


Added -- Of course, being, or using, a good SPaG editor is a must! But that's different than the content.


----------



## LeeC (Jul 24, 2017)

I'd turn that around a bit Sam. To me a story ranges from great to uninteresting on its own, and beyond that there is the aspect of how well it's portrayed in specific media. I've read many a book (Clancy comes to mind) where the characterizations were overly pat, diminishing the story. Writers focusing on such as flawed characters, compelling villains, and complications too often do so at the expense of the story. This may work well for the large audience of surface readers, but falls short of the mark for thoughtful readers. 

One example, if you'll forgive me, is my trying in my book to bring out the contradictions of physical life in the natural world model of life fueled by life. I'm still not satisfied that I'm doing so well enough.

Another example that comes to mind is Terry D's Chase. There are portrayals of "happenings" in such that distinct from direct characterizations make for a better story. In particular there is a short passage relative to a mortally wounded dog in the beginning that still haunts me (setting the tone of the characters), and the ending expands one's perspective of what physical life is. Of course, to the surface reader it's a fast moving thriller, but there's enough said between the lines for the thoughtful reader. 

Relative to portrayal, what I look for is what's said between the lines, and the books that come up short for me are the one's where the author really has nothing meaningful to say. 

“_A classic is a book that has never finished saying what it has to say._” ~ Italo Calvino


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 24, 2017)

Sam said:


> Screenplays run about what -- 5,000 to 20,000 words?



That seems much too low. 



> For me, great storytelling is that which compels you to keep reading and that, when you've finished, leaves you with a different perspective than when you started.



But what is great storytelling? That's the question that this is trying to answer. Restating the the importance doesn't answer the question.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 24, 2017)

That was an interesting video. There's no doubt Ken Burns knows how to put a great story together and I really like the idea of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. Not a new concept by any means, but his application of it was insightful. But, as to the question in the OP, "What makes for a great story?" I don't know. I can tell you some of what I like about stories I consider 'great', but their overall effect is definitely greater than what I can define. There have been a couple of lists of criteria for a great story written in response to your question, but I suspect a skilled writer could violate every bullet-point and still come up with a great story. Likewise, the same skilled writer could adhere to every bullet-point and create a different, yet equally 'great' story. I believe it's not what a story has in it, or what it is about which makes it great. It is about what choices the writer makes with her plot, characters, setting, and all the other thousands of choices made for each story.

Saying a story can't be good if it's about this or that, is like saying a beautiful table can't be made from scrap wood, or a great meal can't be made from lesser cuts of meat. It's simply not true. In the hands of a craftsman, the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. 1 + 1 can equal something other than two. What it takes is skill, and vision. Maybe that's the common ingredient in all 'great' stories -- vision. If you change your perspective, 1 + 1 can be greater than 2.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpTBiUOCguI

Thanks, by the way, Lee for the props for Chase. I think I know the scene you are talking about, and, if I'm right, that scene has its roots in real-life.


----------



## LeeC (Jul 24, 2017)

Thanks Terry. I like the example of 1 + 1 > 2 being a matter of perception. My thought is that a great story is one that has the potential of being greater than the sum of its parts. In the hands of a good writer bringing that potential out subtly, a thoughtful/perceptive reader has a feast, especially in discovering new facets with additional readings. In the hands of a lesser writer a book may be "successful," but it's a here today, gone tomorrow sort of thing. Aldo Leopold comes to mind with his seemingly simplistic, straight forward writing, where perceptive readers have found a wealth of ideas. You won't find "A Sand County Almanac" on best seller lists, but it has persevered over the years and is still in print over sixty-seven years latter. My idea of a proficient writer is one that presents a great story in a manner that is reread with new perception, and recognized by future perceptive readers as such. 

I included your book as an example to show that my thoughts weren't limited to non-fiction, or even eco-lit. Oh, and great stories have at least an element of real-life ;-) which helps the perceptive reader see more than the sum of the parts of a story.

I started this thread because of what seems to me the increasing dearth of great stories by proficient writers over the last fifty or so years. As we pack more and more into the sardine can, and leave it to visual media to rear them, reading interesting stories to broaden one's perspective seems less appealing. On social media many are communicating primarily with symbols. At this rate it won't be many generations before we're back to symbols on cave walls ;-) [I've even seen a meme to that effect.] So much for all the writing dogma and bulleted lists employed for the less imaginative/fast track crowd/whatever.

Granted, I'm but an old man lamenting what I see as wasted potential. The future is to the young, and I hope for their sake they develop beyond what we have.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 24, 2017)

Terry D said:


> Saying a story can't be good if it's about this or that, is like saying a beautiful table can't be made from scrap wood, or a great meal can't be made from lesser cuts of meat. It's simply not true.



I don't think anyone has said that. Not on this thread, at any rate. 

Working with your scrap wood table example, however, sometimes the wood is too badly damaged for even a superbly skilled craftsman to make a nice table out of it. He might be able to make something else, something smaller, out of it, but not a table. A really skilled craftsman knows when something is wrong for the job. 



Terry D said:


> In the hands of a craftsman, the whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. 1 + 1 can equal something other than two. What it takes is skill, and vision. Maybe that's the common ingredient in all 'great' stories -- vision. If you change your perspective, 1 + 1 can be greater than 2.



The overlooked piece is the craftsman or vision. So 1+1+1(the craftsman or vision) = 3. So by your own words you proved my point -- that there's something else there that most folks aren't counting. 



Terry D said:


> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpTBiUOCguI



This is just plain wrong.

As soon as he disconnected the points, he no longer had two triangles! What he had was six lines. And he used those six lines to create one pyramid.

He could have kept the thing 2D and created one rectangle. It proves nothing relevant to this discussion.


----------



## ppsage (Jul 24, 2017)

Ken Burns is one of the prime credential creators for the comforting modern impression that fleeting cinematic experience qualifies as understanding. I always think of him as the Oprah Winfrey or Martha Stewart of historical legendry, and, knowing him to be one of the founding fathers of fake news, I just can't listen to him. Still, I don't disagree that, as considerations in the manufacture of fiction, some elements of the Ken Burns methodology could be potentially instructive.


----------



## LeeC (Jul 24, 2017)

My whole point passage was highlighting what I see as narrowing perceptiveness, and Ken's video addressed my thoughts reasonably. I can't speak to his accomplishments as I haven't actually watched any of his documentaries in full. What I do know is that you've pointed me at some exceptional books that I enjoyed reading, thank you. For example, Miguel Street in its light, simplistic style was a joy to read. Then after learning more about the history of its setting, provided additional insight in rereading. It was also instructive to my writing as I believe you intended.


----------



## The Fantastical (Jul 25, 2017)

LeeC said:


> Writers focusing on such as flawed characters, compelling villains, and complications too often do so at the expense of the story. This may work well for the large audience of surface readers but falls short of the mark for thoughtful readers.



Hear hear! I can't agree more. I have noted more than once that novels like GoT or Malazan lack in any sort of substance. It is smoke and mirrors and surface confusion to fool a reader into thinking that there is actually a complex plot going on underneath. I get into trouble for saying it but that is somewhat beyond the point. 

The point I think is that the books that I read again and again, the books that stay with me, are the ones that have more to them. They leave me thinking and leave a mark in how I see the world or think about something. 

Take Spiderworld as an example. It is a funny, odd post apocalyptic sci-fi novel yet dam it left you thinking. It left you thinking about humanity, knowledge, the important of the world around you and life. 

Or Callanish, what that book has to say about freedom is just wow! It has to a must read in every childs life. 

Or even David Edding novels. They too are maybe not on the surface the most complex and are certainly not everyone's cuppa-tea but below his series have something to say and if you can see that then they take on a life of their own. 

Tolkien! Man, that man put a lot of stuff into what is basically a classic Bildungsroman.

However, I sadly note that this style of writing is fading, being replaced for the moment at least with vapid YA nonsense that is being read mostly by adults of all things. This is killing the market for books that challenge us as readers. They challenge our imaginations our ideas, our ways. Why is it that people want what is easy all the time? I think that it is just sad that no-longer can I find great Fantasy or Sci-fi that challenges me in think about what it might be saying. 

Rather it is all ugh! Just as well that there are many centuries before this one where people knew how to write.


----------



## LeeC (Jul 25, 2017)

Thank you Fantastical  You help keep alive that ember of hope that humankind may yet find a more objective path. How many people, especially young people, today that have read the very popular The Lord of the Rings actually perceive subtle parallels with our history. My seven year old grandson is working his way through it (has already read The Hobbit) and commented on the contrast between natural terrain and scarred terrain depicted therein. When my daughter replied that he might think of it terms of industrialization versus natural settings, his eyes lit up with new understanding. Granted, they live in the upper Maine woods, and my daughter is a HS communications teacher. [Most of the seniors in her class choose environmental themes for their required senior project.] Still though, I get the distinct impression that such is the exception in many places. 

Like the books you refer to, what is happening to perceptive reading being a market factor? Might it be in part that the readers aren't challenged with great stories (1+1 > 2), and even many times if an author happens on such a story they don't recognize it, or have the developed skills to bring it out. And yes, I too think there is a "lazy" aspect at play.

I've said more than enough. Thank you again for grasping the idea put forth.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 25, 2017)

In my experience, most young people nowadays are acutely aware of environmental issues and have much concern for the Earth.

Also, The Hobbit opens with an info dump! Pure and simple. Are there parallels to the real world? Perhaps. But that doesn't necessarily make the book well written.

'Nough said.


----------



## The Fantastical (Jul 25, 2017)

LeeC said:


> Thank you Fantastical  You help keep alive that ember of hope that humankind may yet find a more objective path. How many people, especially young people, today that have read the very popular The Lord of the Rings actually perceive subtle parallels with our history. My seven year old grandson is working his way through it (has already read The Hobbit) and commented on the contrast between natural terrain and scarred terrain depicted therein. When my daughter replied that he might think of it terms of industrialization versus natural settings, his eyes lit up with new understanding. Granted, they live in the upper Maine woods, and my daughter is a HS communications teacher. [Most of the seniors in her class choose environmental themes for their required senior project.] Still though, I get the distinct impression that such is the exception in many places.
> 
> Like the books you refer to, what is happening to perceptive reading being a market factor? Might it be in part that the readers aren't challenged with great stories (1+1 > 2), and even many times if an author happens on such a story they don't recognize it, or have the developed skills to bring it out. And yes, I too think there is a "lazy" aspect at play.
> 
> I've said more than enough. Thank you again for grasping the idea put forth.



Seems as this is the my main pet peeve about modern fiction I would have to be REALLY not on this planet not to get you! lol I honestly just hope that people remember that novels are there to explore the world we live in. Yes escapism is fine but they CAN do both. Take the Discworld series, those of pure escapisms yet they are also a commentary on modern life, ideas and cultures. They are all and so are what you need when you need it. Some days that are just fun, others they are thought provoking and so they are timeless. 




Jack of all trades said:


> In my experience, most young people nowadays are acutely aware of environmental issues and have much concern for the Earth.
> 
> Also, The Hobbit opens with an info dump! Pure and simple. Are there parallels to the real world? Perhaps. But that doesn't necessarily make the book well written.
> 
> 'Nough said.



Then don't read any of the classics. The Hobbit is a product of the era that it was written in and how they wrote books. There are hundreds of classics that open with long intros that set up a character or setting, it wasn't like today when people have pea sized attention spans.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 25, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> I don't think anyone has said that. Not on this thread, at any rate.



It was very clearly stated earlier that a great story can't be written about vampires, or other supernatural things. That is incorrect. A great story can be written about anything.



> Working with your scrap wood table example, however, sometimes the wood is too badly damaged for even a superbly skilled craftsman to make a nice table out of it. He might be able to make something else, something smaller, out of it, but not a table. A really skilled craftsman knows when something is wrong for the job.



I'm not going to get into an argument about metaphors with you, but very large, very elegant tables are made from reclaimed (scrap) wood all the time.



> The overlooked piece is the craftsman or vision. So 1+1+1(the craftsman or vision) = 3. So by your own words you proved my point -- that there's something else there that most folks aren't counting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This thread isn't about quibbling about math, so I'm not going to derail it by going into the very real math which shows 1 + 1 does not always equal 2. What it is about, and what Burns' video talks about, is that a great story offers a different perspective on its subject and its characters. The video I posted simply illustrates that if you change your perspective, you can dramatically change the way people see your basic raw materials. In that way it is perfectly relevant -- nit picking aside.


----------



## bdcharles (Jul 25, 2017)

LeeC said:


> Most of the books authors send me to read and review fail to hold my interest. Of course a good writer with a great story likely wouldn't bother contacting me ;-)
> 
> In any case, I finally found a simple explanation of what I consider great stories. That is stories where 1 + 1 = 3, as Ken Burns puts it in this five minute video:
> https://youtu.be/H37yNkrw3_4
> ...



Indeed. You could think of it is the sum of a writer's vision, their skill, and the interplay between the two. And that third thing cannot exist without the other two. If inclined, you could argue that 1 + 1 must equal 4 to hold your interest. The author's vision, their pencraft, the relationship between those two things, and the relevance to my life brought forth by the components working together. And again, those things depend on other things to exist. I as a reader must exist and have picked up the book; ergo 1+1=5. And then why not add in all my life experiences and all the hooks placed in the text by the writer to snare them, hence 1+1 >= 1234567890, recurring irrationally ever thereafter. Then you see it becomes less like a mathematical equation and more like a dance, or a storm, or a system with a life all its own.

My personal view is that mathematics is insufficient to express artistic greatness, certainly if it is limited to 1+1=x. Chaos theory might come close. Controlled, targeted, _sentient _chaos brapped forth by a visionary creator right into my face.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 25, 2017)

In general people's reading tastes are no less discerning now than they ever have been. _The Hobbit_ and _LotR_ were published in the heyday of pulp fiction when just as many people were reading Nancy Drew and Doc Savage as _The Fellowship of the Ring_. It's just easier to remember those books which rose above the dross. Those same books exist today; books which are deeper than pure entertainment (although, by Tolkien's own admission, his novels were not 'message' books, but were intended for the entertainment of children), and I believe they are written in about the same numbers. We just have the advantage of looking back and choosing which books to remember from the 'good old days'. Today's books destined to be remembered as classics, are too contemporary for us to recognize now in many cases. They haven't had time yet to mellow and age.

Maya Angelou is writing classics. So is Cormac McCarthy and Stephen King and Daniel Woodrell and Fredric Tuten and the list goes on and on. The best seller list is not the place to look for the best fiction most of the time. It never has been (_The Hobbit _didn't break the top 10 of 1937), so don't judge today's readers by what makes it to the top of some sales list. There's plenty of great stories being written and read today.


----------



## LeeC (Jul 25, 2017)

Terry D said:


> In general people's reading tastes are no less discerning now than they ever have been.


Now that's an interesting point that becomes apparent to the perceptive mind  It brought to mind the old dime store westerns we used in the outhouse on the reservation  Maybe what I'm lamenting is our species seeming inability to get beyond our Achilles Heal subjective perception. Each new generation starts from scratch, and no matter how much they try to differentiate themselves are heavily influenced by preceding generations. There are other factors of course, but I've got to get back to my illustrating.

All this came to mind the other day when once again I was twiddling my thumbs waiting in the doctors office, without a book on my iPad I was interested in reading ;-)

Thank you


----------



## bazz cargo (Jul 26, 2017)

I like the Starwars theory. You don't have to be good, just first. No matter how great the next guy is he will always be overshadowed.


----------



## LeeC (Jul 26, 2017)

bazz cargo said:


> I like the Starwars theory. You don't have to be good, just first. No matter how great the next guy is he will always be overshadowed.


Ummm, I don't know BC (love calling you that). If you've done much searching for something interesting, depicted in a manner that exercises an inquiring mind, you might come across a lot of books that an author wouldn't have to work very hard to do better ;-) On the other hand, there are some authors that set the bar very high. 

There's one book I've had awhile that I haven't got in the mood to start reading, so I don't know how well it's done. It occurs to me that it's something you might enjoy, a slap-stick sort of thing**. If you ever get into it, let me know what you think. The book is Garapaima, A Monster Fish Novel by Mark Spitzer.


** I remember your Moby Duck story


----------



## bazz cargo (Jul 27, 2017)

Ye Gods, Moby Duck... I suspect I am what could be classified as contrary. 

If there is a tide of morbid, harrowing, bleak and depressing conversational stories I am going to go for silly, slapstick comedy. The strange thing I find is how so many people remember my bletherings and put a value on them beyond the waffle they really are. 

I do have an odd moment of good feelings, way back when I was a wet behind the ears twit I wrote a LM flash that got me two PM's from total strangers that complained that I didn't win. I am going to rewrite it and try getting it into a proper publication, just as soon as I can think up a better twist.

My secret identity....http://www.gocomics.com/bc


----------



## haribol (Aug 4, 2017)

I often think there is no single rule for storytelling. All I feel about it a good story must move the reader. Stories are everywhere, happening everyday around us.  There are no shortage of stories and what we lack is a tool presentation. Our language skill is insufficient to this end, maybe we have no enough words and we cannot structure our sentences the way it should be. Events presented in an artistic way, even everyday reality that stupefies can be a good a story if it is presentable, artistic with a little bit flavor of philosophy, though not necessary.


----------



## Tella (Aug 5, 2017)

I can't answer this question, so thought I'd share an anecdote.

In high school we were once arguing what makes a story great. One kid said something that quite annoyed me: "If I enjoy it it's a good book, if I don't it's not." It was so simply subjective and unthoughtful in my mind.

"What about its influence on society? What about the point it makes? Is all there is to a story just fun???"

I personally find a book well-read when I can quote it, think of it with fondness, take something out of it with me for the future, and want to return to it knowing that I missed on great points. 

A good example for the is Lovecraft. The guy wrote head-achingly sometimes. He was rambling, profuse, disjointed, repetitive like this sentences. But still, I went on to read his entire fiction in a month. CUZ IT WAS GOOOOOD. It was interesting, philosophical sometimes, existential, and making you think on your insignificance in the grand scheme of the universe. I NEED MORE LOVECRAFT.

Another example is the Catcher in the Rye. I LOVED this novel so much as a teen. But reading it was PAINFUL. It is boring as a narrative but brilliant as a study.

It makes you wonder.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Aug 7, 2017)

nevermind


----------



## moderan (Aug 7, 2017)

bazz cargo said:


> I like the Starwars theory. You don't have to be good, just first. No matter how great the next guy is he will always be overshadowed.


Star Wars wasn't first though. I could cite precedents and obvious ripoffs, but you've read those. Kirby, Dune, la la la.
Lucas just brought the stuff to a larger audience, with attendant cultural myopia.


----------



## bazz cargo (Aug 7, 2017)

Yo Moddy,
this is a bit tangential. I still like Heinlein, even though his stuff has dated really spectacularly.  In particular his Moon is a Harsh Mistress. I have been putting down a lot of notes and bits of dialogue and stuff in the hope that I will get around to doing an homage. 

Nothing is without some kind of precursor, Star Wars is about as derivative as a movie can get yet that opening scene still takes me back to the cinema and my youth. The dodgy dialogue, wooden acting, ropey special effects and paint by numbers plot still hold my attention. The sound-scape is excellent and the music is superb. It is a better audio experience than visual. And yet it has spawned countless rivals, a lot much better than the original. It is the granddaddy of modern  sci fi, embarrassing, antiquated and ubiquitous. 

Disney couldn't do any worse than Lucas.


----------



## ppsage (Aug 7, 2017)

moderan said:


> Star Wars wasn't first though. I could cite precedents and obvious ripoffs, but you've read those. Kirby, Dune, la la la.
> Lucas just brought the stuff to a larger audience, with attendant cultural myopia.


Pretty sure Bazz meant the first entertainment industry elitist insider to catch the eye of advertising execs with his derivative pablum.


----------



## LeeC (Aug 8, 2017)

ppsage said:


> Pretty sure Bazz meant the first entertainment industry elitist insider to catch the eye of advertising execs with his derivative pablum.


Now that's part of what I'm talking about with 1 + 1 > 2  Just one sentence says a whole paragraph if you read well. We've evolved very complex communications to say much more, yet we commonly use it to distort, distract, and manipulate. And therein is another aspect of reading, recognizing the difference, which involves waking up our minds for critical thinking. 

Nor does an author have to use ten gallon words. An example (again) of such being done well is the suspense thriller "The Water Knife." ** One phrase in a conversation therein notes the party they're referring to is corrupt, but having read that far you can see where we humans always think it's the other guy that's corrupt. There are many better examples in the book (and other books), but that's what comes to mind quickly.



** What I'm reading at the moment, so it comes to mind first.


----------



## Raleigh Daniels Jr (Aug 27, 2017)

If you are emotionally engaged in your story, your prose will show. 
If you love your characters, you talk to them.
If you love the universe you created, you will live in it.


----------

