# Style over Story (1 Viewer)



## Tettsuo (Oct 5, 2020)

I can't think of any books where the style of the book was more important than the story. Maybe it's because tend to read genre fiction instead of literary?

Anyway, when I was in an offline writing group, I noticed that a peculiar trend. The writers tended to favor "fancy" prose, even with the story made little to no sense. So, after they'd lavish the writers with praise, I'd sometimes find myself feeling like an a**hole when I'd address the weak storyline.

My point, is this something that writers prefer discussing when critiquing a piece? Is the style more important than the story contents? In my head, I see the story as FAR more important that a few ill-placed words.


----------



## EternalGreen (Oct 5, 2020)

It all has to work together.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Oct 5, 2020)

Depends on the genre. Also depends on what sort of story it is. Because like you said genre fiction depends less on description. Everyone has a unique style which may lean to more character, plot, or descriptive. I think the person's personality plays a very big part. What has worked for them and what they enjoy. I try to respect the differences in personality in the critique. You have to work with what the person wrote. It may have a unique style in this sense.


----------



## codyrobi613 (Oct 5, 2020)

I think story is far more important. Style should follow and complement story


----------



## Cephus (Oct 5, 2020)

Story is all. There are people out there who write a lot of purple prose, but that will never get them anywhere.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 5, 2020)

Writing style-focused prose is not the same as writing purple prose. Plenty of writers known for their style are not 'purple' at all. 

There's a market for style, however it's tiny compared to the market for story. There's a reason it's called a STORYbook, right? Style tends to be a fixation of writers (who are also readers!) and a small collection of art farts. 

Your average reader only cares about style to the extent it either (1) Adds to the story or (2) Doesn't detract from the story. Style can add to the story, for sure. In fact, most truly great books do have great style as well and the great style elevates a good story to a great one -- this is broadly the case in literary fiction. Otherwise, the option is a workmanlike style that doesn't detract from the story, that 'carries' the prose competently while focusing on what is actually happening on the mental screen -- as in the case of most genre fiction.


----------



## EternalGreen (Oct 5, 2020)

Fitzgerald.


----------



## EternalGreen (Oct 5, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Writing style-focused prose is not the same as writing purple prose. Plenty of writers known for their style are not 'purple' at all.
> 
> There's a market for style, however it's tiny compared to the market for story. There's a reason it's called a STORYbook, right? Style tends to be a fixation of writers (who are also readers!) and a small collection of art farts.
> 
> Your average reader only cares about style to the extent it either (1) Adds to the story or (2) Doesn't detract from the story. Style can add to the story, for sure. In fact, most truly great books do have great style as well and the great style elevates a good story to a great one -- this is broadly the case in literary fiction. Otherwise, the option is a workmanlike style that doesn't detract from the story, that 'carries' the prose competently while focusing on what is actually happening on the mental screen -- as in the case of most genre fiction.



Sometimes I get on board with a genre train. If one day, I think, "fuck yeah, I want to read about cyborgs. That sounds awesome!" I know I'm not also going to get sparkly prose (unfortunately).

If I want the "best" of writing craft, I read classic literary stories, for example, even though I know for a fact the actual plots are going to be uninteresting/pointless (in my opinion) a majority of the time.

Usually, when I'm in the mood for reading for pleasure or improvement as a writer, I go with option B.

I think everyone should aspire to greatness.

I'm seeing a lot of bitterness in this thread, as if it's to be taken for granted that someone among us will never write a "great" story.


----------



## LCLee (Oct 5, 2020)

I try to keep it simple, causing the reviewers to ask for more, but never less. I will stop reading a book if the picture is filled with redundancies like—the heat from the bright white sun…


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 5, 2020)

Tettsuo said:


> I can't think of any books where the style of the book was more important than the story. Maybe it's because tend to read genre fiction instead of literary?
> 
> Anyway, when I was in an offline writing group, I noticed that a peculiar trend. The writers tended to favor "fancy" prose, even with the story made little to no sense. So, after they'd lavish the writers with praise, I'd sometimes find myself feeling like an a**hole when I'd address the weak storyline.
> 
> My point, is this something that writers prefer discussing when critiquing a piece? Is the style more important than the story contents? In my head, I see the story as FAR more important that a few ill-placed words.



I'm pretty sure _Gravity's Rainbow_ fits this category; I could make neither head nor tail of that shit. Other times, I look no further than my own work. Many's the time I've been told my style carries the load where plot fails miserably.


----------



## Turnbull (Oct 5, 2020)

Story is always more important, but so long as the style isn't confusing, it can be fun in fiction.  In nonfiction, I have no tolerance for it.  Unfortunately, the history book I just bought is written by a guy who thinks he's writing a novel, so the style is just the worst.  He keeps using unnecessary words  -- you know, how you have to subtract words sometimes to keep from being too expository -- and he keeps writing the historical figures as though he could read their minds.  It's one thing if a person writes down their feelings in a diary, but if they don't, a nonfiction writer should never write things like "he felt enthusiastic at first, before the facts really settled in."  Uh no.  A fiction writer can write a character's thoughts because they made the character and know what it's thinking.  Real people?  Big nope.


----------



## -xXx- (Oct 5, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> Sometimes I get on board with a genre train. If one day, I think, "fuck yeah, I want to read about cyborgs. That sounds awesome!" I know I'm not also going to get sparkly prose (unfortunately).
> 
> If I want the "best" of writing craft, I read classic literary stories, for example, even though I know for a fact the actual plots are going to be uninteresting/pointless (in my opinion) a majority of the time.
> 
> ...



um.
you rang?

lots of phoaks walked away from House of Leaves.
ergotic literature.
it's a thing.
*be well*


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 6, 2020)

bdcharles said:


> I'm pretty sure _Gravity's Rainbow_ fits this category; I could make neither head nor tail of that shit. Other times, I look no further than my own work. Many's the time I've been told my style carries the load where plot fails miserably.



James Joyce came to mind. Kerouac. 

A lot of absurdist, satirists and other 'quirky' writers often don't have much of a real plot but essentially dig into observational stuff, often humorous, which I suppose counts as style. It certainly often isn't substance, at least not in the sense of a 'novel'. Martin Amis, Will Self, Kurt Vonnegut, some of Tom Wolfe's stuff, Hunter S. Thompson. These are writers who definitely have 'a style' and I would say are arguably _better _known for that than their storytelling. Heck, Hemingway would probably fall into that category too. Fitzgerald might, but I never really considered him as having a particularly unique style so much as a polished one. But, I dunno.

I want to emphasize, I don't think any of these writers are _lacking _in their ability to carry a narrative (other than Amis, but that's personal taste, I just can't stand the man), only that it's mostly the method of delivery that makes them truly memorable.



EternalGreen said:


> Sometimes I get on board with a genre train. If one day, I think, "fuck yeah, I want to read about cyborgs. That sounds awesome!" I know I'm not also going to get sparkly prose (unfortunately).
> 
> If I want the "best" of writing craft, I read classic literary stories, for example, even though I know for a fact the actual plots are going to be uninteresting/pointless (in my opinion) a majority of the time.
> 
> ...



Not sure what you're referring to regarding bitterness, but...

I do think it's a bit of an unfair cliché that literary writing generally is boring or contains pointless plots. I don't think it's true, it's just that the plot is _sometimes _very secondary, and that's okay because character-based novels is a thing. We can obviously debate individual cases, there are some very stodgy lit fic books for sure, but I would disagree that a lot of them are truly boring so much as _challenging. 

_For all the waxing on how entertaining genre fiction is, literary fiction can and often is just as adrenal and often has the benefit of added depth, of a unique 'touch'. _Do you like your boundaries pushed? What are your boundaries? _The answer to that question may determine at least one thing that makes literary fiction interesting. Boundaries tend to get set and re-set in books termed 'literary'. They can in genre, but it's less of a requisite. _Literary books are supposed to land heavy._

In literary fiction, I can read novels about women who watched their husband's throw themselves over Niagara Falls _and have to deal with the emotional consequences of that _('The Falls' by Joyce Carol Oates), incestuous love affairs between brothers and sisters left alone in a house after their mother dies _and having to deal with the emotional consequences of that_ ('The Cement Garden' by Ian McEwan), the emotional torment of pedophiles ('Lolita' by Nabokov), sexual politics in dystopias ('The Handmaid's Tale' by Atwood), 9/11 ('Incredibly Loud...' by Foer) and so on. Does Toni Morrison write dull books? Does Cormac McCarthy? I don't think so. In some ways, their books are no different than genre fiction in terms of dynamism, except that they go an extra measure with regard to style and depth-through-style. It's a sort of layer-of-icing.

I know these are only random examples and not something to judge an entire genre by (as I expressed in a prior thread, we should not generalize based on extremes...) but I can only write so much in a post! The only real point I want to make in defense of literary fiction is there are probably just as many boring literary fiction books as there are genre fiction books. Therefore, I suggest the only real difference is the good literary fiction books may _appear _boring at first by virtue of sometimes being more strenuous, harder work, than genre novels...and that maybe creates the perception you illustrate.


----------



## BornForBurning (Oct 6, 2020)

> Anyway, when I was in an offline writing group, I noticed that a peculiar trend. The writers tended to favor "fancy" prose, even with the story made little to no sense. So, after they'd lavish the writers with praise, I'd sometimes find myself feeling like an a**hole when I'd address the weak storyline.


Man, I'd love to see an example of the pieces you are looking at. I have a fascination with the highly specific tastes generated in walled-garden-type artistic enclaves. 

I've always felt that story is bones. Everything else--style, characters, whatever--that's your muscle, fat, organ systems. The stuff that makes a novel live and breath. But without plot, everything collapses into senseless idiocy.


----------



## Matchu (Oct 6, 2020)

Whatever detractors of 'style' have to say on the matter, I am sure we might all agree, in the defence of style,  at the ghastliness of the 'was honks' down the page, the 'glossy' writing that sets my teeth on edge:

Erica waaz a....and she and a bunch of friends waaz in,  and he waaz, and waaz waaz waaz...on a waaz

...

Right, damage done, I'm off to build barricades.  Cheerio.


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 6, 2020)

Matchu said:


> Whatever detractors of 'style' have to say on the matter, I am sure we might all agree, in the defence of style,  at the ghastliness of the 'was honks' down the page, the 'glossy' writing that sets my teeth on edge:
> 
> Erica waaz a....and she and a bunch of friends waaz in,  and he waaz, and waaz waaz waaz...on a waaz
> 
> ...



I like a good "rise of the hads"; "Bob thumped the button to end the world. That button had been made in a factory, that factory had been built by workers, and those workers had once been zygotes, which is what this story is now clearly about."

Don't get me started on comma-splices though, they're a very personal pet peeve. I scrub them out when I can, they're not proper grammar.


----------



## Matchu (Oct 6, 2020)

Probably I belong on registry for 'comma splice' and the semi-colon crimes.  Certainly the prosecutors read me wrong on the issue being a first nation resident, and all that...with O levels. 

As for 'had,' I am sorry, I simply shall not engage with members of 'had' army.  I despise 'had.'  One 'had' enough for anybody, one shared between the group is better, imopinon.  So disappointed to find 'had' cult on this esteemed forum.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 6, 2020)

EternalGreen said:


> Sometimes I get on board with a genre train. If one day, I think, "fuck yeah, I want to read about cyborgs. That sounds awesome!" I know I'm not also going to get sparkly prose (unfortunately).
> 
> If I want the "best" of writing craft, I read classic literary stories, for example, even though I know for a fact the actual plots are going to be uninteresting/pointless (in my opinion) a majority of the time.
> 
> ...



I'm definitely different from you. I'm much prefer a great story with decent prose than a decent story with great prose. Mastering storytelling is by far my first goal. The overall goal of course is to have both in the great category, but I want to tell a great story more than anything else. Those are the things that inspired me to write in the first place, not how well someone could turn a phrase.


And what's this bitterness you're talking about? I'm seeing a lot of interesting perspectives, not bitterness.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 6, 2020)

Tettsuo said:


> I can't think of any books where the style of the book was more important than the story. Maybe it's because tend to read genre fiction instead of literary?
> 
> Anyway, when I was in an offline writing group, I noticed that a peculiar trend. The writers tended to favor "fancy" prose, even with the story made little to no sense. So, after they'd lavish the writers with praise, I'd sometimes find myself feeling like an a**hole when I'd address the weak storyline.
> 
> My point, is this something that writers prefer discussing when critiquing a piece? Is the style more important than the story contents? In my head, I see the story as FAR more important that a few ill-placed words.



I always considered it my job as a writer to deliver both. Anyone can build a box and put interesting stuff inside, but, when as much work goes into the box as its contents, then you have treasure.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 6, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Writing style-focused prose is not the same as writing purple prose. Plenty of writers known for their style are not 'purple' at all.
> 
> There's a market for style, however it's tiny compared to the market for story. There's a reason it's called a STORYbook, right? Style tends to be a fixation of writers (who are also readers!) and a small collection of art farts.
> 
> Your average reader only cares about style to the extent it either (1) Adds to the story or (2) Doesn't detract from the story. Style can add to the story, for sure. In fact, most truly great books do have great style as well and the great style elevates a good story to a great one -- this is broadly the case in literary fiction. Otherwise, the option is a workmanlike style that doesn't detract from the story, that 'carries' the prose competently while focusing on what is actually happening on the mental screen -- as in the case of most genre fiction.


From what I remember, the guy wrote something thing that he called a story. Contained within was a bunch of extremely long sentences constructed to impress writers and a storyline that no one was able to track. Yet, the other writers were impressed in a way that made little sense to me.

"Oh wow, I had to look that word up!"
"You were able to fit that sentence in there with no problem!"
"You have such an interesting way of describing the world!"

All the while, the story was a gibberish, convoluted mess.

I honestly didn't see anything I could learn from that group. Their focus was on all the wrong things for me.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 6, 2020)

Terry D said:


> I always considered it my job as a writer to deliver both. Anyone can build a box and put interesting stuff inside, but, when as much work goes into the box as its contents, then you have treasure.


I agree. Good style and prose can certainly elevate a story, as bad style and prose can detract from one.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 6, 2020)

It's kind of a weird thing to separate though isn't it because, technically, if the writer writes so that the reader perceives a great story than the prose is 'great' -- insofar as it did it's job.

 If it wasn't 'great' then, presumably, it would have negatively impacted the story?

But 'great' is relative here. Is Dan Brown's style 'great' in the Da Vinci Code? Not if you compare a page of it in isolation to, say, Fitzgerald. Not if we nitpick each clumsy line...no, it's not 'great' prose in that respect. But it's obviously _good enough_ to tell _his _​story effectively and sell millions. So, I guess, who cares?


----------



## EternalGreen (Oct 6, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> James Joyce came to mind. Kerouac.
> 
> A lot of absurdist, satirists and other 'quirky' writers often don't have much of a real plot but essentially dig into observational stuff, often humorous, which I suppose counts as style. It certainly often isn't substance, at least not in the sense of a 'novel'. Martin Amis, Will Self, Kurt Vonnegut, some of Tom Wolfe's stuff, Hunter S. Thompson. These are writers who definitely have 'a style' and I would say are arguably _better _known for that than their storytelling. Heck, Hemingway would probably fall into that category too. Fitzgerald might, but I never really considered him as having a particularly unique style so much as a polished one. But, I dunno.
> 
> ...



Look, that's really great, Luckyscars. But I really should be writing, not talking about other people writing. It was my mistake to open such a can of worms about literary fiction. Sorry.


----------



## TheManx (Oct 6, 2020)

Well, for my reading, it's mostly about degrees of both -- the needle moving in either direction within some acceptable range. But when I pick up a book and the writing isn't up to my personal standard -- if it's mostly devoid of any style that interests me -- I probably won't bother reading enough of it to evaluate the story. Too many books out there that will satisfy my need for both. I suppose I try to write for people who have similar standards...


----------



## Matchu (Oct 6, 2020)

If it is not some arid historical text, or Orwell...I do like to feel embraced, possibly bathed, in the arms of a master scribe. 

 I'm here comparing 'Love In The Time of Cholera' which I stole from the in-laws, very very nourishing ...to some Mars trilogy I purchased from Amazon...which is crap I gave it to my wife, proper captain Spock shit, worse than 'Moon Cruel Mistress.'

My preference is for comedy, or the random and powerful brain pulsating on the page.  Nothing worse than a well-crafted book for merchandising porpoises, and also possibly written by a Tolkien type person/ heavy metal music, ghastly.


----------



## BornForBurning (Oct 6, 2020)

I am liking the defense of literary fiction I am seeing here, if only because it underscores the critical importance of well-fleshed, fully-realized characters. I do not see any reason why speculative fiction (which in my opinion, is probably the most immediately transcendental of the two) cannot possess such characteristics. However, the cold hard reality is that it often doesn't. The genre-elements end up becoming a kind of cancerous growth on the text, apparently preventing any real humanity from entering the story. I've picked up quite a few random paperbacks at this point; very few of them end up being any good (despite the fact that they allegedly sold well upon release.) The reason is obvious: the characters are flat. Cardboard. I sit there groaning because it feels humanity itself is being mocked by such dry caricature. _Battlefield Earth_, I'm specifically looking at you. 

I respect authors who are so desperately in love with genre-elements that they see no reason to consider anything _but _genre when writing; however, in the hands of a novice it often ends in some incredibly lame prose. Genre is best when paired with truly powerful prose and characterization, prose being the lens through which the reader views the element.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 8, 2020)

I'm of the opinion that no good books get written when a writer sits down and consciously decides 'this is just genre fiction'. 

Obviously, genres exist and genre factors in with subject matter, but it seems to me all good books should contain an aspiration to be 'literary fiction', in the sense that the things that literary fiction is defined by are, for the most part, simply the hallmarks of good writing anyway.

Something as basic as '_character before plot_' is part of what makes literary fiction literary fiction...but also, think about it this way: If you go into a project with the _aspiration _to write 'character before plot' then chances are you will end up with better characters than if you go in with the idea that 'characters don't matter as much as plot'. While, funnily enough, your plot will likely end up just as good, if not better, than if you consciously decide to put 'plot before character'.

This is because thinking about plot isn't terribly important, at the end of the day. Yeah, a plot needs to make sense and carry interest, but so long as you have fleshed-out, interesting characters, 99% of the time a pretty good plot will come about organically, simply by virtue of having those characters _move. _By 'knowing' them.

This should not be confused with an argument that literary fiction is better -- for the zillionth time, it isn't -- nor an argument that everybody should write literary fiction -- that's crazy. It is simply an acknowledgement that what literary fiction tends to prioritize, tends to _value,_ tends to be good stuff to focus on in genre fiction as well. 

The best horror, science fiction, etc. books tend to be those that incorporate at least some literary fiction approaches, if not a recognizably 'literary' style.


----------



## Tettsuo (Oct 8, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> If you go into a project with the _aspiration _to write 'character before plot' then chances are you will end up with better characters than if you go in with the idea that 'characters don't matter as much as plot'. While, funnily enough, your plot will likely end up just as good, if not better, than if you consciously decide to put 'plot before character'.
> 
> This is because thinking about plot isn't terribly important, at the end of the day. Yeah, a plot needs to make sense and carry interest, but so long as you have fleshed-out, interesting characters, 99% of the time a pretty good plot will come about organically, simply by virtue of having those characters _move. _By 'knowing' them.



How curious.

I've never focused on characters until I've gotten down the plot, theme and end goal. Once those things are nailed down, the characters are then motivated to move towards the pre-established goal. The character's "experiences" are generated with the idea that they will most assuredly choose to take all the turns necessary to fulfill the plan. Even if the story takes a turn, I know what will force the character to move towards the end.

So yeah, plot before character for me, and I still end up with great characters (as per the reviews I've received).

So many different viewpoints on how to get from point a to b. Writers are indeed a curious bunch.


----------



## TheManx (Oct 9, 2020)

RoI've never really separated character and story. One comes into my head directly on the heels of the other -- and they mostly evolve at the same time...


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 9, 2020)

TheManx said:


> I've never really separated character and story. One comes into my head directly on the heals of the other -- and they mostly evolve at the same time...



Mmm, yeah I think we got a bit sidetracked from the intention of the OP. 'Story' isn't really the right word for a question of either/or. 'Plot' is. Character and plot are different but the story is *everything* working cumulatively. Really this a question of style over substance with 'substance' being what is said and 'style' being the way it is said. 

There are overlaps that make it a bit more complicated, though. For instance 'Romeo & Juliet' is similar to plot and character to 'West Side Story' but the _style_ of how each is written is so radically different that they feel like different _characters_, and therefore different _stories, _despite having (with a couple of differences) the same general _plot.

_People tend to use 'plot' and 'story' interchangeably a lot in conversation, which makes some sense, but I think in a writing discussion it's important to separate the two as they are vastly different. Story matters a ton always, plot can be far less important (hence mentioning literary fiction). 

Usually good characters make good plot simply through an organic process, but not always. I have read The Great Gatsby several times and would still have difficulty describing the plot in exact detail because it's not all that important nor, frankly, that good. American Psycho is another example.


----------



## luckyscars (Oct 9, 2020)

I like to think of the 'story' being the Planet Earth.

 "Plot" is the land, based on the highly apparent peaks, the place where things of interest appear to _happen._ "Characters" are the ocean; harboring far more of the story's mystery, affecting far more of its physical mannerisms, but far more complicated to define. 

Style could be the shape of the waves as they collide with the beach.


----------



## Demiel (Oct 10, 2020)

I am currently reading A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man by James Joyce, and there is often little going on from scene to scene. I believe it's easy to captivate audiences with action, but it shows the mark of a more experienced author when he can captivate with style alone.
Personally, I could read a book on the most mundane of subjects if it was well written, just as I refuse to read a book on the most interesting plot if it's written poorly.


----------



## Golden_Age (Oct 14, 2020)

I think a heightened style can work but only if the story is the driving force.


----------



## Bloggsworth (Oct 17, 2020)

Good story-telling has its own style - Robert B Parker, Dick Francis and Agatha Christie.


----------



## matthew1959 (Oct 21, 2020)

I'm a bit of an odd duck, but this argument is also going on among the Evangelical/fundamental Christians regarding Bible translations.  There is a group that insist the 1611 King James Version is the very inspired Word of God to the English speaking world, (they ignore that the KJV they use is actually the 1769 revision.)  On the other side of the issue are those you prefer more recent translations such as the English Standard Version.  At the end of the day, it's a style versus readability argument.  The prose of the King James is beautiful and I love not just what it says, but how it says it.  On the other hand you have to sometimes double translate a passage to make it clear.  What I mean is that you talk about what the original language says, but then have to explain the Old English.  So why not just use the modern translation that is just as accurate?

It seems to me story is just that, the story.  Style is the emotion of the story, so I'm not sure how you could put style first.  I guess I approach it like preaching, I get my facts and message then add the rhetoric to add impact.  Unless you are like some preachers who make notes to themselves, "Weak point, yell loud."


----------



## Mutimir (Oct 22, 2020)

Tettsuo said:


> I can't think of any books where the style of the book was more important than the story. Maybe it's because tend to read genre fiction instead of literary?
> 
> Anyway, when I was in an offline writing group, I noticed that a peculiar trend. The writers tended to favor "fancy" prose, even with the story made little to no sense. So, after they'd lavish the writers with praise, I'd sometimes find myself feeling like an a**hole when I'd address the weak storyline.
> 
> My point, is this something that writers prefer discussing when critiquing a piece? Is the style more important than the story contents? In my head, I see the story as FAR more important that a few ill-placed words.



This is an excellent topic. I am like you, I always go for substance over style. When it comes to my writing I'm always thinking about the story and less about the style of the prose. Not that I don't care about the prose because I do want it to be readable. I strive for saying more with less but balancing it with not being boring. It's all a balance.


----------



## WailingDusk (Nov 15, 2020)

There are readers that prefer to read poetic prose. I'm not one of them. I don't like purply writing and over-use of metaphors and similes. Nothing will get me to DNF a book faster than several 50 word sentences in a single paragraph, I don't care how good the story is. Every reader is different though, but I think if it's a novel, it needs to have a memorable story, otherwise, why read it?


----------



## alpacinoutd (Nov 17, 2020)

I think it's a delicate balancing act. Even the best story needs to be spiced up by beautiful language I guess. That is my opinion.


----------



## Ibb (Nov 17, 2020)

I'm 100% style all the time and have been known to jump storytellers in alleyways and bludgeon them to death with copies of Moby-Dick, Ulysses, and the original unedited first draft of Leaves of Grass. Engage me if thee doth desire, plebeian knave.


----------



## LCLee (Nov 17, 2020)

I write description similar to what I like to read. I pare it down to a minimum because I’m not five years old. If you have an old woman sitting in the corner I know she’s graying and wrinkled. Now if she was two hundred years old and skin like a child, I would want to know.
I’ve read some books where the first chapter was a laundry list without an event or a character. Recently I looked in to a book that had 13000 great reviews on Amazon.  I didn’t get it. Without the style, it was a zero out of four. I’m defiantly missing something. When I look at a best seller I just shake my head. Not to all of them, but most.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Nov 18, 2020)

I also write description similar to what I like to read, which is quite a bit more detailed than your average modern novel. I actually pare it down from what I would like, because I recognize I'm a bit of an outlier in this equation. I love stupidly detailed descriptions, like Exodus-26-level stuff. So I write slightly less detailed than what I would enjoy, because what I would enjoy is a bit much, objectively.


----------



## bazz cargo (Nov 18, 2020)

Character. Always character. Sometimes a character has a particular style. Sometimes the narrator can be part of the story and have a style. 
Sometimes a genre has a particular style. 

I miss Terry Pratchett.
Good luck
BC


Tettsuo said:


> I can't think of any books where the style of the book was more important than the story. Maybe it's because tend to read genre fiction instead of literary?
> 
> Anyway, when I was in an offline writing group, I noticed that a peculiar trend. The writers tended to favor "fancy" prose, even with the story made little to no sense. So, after they'd lavish the writers with praise, I'd sometimes find myself feeling like an a**hole when I'd address the weak storyline.
> 
> My point, is this something that writers prefer discussing when critiquing a piece? Is the style more important than the story contents? In my head, I see the story as FAR more important that a few ill-placed words.


----------



## apocalypsegal (Nov 19, 2020)

> genre fiction depends less on description



I don't think this is true. Genre fiction is full of description. Some genres more than others. I mean, have you read space opera with battle scenes? Full of description.

The thing about going for style over story is that you can lose some readers while gaining others. If that's okay with the writer, if they see their vision with a certain style of writing, then that's fine. We should always tell the story the way that's best for the story.

A good piece of advice I've seen is for the writer to get out of the way of the story. Don't complicate it with fancy words, or a forced style of writing. Most people read about a seventh grade level, so all that fancy stuff makes it hard for them to enjoy the story.


----------



## Twisted Head (Nov 19, 2020)

It's your story and your style.
Write the story and let all the MFA people argue about your prose while you're cranking out stories.

~T.H.


----------



## Zlodesk (Nov 20, 2020)

I think style and story each have their place and should certainly work together, although admittedly, sometimes i feel that a simple story can be made something rather impressive in certain context by style. Mystery and horror for example. I'm not saying that the story is by any means unimportant, but something mundane can be made beautiful and complex if done with the right style.
Don't get my wrong, nonsensical and nonexistent stories would have to do some truly miraculous work to make them worthwhile for me, but I do understand how it can take precedence for some.


----------



## VRanger (Nov 25, 2020)

apocalypsegal said:


> Most people read about a seventh grade level, so all that fancy stuff makes it hard for them to enjoy the story.



Sort of reminds me of Blazing Saddles:

"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the New West. You know...morons." ;-)


----------



## indianroads (Nov 25, 2020)

apocalypsegal said:


> I don't think this is true. Genre fiction is full of description. Some genres more than others. I mean, have you read space opera with battle scenes? Full of description.
> 
> The thing about going for style over story is that you can lose some readers while gaining others. If that's okay with the writer, if they see their vision with a certain style of writing, then that's fine. We should always tell the story the way that's best for the story.
> 
> A good piece of advice I've seen is for the writer to get out of the way of the story. Don't complicate it with fancy words, or a forced style of writing. *Most people read about a seventh grade level, so all that fancy stuff makes it hard for them to enjoy the story.*



I was told the same thing by a college professor, but my take on this notion is that television has made people lazy. Don't get me wrong, I watch TV too, but I also read at least 2 hours a day (and write for about 7 hours). It may be surprising to some here (as it is to me) that a lot of people just don't read books. This concept is shocking to me... it's like saying they don't eat or drink or breathe, but there it is. Without reading, vocabulary plummets.


----------



## Matchu (Nov 25, 2020)

That’s a great point about ‘7th grade’. I can’t remember school grades of America, but I’m thinking that’s about nine?

Writing at that level is a different [same] craft.  Whereas reading a clunky 1000 words of prose, lacking imagination, lacking vigour, written by a thirty-nine year old with the vocabulary of a nine year old is quite difficult.  That’s why creative writing teachers get paid.

Saying that - prose of a highly educated individual can be awful.  The great leveller.

Even those short stories from acclaimed celeb authors in the New Yorker & such can set teeth on edge.  There really is no solution.


----------



## VRanger (Nov 25, 2020)

indianroads said:


> Without reading, vocabulary plummets.



A deeper subject than this simple sentence indicates. I've read adult level books since I was in grade school, as has my wife. She's degreed in English and holds a Masters. Want vocabulary? We gots vocabulary.  

There are numerous words I've read over the decades that no one uses in conversation, and the same for her. I use those words when I write. Over the last year we've begun a new habit. I read a chapter or the latest scene to her aloud. And from time to time I come across one of those words I've never heard spoken--and as it turns out--neither has she. We're both quite familiar with the word, know what it means, but only from a page through our eyes. When it happens, I occasionally have to pause a moment when I realize I've never voiced that word and I have to work out how to say it. LOL I've only ever pronounced it in my head as I read. We'll discuss it and agree neither of us has ever heard the word spoken.

Take "genre". It's not really in that category anymore, but it was a popular written word before it gained a life in conversation. I believe I've heard Alex Trebek pronounce it no fewer than five different ways when it first started to come up in Jeopardy clues. He finally settled on one and stuck to it. I was an early vocal adopter and had my own struggles with it. The dictionary gives "ZHänrə", but most often, I hear "jon-RAH". I don't think I've ever heard it pronounced with the ZH. I think it likely the word itself is simply a cruel joke. Long dead, the progenitors of the word are *still *laughing at us.


----------



## Matchu (Nov 26, 2020)

I adapt French dialect of my wife's Norman ancestors - '_Jean,' _I say, with the growl in second syllable, my _re,_ like a woof.  Think _croissant_ for adults, and cigarettes.

...

that's probably 8th grade, disqualification.


----------



## Newman (Nov 26, 2020)

Tettsuo said:


> I can't think of any books where the style of the book was more important than the story. Maybe it's because tend to read genre fiction instead of literary?
> 
> Anyway, when I was in an offline writing group, I noticed that a peculiar trend. The writers tended to favor "fancy" prose, even with the story made little to no sense. So, after they'd lavish the writers with praise, I'd sometimes find myself feeling like an a**hole when I'd address the weak storyline.
> 
> My point, is this something that writers prefer discussing when critiquing a piece? Is the style more important than the story contents? In my head, I see the story as FAR more important that a few ill-placed words.




Story trumps style, but ideally both.


----------



## indianroads (Nov 26, 2020)

Flowery words are like incense. Lovely to smell when not in abundance. But would you willingly shove a lit stick of incense up your nose?


----------



## BornForBurning (Nov 27, 2020)

> But would you willingly shove a lit stick of incense up your nose?


That's the thing. That's where we disagree on this. 
If I was in a certain mood, yes.


----------



## VRanger (Nov 27, 2020)

Matchu said:


> That’s a great point about ‘7th grade’. I can’t remember school grades of America, but I’m thinking that’s about nine?



For the average achieving student in the US, 7th grade would be 12 years of age.


----------



## Matchu (Nov 27, 2020)

indianroads said:


> Flowery words are like incense. Lovely to smell when not in abundance. But would you willingly shove a lit stick of incense up your nose?



Would you poke old chewing gum into your eyes?


...

...

[question not request]


----------



## indianroads (Nov 27, 2020)

Matchu said:


> Would you poke old chewing gum into your eyes?



My point of course was, as Hesiod wrote, ‘observe due measure; moderation is best in all things’.


----------



## Matchu (Nov 27, 2020)

Thank you.  I was duly on point, referring to 'story' as you were to 'style.' All best

...

(took out a couple of words for ‘style’ - reads a little more curt/tightass)


----------

