| Author | Message | ||
     Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
A weak storyline when the writing is very good? or Bad writing when the storyline is very good? Discuss I know that one of those I can't forgive. | ||
| Alansjf (Alansjf) Username: Alansjf Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 94.194.134.45 |
Easier to forgive? A weak storyline, but very good writing. Bad writing is a turn off no matter what the storyline may have to offer, though if the writing is that bad I've usually stopped reading long before I find out where the story might be heading. | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.32.69.29 |
Damn, I'm never the first one in! Now you'll all think I just blindly agree with people here. But hey, I'd have answered the same way even if no one else had posted, so... Yeah. Wot Alansjf said. I've enjoyed plenty of "style over substance" because of the quality of writing. But I can't lose myself in a story if I can't first lose myself in the words. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
I'm with Alan on this. Though there isn't an easy consensus on what constitutes either good prose or a good story. One reader's 'great plot' is another's tiresome, contrived mechanism. One reader's richly textured, well-rounded prose is another's archaic, turgid insomnia cure. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Niki's posting crossed with mine. I agree with her too. All this agreement is dull. Bring on an idiot who takes the opposing view! | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
On the subject of style, as a teenager I used to think the acme of great writing was the florid, verbose 'prose poetry' of Lovecraft, Hodgson, Clark Ashton Smith and the like. Now I can only read stuff like that because the ideas and themes fascinate me. But I don't think it's 'bad' writing as such, just writing that follows ill-judged stylistic criteria. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I'm with everyone else who's answered so far, but I'm not really clear what constitutes a weak storyline in terms of this discussion. I mean, there's not much plot in Ulysses, but it's a hugely entertaining book. And as for Beckett's novels... | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
The combination of lousy writing and a lousy storyline is like being force-fed rat droppings. But that's the golden formula that makes corporate publishers drool with excitement. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Ramsey, yes: I'm very sceptical of the concept of 'plot' – tend to feel that it's a way of valorising mediocre work and making Graham Masterton appear superior to Thomas Ligotti. I prefer to think in terms of content and theme. There has to be interest in the content of a story, even if that content is largely static or cerebral. Several books and films that have been described to me as having 'great plots' have actually struck me as painfully tedious, because none of the frantic 'action' means anything. There is no theme (apart from something like 'Vampires can live on frozen blood'). In a great work of fiction, very little may be happening but you remember every detail and what it meant. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
I agree with Joel. What is this thing called plot, anyway? I've always said, regarding films, that I'd rather watch two people talking in a room than a Hollywood plot-heavy movie, if it's carried off with care and integrity and holds my interest. You can have a great book with no plot, but you can't have a great book without great writing. >>I know that one of those I can't forgive.<< Which one, Weber? | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
Furthermore, I can't read a book that consists only of plot. I need theme and subtext, or else the book goes in the bin. | ||
| Gary Fry (Gary_fry) Username: Gary_fry Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 82.20.31.211 |
I like the way that Joseph Conrad deliberately gives away plot-points to prevent readers reading for that, to force us to address everything else he's saying. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
Bring on an idiot who takes the opposing view! I'm not a big fan of style over substance I must say. In fact there have been a few times where such works have met with either the wall or the flames at Probert Towers with a bellow of 'What the hell was that supposed to be about?' I can't lose myself in words as the part of my brain that DEMANDS a point to what I'm doing keeps nagging away at me until it reaches the point where it engages my arm to throw the thing away. Bad writing and a good plot (or even a stupid plot) however, is a different beast altogether, especially when done with verve and enthusiasm. There's a simple joy to be had from books like ludicrous sex-filled mutant giant mantis romp 'Eat Them Alive!' And unfortunately I do sometimes find myself tending towards such items on the bookshelf rather than stories in which People Wander About a Bit and Maybe See a Ghost. Have I enjoyed more books by Graham Masterton or Thomas Ligotti? I'd better not answer that as it will only get me into more trouble. Which is easier to forgive? Probably both more than me whom some of you will probably never talk to again after reading this. | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.143.178.131 |
The idea of being pilloried for your taste makes me slightly uncomfortable I must say. But there are many interesting points here. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
I will forgive weak storyline over weak writing every time. When a book is translated I'm more willing to forgive on the writing front normally because you don't know who's responsible, the writer or translator. There are a few cases of no story and "quality" writing where I couldn't forgive. If I name one of those books ceratin people here will never forgive me. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Fair points, John. I distinguish between pulp fiction that's satisfying as a reading experience without being outstanding in literary terms, and pulp fiction that is actively bad. I can't read the latter. It puts me in a seriously grumpy mood, and there is no possibility of enjoyment. Most of the commercial horror fiction of the 70s and 80s left me as cold as something buried for millennia under Kadath in the Cold Waste. But I have a shelf of 'emergency hokum' I return to in times of stress or illness that is pure fun. Anthony Boucher's 'The Compleat Werewolf' leaps to mind. Or Howard's Solomon Kane stories. Or Derleth's 'Mrs Manifold'. Not demanding and not great literature, but not by any means bad writing either. | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Weber, KERATIN PEOPLE could be a great title for a novel. | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.143.178.131 |
I think, overall, that if a story has weak writing then I'm not massively likely to stick around to find out if the plot is shit or not. But there is quite a lot of stuff in genre that is willfully obscure and often impenetrable. Good style AND story is the ideal. Fritz Leiber and Ray Bradbury spring to mind. Stuff that I find incomprehensible in genre usually resides in the more obscure corners. Stuff by Hertzan Chimera always leaves me cold for example. There were a bunch of small press magazines that published a lot of fiction along this line and while experimentation is fine, it doesn't necessarily make for a good read. One writer I love, but who often goes over my head is M.John Harrison. A profoundly good way with prose but after the third Viriconium novel they completely lost me. They went from being weird fantasy to just weird. When he's on the money though, he's astonishing. Both 'The Ice Monkey' and Course of The Heart are stunning. One writer who I think is way more style over substance is Steve Ayelett, whose work I just can't fathom. Willfully obscure can just come across as being a bit of an arse sometimes. Mind you, this is all a matter of taste of course. Some people see gems where others just see dull pebbles. | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.143.178.131 |
By the way, with you on those last two posts Joel. Sometimes you wanted something to tear you apart and put you back in a slightly different order. Sometimes you want fun and comfort. Both can be great. I love the Conan stories for their zesty fun, but I also love something like Aickman, or the guvnor Campbell to drive shards of fear into my brain. I still haven't got over The Grin of The Dark for example, whereas most Conan stories blend into one. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
I hated the landlords favourite ever novel because I thought it was all very irritating and pompous style and no substance... | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.143.178.131 |
Keratin People 2: Blood Feast! | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
landlord's... oh for an edit button | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.191.69 |
I think quality of writing and an interesting story/plot/theme are both important. I expect (or, at the very least, hope) to find both when I open a book. The really essential thing is the quality of the writing. Words written without flair and feeling are an instant failure for me, no matter what the subject matter. | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.32.69.29 |
Um... can I amend my initial posting to agree with Lord P now? | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Nor, of course, does being quiet and understated necessarily mean that a story is wonderful. It may still be dull, derivative and pointless. But if I start talking about antiquarian ghost stories (re: boredom) I'll be in even bigger trouble than John. We'll be like the kids who were caught smoking in assembly. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
"I hated the landlords favourite ever novel because I thought it was all very irritating and pompous style and no substance..." Namely Lolita. I'd say it has a great deal of substance and actually quite a bit of plot. | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.32.69.29 |
I didn't realise we shared favourite-ever novels.  Lolita is the single greatest novel I've ever read and I've read it many times (and also have the audiobook read by Jeremy Irons). I know chunks of it by heart and it's one of the most moving works I've ever read. Pompous style and no substance? Dear me. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
Joel - I recently read the Solomon Kane stories in 'The Right Hand of Doom' Wordsworth paperback and I thought they held up well. Similarly I liked Boucher's Compleat Werewolf enough to invest in the NESFA's The Compleat Boucher. I'm not advocating all kinds of crap of course. Even the Pan Book of Horror Stories, which I constantly bang on about as being a huge influence on my childhood reading, probably has at least, if not more, stories that I hate than I love. But if someone can come up with an interesting, novel, or entertainingly outrageous idea it just might be enough to get me through 128 pages of dodgy prose ("Peter Saxon's" The Disorientated Man / Scream & Scream Again comes to mind). Also, I always have a bit of a problem with someone who can obviously write well, and then proceeds to write about nothing at all, almost as if I feel a bit sorry for the crappy writers and am willing to be far more forgiving with them, whereas if you can construct beautiful prose you should bloody well be able to come up with something to construct that prose about. Jonathan - I liked Viriconium until the last book when I had no idea what was going on, even though the first couple were really Moorcock pastiches. Miss Flynn - Delighted to see you've decided to change your mind. Maybe I shall read Lolita... | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
Bring on an idiot who takes the opposing view! Craig where are you? you missed your cue ages ago... | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.4.71 |
I guess I must be an idiot, because I find the question a bit like the old "unstoppable force/immovable object" conundrum - a logical impossibility, when you break it down. A great story contains elements that are beyond the plot - the development of character, or Zed's theme and subtext, and so on - authors that can pull all this off, are rarely "bad writers." Relating it to scripts I've read: the poor ones with driving, gripping storylines, are preferable to the well-written ones, that meander and go nowhere. So me, I'd go with story over style. Ulysses is less entertaining, than work (though it is entertaining). Dubliners and Portrait are much easier to read - and like the finest of fine wines in the English language. Finnegans Wake is the unique piece of work that is ALL story and ALL style, at once - but is anybody reading it?... In some far-flung future, after the various nuclear apocalypses, someone will dig it up and worship it, surely... but until then.... | ||
| Jonathan (Jonathan) Username: Jonathan Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 91.143.178.131 |
"if you can construct beautiful prose you should bloody well be able to come up with something to construct that prose about. " Sing it brother! | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Well, I'll say I prefer beautiful prose, although it's best when its in the service of a great story. It's interesting to me, though, that a number of those who say that plot is insignificant are writers of plot-driven fiction ... | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.231.44 |
"Lolita is the single greatest novel I've ever read and I've read it many times." Definitely one of the greatest novels around. I'm very fond of those suggestive bits and even a few not-so-suggestive ones . . . I couldn't stomach the films, though. | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.32.69.29 |
I couldn't stomach Kubrick's butchery of the book, but Lyne's is very faithful. Jeremy Irons and Dominique Swain are superb. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.231.44 |
Thankfully Peter Sellers isn't in that second film. Swain is ok, but too old imho. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.8.175.44 |
I've just posted an Amazon review of Lolita. It's on on of the hardback editions. They've not merged the reviews on different covers for some reason. I hate that book with a vengeance. No amount of allusions to Poe or fancy language can hide the fact that the narrator is just a pompous bore who likes to rape young young girls. How anyone can find it moving is beyond me. It's tedious, pretentious drivel and nabakov refuses to let the storyline move any faster than a crippled snail that's just been superglued to a dead tortoise. Apart from that it's OK though. Apologies to the legions of people who's feelings I've just trampled all over but I'm just stating my impressions left over from the book. | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.32.69.29 |
Nothing trampled here, Weber. You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But you've made me curious - does a narrator have to share your morals for you to enjoy a story? | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
You can hate it if you want to, Weber. It doesn't bother me at all. For me, Lolita's a work of genius, no matter how many people sneer at it. | ||
| Chris_morris (Chris_morris) Username: Chris_morris Registered: 04-2008 Posted From: 12.165.240.116 |
Although I admit I'm curious why you seem to enjoy hating it so much. | ||
| Steve Bacon (Stevebacon) Username: Stevebacon Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 90.208.112.230 |
For me, it comes down to mood. Sometimes I prefer the feeling that a piece of writing gives me, even if I'm not entirely sure what has happened. It's just the simple act of reading particular words in a certain order, coupled with the rhythm and the sentence structure, that will affect me. Other times I just want straight-forward prose, plenty of storyline to engage me, and the inspiration to continue reading. The extremeties of each of these styles are places that don't interest me. Of course, at the point where they meet - brilliantly written, so that it creates a burning desire to continue reading - is the place where I'd rather be... | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.231.44 |
" . . . does a narrator have to share your morals for you to enjoy a story?" Exactly. Plus, as far as I'm concerned, Humbert Humbert doesn't exatly rape Lolita - unless you're talking about statutory rape. But I'm not going to discuss that issue again. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.152.217.77 |
99% of the time I'd go for good writing over plot, but agree the most fun I've ever had reading a book was with GHOUL by Michael Slade. It had a hologram of a skull on the cover. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
It's not the distasteful subject matter that puts me off the book. God I'd never read three quarters of my collection if I let criteria like that deter me. What irks me so much is that it's such a snobbish book. The author is constantly screaming at you to see how intelligent he is. I'm not stupid. I get the allusions to Poe marrying his 13 year old cousin. i get the wordplay. It just doesn't impress me. He's deliberately trying to exclude huge numbers of readers by showing how much more intelligent he is. Visits From the Drowned Girl by stephen Sherrill has a central character who's morally worse if anything than Humbert. it's also written cleverly but it's not so self-conscious about it's cleverness and doesn't try to exclude readers through opaque prose. Lolita has Opaque prose for the sake of opacity and that pisses me off. | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.23.233.247 |
To bang on about Capote again (why isn't there a church built to him yet?), sometimes it feels like he is writing about nothing, but my does it grab you. Ideally we need to be both. To quote Spock; 'You can't afford the luxury of being anything less than perfect!' (from a Matheson-written ep) | ||
| Tony (Tony) Username: Tony Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.23.233.247 |
Weber; Bob Dylan hated Ullyses, said the author was 'selfish'. Sounds like what you're getting at. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
Weber, I didn't get any of that from "Lolita". I think it's a magnificent book - highly readable yet very challenging. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
I can't stand "Wuthering Heights" - whiny, navel-gazing, sub-goth claptrap. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
"What irks me so much is that it's such a snobbish book. The author is constantly screaming at you to see how intelligent he is. I'm not stupid. I get the allusions to Poe marrying his 13 year old cousin. i get the wordplay. It just doesn't impress me. He's deliberately trying to exclude huge numbers of readers by showing how much more intelligent he is." Two things. He's simply assuming intelligence and a certain amount of cultural knowledge on the part of his readership. He most certainly didn't "exclude" me at seventeen years old when I first read the book. But isn't it the voice of the character, not simply of the author? | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
The received wisdom of corporate publishing is that 'the reader' must 'identify' with the protagonist of a novel. If readers have to make an imaginative leap into the inner world of the character, the book has failed. There are no words for how irritating this assumption is. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
I met it as far back as The Face That Must Die, Joel. Interestingly, it was an attitude Nabokov used to advise against in one of his lectures on appreciating literature. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.5.1.243 |
This sounds like Hollywood-speak, and I feel an equal loathing for that "identify with the protagonist" sentiment. Novels'/Films' main characters in and of themselves rarely grip the reader/viewer, as much as the conflict in a core relationship. Films (focussing on those) are all about crucial "relationships in transition" - the protagonist will always go through a life-altering transformation in its relationship to another, or occasionally to itself. Conflict in relationships is vastly more vital than any "identifying" with the protagonist, imho.... | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.32.69.29 |
And thank heaven for writers/directors/actors who are willing to take risks. Like Hitchcock for championing the rape scene in Marnie, saying the audience would "forgive" Connery's character for it. | ||
| Protodroid (Protodroid) Username: Protodroid Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 147.252.230.154 |
What about the one in Frenzy? I still haven't forgiven Hitchcock for it. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
It's very disturbing, and we don't forgive the character, surely. But also disturbing is the fact that the nominal hero is pretty completely dislikeable and even a potential perpetrator (in terms of his nature). I don't mean these as negative comments about the film, if I need to explain that. | ||
| Thomasb (Thomasb) Username: Thomasb Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 69.236.184.33 |
I'm reading one of VN's ghost stories right now: "The Eye." It is, as you might guess, not your usual ghost story. Bring on the snobs . . . well, at least bring *him* on. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.71 |
What's easiest to forgive? Of the initial options given, I'd say, in general, fine prose for its own sake. What's hardest to forgive, I think, is prose and stories from writers who aren't trying to produce their very best, from saga writers to mainstream literary novelists... It shows. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
Interesting quote I came across the other day as advice to aspiring (or even existing) writers. You have to love what you're writing. Otherwise you're just typing. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.219.8.243 |
Isn't that a bit obvious, though? | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.239.143.57 |
HA! | ||
| John (John) Username: John Registered: 05-2008 Posted From: 82.24.1.217 |
I'd say a weak storyline can probably be carried by good writing, whereas bad writing can ruin a decent story. A 'storyteller' is what a bad writer calls himself when his ineptitude is pointed out to him. Really, though, neither should be acceptable. | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.171.129.69 |
When you see the cover quote 'A Master Storyteller' on bestselling novels, it's true that it's often code for 'Can't Write for Toffee'. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.241.143 |
My writing motto: If one aims for art, even if one fails that failure might be worthwhile. (Notice I used "one" instead of "you", just to be pretentious). | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 99.225.104.255 |
God, if using "one" automatically make one pretentious, then I've a lot to answer for. (But I won't, as own my pretensions and care little who knows about them...) | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
Pretentious? Moi? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.166.189.17 |
There are degrees of pretentiousness that none of you can match. I am currently real-time reviewing my own book 'Weirdmonger'! | ||
| Joel (Joel) Username: Joel Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 217.37.199.45 |
A story at a time on message boards, or a sentence at a time on Twitter? | ||
| Des (Des) Username: Des Registered: 06-2008 Posted From: 86.166.189.17 |
It's for you to find out and for me to farouche. | ||
| Karim Ghahwagi (Karim) Username: Karim Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 80.167.124.163 |
'or a sentence at a time on Twitter?'  Des, sir, do you know when the Ligotti- The conspiracy against the Human Race is being published as an actual, solid, three-dimensional book- will it be 2009? By the way I am enjoying your live reviews- feels like my subconscious is being mugged. |