I guess. Given time and consistent effort, I could do a billion. The issue isn't density; it's quality and assuring that I've got my story how I want it to be. The reason why it's taken so long, I've discovered (the hard way--I had no idea it'd be so big when I was a kid), is because if I want to write a story that covers the lives of a dozen core characters plus dips into the PoV of important supporting characters, it'll be quite the big thing. While I intend to finish the book and probably break it into 2 or 3, I don't know if I'll finish the series since it depends on what the market tells me. I could easily write spin-offs on top of what I intend to write just because I've already got the major cast in my head and would love to expand into the characters whose roles are mostly just mentioned for the longest part but are nonetheless important in the long wrong. The best comparison I can make is Romance of the Three Kingdoms, and my aim is to top that and write its Western equivalent. Of course, it's ultimately up to the people who choose to buy what I have to sell if it's actually good. I'm happy to have written it, but I am cautiously optimistic since I could simply be delusional. Just because I've got a lot planned in my head, and a lot constantly simmering, doesn't mean it's actually good after all.
You think Shakespeare is the only person who has written those themes? Nah. The "theme" of Romeo and Juliet had been retold countless times before him (with the same names, even) and countless times after. And honestly, the plot of Hamlet is nonsensical. Think of all the famous soliloquies from Shakespeare - are they famous because they really move the plot along, or because their language transcends? If Shakespeare is giving people headaches, possibly they aren't ready to understand him. I know I wasn't as much of a fan when I studied him, but became completely enamoured when I taught his work, and learned how much depth the language imparts. And, as you say, Shakespeare's writing isn't that complicated - it was completely accessible to the masses in his time. It's beautiful, economical writing that uses the exactly right number of words to convey the ideas needed. I think possibly you're confusing good writing with "flowery" writing or something? There are certainly some flowery writers who are masters of the written word (poor Nabakov is the one usually assigned this title, but for my taste, Faulkner also fits the bill). But what about Virginia Wolfe? Toni Morrison? Alice Walker's The Color Purple is hardly "high brow", but the language is beautiful and perfect for the story it's telling. Rushdie, Joyce, Donna Tartt (don't like her myself, but millions do)... these are authors whose gift for language lifts their stories into something far beyond the mundane. I like a good story, for sure. But for a lot of writers, the language is where the magic happens.
Yeah, but... what does that matter? Are they not still stories, and not still written? How does the watching change things?
I know the themes are eternal, but clearly Shakespeare did a damn good job capturing them and impressing a massive English audience, so good a job that even the nobles who thought him vulgar decided to give the deadbeat genius a try (and would you know it: they loved him!). Disclaimer: for someone who writes a lot, I read little. So I cannot comment on the books citied, but I can definitely recall what I had read as a High Schooler and much of it was forgettable as all I can remember is a blur of angst. Be it the "Sun Also Rises" with its beta-orbiters chasing some madam, or that one I cannot even remember lol. I definitely "Black Boy" by Richard Wright since it spoke very closely to me since I was also a poor kid from a rough background who developed some unhealthy political beliefs and learned the hard way just how wrong it was and how feral the adherents were. While I can't remember individual lines, I very much remember the story. I'm far more interested in history, however, since it tends to be the most interesting subject with the greatest variety and depth of stories.
Simple: listening/seeing versus reading/imagining. If I wrote a screenplay, it's definitely going to be better seen acted than read. Sure, it can still make a good read, but it's definitely better seen (and of course it might even be more accurate/potent seen as the screenplay might lack some cues that only the actors might know or even improvise in the moment).
lol I wish I could break up the bigger blocks I'm quoting like on other sites. I'm still trying to figure out how that's done here...
So if you don't read much, maybe it's not a great idea to be making judgments on other people's writing? Not saying you can't say what you enjoy and don't enjoy. But lines like "ought to be obvious" are a bit much, when you don't have the depth of knowledge to really back your opinion up.
Okay, but in terms of the topic at hand? Does storytelling become more or less important when a play is performed or a movie filmed? Or does the language become more or less important? what role does the need to imagine things play in terms of a play vs. a novel? And what about the things that don't need to be imagined in a novel, like characters' thoughts, backstory, etc.? How does this all fit together to help prove the idea that "the fact that a good story trumps how it is transcribed ought to be obvious"? ETA: lol
Lol if that line of thinking held water, there would be no innovation. It is the consumer that proves the writer's competency in any objective sense. And stories are not only in literature. Besides, how do you know I lack knowledge of stories just because I don't read much? They were all oral once upon a time.
I'm fully confused. If we're talking about storytelling vs writing... doesn't writing have to be involved?
Play vs. novel? I don't know--maybe it's essentially like a TV Show. And maybe the line of reasoning that story trumps prose is true with TV as well. However, sticking to books, it really is obvious that story is more important than "writing quality". The proof is the sales, which indicate human interest. Popularity may not be a decisive proof of quality, but it does say something about a writer's ability to influence a large number of people at least. Quite simply, if a book has a shit story, nothing but a miracle can save it. On the other hand a story told by a drunk in a back-alley camp fire could be very interesting.
Only in books. Stories can be told orally you know. However they're typically recorded with the written word. And obviously it takes some skill in writing in order to flesh out the various types of personalities a story might have. All this being said, I think a solid definition needs to be put on "writing skill": here I literally am referring to writing and the ability to use varied and multi-syllabic language, not the creativity to come up with something worth describing. That's "creativity".
So if we accept sales as a determiner... for some people, story is more important than language. Possibly for most people, as long as the writing has achieved a certain level of competence. (ie. probably better than what a drunk at a back-alley camp fire would manage to write down). But not for all people, right? Otherwise, the sales for literary or other writing-centric books would be at zero, and they certainly aren't. So, using sales as the standard, there are probably more people who value a wonderful story, competently told, than a competent story wonderfully told. A bit more complex than "more important" across the board.
I think you're a little caught up on the "multi-syllabic" business. The best writing for a given story might be something very simple, very straightforward. Hemingway isn't a writer I particularly enjoy (more because of his plots/characters/themes than his word choice) but he sold enough in his lifetime to be a millionaire (at a time when that actually meant something) and continues to sell today. He also won both the Nobel and Pulitzer, which tend to be awarded to authors who are masters of the written word. But he wasn't a fancy writer, by any means. Not a lot of stress on being multi-syllabic, unless by "multi" you mean two or three...
Sales isn't everything--it's not objective proof in the long run but it at least indicates a book's ability to reach out and influence people, so it's more objective than simply preference vs preference. However, obviously, there are people that really enjoy verbal gymnastics and people that don't mind if the Drunk speaks only half a language because the intrigue of the many businessmen and mobsters that come across his local bar is actually quite interesting... And that's where competence in writing comes in: a decent writer could ask the Drunk if he'd be willing to sell his ideas to him, and then the writer effectively turns the Drunk's ramblings into a more coherent story that may well become a best-seller. However some ideologically-driven college professor most likely won't impress anybody, except other college professors. A thing I think turns a lot of people off is creative work with only ideology behind it, especially if the ideology is no longer the fad of the era. However that's not to say great writers didn't have political beliefs in their works: they just did it much better, perhaps by balancing it with an opposing view point and fairly having them duke it out and having whomever would realistically win (not necessarily the moral/intellectual superior) given the circumstances, "win". I think story is without a doubt the most important thing though, in short. The Drunk's Tales beats The Professors Critique of the Antiquated Dogma of the Perfidious Serpentine Nature of the Choleric Yokel.
He's not particularly complicated or obtuse, from what I remember of "The Sun Also Rises". Thematically it's quite powerful, I just personally found it boring and highly predicable. Anyone who's had a crush with someone out off their league could predict what'd happen a mile away. However it clearly resonated with the people of his era because it gave some insight into the culture of his folks.
Here's an issue. What exactly did the Wall Street Journal mean by "writing quality"? I would assume it meant, essentially, something only a post-graduate chained to a think tank might comprehend (as an extreme end) to something written by someone who barely spoke his only language (to the other extreme). In terms of having a big tool box and knowing when to use those tools, that's a very different matter. I'd still prioritize story, but having a good tool box means being able to tell it better (assuming knowledge of when to use the tools and when not to). If you meant "Tool Box" and I meant "language grade level", then we were misunderstanding each other lol.
I like intellectuals who discuss Balzac while sipping alcohol during an appropriate and progressive timeframe for both.
(more from The Urologist Series) "Balzac, hmm?" Dr. Wang sipped his sherry as he studied Wellington's defense. Bishop to queen's knight six. Checkmate in five moves. "Never heard of him, but I like the cut of his jib!" ETA: is this where the urology joke came from?
@Homer Potvin You got a problem with Balzac? If you've got a problem with Balzac, you might have a problem with me.
Shakespeare was a master of language. He is not a great example to use if you're arguing that language is irrelevant. If people learned what came before them there would be no innovation? Is that what you're saying? Never, ever build on the work of others? That kind of puts an end to Shakespeare. He used all sorts of themes and techniques that existed before he came along. No, that's not remotely what is meant. You are assuming that quality writing means pouring a thesaurus into a blender and then pouring it out on a page. That's not what it means.
