Agreed. I read the first two chapters of 'Twilight' and then took it back to the library to swap it for something better written. I never found out if it was a good story or not. Millions of angst-ridden teenagers seem to think so...
Twilight wasn't that badly written. The story just wasn't for me. When I mention bad writing I mean REALLY bad
"Really Bad" only exists on graffiti-ed wall and Forums; And lookie!!, plenty of fans for both of them. I wouldn't like reading "A layman's guide to brain surgery" no matter how "WELL" written!--but that's just me.
Yeah, but put it this way - Twilight was well-written enough to induce an editor to give a completely unknown writer a $750,000 advance on a first novel. I think here's where we get into technical writing v. storytelling, and when I talk about good or bad writing I am usually referring to the latter. I can find technical problems with Twilight (overuse of adverbs, for example) that I find in a lot of published fiction. But as far as "good writing" goes in the sense of storytelling, Meyer obviously achieved that. Still isn't my kind of story, and even if the most brilliant writer on the planet wrote it, that wouldn't change.
I would add one more distinction--there are folks who are really good verbal story tellers (the ones who weave something out of nothing) but are by no means "writers." My husband is the former, which is not a talent I possess, even though I'm the "writer" in the house!
It wasn't the worst writing I've seen by any means (okay, I am actually talking about New Moon, not Twilight), but it suffered from a novice writer's common first person trap. To say she dwelt on the character's emotions and sensations is an understatement - she locked herself in and bolted the doors of sensory self-indulgent. That panders well to the adolescent fascination with angst and moping, but from a writing perspective, it was the stuff that gives first person writing it's poor reputation. Back on the thread topic, the story concept was fair, if you like that sort of thing, but the writing was unquestionably mediocre, even given its appeal to the target market. For that audience, it's good enough. If you're accustomed to In 'N Out Burgers, you will be very unsatisfied by McDonald's. But the golden arches are cheap eats, and good enough for the typical fast food junkie.
Personally, I do sometimes overlook mediocre writing because I was fascinated by the story or have deep personal affinity with the story. But I appreciate a well written story more, it has more lasting impact on me. I have read many stories in this forum, some I enjoyed but forgot about it the next day because the writing was not good, but some I still remember because of the relatively good writing despite a weak story. Of course, it goes without saying that a combination of both the elements makes me drool like a puppy.
I think the telling makes the story. I mean, a really good writer can find depth and power in the most banal of stories, and a lousy writer can't take even a story charged with drama and tragedy (for instance, the sinking of the Titanic) and make it worth reading. It's interesting to take one basic story and see what different writers do with it. For example: In a war, a small group of fighters is assigned the task of destroying a bridge to prevent the enemy from using it. Alistair MacLean told this story in Force 10 From Navarone, and Ernest Hemingway told it in For Whom The Bell Tolls. MacLean's novel is a fairly good war adventure story, and Hemingway's novel is a powerful masterpiece, one of the best war novels of the twentieth century. The primary difference is in the approaches these writers took. MacLean wrote his book about highly-skilled professional soldiers merely carrying out a mission, one of many they would undertake, and doing a workmanlike job of it. Hemingway, on the other hand, wrote about peasants and gypsies and very ordinary people forced by the war to become guerrillas, and the American demolition professional who has to organize them and prepare them to carry out their mission. Hemingway's characters are far deeper, and always seem in more danger because they're desperate and barely surviving, and the mission of the bridge is a life-changing thing for them. In MacLean's book, it's all in a day's work. Two approaches to the same material, resulting in novels of very different quality. It's all in what the writer brings to the material - in other words, the tale is in the telling.
Yup, a relevant distinction to make. I'm a great verbal storyteller (the words of my teaching colleagues following lesson observations) and although I like to think of myself as a talented writer too, it doesn't come as naturally when I try to put ink to paper. In the context of this thread, I suppose you could say I can tell a story well, but I need to get to grips with putting together a "good story" to write down.
Huge vocabulary but nothing to say: Useless. Something to say but no words to express it: Useless. It's like arguing whether the right or the left leg is most important for running, when in reality you'd suck at running if you didn't have both (and let's ignore the amputee olympics for the sake of making a point).
Bad writing puts me off a story, no questions asked. Even if I think the plot has the potential to be really awesome, if I end up having to rewrite it in my head, or, even worse, having to re-read a paragraph because I misunderstood the shoddy construction, I will not give it a second chance. Incidentally, there's no better writer's block pick-me-up as deliberately reading an awful book and knowing you can do better I've had the misfortune to discover a series that not only had consistently bad writing, but also consistently cliche, bland plotlines. I devour these books regularly and feel like a genius afterwards!
But its really important when you got a problem and go to the doctor to able to point to the right leg and say "This legs the one thats hurting."
Absolutely. But I think that's something you'll have to identify on a case by case basis. I don't believe there's any solid formula for making the distinction.
No. I don't believe anyone is looking at one. We are discussing the complex subject trying to sort it out a little and see if we can learn en realize anything valuable as individualized through the discussion. For the record; I seldom start discussions looking for answerer, I usually wanting to start a productive discussion.
I know, and it's a good one. It's made me think back on scenes I've struggled horribly with in the past and the line between bad ideas and badly executed ideas is somewhat blurry -- sometimes it can be either, depending on how you decide to fix it. A bad idea can become a good idea if you do the proper setup, but then is this story or style? The bit of setup that saves it can be another scene idea (story), or it can be a beautifully written paragraph that sets the mood (style). Perhaps most problems can be fixed with either -- changes to story OR style. One exception I can think of, though, has to be major plot holes. Purple prose can't stuff them. You'll have to fix the story.
Give me a good story teller everytime and if that story teller has a good tale to tell, WOW! You canny whack it!
I think this is true, but it isn't really the point here, as I see it. We're talking about a good story versus a story well told, not about something to say versus nothing to say. I believe that a good writer is one who ALWAYS has something of value to say, and is able to use a lousy story as a vehicle to say it. A good writer infuses even dull stories with interest, purpose, meaning. Take a classroom full of creative writing students and ask them to write an anecdote about something dull - say, doing the laundry. You'll probably find it pretty easy to tell who will be good writers and who won't be.
But then it blurs the line between a lousy story well told and a lousy story fixed, to become a good story. And I think the line is blurry. If a story could remain lousy but be told so well that no one notices, then it should also be possible to entrance your audience so much that no one ever notices the most abysmal plot holes. I'm not sure that is really possible. Not with me as a reader, anyway. As for the laundry day story, I personally wouldn't waste time reading it. I love words, but not that much.
My NaNo has been going so well and I am about halfway though - however I now know exactly where my story is going. Not a place I intended when I started it was supposed to be a light fuzzy humourous story a break from a deep dark one I have just written This one has taken several new twists and is even darker than the last one. The end I have planned is scaring me a little - it is incredibly poweful the idea of doing it first person worries me. Right now tempted to slip into third person. Anyone else felt so emotionally bowlled over by a story they are not sure they should write it?
All the time, with everything I write. But I've had stories I didn't write cause I was basically not sure I wanted to go there. (BTW, you got my curiosity piqued for your story now.)
I am so sure I don't wanna go there lol however also know it is one hell of a story and the story is now 60K in and is going in that direction whether I like it or not. Downside of never planning a story - my YA element is no longer YA lol EDIT: I have written stories where I have cried my eyes out doing it think this one is gonna make me ill. I think maybe for that one chapter may need to make it third person.
^^^^Have you considered that because it is having such an effect on you that maybe it's good and will have an equally powerful effect on the readers? They may not like it but they might tend to remember it more. We always do remember the stories that dared to make us uncomfortable rather than the ones who just played it safe.
I know that is precisely why - I knew when I wrote the story of my MCs childhood and cried all the way through it was because it was powerful stuff it still isn't perfect. Part of it is because of the first person in addition to the present tense - what my character actually has to do is what myself and the reader experience in real time. It is a blinder of a story - I know that ... I know I need to write it but it is not the story I set out to write lol When I introduced the children they were intended as comic relief.
