Originally posted by Conrau KI gather you're no fan of Samuel Beckett's "Molloy"?
I did not think specifically about stories, but all genres of writing. On that topic, I tend to favour good writing over good stories. If I have to struggle to decipher the argument of a sentence, I will not bother with the story. To illustrate the point, I read recently a romance novel, Doctor Jane Comes Home; the story was interesting and the idea ...[text shortened]... k of imagery made each character indistnguishable from the others. I absolutely hated the novel.
Originally posted by Conrau KThen you should not even try Irving Welsh or, for that matter, any other author that tries to faithfully capture the slang and street speech of a certain society at a given time.
I did not think specifically about stories, but all genres of writing. On that topic, I tend to favour good writing over good stories. If I have to struggle to decipher the argument of a sentence, I will not bother with the story. To illustrate the point, I read recently a romance novel, Doctor Jane Comes Home; the story was interesting and the idea ...[text shortened]... k of imagery made each character indistnguishable from the others. I absolutely hated the novel.
Originally posted by SeitseNot at all. I like slang and street-speech, and story-tellers ought to replicate that style to achieve authentic representation of society.
Then you should not even try Irving Welsh or, for that matter, any other author that tries to faithfully capture the slang and street speech of a certain society at a given time.
Originally posted by Conrau KYet, in many of them, the authors continue using their own speech style in the parts which are their own voice (non character parts), which is far from 'good writing'.
Not at all. I like slang and street-speech, and story-tellers ought to replicate that style to achieve authentic representation of society.
Would that steal merit and quality from the piece?
If the idea is good, then personally, as a reader, I could not care less for the correct writing.
Don't you think it is like discarding a street burger as 'not good', just because it looks crappy how and where it is served? Man, that would discard Tommy's Burger from the list if belongs to: California's best burger 😀
3 edits
Originally posted by SeitseYes. It would. The writing would be bad; however, the story would be all the more poignant because of its use of realism.
Yet, in many of them, the authors continue using their own speech style in the parts which are their own voice (non character parts), which is far from 'good writing'.
Would that steal merit and quality from the piece?
And I am uncertain why you raise the issue about "correct writing." The question of style is different from grammar. Grammar entails a prescriptive code of how ideas can be formulated through words; style relates to the arrangement and choice of words within the sentence itself (whether the writing is correct or not; grammatical or no.)
I think there's two veins here which are being confused. A good story is irrespective of the literary presentation. It could be read aloud, acted, filmed etc. It stands alone and can be critiqued on the basis of its enjoyment, character development, whatever. Then you've got the medium in which the piece is presented. If film, then you've got cinematography, costumes, acting etc. If literature, then you've got vocabulary, sentence structure, dialogue etc. The story can still be good if the medium of its communication is bad and visa versa. An example of this might be something like the film Dracula with Keanu Reeves. Terrible film; the acting, effects, dialogue etc are all poor, but I think you'd be hard pressed to say the story of Dracula is a poor one.
So when asked something about what is more important, story or writing style, I have to ask why the two are being judged by the same panel. Good writing and good story telling are not the same thing. Sure they can go together to make an amazing book, but I think they should be judged on seperate grounds.
Originally posted by StarrmanWell said. The idea that aesthetics are somehow snobbish is old school Maoist claptrap.
I think there's two veins here which are being confused. A good story is irrespective of the literary presentation. It could be read aloud, acted, filmed etc. It stands alone and can be critiqued on the basis of its enjoyment, character development, whatever. Then you've got the medium in which the piece is presented. If film, then you've got cinematog ...[text shortened]... go together to make an amazing book, but I think they should be judged on seperate grounds.
Originally posted by Conrau KSure there is good and bad writing, but those 5 examples you mentioned should NOT be declared the rules for determining either.
Ever since I started high school, my teachers have sought fiercely to inculcate me with their rule-book to good writing. To name a few of their rules:
- Avoid "ing" verbs (a rule echoed by Virginia Woolf in Orlando when he/she describe them as "the devil."😉
- Use more verbs than adjectives
- Avoid cliches
- Write in the active voice, not the ...[text shortened]... nvey ideas and evoke feelings. If the writing fails to achieve that, then what is the point?
Originally posted by PinkFloydAnd why do you think that? I have already given a few reasons why "ing" verbs ought to be minimised, and why adverbs should be placed after the verb. The rule to avoid cliches is almost universally recognised among writers. There are good reasons for such rules.
Sure there is good and bad writing, but those 5 examples you mentioned should NOT be declared the rules for determining either.
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kridiculous. By your adverb rule, we would have Captain Kirk saying : "to go boldly where no man ..." instead of that rousing, anthemic "to BOLDLY go..." To boldly split infinitibes makes for good writing. To avoid it makes everything read like my 4th grade reading book (Vistas) from 1968 (yawwwn).
And why do you think that? I have already given a few reasons why "ing" verbs ought to be minimised, and why adverbs should be placed after the verb. The rule to avoid cliches is almost universally recognised among writers. There are good reasons for such rules.
Originally posted by PinkFloydKeep in mind that I did describe this rule as general, and thus, not necessarily to be observed slavishly. The phrase "to boldy go" is unique because there is a distinctive rhythm of da-DUM-da-DUM. The iambic arrangement of syllables in this phrase is more natural than in the alternative "to go boldly".
ridiculous. By your adverb rule, we would have Captain Kirk saying : "to go boldly where no man ..." instead of that rousing, anthemic "to BOLDLY go..." To boldly split infinitibes makes for good writing. To avoid it makes everything read like my 4th grade reading book (Vistas) from 1968 (yawwwn).
In most cases, it is still better to place the adverb after the verb, for reasons outlined above. However, sometimes discretion allows for a few deviations from this guide.
Originally posted by PinkFloydMost authorities on style do NOT recommend that split infinitives be always avoided.
ridiculous. By your adverb rule, we would have Captain Kirk saying : "to go boldly where no man ..." instead of that rousing, anthemic "to BOLDLY go..." To boldly split infinitibes makes for good writing. To avoid it makes everything read like my 4th grade reading book (Vistas) from 1968 (yawwwn).
Originally posted by Conrau KOne should avoid cliches like the plague.
And why do you think that? I have already given a few reasons why "ing" verbs ought to be minimised, and why adverbs should be placed after the verb. The rule to avoid cliches is almost universally recognised among writers. There are good reasons for such rules.