discussion about plot??? Care to take a gander???

[laboi_22]

As a novice writer and a devout reader, I often question what makes a person read and write the way they do. In particular what makes readers read novels that are poorly written? For example: last week a young ACE worker at the hospital (these are students in school for nursing who obtain jobs at our hospital to gain experience, they follow the nurses around and take notes and ask questions and get paid to do so) anyway Jessica was following me on the evening shift. We got on the topic about books. She knew that I was a dedicated novel consumer. She had recently purchased The DaVinci Code and was halfway through the book. (Keep in mind this topic has nothing to do with that book. Just keep reading.) She was so smitten by the book. She couldn’t stop talking about it. She also told me, and I found this hard to believe that she had never read a novel before since she was a young girl; being a college student obtaining a Bachelor’s degree that just amazed me.

Anyway I told her how I too had enjoyed the story, but that Dan Brown’s writing was crap. I recently went back and re-read the book to find out why everyone is so head strong about the book being poorly written. When I paid attention to specific detail, I understood why. She didn’t notice anything and thought that Dan Brown was an excellent writer.

So here’s the discussion: If your plot is so strong can you actually be a poor writer and have people drool over your book? Do people who don’t write or know any better just read books without ever noticing that it’s poorly written? Do they not notice because the plot pulls them in so much?

I was once told here that plot is everything that if you have good plot you will be big. I didn’t think that was true especially since I found character development and dialogue, scene description, and other aspects more important to plot, but now I wonder if that’s true. If you have good plotting techniques will you make it? Even with poor literary quality?

[Susan Gable]

So here’s the discussion: If your plot is so strong can you actually be a poor writer and have people drool over your book? Do people who don’t write or know any better just read books without ever noticing that it’s poorly written? Do they not notice because the plot pulls them in so much?

?

Readers don't know what's good writing or bad. Not to the extent that other writers do. After all, most of us had to learn all about those craft issues that define "good writing" vs. "poor writing." So that means we didn't know it, either, until we started studying writing. (Although I'm sure we might have noticed certain things - see the last paragraph here.)

Nora Roberts once said that the only people who got on her case for the dreaded "head-hopping" or POV "rules" were other writers - her readers just didn't care, and they'd never once scolded her for leaping from one head to another.

Now, I don't think it's just plot that's important, I think character is way up there, too. (But then, I'm a character-driven writer.) But yes, I do think that it's the story that's important, and the writing skills matter more to us and to editors. The reading public (for the most part) don't have enough of a clue to care about the craft.

They will notice enough to say things like: "I can SEE what he/she's describing." Or maybe: "I really felt the emotions of this story. It made me laugh/cry." Those are the kinds of things, I think, that readers notice.

Susan G.

[TheIT]

I've found that good writing/bad writing influences whether I'll re-read a book as opposed to whether I'll enjoy it the first time through. As long as the story is entertaining I'll go with the flow to find out what happens, but many times when I pick the book up to read again I can't get interested or I'll start noticing flaws. IMHO, one of the marks of good writing is wanting to read the story again even knowing the ending. The journey becomes more important than the destination.

[scribbler1382]

I saw a Biography episode the other night on Tom Clancy. One of the things that was pointed out was that while he was hugely successful from the start (or at least, after Reagan gave his book a plug) the writing in his few first novels was awful. The reason given for his books being so successful despite this was that his books always had very strong plots.

I think what this and Dan Brown and all the other writers out there who's success make the writing community scratch their heads until their scalps bleed really says about the industry is that story, above all else, is paramount. You can enrich the readers experience by actually knowing what you're doing, but in the end we're all just storytellers. (This is not a new notion to AW, as UJ has said this over and over.)

[maestrowork]

Anyway I told her how I too had enjoyed the story, but that Dan Brown’s writing was crap. I recently went back and re-read the book to find out why everyone is so head strong about the book being poorly written. When I paid attention to specific detail, I understood why.

So here’s the discussion: If your plot is so strong can you actually be a poor writer and have people drool over your book? Do people who don’t write or know any better just read books without ever noticing that it’s poorly written? Do they not notice because the plot pulls them in so much?

I have friends who are NOT writers who think Dan Brown is a hack. They think the premise of Da Vinci Code is interesting, but the execution is mediocre -- they have all read better thrillers. I think Dan Brown writes to low expectations...

And no, if you're a really a poor writer, your plot won't be strong. You might have a high concept killer idea (such as Da Vinci Code) but you won't be able to pull it off. No, you don't have to write like Hemingway, but you still need to develop your characters, move the plot along, etc. and at least write interest prose instead of boring, flat sentences. To me, plot is not everything. You can have the greatest ideas and plots in the world. But if your execution sucks, the book sucks (and I'm not talking about writing like Annie Proulx). You might not have a great style or nice prose (Dan Brown again?) but you need to be able to pull together a strong plot and characters... that takes writing skills.

But as writers, we should aim for the higher ground, don't you think? You will be doing so much for the readers if you give them interesting characters and nicely-constructed prose...




My 0.00 cent.

[laboi_22]

Yeah I guess you're all right...

Again to each their own. That's what I wanted to find out. What do people label as good reads. Plotless stories or prose strong stories.

I seem to think that you can write a great story using strong plot and fall short else were and still be liked by many. There are a lot of people out there though that will quickly bash a book because of it poor writing. To them it's poor because the author might not have followed all the rules as they would have, but everyone has faults even the best.

I just recently read Dean Koontz's book The Watchers. I absolutley loved the book. It made me cry. It made me laugh. It made me fall in love with the dog. Yet throughout my reading I noticed that he uses summary alot to tell his story. He doesn't give as much action to move the story along, yet still I loved it. He also used much adjectives in his descripitons that kind of made me wince. Knowing the rules about using strong verbs instead of weak and pointless adjectives. But still in all I loved it. Does that make me like others. others who read without noticing bad writing, but still loving the book despite it's fall outs? Not that I'm anywhere near being a professional at all of this but now that I know what makes writing bad as before I didn't I just wonder about these things. In Stephen King's book that I'm reading now the writing is amazing, but the story line is not as intresting as say Koontz's book was for me.

So in all To each their own.!!

[Perks]

Some books are all about the story. Some books are predominately about the words. Of course, the best books are achievements in both. I think there are many variations on the alchemical formula of the literary 'philosopher's stone.'

Readers will take away meaning from some, entertainment from others and then some will leave a lingering lyrical echo that will bring on swoons at the memory of the order of the words. They're all worthwhile.

[maestrowork]

Some people like spam. Some people like caviar...

A great plot, with great characters, and with great words are like gems to me... that's why people like a book like Mystic River so much...

So, yeah...

[TheIT]

Agreed, every writer should try to write the best possible book with great characters, great plot, great story, etc., but it is possible to derive enjoyment from the not so great. Not as much enjoyment, true, but not every meal is going to be rated five stars. I've finished books where I haven't liked the writing style much but the story dragged me along, and I've put down books with decent style where I could see the author desperately trying to get me, the reader, to sympathize with characters I'd rather see get run over by a bus. Would I re-read books with lousy writing but good stories? Sometimes, if only to figure out why I liked the book in the first place, but I'd also consider donating the book elsewhere to make space on my shelves for something better.

[Honey Nut Loop]

As a novice writer and a devout reader, I often question what makes a person read and write the way they do. In particular what makes readers read novels that are poorly written? For example: last week a young ACE worker at the hospital (these are students in school for nursing who obtain jobs at our hospital to gain experience, they follow the nurses around and take notes and ask questions and get paid to do so) anyway Jessica was following me on the evening shift. We got on the topic about books. She knew that I was a dedicated novel consumer. She had recently purchased The DaVinci Code and was halfway through the book. (Keep in mind this topic has nothing to do with that book. Just keep reading.) She was so smitten by the book. She couldn’t stop talking about it. She also told me, and I found this hard to believe that she had never read a novel before since she was a young girl; being a college student obtaining a Bachelor’s degree that just amazed me.

Anyway I told her how I too had enjoyed the story, but that Dan Brown’s writing was crap. I recently went back and re-read the book to find out why everyone is so head strong about the book being poorly written. When I paid attention to specific detail, I understood why. She didn’t notice anything and thought that Dan Brown was an excellent writer.

So here’s the discussion: If your plot is so strong can you actually be a poor writer and have people drool over your book? Do people who don’t write or know any better just read books without ever noticing that it’s poorly written? Do they not notice because the plot pulls them in so much?

I was once told here that plot is everything that if you have good plot you will be big. I didn’t think that was true especially since I found character development and dialogue, scene description, and other aspects more important to plot, but now I wonder if that’s true. If you have good plotting techniques will you make it? Even with poor literary quality?

Sometimes i read a book and really enjoy it. After a while i may go back and re-read the book and i am sometimes shocked by how bad the writing can be. Plot is very important but i think what others have been saying is also true. The reader does not necesarily notice how well or badly a novel is written.

[Bufty]

Seems to me it's exactly the same as with films. The average filmgoer either likes a particular film or doesn't - he rarely comments on the acting or the dialogue etc- it's the critics who do that.

[Sassenach]

Sure. One of my favorite novelists, Jack Finney, was only a so-so stylist, but his stories are always compelling.

[sassandgroove]

Don't try so hard. Stealing the film reference from Bufty, I went to film school, and was surrounded by film geeks who raved over Quentin and Rodriguez, Scorsese and Coppola.* Where were the people that like Meg Ryan comedies, or silly fun action flicks? I dated a guy whose first film credit was on Space Jam. Its target audience is age 3! But he wouldn't cop to it at school. He touted his second credit as his first, which was Jerry McGuire. The guys at school hated Space Jam, and I couldn't figure out why. Then it dawned on me. They were caught up in their little elitest mindset, saying "I could do it better than them!" Meanwhile they were going to school rather than DOING IT, and were jealous of movies like SpaceJam because it did well. I believe they were jealous of the "GReat Film Makers" too but couldn't say they could do it better, so it was expressed differently. That is part of why I dropped out of film school, because I liked fluff movies in addition to the auteur ones, and I didn't live and breathe movies. I tired of the film dorks. I can get up at 5am and write, so to heck with hollyweird anyway. I like great lit, I like fluff lit. Variety and Spice and all that.

I will say that writing has changed how I read, just like film school ruined movies for me. Maybe that's why I'm writing a novel. Film school ruined movies, learning about writing has only changed how I read, hmm...anyway, yeah, I notice bad writing everywhere now. Office Memos, magazines, newspapers, books. But it has also helped me look at books I like and figure out "How'd they do that?" to help with my own writing.

*as an example. My friend Craig pointed out to his firends that were going gaga over Travolta and Jackson in Pulp Fiction that to the rest of the country Pulp Fiction was the new Bruce Willis movie. Film geek view vs. non geek view...

[daphne]

I'm new to the board, but love this thread...Thought I'd stop lurking and actually say something.

To me, it depends somewhat on expectations. When I picked up Michael Cunningham's "The Hours" in a book store I expected something literary. It was thematically structured around a Virginia Woolf literary classic and featured the author herself in one of the intertwined stories. If I had found bad prose between the covers I would have been severely disappointed.

But I found beautiful, rhythmic language, an intriguing structure, a jazz-like riff on the classic and the most exquisitely simple and haunting death scene I've ever read. I finished the book. Immediately read "Mrs. Dalloway" from cover to cover for the first time since college. Then I read "The Hours" again. It almost made me give up writing (how could I possibly expect to get published when THIS exists?) - but in the end it spurred me on. (And the movie was a huge disappointment of course.)

On the other hand, just for fun, I read a book by an author whose name has already left me. The novel is called "Jennifer Government". The concept is brilliant - based in a future in which marketing and corporate conglomerates rule the world. Workers take on the last name of their corporate 'family'. John Nike accidently gets sucked into an assassination plot (the shoe company is trying to build street cred and PR hype by having kids kill each other over their latest shoe). Jennifer Government gets assigned to the case....etc., etc. Fun. Easy read. Good, in its own way. But not heart stirring. Nothing in my life changed, as a result of reading it.

The thing is, if I had walked into a four-star, white table cloth restaurant and been served a quarter-pound hamburger, wrapped in paper and lying on a plastic tray I would not have been at all happy. On the other hand, there are moments in the line at the drive-thru when a Big Mac seems just dandy.

D.

[laboi_22]

Thanks for all the awesome respone. I agree that a great book had many characteristics. When I write I try to focus on character development, scene, POV, beginnings and endings. It seems that plot is like last on my list. Yeah I have an idea of what I want to write about, but when I write I change things or sometimes create things as I go from chapter to chapter. So I'm wondering if my story will be sound without good hearty structual plotting first? Who knows. I just know that when I read or let's say when I used to read books I paid way more attention to the story line than how it was written. Now when I read I look for both and try to acheive both in my own writing.


Oh and welcome dapne!

[Jamesaritchie]

As a novice writer and a devout reader, I often question what makes a person read and write the way they do. In particular what makes readers read novels that are poorly written? For example: last week a young ACE worker at the hospital (these are students in school for nursing who obtain jobs at our hospital to gain experience, they follow the nurses around and take notes and ask questions and get paid to do so) anyway Jessica was following me on the evening shift. We got on the topic about books. She knew that I was a dedicated novel consumer. She had recently purchased The DaVinci Code and was halfway through the book. (Keep in mind this topic has nothing to do with that book. Just keep reading.) She was so smitten by the book. She couldn’t stop talking about it. She also told me, and I found this hard to believe that she had never read a novel before since she was a young girl; being a college student obtaining a Bachelor’s degree that just amazed me.

Anyway I told her how I too had enjoyed the story, but that Dan Brown’s writing was crap. I recently went back and re-read the book to find out why everyone is so head strong about the book being poorly written. When I paid attention to specific detail, I understood why. She didn’t notice anything and thought that Dan Brown was an excellent writer.

So here’s the discussion: If your plot is so strong can you actually be a poor writer and have people drool over your book? Do people who don’t write or know any better just read books without ever noticing that it’s poorly written? Do they not notice because the plot pulls them in so much?

I was once told here that plot is everything that if you have good plot you will be big. I didn’t think that was true especially since I found character development and dialogue, scene description, and other aspects more important to plot, but now I wonder if that’s true. If you have good plotting techniques will you make it? Even with poor literary quality?

There are as many different kinds of readers as there are different kinds of writers. Some readers don't notice the writing, and can't tell good writing from bad. If the plot and characters are there, they think the book is wonderful. Other readers are far more discriminating, and notice every flaw in a novel.

The trick, I think, is for the wirter to write the best way he possibly can. The fact that some readers don't notice bad writing simply is not an excuse for a writer to produce bad writing.

[laboi_22]

Agreed. Do you think some writer's might take advantage of the fact that a large amount of reader's don't know the diffrence so they write sloppy and still get published and become best sellers?

If that's so then it is quite depressing. I'm not at all a good writer, but I do think I could write a little better than Dan Brown, but then again who knows maybe I'm just fooling myself. I think if I had the topic he had to write on first I really could have made it better. Again that's just a maybe. The point is I haven't been able to publish and has had many letters of rejection, yet Dan Brown makes millions and sell millions for a poorly written book with an awesome not to mention controversial subject.

[azbikergirl]

One thing I've noticed is that the ability to spot poor writing does not automatically mean one has the ability to write well. I sometimes fail to notice the rough spots in my own work.

[brinkett]

To me, it depends somewhat on expectations.
That's an excellent point. I expect different things, depending on the author and genre. It's when novel falls short of my expectations that I get huffy.

[Mistook]

I'm starting to think it's wrong to think of things like plot, character, theme, and even environment, from being separate units. They're all interrelated - or at least they should be, in a good story.

The writing only has to be good enough to tell the story without being tedious. Everybody knows too much flair is just as bad as too little. Again, it depends on the type of story being told.

The thing I've never seen discussed here on the board is the element of "effect". In other words, every book has a ceratin effect on the reader. A thriller has a thrilling effect. Horror is also named for it's effect. Other genre's are named for environment (Science fiction, fantas), or their theme (romance).

DaVinci Code is mis-marketed as a thriller. It's really more of a mystery. The thing that makes it sell like hotcakes is the intriguing conspiracy it purports to expose - complete with clues left in famous artworks by guys like DaVinci. "Conspiracy Theory" would probably fit best for the name of it's perfect Genre. If somebody ever writes a half-decent fiction novel about the American government faking the moon-landing, I'm sure that would hit the best-sellers list too.

[scribbler1382]

If somebody ever writes a half-decent fiction novel about the American government faking the moon-landing, I'm sure that would hit the best-sellers list too.

Doubtful, IMO. There's a difference between "an ancient secret revealed" and validation that "the kooks are right". But if you want to have some serious fun, watch Capricorn One. (Yeah, it has OJ in it, but it's still a great flick.)

[Mistook]

Doubtful, IMO. There's a difference between "an ancient secret revealed" and validation that "the kooks are right". But if you want to have some serious fun, watch Capricorn One. (Yeah, it has OJ in it, but it's still a great flick.)


Today's kooks are tomorrow's Templars.

In fact, one of the lynch pins of Brown's book is that DaVinci was secretly a Templar. It's a fairly ridiculous conceit, considering DaVinci was not only an atheist for most of his life, but also an oustider (read: kook) and a notorious loner, barely able to keep the title of court artist as he bounced from castle to castle around Italy.

So... recipie for a best seller:

Take 1 Moon Landing
Let simmer for 500 years
Re-assign one John Lennon as a secret Templar, and interpret his lyrics to expose the hoax of the 20th century.

Voila!

[Saanen]

The guys at school hated Space Jam, and I couldn't figure out why. Then it dawned on me. They were caught up in their little elitest mindset, saying "I could do it better than them!" Meanwhile they were going to school rather than DOING IT, and were jealous of movies like SpaceJam because it did well.

Sorry to derail an interesting discussion, but I have to say it: Space Jam really, really sucked. The characters were mangled and the writing was so generic it felt like it was generated by a computer.

I do agree with you about the jealousy issue, but I think it's not really that simple. I know we've all felt something similar when we read a rotten book that nevertheless not only got published but is suddenly a best-seller. As writers we all try hard to do our very best and we work all the time to improve ourselves (by simply writing and reading in the case of most writers, but for filmmakers I'd say going to film school certainly counts), and here's somebody who's a great success, apparently without ANY EFFORT. Argh! And not only that, but no one seems to notice that the book is terrible! It's like a slap in the face professionally.

I should add that I have absolutely nothing to do with filmmaking in any way, and I should also add that I felt 100% the same way as you when I was an art major my first year as an undergrad (I switched to English as a sophomore)--I despised the other art majors because they seemed so full of themselves and so quick to criticize people who were actually out there working at art. And most of them frankly didn't have much talent.

Okay, back to the main topic, sorry about that!

[maestrowork]

I know perfectly intelligent, professional people who love Godzilla movies and Ed Wood's films. To them, that's entertainment, and they thoroughly enjoy the plot (or lack of), bad acting, music, etc. Deep down they know they're bad movies, but they love them.

Some people won't see anything except high-brow art films or a total bore like The Piano.

I think a writer should know who his target audience is. Obviously, if you're Danielle Steele, you're not going to write like Hemingway because your audience might only have an 8th grade reading ability. If you're Rowling writing HP books, your real "target" audience are children-young adults. Obviously, you wouldn't be writing like John Irving. And I bet if John Irving is to write a young adult book, he would change his style as well, and perhaps use a lot more adverbs.

A writer's skills go far beyond the use of language and words. Characters, plot, dialogue, etc. are all important. A "bad" writer can only fool his target audience for so long. After a while, they would realize the characters are all the same, the dialogue is flat, and the plot follows the same arc... If you read enough Dan Brown's books you may find the same formula over and over... then it would be like having tuna for dinner every day. Some people would probably enjoy the simplicity and familiarity. Some might discover, eventually, that "Oh, he's not really that good a writer."

It also depends on the genre, too. Some books such as run-of-the-mill thrillers or mysteries or romance or whatever... they have certain formulas and they cater to a lower common denominator (lower expectations). And plot would be important. "What happens next" is more important than "how it's written."

There is certain charm in movies like Godzilla. My expectation certainly is different when I watch Godzilla, than when I watch American Beauty... but I enjoy both.

[Anatole Ghio]

Some people won't see anything except high-brow art films or a total bore like The Piano.

My expectation certainly is different when I watch Godzilla, than when I watch American Beauty... but I enjoy both.

Here we get into an argument about aesthetics, which is a can of worms, as it involves trying to qualify the terms good and bad.

As far as our discussion about whether we need to be good as writers in order to achieve a popular readership, the answer is no. Plenty of writers with not much skill, have been very, very popular.

In trying to define how one can determine the level of craft in a work of art, such criteria as intention, complexity, relation of parts to the whole can all be used to determine in something has some level of harmony, symmetry, and meaning.

Not to take away from Maestro's argument, but plenty of works thought of as camp, or garbage, can fall under these qualities of art... which is why it is so difficult to come to any definite conclusions about whether something is truly a work of art. (For instance, I would argue the first Godzilla film is a work of art and not campy at all, using the above criteria).

So really, the question to ask yourself is: how much craft as a writer are you willing to pursue, in order to feel happy with the writing you do?

[T-bone]

The time has come for my first post.
As a musician, I see distinct parallels between performing (and listening) and writing (and reading) . Sassandgroove posted "writing has changed how I read, just like film school ruined movies for me", which I competely understand. Performing musically has stolen my musical innocence, and I can't go back. I am forever a critic, sometimes able to slip away for a listen the way it used to be, to hear a song in its entirety and be moved by the songwriter or musician as they intended, but only briefly. For the most part, I now notice technique, arrangement, recording quality, and skill (or the lack of it). I've been robbed! And so it is with writing.
Thus far I've written 1 1/2 novels, the half applying to a complete work I co-authored with my adult son. Both are unpublished, but an unexpected consequence of writing has been my newfound struggle to gain satisfaction from a marginal book. The same goes for movies (rats! I studied those, too). I can enjoy a really good movie or, strangely enough, a really bad one, but works that fall in the middle bore me silly.
So here's the question: has anyone been able to escape "critic mode" and simply enjoy reading material that falls short of their standards for plot, character development, construction, and the like?

[brokenfingers]

I think there's definitely a difference between the way a writer looks at a book and the way a reader looks at a book and the financially successful writers are the ones who realize and utilize that fact.

I, for one, was shocked when I first opened a how-to book and discovered all these "rules" and components neccessary to write a book. Until that point I'd honestly thought that writers just sat down and wrote and then sent it in. Voila!

It wasn't until I began studying writing that I learned writing isn't just about putting down words but about manipulating them for a desired effect. The words are just a means to an end. The end is a good story (unless you're writing literary fiction where then it's all about style.)

Dan Brown may not be the best writer going but he followed all the rules of good storytelling.

I got curious about his book and all the hype etc. and did an in-depth examination once on the first 3 or so chapters on another forum showing this. My final analysis was that while his writing style wasn't too sharp, he did all the things Uncle Jim and others who are successful hammer on time and again. Add to that an intriguing, timely and possibly controversial storyline and you have the potential for a bestseller. Once it reaches a certain level, popularity becomes a self-feeding force of it's own - just look at pet rocks.

If anyone's ever interested I can post it here sometime.

[sassandgroove]

Sorry to derail an interesting discussion, but I have to say it: Space Jam really, really sucked. The characters were mangled and the writing was so generic it felt like it was generated by a computer.

I do agree with you about the jealousy issue, but I think it's not really that simple. I know we've all felt something similar when we read a rotten book that nevertheless not only got published but is suddenly a best-seller. As writers we all try hard to do our very best and we work all the time to improve ourselves (by simply writing and reading in the case of most writers, but for filmmakers I'd say going to film school certainly counts), and here's somebody who's a great success, apparently without ANY EFFORT. Argh! And not only that, but no one seems to notice that the book is terrible! It's like a slap in the face professionally.

I should add that I have absolutely nothing to do with filmmaking in any way, and I should also add that I felt 100% the same way as you when I was an art major my first year as an undergrad (I switched to English as a sophomore)--I despised the other art majors because they seemed so full of themselves and so quick to criticize people who were actually out there working at art. And most of them frankly didn't have much talent.

Okay, back to the main topic, sorry about that!

Saanen, my point with Spacejam wasn't whether or not it was good. I happened to catch a few minutes the other day and was reminded how cheesy it is. My point was its taget audience was age 3, and I only saw it because I was taking care of a 2 year old and a 4 year old. THey loved it, they danced and talked along with it. The 2 year old said the words she didn't know phoenetically. It pleased the target audience. So why did it bother elietest film school students so much? It wasn't even the genre they purported to want to make. I would have ignored it completely except they grumbled about it, which made me curious.