Thread: The Imagination of a Great Storyteller, or the Eloquence of a Master Writer?

Some people have a way with words. Their syntax and word-choice reflects their ability and personality. Their works are meant to be enjoyed, savoured, and studied. People like William Shakespeare, James Joyce, and Charles Dickens. They are, for want of a better term, the masters of their trade. Yet, for me at least, their stories tend to become tedious after a little while. I say that with the greatest respect one can when speaking of people who are long since deceased and have achieved more than I ever will.

On the other hand, there are some writers who, while they may lack the same eloquence as the aforementioned authors, tell a riveting yarn. It is not their personality or ability which shines through in their work. I believe it is their imagination. People like Dan Brown who, grammar issues and word-choice aside, is one of the most entertaining authors of this century. The Australian, Matthew Reilly, who packs more punch into one chapter than most do in entire novels. The former police reporter, Michael Connelly, whose stories represent the benchmark today in crime fiction.

What would you prefer to be? An eloquent writer, or a imaginative and engaging storyteller? I suppose you could say a mixture of both, but for the sake of debate, choose one. Personally, I would go with the latter. Eloquent writers are rare, no doubt, but great storytellers are equally so. There's an art in grabbing a reader on the first page and never letting go. Plus, I would much rather be lost in a good story than lost in the formal words and near-purple prose of a master.

I think you are doing Dickens a dis-service, his plots are amongs the most convoluted and complicated I have ever met. You should also consider the age in which he was writing, his prose may seem "near purple" to you now, but in his time he wrote for ordinary people and his prose is a product of his time.

Difficult choice, but I think a good writer rather than an inventor of plots, a good plot in the hands of a poor writer can be lost, a really good writer can write about going to post a letter and it is still worth reading. Of course I would most like to be both.

I'd rather be the great story teller. A creative mind is worth far more. To create a new world and have it inspire others is true art. Writing in fancy ways is pretend art. I want the message to inspire rather than the words.

I prefer option two. Eloquence does not make a good story.

As most people want for what they do not have, like the spoiled child who notices his playmates interest in a forgotten toy. I want for option B. I often find myself able to create suspense with words in short passages. It is my long game that suffers. I have trouble holding suspense through a novel length plot.

I'm with Olly, I'd like both gifts please. Given the choice of only one of the skills, it must be the ability to convey what I want the reader to see and believe with a delicate touch; to be able to paint wondrous landscapes with a few carefully chosen words and well constructed sentences. It needn't take many, give the reader some credit and allow his/her imagination do the rest; it's a two way street you know. The words don't need to be fancy, simply thought over and well chosen.

I have no imagination. I can only write about what I have seen. I have deliberately trained myself not to write fancy. I work to make my writing clean, clear, simple, direct, and strong, which always kept wire service editors happy.

Does this mean I never can expect to develop an ability to write fiction?

clean, clear, simple, direct, and strong,

That almost perfectly matches my definition of good writing in any genre, "The best words in the best order" as someone once said.

Originally Posted by garza

I have no imagination. I can only write about what I have seen. I have deliberately trained myself not to write fancy. I work to make my writing clean, clear, simple, direct, and strong, which always kept wire service editors happy.

Does this mean I never can expect to develop an ability to write fiction?

I doubt you have no imagination, Garza. You just cease to rely on it because most of your writing is factual. Reporters don't make up stories, after all, but they certainly have the ability to make someone else's interesting. One of the authors I mentioned, Michael Connelly, started off as a crime reporter. He's now a household name and is working on his 13th or 14th Harry Bosch novel. Not to mention a string of stand-alones.

I like good stories, but not necessarily riveting yarns. They can be mostly about ordinary people dealing with extraordinary (for them) circumstances. I'm going to to want to read something like Richard Yates' Revolutionary Road as opposed to something by Dan Brown.

Regardless, I like things that are well written -- where the writing itself, not just the story, inspires me. Words that flow. Pointed (or even poetic) description that puts me right in the middle of things. Thought provoking metaphor and accurate simile. Where a paragraph or a single sentence might be something I'd go back and read just to savor it. It can be simple -- it doesn't have anything to do with flowery or expansive prose. Just good writing. All that is very important to me. If that's what eloquence is, as it might apply to something that might be read or published today (as opposed to the authors mentioned) then that's what I want.

Of course, all that only counts for so much if the story isn't good, so I don't really separate the style or quality of writing itself from the story. I want to read and write both.

In class this year, this was kind of our lament's way of separating genre fiction and literary fiction.

I fall into literary because I write character-based work more so than plot-based.
I don't actually feel like I have great yarns to spin. I feel like I can take how I see people and the world, put it on a page, and entertain someone in doing so. That's why I write.

I think a good example of a sense of story losing way to eloquence, pardon me fans of the series, is Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The language is often brilliant, dazzling, distracting, extremely funny, but I'll be damned if there's much of a story in there. I enjoyed reading it, but not for the story.

I recall reading a piece on Douglas Adams. He was one of those "tortured" writers who sat hunched by the keyboard in desperation, ready to tear his hair out because he couldn't construct "perfect" sentences. I don't think he wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for the story, though, as you say. It is funny. The first 100 pages had me in tears.

I think you are doing Dickens a dis-service, his plots are amongs the most convoluted and complicated I have ever met. You should also consider the age in which he was writing, his prose may seem "near purple" to you now, but in his time he wrote for ordinary people and his prose is a product of his time.

Haha, yeah; it's just that he makes it look so easy. You read him and think, "Oh, I COULD DO THAT!" but then you can't.

As for the OP's question: I have no preference. I don't choose reading material based on type and usually am reading several things at any given time; on the dining room table at this moment are lying several art books (A. Mucha and some other poster-type artists and a "Spirit" graphic novel), a manual that tells and shows how to lay forms for a concrete foundation, the Clymer manual for Smudge's new motorcycle, the nonfiction WWII book Retribution, and a couple of novels I only just finished reading which are older sci-fi type novels my friend found at a book sale.

Whatever writer of fiction I get hung up on at any given time is a totally random process; someone says, "I'll bet you would like the Thomas Covenant series, it's really well-written," and so I read that. Someone else recommends Henry James, and though I've read and re-read his stuff before, I read it again. I find an old novel that was set aside several years ago by my friend's deceased partner, with her bookmark still in it, even; I read that.

I just read whatever is there, a lot of the time even if it's NOT well-written, just to read. If I'm at someone else's house (especially if I'm bored with whatever's going on there) I'll read the stuff that person has lying out, that he/she has been reading.

Last summer I had a sort of goal to read everything that Joyce Carol Oates has written, but that project sort of fell by the wayside what with the "angry villagers with their pitchforks and torches" scene that I had to deal with. I think that Oates is a combination of a heavy literary-style writer AND a storyteller... which sort of answers your question, in a roundabout way, I suppose! lol

I'm pretty picky with my reading. I'm usually one of those 'if I start it, I have to finish it' types. And I get stuck reading things like the Twilight series. There are times when I'm staying with family, and I pick up an god-awful book. I mean.. it looks good, because the owner has the entire series, and several other series' from the same author. It must be good.. and I start reading, and end up praying, hoping that it gets better, or that I'll die before I have to turn another page.

I just don't know how books like the True Blood series get published. Sure, some might argue that it's a popular theme.. but it's poorly written. I truly did enjoy both the Twilight series and the True Blood series.. because I like the vampire side of things. It allows me to forgive much.. but I still know that they're both poorly written. Anne Rice did a much better job, despite the fact that I cannot get past a certain book with more homosexual activity than I can handle. I've tried twice now... I don't have nightmares about vampires anymore..

So there is something to say about writing the right story for the time, and being able to tell a good story; more so than the ability to write it well.