# Pretty Prose or Compelling Plot



## FranShaff (Apr 26, 2011)

A book I read recently had a VERY slow, disappointing plot, but the prose for the story were beautiful, poetic even.

Though I found pleasure in reading the lovely words, the lack of compelling storytelling frustrated me.

How do you feel? Will you close a book or delete it if the story is lacking even if it is filled with pretty prose?


----------



## Brad Murgen (Oct 17, 2011)

I'm personally more interested in a great plot and story if I'm just reading a fiction novel.  Too much description or over-flowery prose usually pulls me out of the story.  I remember reading a fantasy novel a long while ago, called The Ill-Made Mute.  The writing style was a bit non-traditional and the author used a lot of obscure words... I like to think I have a decent command of the English language, but I had to check a decent dictionary every 10 pages or so... made reading a bit more of a chore than usual.

I usually get my "pretty prose" type of fix reading poetry.


----------



## Kristan Hoffman (Aug 6, 2009)

FranShaff said:


> A book I read recently had a VERY slow, disappointing plot, but the prose for the story were beautiful, poetic even.
> 
> Though I found pleasure in reading the lovely words, the lack of compelling storytelling frustrated me.
> 
> How do you feel? Will you close a book or delete it if the story is lacking even if it is filled with pretty prose?


Same as you, and yes.

I think the very best books have both -- beautiful writing and compelling, well-paced storytelling -- but I've really lost my patience for books that don't at least have a good plot.


----------



## Carol (was Dara) (Feb 19, 2011)

I'm mostly interested in plot and characters but if the author can turn a pretty phrase too that's a nice bonus.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I had a professor back in the day who insisted that the prose was the point of the novel - followed closely by imagery and symbolism.  Plot and character development were fairly far down his list.    He pretty much ruined me when it comes to literary criticism as I was and still am of the opinion that a novel first tells a story and that beautiful words and images are of secondary importance; if a story isn't interesting, I won't stay long enough to enjoy all the pretty mental pictures....


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I thought pretty words were the primary instrument of poetry?  Without a story - what's the point of a novel, really?  Ideally, there will be both prose and story.  People like Michael Ondaatje and Cormac McCarthy make me want to re-read pages over and over again because their writing is so beautiful.  But there are great stories there also.


----------



## Harry Shannon (Jul 30, 2010)

Both, although if characters are compelling and a plot is clever, a lean and mean style is just fine with me. Swamplandia had wonderful writing, but took so long to get going I finally had to give up on it.


----------



## FranShaff (Apr 26, 2011)

I agree with the majority here. It's nice to have both pretty prose and compelling plot and characters.

But the storytelling and characters are most important of all to me.

Thanks for the responses!


----------



## evie_d (Sep 13, 2011)

I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, but if a story descends into purple prose once too often, I'll probably get bored and wander off.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Story is king. Everything else is decoration. I dislike the trend to see "plot" as a four-letter word. Pretty prose on a story with a poor plot is like serving pig slop on a silver platter. With the best books, the story is so compelling - that is, the combination and interaction of character and plot - that you don't even notice how pretty the prose is. Sure, when you're done, you notice. But while you're reading it, you barely notice that you're reading words on a page - because you are THERE.

Edit: made a correction, I said "... you don't even notice how pretty the plot is." I mean to say "... you don't even notice how pretty the prose is." There. Now my prose is prettier.


----------



## Tommie Lyn (Dec 7, 2009)

QuantumIguana said:


> Story is king. Everything else is decoration.


Exactly.

The story should be so involving, so compelling that I pay no attention to the words. When I'm reading, I want smooth, nearly invisible prose that doesn't get in the way of the story. If the writing calls attention to itself, is "beautiful," it takes away from the story...and irritates me.


----------



## davidhburton (Mar 11, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> Story is king. Everything else is decoration. I dislike the trend to see "plot" as a four-letter word. Pretty prose on a story with a poor plot is like serving pig slop on a silver platter. With the best books, the story is so compelling - that is, the combination and interaction of character and plot - that you don't even notice how pretty the plot is. Sure, when you're done, you notice. But while you're reading it, you barely notice that you're reading words on a page - because you are THERE.


Couldn't have worded this any better.


----------



## Tony Richards (Jul 6, 2011)

But that only happens when the author writes extremely well. Plot is massively important, yes. But flat prose will not make a story come alive, unless it's deliberately flat prose, like Hemingway. Writing isn't about one element or another, it's about all the elements -- plot, prose, character, atmosphere -- all coming together in the right amounts, so that the whole ends up as being far greater than the sum of its parts.


----------



## MarionSipe (May 13, 2011)

I prefer both whenever I can get them!   Of course, a good plot or interesting, well-drawn characters (especially the characters) will hook me even if the prose is mediocre.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Prose can be beautiful without being verbose or getting in the way of the story (see Roger Zelazny, e.g.). There is, to me, a big difference between using language very effectively as well as artistically in order to enhance the reader's visualization and enjoyment, versus the author showing off, so to speak, and giving the words preeminence over the combination of plot, character, and theme.

Of course, as usual, my personal preference is _everything_. Plot without interesting character development is shallow enjoyment at best. Great thematic elements with boring, flat language is unsatisfying. This probably explains why, when I find an author who can at least excel at a couple of those aspects and is reasonably strong in the others, I'll read everything of his or hers that I can get my hands on.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

I like Elmore Leonard's rule: Don't write the stuff nobody reads.


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

It depends on how one defines 'plot',  I love deeply 'The Remains of the Day' but I wouldn't be surprised at 'It has no plot, nothing ever happens!' comments.

Also I second NogDog, beautiful prose doesn't equal verbose or highbrow.


----------



## Sean Cunningham (Jan 11, 2011)

I thought China Mieville's prose in _Kraken_ did an amazing job of making me feel disoriented as the ordinary world was stripped away, but in the end it actually stood in the way of me connecting with the characters.

On the subject of prose, anyone ever read an excerpt of _The Eye of Argon_? Legendary.


----------



## EGranfors (Mar 18, 2011)

"The Luminist" almost killed me with the slow pacing and the lack of story telling. I don't need much, but I do need a plot, characters to like or hate, and some action. Interestingly, a new reviewer just complained my "Stairs of Sand" had too little action. But other people told me it was a bit frantic with Zoozle's need to be doing something all the time, and that something was often trouble.  Weird.


----------



## Mr. Coffee Snob (Jun 27, 2011)

I favor story and character development over fancy prose (though sometimes such prose can be a bonus). I can sometimes look past a weak story, but weak characters often mean the death of a book for me.


----------



## CollinKelley (Sep 1, 2011)

The brilliant Jeanette Winterson had a piece in The Guardian the other day during all the brouhaha about the Booker Prize. A quote from her column:

_Novels that last are language-based novels - the language is not simply a means of telling a story, it is the whole creation of the story. If the language has no power - forget it._

I tend to agree with her. Here's the link for the full article.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/18/booker-prize-readability-test-literature?CMP=twt_gu


----------



## N. Gemini Sasson (Jul 5, 2010)

The plot is the road the story takes. The prose is the scenery. A journey without something to make you pause along the way and take note may get you somewhere, but it isn't as memorable.


----------



## K. D. Jones (Oct 17, 2011)

A really solid novel (IMHO) has a great story that's told in great prose. The two kind of have to go together to make a novel jibe with me. And I've totally been there, where I've read a novel that started out promising (the voice was gorgeous and the opening even had some action in it), but after I was already halfway through, nothing actually happened. It's frustrating, like the voicing is more "eye candy" (or would "brain candy" be more appropriate? LOL), than there to serve the plot (if there is one).


----------



## KateEllison (Jul 9, 2011)

Can't I just have both at the same time? 

Like the majority here, I'll take an a great plot over pretty words that say nothing. I do like beautifully-written books, though.


----------



## Not Here (May 23, 2011)

If there's no plot then there's no point. I would have put it down.


----------



## Katie Salidas (Mar 21, 2010)

Flowery language gets old after a while. If there is not a compelling plot to back the story up, it will eventually lose my interest.


----------



## jamesmonaghan (Oct 22, 2010)

Definitely in the plot before prose camp here. Kind of life in writing, actually: I consider myself much more a storyteller than I do a writer. Writing just happens to be the medium I use, but I would take as much pleasure telling the story through a comic, or film, or radio. As someone else on here said - the story is king.


----------



## FranShaff (Apr 26, 2011)

jamesmonaghan said:


> Definitely in the plot before prose camp here. Kind of life in writing, actually: I consider myself much more a storyteller than I do a writer. Writing just happens to be the medium I use, but I would take as much pleasure telling the story through a comic, or film, or radio. As someone else on here said - the story is king.


It seems the feeling is almost unanimous--the story is king!


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Seleya said:


> It depends on how one defines 'plot', I love deeply 'The Remains of the Day' but I wouldn't be surprised at 'It has no plot, nothing ever happens!' comments.


Yes, I agree in general and about "The Remains of the Day" specifically.

I thought "The Da Vinci Code" had a lot of plot. Alas that it was written on the level of a junior high school student.


----------



## Derz7sk (May 14, 2011)

I remember at University one of the tutors in a Thomas Hardy tutorial on Jude the Obscure saying Hardy had a weakness, that he was always wanting to have things HAPPEN in his books, as if he was writing an adventure story. I thought then, whoa, as for me, I _like_ things to happen. You can keep your Henry James, I'll take Hardy, and Rider Haggard too.


----------



## Guest (Oct 22, 2011)

Pretty prose with piddling plot pontificates but all for naught.


----------



## Susan Brassfield Cogan (Mar 25, 2011)

Plot seems to be winning on this thread and I agree. Pretty prose is nice but frankly I think prose should be invisible. It should be as clear as water so that you see nothing but the story, the characters and what they think and feel. Prose is the opposite of bad children. It should be heard but not seen!


----------



## CNDudley (May 14, 2010)

Rygo Quinlan said:


> I remember at University one of the tutors in a Thomas Hardy tutorial on Jude the Obscure saying Hardy had a weakness, that he was always wanting to have things HAPPEN in his books, as if he was writing an adventure story. I thought then, whoa, as for me, I _like_ things to happen. You can keep your Henry James, I'll take Hardy, and Rider Haggard too.


Yeah, that's a weakness I can get into.

I like how Mark Twain put it in *the funniest essay* ever written. That the first rule in fiction is "1. That a tale shall accomplish something and arrive somewhere."

http://www.pbs.org/marktwain/learnmore/writings_fenimore.html


----------



## Derz7sk (May 14, 2011)

And as Byron said: 'The purpose of scribblement is to amuse'.  (Meaning to entertain, not necessarily in a humorous way.)


----------



## brianjanuary (Oct 18, 2011)

I prefer story above all, but a good story with compelling or interesting language is a bonus. Check out James Lee Burke for both.

Brian January


----------



## Darlene Jones (Nov 1, 2011)

I like a good balance. If the book has wonderful prose, but moves too slowly I give up and move on to something else. On the other hand, I don't stay with a fast moving plot if the writing is not up to par.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

A novel is told with words, so language is a very important part of the book.  Authors must be wordsmiths.  With words as their tools they can build characters and plots--if they write like clodhoppers it won't matter what  great story they can imagine, it will read like crud.  They don't have to write beautiful prose like Vladimir Nabokov,  but have to be skilled at their craft. 

So what's worse?

A) Clodhopper prose with a fast paced plot?
B) Sublime prose with no discernible plot?


----------



## Meb Bryant (Jun 27, 2011)

In exchange for the time I spend reading a book, I appreciate a plot-driven story with fleshed out characters who sometimes recite pretty prose. Beauty is in the eye of the reader.


----------



## cindyvine (Jan 13, 2011)

Like most here, for me it's all about the story and the characters.  I used to enjoy pretty prose when I was younger.  But now at the grand old age of fifty I have no time for long descriptions that sound good but have nothing to do with the story.  Life is just too busy.  Hook me in with the great plot and interesting characters and you have a fan.  Take two pages to tell me how the clock ticked and I delete your book from my Kindle.


----------



## Meka (Sep 8, 2011)

"Hook me in with the great plot and interesting characters and you have a fan.  Take two pages to tell me how the clock ticked and I delete your book from my Kindle."

AMEN!!!


----------



## Ken Magee (Nov 17, 2011)

It's probably an indication that I'm a lazy reader, but if the plot doesn't grab me very quickly then I give up.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

Tried and tried, but couldn't make it through

The Tiger's Wife: A Novel

So much for pretty prose.


----------



## Seanathin23 (Jul 24, 2011)

Pretty Prose is like pretty cinematography in a movie if there is no story to hold it up, nobody will care.


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

DYB said:


> I thought pretty words were the primary instrument of poetry? Without a story - what's the point of a novel, really? Ideally, there will be both prose and story. People like Michael Ondaatje and Cormac McCarthy make me want to re-read pages over and over again because their writing is so beautiful. But there are great stories there also.


Yeah, it's not an either/or proposition.


----------



## EStoops (Oct 24, 2011)

I just tried to read a book last night that had a very, very compelling idea -- a cross between the old Animorphs series and werewolf mythos. (So intriguing to me!) Unfortunately the writing was so simplistic and so skimpy that the plot was ultimately hard to follow... in fact, as the pace picked up, there was almost no pause for description. It lost me then. I was very, very frustrated. The idea was amazing, and with more effort to flesh out the book and rework the descriptions and sentence structure, it could be in league with Animorphs for interest, if not length. 

Compelling plot is a must for me -- I can't get into straight prose, but prose MUST be there for the compelling plot to remain compelling. Going broke on prose won't cover up a weak plot, but a compelling plot can fall apart with poor prose. I will read a compelling plot with only mediocre prose, however.


----------



## Guest (Nov 18, 2011)

Call me picky, but I want both. The best plot in the world won't keep me reading past poor writing--often this is evident early enough on that I just don't buy the book in the first place. And a very slow pace will also result in me reading the book slowly or giving up on it, which is also NOT good. 

If I had to choose between a book very well written but a little slow, and a book that is very well paced, but a little poorly written, I'd go for the good writing. Because poor writing can turn a good story to poo, but good writing can forgive a slow burning plot. (this is my personal tastes, of course). But if I have to pick between VERY slow or VERY poorly written, I just won't. They are both horrible, and there are enough good books out there that I wouldn't need to pick between those two.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I love compelling story, but the prose should be engaging. I love auhor who turn phrases to excite my imagination. Melville, Dickens and Austen do that, although Melville luxuriates in it, and I may be in the minority finding his prose engaging. In fact, I find a vast sea that makes reading worthwhile.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Jon Olson (Dec 10, 2010)

EStoops said:


> I just tried to read a book last night that had a very, very compelling idea -- a cross between the old Animorphs series and werewolf mythos. (So intriguing to me!) Unfortunately the writing was so simplistic and so skimpy that the plot was ultimately hard to follow... in fact, as the pace picked up, there was almost no pause for description. It lost me then. I was very, very frustrated. The idea was amazing, and with more effort to flesh out the book and rework the descriptions and sentence structure, it could be in league with Animorphs for interest, if not length.
> 
> Compelling plot is a must for me -- I can't get into straight prose, but prose MUST be there for the compelling plot to remain compelling. Going broke on prose won't cover up a weak plot, but a compelling plot can fall apart with poor prose. I will read a compelling plot with only mediocre prose, however.


I had this experience with Caleb Carr's THE ALIENIST. Interesting premise and cover, but wow was it slow, and, worse yet, "explainey." I wanted to scream: Just tell the story! We'll get it!


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Jon Olson said:


> I had this experience with Caleb Carr's THE ALIENIST. Interesting premise and cover, but wow was it slow, and, worse yet, "explainey." I wanted to scream: Just tell the story! We'll get it!


It's been many, many years, but I loved the rich details of The Alienist. What some may call slow, others find interesting. I think details done well can be better than fast paced story.


----------



## GerrieFerrisFinger (Jun 1, 2011)

FranShaff said:


> A book I read recently had a VERY slow, disappointing plot, but the prose for the story were beautiful, poetic even.
> 
> Though I found pleasure in reading the lovely words, the lack of compelling storytelling frustrated me.
> 
> ...


----------



## William Woodall (Jun 8, 2009)

I think of a story as a work of art, like a knight's sword. . . a thing which should be exquisitely beautiful, and yet at the same time sharp as a razor and hard as tempered steel.  A good author should never allow himself to overlook any aspect of the craft.


----------



## Jasonauthor (Nov 21, 2011)

I think it is all about personal preference. There are some movies with big, fast plots that I love - the Transformers movies come to mind, the new Doctor Who series - but sometimes I like a movie with strong visuals or that are more about charecter and setting than plot. Same with books. Sometimes I want big and dumb and escapist - but at other times give me language! Give me words and prose and poetry (oh my!)


----------



## jwest (Nov 14, 2011)

I really prefer books that move the plot along while providing easy-to-see word images in my mind. If things get too flowery, it tends to push me out of the story. I have read several books that would make any of my past English teachers cringe and sneer, but they kept me up well past my bedtime


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

Of course I want both but if I have to choose, it's the pretty prose every time.  Great prose, light on the plot.

Dawn


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

Tommie Lyn said:


> Exactly.
> 
> The story should be so involving, so compelling that I pay no attention to the words. When I'm reading, I want smooth, nearly invisible prose that doesn't get in the way of the story. If the writing calls attention to itself, is "beautiful," it takes away from the story...and irritates me.


I agree with this, almost completely.

But there have been some books where the writing really did stand out as excellent. At the same time, it only complemented the story, and was not apart from it.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

NogDog said:


> Prose can be beautiful without being verbose or getting in the way of the story (see Roger Zelazny, e.g.).


Agreed


----------



## Todd Young (May 2, 2011)

Personally, I like simple prose with a great story line. Anything poetic shouldn't get in the way of the story. You shouldn't have to stop and analyse what the writer is trying to say. It's just story.


----------



## Jasonauthor (Nov 21, 2011)

As a writer I LOVE good language - well crafted sentences, dialogue with power -etc. Any of us who write and have a passion for words know how hard it can be to create powerful words in addition to story.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I come from a school where engaging language has a basis in poetry. That is, sound, sense and rythm conspiring to keep a reader in the book and catapulting them into the next chapter and the next. Prose without poetry at it's base is this stuff indeed, IMHO and NSHO. lol This doesn't mean obscure writing. It means using the craft to author something that will linger in the reader's mind, and I mean in a good way — although there are fans of Lederkranz cheese.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Think of the soundtrack from a movie. Most of the time, you don't notice it. But you would notice if it wasn't there. The music helps the story, but is subordinate to it. If the music is inappropriate or upstages the story, it's a problem. When I watch a movie, I want to be fully engaged. I shouldn't be pulled out of the story to comment on how good the music was.

The same thing is true with books. I know it is trendy to see "plot" as a four-letter word, but plot is vital to story. Plot doesn't mean a festival of action. It's just things that happen, that the characters do or have to deal with. Character and plot are not enemies. But the writing should never upstage the story. It aids the story, but should be invisible.


----------



## monicaleonelle (Oct 7, 2010)

I prefer a compelling plot, but as a writer I know it can be difficult to do both. I'm currently re-editing my first novel because the second in the series is coming out next month... and a big part of my edits was cutting a ton of extraneous plot. As much as I love some of the scenes, I do think many readers prefer the plot to move quickly. I know I can always use the scenes as extras or bonuses on my website to get die hard fans to join my email list.

I'm sure there are people who prefer pretty prose, but my guess is that mainstream readers like an interesting plot more. Just look at book series like Twilight or The Hunger Games where the writing is clean, but not particularly pretty.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

I've always regarded "plot" as something I'll be buried in at the end of the path. I prefer to look for (and deliver when I'm up at bat) "sotry," whiich organically grows from character, narrative and setting. Of course, we could be talking about a recipe or a cereal box, so growing a story requires push from an author and a receptive imagination from the reader. "Plots" are extracted after the fact for TV Guide.  

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

A story without plot isn't a story at all.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

QuantumIguana said:


> A story without plot isn't a story at all.


Plot is a fabrication extricated after the fact. A story is the sum of the work. Most works that assume a plot plummet like a stone. Most works that embrace story consume everything in its path.

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

No, plot is not extracted after the fact. The plot may be observed upon reading, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist beforehand. Books that don't have a plot are the ones that sink like a stone.


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

Well I guess I stand corrected after 50 years of writing and 18 published books. I have this argument all the time, trying to urge authors, especially ones who are stuck in 3rd gear, to shuck the crutches - plot and outlines or as I call them, cement overshoes and straight jackets. I am a champion of the genuine article and view artificial structures to be training bras. I burned mine in 1965, Hallelujah!  

Edward C. Patterson


----------



## Edward C. Patterson (Mar 28, 2009)

QuantumIguana said:


> I disagree with you. It is allowed, even if you are the supreme overlord of books. I could find a whole lot of authors who don't share your views on plot, are they all wrong?


No one who takes up the guantlet to express their voice is "all wrong." Much the same as my view that writing and authoring are two different things, one encompassing the other. Thank you for the "supreme overlord," compliment, but I only recognize that when I'm at a fancy drag ball during pride month, and the title is "Empress." 

Kindleboard's very own, Miss Chatty


----------



## Anne Maven (Apr 18, 2011)

Pretty prose, I think, makes a weak plot even worse. But a harmonious mix of two is always welcome.


----------



## Glen Hendrix (Sep 5, 2011)

Prose trumps plot. You only have to look at one of Dean Koontz's thrillers. He will take 20 pages to go on about an event of which the elapsed time could not be more than 10 minutes, and you don't give a tinker's damn.


----------



## James Conway (Jul 7, 2011)

Kristan Hoffman said:


> Same as you, and yes.
> 
> I think the very best books have both -- beautiful writing and compelling, well-paced storytelling -- but I've really lost my patience for books that don't at least have a good plot.


Agreed! A book has to pass the "so what?" test for me. If there is no plot (or a well told plotless tale) it is like Gertrude Stein's description of Los Angeles, "there's no "there" there. And if you don't write beautifully what differentiates you from other writers?


----------

