I am about 100 hard pages into Frankenstein and I began to wonder if great writing is enough to make a great book. What I mean is that if a story is bad but written very well is the book bad or good?
There can be no question that Mary Shelley's writing skills are outstanding, but the story itself is dull and boring. It is easy to see why all of the adaptations of the book never stuck to the original story. If they did, the Frankenstein monster, besides speaking like a Shakespearean actor and having a far greater vocabulary then I could ever hope to have, would only be in the film for about 5 minutes. The other hour and a half would be Dr. Frankenstein walking around lamenting his dreaded and cursed creation.
Anyway, back to the question. Is it more likely to have a good book with bad writing and a great story or a good book with great writing and a bad story? Or are they both equally terrible?
PS-I still have about 110 pages left of Frankenstein so my fingers are crossed that I get more monster and less doctor.
That is an interesting question! Personally, bad writing drives me crazy no matter how good the story is. Now that said, I have a weakness for books of the genre "chick-lit" but I will put a book down pretty fast if the writing is bad.
ReplyDeleteI came across the same dilemma when reading Vladimir Nabokov's "Lolita." The writing is unquestionably excellent, and I believe because of that I have to say the story is excellent, despite being very disturbing. But the writing made me appreciate the disturbing nature of the story in a way I didn't think was possible.
So I would rather have good writing with a bad story. As for what is more likely--I definitely think it is more likely to have bad writing with a potentially good story...