I've considered reviewing stories before. I like to read, I like to offer advice, so it seems like a fun idea. Whenever I consider it again, I fall back into the same little discussion in my mind...

Does a story's quality matter that much?

Let me be clear. I'm not talking about the meta things such as grammar and punctuation and all those small technicalities that every story should follow. I'm talking about the broad things such as plots, originality, and--most importantly--the writing itself.

Stories are generally here to entertain, right? Some aren't, but most are. If a story is here to entertain, and it can successfully do that, then hooray! The story is doing its job... even if the way it does that isn't of high quality. But does it truly matter if it's a beautiful portrait or not? A lot of people seem stuck in the mindset that bad stories are simply that--bad with nothing more to it. Even if the story is widely-liked, those kinds of people seem stuck in their own mindset. It's fine to see the flaws in something, but it's important to realize that it doesn't always need look pretty to be entertaining.

Sure, some people only find high-quality stories entertaining. There's the fact that quality often is linked to entertainment. In this case, it's more of a balancing act. The two are indeed linked, but they don't necessarily have to be. There's a plethora of nice things in the world that are sub-par. An example I'd give is the Pacific Rim movie that came out a few years ago. In case you don't know, it's not very good in a quality sense (average, predictable plot with plenty of cliches). But it does its job of entertaining people with giant robot fights splendidly well, which is why it's so successful and generally liked. Isn't that what it's about? Providing entertainment? If something that's only average can accomplish this well, then I see no problem.

If I started doing reviews, I'd judge it on two separate fronts: quality value and entertainment value. Just because one is high, doesn't mean the other will be low (on a side note, that goes both ways. A masterpiece of a story can still be the most boring thing in the world).

What do you think? Does a story have to be of high quality or can it do its job without being labeled a "bad story?"

I think Things Better Left Unseen is a recent example of a story that had several errors in the way of quality that still turned out to be very entertaining to, well, about 9,000 people. Evidently not enough errors to make it impossible to enjoy.

4632091
I think you're dipping your toe in the water of what most consider the endless debate between "High-class Literature" and "Entertainment." There's been a debate on that since literature first formed.

Let me be clear. I'm not talking about the meta things such as grammar and punctuation and all those small technicalities that every story should follow. I'm talking about the broad things such as plots, originality, and--most importantly--the writing itself.

I disagree ... somewhat. The crux of your statement here seems to be that grammar and punctuation are more important that plot, character, and the skill of the wordsmith at prose, theme, and other elements. I'd have to disagree completely on that assertion. A good story can be good despite having typos, but a bad story will never been good even if it is mechanically correct.

I would argue that a lot of what becomes popular on this site argues that a story need not be good, either, nor mechanically sound, in order to become a success or even to gain a large following. Then again, most fanfiction doesn't set a high bar, and most of the readers here aren't looking for anything to clear it—some would even prefer it not.

Again, this is a debate that's as old as literature. What your comment seems to be missing is that for most, in order to be entertaining a story needs to have a plot, characters, thematic elements, etc. Here on Fimfiction, where a story over 20,000 words can put itself into the top 10,000 longest fics on the site, most aren't going to notice if a story lacks one of those areas, as they're here for something fast and quick, flash in the pan.

Moving beyond that, into writing for profit and holding reader's interests, a lot of that changes. There are very few of the "flash in the pan" fics on this site that any of those readers would actually pay money for (though there are other stories where they would).

Again, I see where you're going with this, but you're coming at it from the wrong angle, I think. Writing a story without plot, character, etc, that's 1000 words long may win attention, but for those who truly want to entertain ... you need those things more than ever.

4632091 There are a lot of different axis on which a story can engage a reader, entertain, and keep their interest.

Your story generally only has to score high on a few of these for people to not feel like they've wasted their time reading it, but there rare gems that score high in every category, and stories which have very little to offer anyone.

I once read a piece of wisdom that went something along the lines of "Good stories are the ones that get better the more you think about them, not fall apart like wet tissue paper."

I still think that's pretty much the defining line on the subject. A lot of content out there will entertain, but it's the quality works that stick with people after they're over. Good stories are ones that people want to think about, analyze, and build on. Bad stories, however much someone is willing to turn off their brain and enjoy them for what they are, won't stand up to that kind of scrutiny. The minute you start thinking about Michael Bay's Transformers with any critical respect, the whole thing falls apart. And, ultimately, Michael Bay's Transformers is barren creative ground. It made big bux at the box office, but nobody's rushing to remember it. Nobody's writing fanfics about it or writing lengthy investigations of the universe it presents us with like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or even Friendship is Magic. It's just... there, and will probably be forgotten at our earliest convenience.

Junk food fills you up just as well as anything else. The difference is really in the nutritional value.

4632091

Yes.

Disclaimer: opinion.

4632091

Let me be clear. I'm not talking about the meta things such as grammar and punctuation and all those small technicalities that every story should follow. I'm talking about the broad things such as plots, originality, and--most importantly--the writing itself.

Well, I would say those things definitely help a lot. And some are more important than others.

I mean, I think having a good plot is pretty vital. Language in important in such that you don't want to actually annoy your readers. And originality? Eh, it's a nice thing to have but kinda overrated in this day and age. Usually it just comes down to finding an interesting variation on something the readers are already familiar with.

At the end of the day, I think it's fine to write a fun story without aiming for top quality. Just, having a good foundation to build the story on certainly doesn't hurt.

Plus, writing is a skill - a craft -and mastering it is part of what makes it stimulating. To be a great writer, I suspect, you have to enjoy this stuff. You have to relish the feeling of putting a good plot together and turning an idea into the best story you can. Not because you are expected to or because you can't stand writing mediocre stuff, but because it feels amazing when it all comes together.

4632091 Yes, quality matters.

I'm not here to read, and I hope not to write, forgettable stories that merely entertain. I'm looking for the gems that I'll remember after the entertainment / instant gratification part is long past. Those are the stories that matter. Those are the ones that change lives.

4632091

The way I think of things like plot, characters, and originality being important to a fic is like this: if everyone pitched the same basic fic idea, a human goes to Equestria and falls in love with a mane 6 character and does all those things that are now considered cliched, it will become progressively harder for me to find it entertaining and fun to read. You know, been there done that? Originality and quality of a story are what ultimately will get me to read something in the first place. I might miss some gems that follow the tired archetypes such as HiE or FoE stories, but I just tend to gravitate toward things that are slightly more original. It immediately shows more creativity to me. But that's just my opinion.

4632091 As others have said above, anyone who wants their work to be remembered/make a difference to people should aim for high quality. It all depends on whether you see stories as an art form or mere entertainment, and neither interpretation is more or less true than the other.

4632091

The problem is that spelling and grammatical errors can get in the way of entertainment. First of all, when one reads them, they remind one that one is actually engaging in the process of reading, a process which is under most circumstances mentally-transparent to the experienced reader. Secondly, if they say a hilariously wrong thing, they can yank you right out of the story due to inappropriate affect (such as a serious tragic romance refer to the main characters of the show as "The Mane Sex" or something like that -- I remember one story I Rage Reviewed which referred to Twilight's draconian companion as "Spick," which caused me to envision Spike as a Mexican being picked on by the Anglo Ponies). Finally, if they're really bad, one may not be able to tell what the author is attempting to say, because the writing is so confused that it fails at the most basic task of description.

4632256 4632248 4632236>>4632177 You see, I'm not comparing downright awful stories to award-winning ones in case that's not clear. I mean average ones that may not be as good, but still work. Who's to say those can't fit the categories of "ones that stick with you" or "make a difference"? Also, when I say entertaining, I don't mean something like a simple comedy. It can still be something like a deep and meaningful tragedy that just not as up to par as some others.

4632230 4632147 Allow me to explain the quoted part (more ). I'm aware that a story needs things like plot and characters, and I know a story can have typos. I'm just referring to stories that are riddled with technical errors that sap away from everything else. As for the "broad" things, I mean that a story may not need to do those things beautifully to work. Sorry for the confusion.

4632297
Quality matters on the person. Some people may not give much thought about it, or do but just don't really care about it. While there are others who will judge the story on almost every sentence in it.

In the end, I'd say quality is important, but to the individual, it differs.

4632091

Lack of quality jars me and makes it difficult to stay "in" the story. This displeases me.

4632297

Well, there's nothing that really prevents a fundamentally average story from sticking with someone. It's just that it's not as likely to do so as a so-called good story. That's kind of inherent to the definition. If what is technically an average story manages to reach out and stick with people on a widespread basis, it's probably going to be overall reevaluated as a good story.

People who're particularly critical about, say, the Star Wars movies, might argue that this is already the case.

4632382 That's pretty much what I was trying to say. People valuing an average story as good because they like it or another reason.

4632297

Well, thing is, the various qualities of a story are cumulative, right? What a story "needs" - like, bare minimum - is debatable, but it's not like any of these aspects we're talking about lack merit. If you can do something beautifully, then it's going to make the story better. That goes for all parts of the story - artistic quality, technical excellence and entertainment value.

I mean, one one hand, I hate finding a story that is amazingly well written yet so lacking in storytelling that it fails to capture my interest at all. On the other hand, I also hate finding stories with a very interesting concept that are squandered on poor writing. You don't want to neglect either, is what I'm basically saying.

4632551 I hear you on that. Like I said, it's about finding a balance.

4632091 I write to move and tell my tales, not to entertain, specifically.

4632091
McDonalds hamburgers taste good.

There are other hamburgers which are much better, though.

If you ever want to eat something better than McDonalds quality food, you care about quality.

There is no such thing as a separate quality value. A story can't be "high quality but boring"; if it is boring, then it isn't high-quality. Quality isn't just about mere prose, it is also about characterization, dialogue, engagement, structure, and a wide variety of other things.

Note that there are other factors which enter into your enjoyment of a story, such as whether or not you're in the target audience. As Roger Ebert said of Shoot Em Up:

"Shoot 'em Up," written and directed by the gung-ho Michael Davis, is the most audacious, implausible, cheerfully offensive, hyperactive action picture I've seen since, oh, "Sin City," which in comparison was a chamber drama. That I liked "Shoot 'em Up" is a consequence of a critical quirk I sometimes notice: I may disapprove of a movie for going too far, and yet have a sneaky regard for a movie that goes much, much farther than merely too far. This one goes so far, if you even want to get that far, you have to start half-way there, which means you have to be a connoisseur of the hard-boiled action genre and its serio-comic subdivision (or sub-basement).

It is true that if you crank up the quality meter enough, you might enjoy something even from a genre you don't even enjoy - I enjoy StarCraft and StarCraft 2, for instance, but don't actually like Real Time Strategy games in that vein at all - those two games just happened to be good enough to be fun for me, and overcome my general dislike of the genre. Being in the target audience for a thing will increase your tolerance for any flaws in the piece, and/or allow you to assume genre conventions that would bother other people.

The higher quality a piece is, the better an experience it is for everyone who is consuming it. That doesn't mean everyone will like it, but high quality is better than low quality. People really do appreciably enjoy higher quality writing more, and it tends to stick with people more. A really good story can improve someone's life, ever so fractionally, as it sticks with them and makes them a better person, or at least brings them enduring joy, rather than simply something to be consumed and forgotten, never to be thought of again, just something that occupied their time and then went away.

There is no "balance" - something being of higher quality just makes it better. That being said, if you don't like hamburgers, even the world's best hamburger may not be something you like all that much.

4632091

No, it doesn't.

I don't think anyone really knows how to define quality (when applied to storytelling) anyway. Under any scrutiny, the term falls apart like an ice cream in a staring contest with superman. It reduces to either arbitrary qualities (originality) or vague and subjective terms (stories that stick with you), or both.

Sure, you can have quality judgements in your reviews. Or star ratings. Or whatever shorthand gimmick you like. But the value in reviews (for someone like me, who's looking for something new to read) is in your ability to pick apart the story and explain your own reactions. Is it original? Is it heartbreaking? Does it try to be heartbreaking but fails because of reliance on cliches? And so on.

There's a review on Bookslut which starts with a few paragraphs of admission. You sum it up with: "Try as I might, I can’t get past the dense lyricism that decorates his pages, like all of the baroque geegaws that adorn certain churches." I really appreciated that, regardless of what the rest of the review might say, because it alerted me to how the reviewer might judge things differently than I do.

4632091 Entertainment is just one of the features of quality. If you lower the entertainment part, you have to raise up the other features (characterization, plot, etc.) to keep the quality on the same level.

4632091
4632147 4632177 < What these fine, literary folks said.
Both types of writing have their place. I enjoy silly little one-shots perfectly well, whether or not they are written with technical perfection (though it does help to a measurable degree). But it's the well-written, well thought-out, thought-provoking stories that have stayed with me and inspired me. Those stories that I go back and read again just to re-live that one beautiful scene that brought me to tears, or made me jump out of my seat and cheer. Those are the ones that stick with you. The ones that do more than simply 'entertain'.

4632105 Well, the story got over 9k views, yes, but that doesn't mean that over 9k people read it. I've had lots of people reread my stories multiple times, and those are the ones telling me that they're doing so. Who knows how many more reread my stuff? The view counter moves forward one when someone clicks the chapter link.

Quality is one of those things that I've been on the fence about lately.

Do I like good quality things? Yeah, some stuff I like happens to fall into that category. But a lot of stuff doesn't. And that's fine. FiM isn't really the groundbreaking show we all thought it was when we first came here. Granted it's better than a lot of other cartoons out today, but it's not some divine creation like some bronies would have you believe. There are other things out there that are "better."

I constantly hear Steven Universe is better than FiM. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I'm not really interested in having that discussion. I've seen SU, and it just didn't grab me the way FiM did. So, what does the supposed quality mean? Well, fuck all, to be honest. Harry Potter has grown into a huge thing since it's release. I like the books, but I wouldn't really put them on any pedestal. Yet they're sure on one now. But there's an argument to be made over why they're there. Is it due to their inherent quality? Or the acquired, perceived quality given to them by a growing pop culture zeitgeist?

I've seen quality things that make me think, and I've seen so called "junk food" that's made me think just as much, if not more. There seems to be a sort of identity tied to things of perceived quality. I find it amusing. You'll often see these things on people's social media profiles. Heck, even on here.

Favorite movies: Schindler's List, Godfather, Citizen Kane, Casablanca, etc.

Yeah, those could be that person's favorite movies. Fine. But it's also used as a "Hey, look how refined my tastes are!" thing, which I find a tad bit pathetic if it's advertised like that.

Quality will depend on the individual, and what flaws the individual will be willing to overlook in favor of the good. Even "quality" works will have worts, but they should have significantly less.

4633492 Yeah, to be accurate, it should only count the first time someone clicks on the story.

4632091 Survey of the trending stories and feature box indicates it doesn't. Not even in the slightest. We, here at TWG, like to think we hold ourselves to a higher standard, but that isn't really true either.

4632091
I treat stories described as 'high quality' the same way I treat stories described as 'well written'. Both of those terms can mean a variety of things to different people, so the terms themselves mean very little without further qualification. Personally, I would define 'high quality' as something that sucks a reader in and keeps them there even after they're done reading it.

As for whether it's important or not. That's up to the author. Do they want readers to keep coming back and finding some new aspect of the work to enjoy, or are they okay with readers just finishing and forgetting it?