Good Storyteller vs. Good Writer

McKenna

Literotica Guru
Joined
Dec 5, 2001
Posts
15,267
I was surprised to read that some critics have labelled John Grisham a "good storyteller, but not a very good writer." The timing of this article seemed appropriate given Abs' thread about "writers."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

John Grisham has No Illusions about Writing

NEW YORK (AP) -- Some things John Grisham knows: He got 15 rejections before his first book, "A Time to Kill," was published. He made $9 million last year. He's not James Joyce or William Faulkner. He's an entertainer.

John Grisham recently published his 21st book, a legal thriller (of course) named "The Appeal."

"I'm not sure where that line goes between literature and popular fiction," the mega-selling author says. "I can assure you I don't take myself serious enough to think I'm writing literary fiction and stuff that's going to be remembered in 50 years. I'm not going to be here in 50 years; I don't care if I'm remembered or not. It's pure entertainment."

Grisham is happy to write what he hopes is "a high-quality popular fiction." But that matters not to fans, who gobble every word.

Sometimes he wraps a serious issue around a plot -- the death penalty in "The Chamber," insurance reform in "The Rainmaker," homelessness in "The Street Lawyer." Now the self-styled political junkie and former Mississippi state legislator has written a book that's more political intrigue than legal thriller.

"The Appeal" (his 21st book) tells the story of a huge chemical company that loses a $41 million lawsuit for causing cancer deaths and then essentially tries to buy an election for the state Supreme Court -- where, yes, the appeal will be heard.

"I guess every year now is a political year. ... And it just felt like it was time to write this story," Grisham says, alluding to how the run for the White House has become a marathon of sorts.

Grisham, who turned 53 on February 8 and still has the lanky look of an athlete who once chased a baseball career, is a big supporter of Hillary Clinton and says the Democrats have been outmaneuvered by the Republicans.

"I think what the Republicans have done in past elections is brilliant. Because, they've convinced a lot of people to vote for them against their own economic self-interest, and they've done that by skillfully manipulating a handful of social issues, primarily abortion and gay rights and sometimes gun control," he says. "And the Republicans have used those to scare a lot of people into voting for Republican candidates. It's skillful manipulation."

Grisham, who lives in the Charlottesville, Virginia, area, is so addicted to following the presidential race that he jokes he might need rehab.

"My wife and I went out to dinner a couple of weeks ago, and we actually called somebody to find out if they had any results from the Nevada caucuses," he says, chortling almost sheepishly. "And I said this ought to tell us something: 'You know, we're in this thing way too deep.' "

Still, he's able to pull himself away from primaries and polls to indulge fans and tour his new book, already at the top of some best-seller lists.

Grisham's books have sold 235 million copies worldwide, according to publisher Doubleday. Some, of course, have been adapted into blockbuster movies, starring such heavyweights as Denzel Washington, Julia Roberts, Samuel L. Jackson, Tom Cruise and Matt Damon.

Reviews of "The Appeal" have been generally positive, though some can be reduced to previous assessments of Grisham: fine storyteller but not a particularly good writer.

"When I start getting good reviews, I worry about sales," jokes Grisham, who says he's learned to ignore reviews.

"It's a better day if I don't read any reviews," he says. "It's the only form of entertainment where you're reviewed by other writers. You don't see rock stars reviewing each other's albums, and you don't see directors reviewing each other's movies."

An enduring influence on Grisham's work is John le Carre, author of such celebrated thrillers as "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold," "The Honourable Schoolboy" and "A Small Town in Germany."

"He's still my hero," Grisham says.

But he doesn't read a lot when he's writing. "We all want to read good books, and so you read a good book by a really good writer, and I catch myself inadvertently imitating him or her. And so you think, 'Well, I wouldn't use that word, I wouldn't do that sentence that way.' I read a lot when I'm not writing."

He started this year with the goal of reading everything by John Steinbeck ("The Grapes of Wrath," "Cannery Row," "The Pearl"), who was one of Grisham's favorite authors growing up. And he just finished a "Mark Twain binge."

"I keep up with the other lawyers [who write] -- Scott Turow. I read all Scott's stuff. And I think Scott is really underestimated as a writer. He's really, really good," Grisham says.

Turow recently told The Associated Press that the feelings were mutual: "I am an enormous admirer of John Grisham at every level -- as a person, as a citizen of both the literary and legal worlds and, most relevantly, as a writer. John is one of the pre-eminent storytellers of our time, and the grace and seamlessness with which his stories come together to grip us all is a wonder."

Among other writers Grisham likes: David Baldacci, Steve Martini, Pat Conroy and Stephen King.

"I'll start two, three books a week, rarely finish one. But I'm always looking," Grisham says. "Love to buy books. Love to stack 'em up in the house. We've got a million books in the house."

When he first started writing, Grisham says, he had "these little rituals that were silly and brutal but very important."

"The alarm clock would go off at 5, and I'd jump in the shower. My office was 5 minutes away. And I had to be at my desk, at my office, with the first cup of coffee, a legal pad and write the first word at 5:30, five days a week."

His goal: to write a page every day. Sometimes that would take 10 minutes, sometimes an hour; ofttimes he would write for two hours before he had to turn to his job as a lawyer, which he never especially enjoyed. In the Mississippi Legislature, there were "enormous amounts of wasted time" that would give him the opportunity to write.

"So I was very disciplined about it," he says, then quickly concedes he doesn't have such discipline now: "I don't have to."




Link.
 
This was all discussed in an interview with Charlie Rose and John Grisham on PBS early in the week. My reaction was: So? There's a problem with making $9,000,000 per year telling stories?

Anyone who has read James Joyce would love to strangle him because of the convoluted style and unintellegable references. But this is "most high literature" as the Irish say. I doubt Grisham gets the same kind of reaction from his readers.

Look at the writers who really sell: Grisham, Turrow, King, Custler, Brown, etc. They make up easily half the book sales in paperback. Are any of them "most high literature"? Hell no. They are all storytellers.

I suppose there is someone around who gets a hard-on from writing "literature" (and not finding a publisher), but, personally, I'd go for the $9,000,000 and anyone who calls me a storyteller or even a hack can go fuck themeselves. ;)
 
I suppose there is someone around who gets a hard-on from writing "literature" (and not finding a publisher), but, personally, I'd go for the $9,000,000 and anyone who calls me a storyteller or even a hack can go fuck themeselves. ;)


Storyteller! Hack!

Now, excuse me. I'm off to fuck myself. :D
 
The BIBLE and QURAN likely sell better than all books combined. The BIBLE has a few passages of sublime prose, but most of it is simple stories and genealogies.

I've read some memoirs that are better than any popular fiction or literature. Especially one memoir by a French cavalry officer attached to Napoleon's bodyguard. You cant invent tales such as he lived. The story is compelling and the prose is sublime.
 
This was all discussed in an interview with Charlie Rose and John Grisham on PBS early in the week. My reaction was: So? There's a problem with making $9,000,000 per year telling stories?

Exactly! :D

I wouldn't mind making that kind of money telling stories. :)
 
That's ridiculous-- Grisham is a writer. He writes it down.

There may be a difference in style, intent and erudition, but those are differences well within the spectrum of "writer."
 
Grisham will probably still be remembered in 50 years. He just won't be required reading in a high school or college lit. class. Personally, I'd rather not be required reading in a lit class anyway. They pick your work apart and ascribe thinking to it that you never had when writing. The nearest I can tell to be considered for high literary quality since the 19th century you pretty much had to be a drug addict, alcoholic, or have the kind of serious psychological issues that prevent you from functioning in normal society. No thanks.

Frankly, I'll take the part of the good storyteller any day. The ancient bards were good storytellers. Nobody remembers most of their names now but their work lives on and continues to entertain readers and listeners. That seems a much greater legacy than being allowed to frustrate students for centuries until they all curse your name.
 
Grisham will probably still be remembered in 50 years. He just won't be required reading in a high school or college lit. class.
There's a reason why those other guys are "required reading". If it weren't "required", no one would read it.

*Good* writing is writing that engages the reader.
 
i see the point clearly. he's a good storyteller. his writing is adequate, but not conrad or hardy or even conroy or pynchon or de lillo.

one test: who re reads grisham? would you read a page to a friend, to show his mastery of prose? it's tricky plots, inside info, and surprises. it's like that vatican intrigue book, Da Vinci Code.
 
Last edited:
Different skills, both valid in their own right.

Good Storyteller/Adequate writer gets the money. Adequate Storyteller/Good Writer gets the plaudits and respect.

I suspect this has a lot to do with why the high end literary types get so snooty about Grisham, JK Rowling and co.

Personally the elitist types annoy me because they're not taking into account all of the attributes. It's not only about the writing style. Good Writer/Good Storyteller trumps Adequate Writer/Good Storyteller, but Adequate writer/Good storyteller thrashes Good Writer/Rubbish Storyteller every day of the week as far as I'm concerned.
 
I've read a Grisham...of hand I can't remember the title and it was really slow going at first, the very first paragraph was almost enough to stop me reading but as i got deeper into the book I got pulled in and I read avidly to the end.

He's obviously not a well polished writer but he is a damn good storyteller and that's what really matters.
 
i see the point clearly. he's a good storyteller. his writing is adequate, but not conrad or hardy or even conroy or pynchon or de lillo.

one test: who re reads grisham? would you read a page to a friend, to show his mastery of prose? it's tricky plots, inside info, and surprises. it's like that vatican intrigue book, Da Vinci Code.

Add this as another test. Since I can't read Grisham, don't care for the stories. A good writer makes you want to read the book whether you care for the story or not.
 
LoquaciousLady said:
The nearest I can tell to be considered for high literary quality since the 19th century you pretty much had to be a drug addict, alcoholic, or have the kind of serious psychological issues that prevent you from functioning in normal society. No thanks.

Well, let's see. I'm a former drug addict and most certainly classify under multiple labels of mental disorder in the DSMIV --not that I put store by those labels. I love the literature of the 19th century. I adore Hemingway, Proust, Fitzgerald and Flaubert. And, I used to teach literature courses. I guess I can officially count myself among the kind of folks you wouldn't like.
 
Add this as another test. Since I can't read Grisham, don't care for the stories. A good writer makes you want to read the book whether you care for the story or not.

I have to disagree on that one. I acknowledge Steinbeck as a good writer. His work is well-crafted. But no amount of skill, bribery, or threat of punishment could induce me to read his works ever again. I trudged through a couple back in my lit course days and hated every minute even while recognizing his literary skill.

I know that's a matter of taste and I'll probably be flambeed for saying so. I know that many people enjoy his work tremendously. Perhaps that's why "good storytelling" is much more subjective than "good writing."
 
Different skills, both valid in their own right.

Good Storyteller/Adequate writer gets the money. Adequate Storyteller/Good Writer gets the plaudits and respect.

I suspect this has a lot to do with why the high end literary types get so snooty about Grisham, JK Rowling and co.

Personally the elitist types annoy me because they're not taking into account all of the attributes. It's not only about the writing style. Good Writer/Good Storyteller trumps Adequate Writer/Good Storyteller, but Adequate writer/Good storyteller thrashes Good Writer/Rubbish Storyteller every day of the week as far as I'm concerned.
As it does for most people-- in fact, I'd say everyone. Even those critics who laud Joyce to the skies are able to pull the story out of the verbal morass (or, at least, they've convinced themselves they can)!

One of my weaknesses is those lady Dective writers. Agatha Christie is a good writer/good storyteller, sometimes. Margery Allingham is a good storyteller/adequate writer. Dorothy Sawyers is an excellent writer, excellent storyteller...

I'm not a high academic-- low academic I'd say-- and I think Rowling's lack of writing skills really got in the way of her storytelling. Which says nothing at all about her popular success, of course, but I stopped reading after the third book.
 
I'm not a high academic-- low academic I'd say-- and I think Rowling's lack of writing skills really got in the way of her storytelling. Which says nothing at all about her popular success, of course, but I stopped reading after the third book.

I think it was more her lack of finding an editor with enough spine to order her to chop the hundreds of superfluous pages from the later books :)
 
I think it was more her lack of finding an editor with enough spine to order her to chop the hundreds of superfluous pages from the later books :)
Or her ignoring the personas of so many of her characters.

She used so many words to write so very little! And unlike Joyce, that's NOT what her oeuvre was supposed to be.
 
There's a reason why those other guys are "required reading". If it weren't "required", no one would read it.

And therein lies one of the major problems with primary and secondary education in the U.S.

In high school I wondered why we weren't assigned reading that was interesting and fun--something that made us want to read. And why I couldn't get credit for the books I read. I mean, what's wrong with Steinbeck?

Is that why I flunked senior english three times?


Edward the Resistor
 
Years ago, I read John Updike's Rabbit Redux and as I recall, enjoyed it. So, the other week I got a copy of Rabbit Run and commenced to read.

Well sir, after hours of reading, and rereading, and trying to decipher confusing sentences, I was only half way through the 250 or so pages so I decided to put it down and take myself out of my misery.

Now maybe I'm too ignorant to read good writing or too stupid to comprehend art, but I don't think the highly acclaimed Rabbit Run is either.

To me, good writing is, first, easy to read. The story, images and other stuff can't follow if the reader doesn't understand what has been written.

Eddie the Basicist
 
EDWARD TEACH

I've never had what it takes to get through a John Updike book.

Florence King wrote an essay about him. A national magazine hired her to review his books. She reads quickly and assumed the task would be simple. It wasnt.

I'll post the essay if I can find it.

I'm clueless why anyone reads Updike. Ditto for Joyce.
 
Here is a snippet of the essay

Centaur" is as cliché strewn as a pie in the face from Moe Howard, with tediously long overwritten passages that scream "edit me!" Here is the Harvard-East-Coast-aesthete omphaloskepsis cabal of publishing writ so large if it isn't a conspiracy someone should claim it was anyway just to sound less stupid. "Of course we publish Updike, he went to Harvard." The Hesychasm of this Mont Athos-axis of determining what is "literature" in America has this result: dead trees, wasted ink, paper better used to wipe your cornhole.

In Updike's depressing leaden "retelling" of the Chiron myth, his cardboard characters inhabit a mothballed closet of tweedy east coast repression. Snow and arrows are the McGuffins, with death forever on the thin grey horizon of these blank lives, all destined for a void. Even sex, the usual god of the Priapus-worshiping large lit mafia, can find no purchase in the desires of hero Caldwell's dead soul. The book would be interesting if Caldwell/Chiron was not so much as heading to hell, but already there. But even that obvious improvement in dramatic tension is ignored as Updike pounds us again and again with overwritten images of futility, boredom, meaninglessness, passivity, and pointless inertia. We dream of the thousand monkeys producing better literature pecking away, occasionally hurling their Underwoods through space to smash the memory of reading this book out of our skull. FLORENCE KING
 
Ahem.

I'm of course a horribly biased elitist bastard who actually reads stuff like Kafka, Conrad and de Lillo.

That said, I like reading a good crime story by a good storyteller like Elmore Leonard. (I find the Da Vinci Code a bit too formulaic to actually enjoy, but never mind...)

These are two different kinds of craftsmanship. And the distinction between "art" and pop culture is the same within any artform: The difference between a Mahler symphony and a brilliant pop song, between Kubrick and Bruckheimer.

To me, a work isn't bad just because it doesn't explore eternal truths about the human condition - but it ain't great art, either.

That said, I certainly defend anyone's right not to care a rat's ass about "eternal truths about the human condition" and choose to be entertained instead.
 
As it does for most people-- in fact, I'd say everyone. Even those critics who laud Joyce to the skies are able to pull the story out of the verbal morass (or, at least, they've convinced themselves they can)!
Stella,

I read Finnigan's Wake. It took nearly a year. There are so many double meanings in a number of different languages (example Cheri' (French) for Cherry (fruit) for Cherry (virgin)) that it was a long, frustrating experience. This on top of thousands of obtuse references to persons I've never heard of or even care too. In the end I came to the idea that Joyce's books are the same mind-fuck that John Barth wrote in the 60's.
 
I'm sure glad that there are more than two or three species of birds around the world. Pretty birds that sing pretty tweets, mysterious owls that hoot at midnight, geese that fly high overhead, and honk. Trees, too: leafy, shady oaks, aromatic cedars and pines, wisened hickories and people-friendly poplars. Also, the variations are dependent on climate, geographical positions. Also, each member of each of the numerous life forms are at their own place of growth: some are just being born, others clumsily and squakily near adulthood; some are spry athletes and others more mellowed and contemplative; some retain a cheerful nature as they mature, others grow grumpy, but somehow entertaining.

That said,
rare is a 'story' that trumps the entertainment that I can create on my own; in bed before I drift to sleep; sitting at the kitchen table and devising a scene, making myself laugh, or erotically aroused.
So, with there being only so many 'stories' to tell in the millions of different ways, the story will have better chance with me if the language is so compelling or entertaining that I read it for that primarily, and if there happens to be a story within, all the better, but it would ultimately make no difference to me. It would be the sort of work I could just open to a random page and get off on a couple random paragraphs.

There are times for the simple and clear that requires no deciphering ability, and times to take something piece by piece, set it aside, let it roll around, come back and try again.

So I'd be a variety dude.
 
Back
Top