[potter573]

In your opinion what matters more; is it the writing or is it the content? In my humble opinion writing matters more than the content. Though the content should be solid but if the writing is good it can just hook you up alongwith a decent plot line.

[Buddhist]

Both. You need equal amounts of each, because one is nothing without the other.

[Pixel]

Well, a good writer can make a totally outrageous plot line look almost believable. Almost.

In another point of view, if you have no idea where you are going and have no plot line, your good writing may stray with no direction.

[Regitnui]

All the writing talent in the world can't make up for lack of direction. I recently reread my earliest attempts at writing (a fanfic of all things...) and was astounded at how different it was from my current writing, where i have a definite plan and a constant cast.

---,-'-@

[KuthianAbrSundavar]

I can say that content is more important lets say your the most well known writer but you write a book of nonsense and personal opinions... who would read it? But you need a balance of both to create a work of art.

[potter573]

AS you guys are putting it sounds like I said that writing is everything. I said the writing is more important than the plotline but then the plot hsa to be a decent one i.e it should be good enoough to make the reader keep reading.

[Rinion]

I'd say it goes either way: a good book can be balanced, or well-written and not very plot-driven, or have a fascinating plot and not be very well-written. Take Terry Pratchett's first Discworld novel, The Colour of Magic: there is hardly any plot (Pratchett even said so), just a meandering collection of scenes, and yet the writing is so outrageously funny and insightful that the book remains popular over 20 years after publication. On the other hand, there are series like Stephenie Meyer's Twilight Saga, where the writing isn't all that good, but the plot is compelling enough to get millions of readers to work their way through four increasingly thicker books.

[Lord Raglan]

Whichever the author is better at matters more. Rinion gave some examples of this already.

[Caliga]

I think it should be at a balance. I find that when I read something that is one or the other I always feel like somethings missing.

[Wikkid X]

Take Terry Pratchett's first Discworld novel, The Colour of Magic: there is hardly any plot (Pratchett even said so), just a meandering collection of scenes, and yet the writing is so outrageously funny and insightful that the book remains popular over 20 years after publication. On the other hand, there are series like Stephenie Meyer's Twilight Saga, where the writing isn't all that good, but the plot is compelling enough to get millions of readers to work their way through four increasingly thicker books.

Very true. I'd say from this that good writing is more important than content, because as with the above examples, good writing can carry the reader a rubbish or nonexistant plot so compellingly that they only realise afterwards how bad the plot was. On the other hand, if a book is excruciatingl badly written, personally I'll simply stop reading it. It could have the best plot ever, but I wouldn't ever find out because the quality of writing was so poor.

Of course, the best books have both good content and good writing.