Both. Sometimes I will meet a book that will have engaging enough writing to make up for a lack of plot. Sometimes it is the other way around. Most often I just keep reading a book because I know I will feel guilty seeing it on the shelf only half-read (unless it is a truly horrible book, in which case I feel no remorse at all).

Examples? Tess of the D' Urbervilles. I found the writing dreadful (head-spinning Hardy) but was captured by the story. It is the same with E.M. Forster, mediocre writing but interesting plots.

Anyone else come across any glowingly recommended books recently that just left you cold?
The Story of Edgar Sawtelle. It was mildly interesting for awhile, but just seemed to drag after that. This is one of those books I do not reget having left half-read.
CMK

It's debatable as to whether Forster's writing is 'mediocre': I, for instance, think he writes brilliantly. He's very hot on irony, of course, which a lot of people don't get. Many, whose judgement is well-respected, rate him very highly. So who's right? not necessarily either viewpoint. Similarly, Hardy: 'Dreadful'? Many thnk he's a great stylist and he is, of course, rated as one of the 'Greats' of the world, though one might not personally like him.

I personally find that syle alone isn't enough. Style is the clothing of story (and all that it involves, as character, setting, theme - whatever). It is the Emperor's New Clothes if there's no meaning behind it. On the other hand, a quite modestly-written tale can be gripping if the author gets you involved with the characters and what happens to them. It might not ultimately be Great Literature, but it can keep you going along the way to reading greater things.

Dido

Currently I am reading Cyril Hare's An English Murder. I am on page 107 and nothing much has happened, and what little of it that has happened is pretty mundane. Yet I am enjoying the book immensely. The writing is wonderful, the characters interesting and finely drawn.

M.C. Beaton's Hamish MacBeth series springs to mind. I will admit I love those books and have read all of them. I would not say they are well written. Clearly written, yes, with a knack for moving the action along and keeping the reader interested.

Recently I tried to read a very, very popular novel, the first of a series that is all the rage. I made it about two-thirds of the way through before I just could not go on. It was very poorly written IMHO, and the plot was, well, stupid.

So I guess my point is, it just depends!

It depends with me, too, but mainly it's the story that I am after. So many people love Willa Cather, but I can't get involved with her people. And as I have said elsewhere, I don't like the Agatha Christie books because there is no character development--I just don't care. I have to say I read dozens of them trying to like them. Miss Marple isn't too bad, but my favorites of her characters are Tommy and Tuppence where you did learn more about them.

This is an interesting question. I think it is really hard to define exactly what keeps us reading, and what makes us give up. I find that I look for a good story well-told, but also undefinable quality that some might call sensibility. Sometimes you encounter a writer with whom you share an interest in certain kinds of people, places, or situations. One of the reasons I like Jane Austen is that she occasionally focuses her attention on the sort of person who is often overlooked, eg. Fanny Price or Anne Elliot. I am huge admirer of Allan Gurganus, because he tells the same kind of eccentric stories told by elderly relatives.

If I am not interested, I tend to give up pretty soon. I remember being completely indifferent to Olive Schreiner's The Story of An African Farm, in spite of the fact that it is considered an important novel. I also had a sinking feeling that the only sympathetic character was being marked for an early death.

Anne MacDonald is a consummate wordsmith, but I loathed Fall on Your Knees. Love Agatha Christie for her puzzles, while I do agree she isn't big on characterization. On the other hand, I think I would recognize and like the characters in the Mitford novels if I met them, but the books don't do much for me. As i think about this question, I can't really pinpoint the magic quality that determines if I will like, love or loathe a book. (The preceding paragraph is a good example of how to say absolutely nothing. Sorry.)

Both are important to me. After the first Mitford novel, I got bored with the rest of the series. I found them formulaic and predictable. As cece said, you can have a potentially good writer ruin a novel with a plot that turns everyone off, as in the dysfunctional family portrayed in "Fall on Your Knees", which I could hardly get through.

It is hard to pinpoint the enchantment that draws one in and holds one enthralled. I certainly felt it in "Edgar Sawtelle", "The Woman in Black", and in "Turn of the Screw", for example.

I am primarily driven by the story. I notice if the writing is poor, but beautiful writing about nothing much leaves me cold. Cloudstreet by Tim Winton is one of the all time favourite Aussie novels, but I couldn't get through it because they went to the beach, came home, talked a bit, went to the beach.....

The story comes first for me. I have to care what happens next, and then next again. But the story alone is not enough. The writing doesn't have to be exquisitely crafted, though how wonderful it is when this is the case. However it must be reasonably competent with decent grammar, well-drawn characters, and a quality I'll call flow. If I am gritting my teach in frustration because the bad writing is interfering with my enjoyment, or rolling my eyes because the author is an idiot, I'm unlikely to finish the book.

Having said this, the majority of the books I read are not great literature. I read a lot of genre fiction, SF&F being my favorite, as well as some mysteries, historical novels, popular fiction and even some young adult and children's literature. (In an earlier part of my life I worked for a couple of years as a school librarian and I still love the best of those books.) Somehow I find most of the books on the bestseller lists to be unbearable, so I rarely consult it.

Rosefolly

I agree with Astrokath and Rosefolly. The story is first. The writing doesn't have to be brilliant, but it has to be solid. I have to like at least some of the characters, and then if the writing is elegant and inspiring, all the better!

I enjoy authors who play with story structure, as well. The stories within stories of The Historian or Katharine Neville's The Eight, and the clever use of, well, just about everything in David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas really grabbed me.

Beautiful writing is icing on the cake, I guess. And I freely admit I can be just as happy reading Nora Roberts or Charlaine Harris -- their stories just fly along, the characters are fun and sympathetic, and I can't wait to see what happens next.

I think the story is most important but the writing has to be tolerable also.
Having said that I admit that I am currently reading "Critical Mass" by Whitley Strieber (never read him before) which I found on the New Book Shelf and got hooked in by reading a few pages. I find his writing cliched with characters out of Central Casting but I can't put the darn thing down....he's got a gift for suspense. And I am reading every word, not just skimming to see how it comes out.
I can't explain myself. It is just how it is....a good story takes me in.

gbg

Sheri, you expressed it so much better than I did. I agree with your whole post (including loving Cloud Atlas and other books of that ilk).

So, what she said ^^^^

I'm torn. I can think of many a book that doesn't cover much territory in terms of plot, but the beautiful writing and the imagination of the author imbue it with meaning and depth (Banville's "The Sea"). And then there's the good story, sometimes awkwardly written, that is utterly captivating ("An American Tragedy" springs to mind). I see merits in both.