The ideal book is one where graceful reading and ideas are in a perfect marriage. I think Atwood is one of the writers who does that, and I cherish her as a writer.

Having said that, I will read a writer whose prose I like even though I'm not exactly sure how everything in the plot is related. It's like putting your feet in a cool running stream on a hot day. I enjoy the sensation. Patricia McKillip's writing (some, not all) is an example of this.

I will also forgive a writer for poor writing if I am introduced to new ideas. Guess which writer I'm going to use for an example here? Yes, Mr. Zillionaire Dan Brown.

But when that perfect marriage does occur, it's definitely a WOW read.

For me it depends on the book. A sci fi/fan had better have a decent story to it, with strong writing without fluff. General lit should have both, tho I am willing to accept a story that might be a bit odd (Cloud Atlas, Time Travelers Wife) if its well written. And in classic lit, if its an author who likes to write 20 word sentences, the story and characters had darn well better be worth it. (eg, French Lt Woman).

I like reading books with ideas (Pilgrim and Dream of Scipio come to mind). What I hate is writing that is so clunky that the author feels the need to hit you over the head with the idea (Jodi Picoult, which is why I have only read 1 1/2 of her books)

BTW I am a fan of Atwood. I absolutely loved Blind Assassin, as well as Alias Grace. Could not finish Oryx and Crake.

I think I'd rather have good English than a good story or ideas. I don't care how good the premise is, if the writing is bad. Labyrinth by Kate Mosse is an example of a good story spoiled by quite dreadful writing, whereas last year's Booker Prize winner The Sea by John Banville was quite wonderfully written, but had no story worth reading, IMHO. I'm happy to give the latter shelf space, and perhaps a second try - the former is consigned to the great remainder sale in the sky.

Ishiguro and Atwood, in two entirely different ways, are writers who can combine both.

But to comment on the original point - it's often the case that when a mainstream author takes an idea with a "science-fiction" premise, there are sci-fi buffs who'll say "yes, but so what - been done before." Three examples spring to mind - Oryx and Crake, Never Let Me Go and a much older book - On the Beach by Nevil Shute. And it's also a shame that if a book is labelled "Science-Fiction", people seem to assume, quite wrongly in most cases, that the book won't be well written.

It's a standard problem, not entirely related to sci-fi - if a book is a "genre" then, somehow, it's not quite "good literature". Never seen a crime writer or a spy novel writer even long-listed for the Booker.

I can't bear 'great' writing if it's purely verbal acrobatics. Martin Amis comes to mind - he writes like a literary Bart Simpson, constantly showing off and shouting "look at me, look at me".

For real enjoyment, there has to be beautiful writing and a good story - such as Atwood's Robber Bride or Blind Assassin, Kingsolver's Poisonwood Bible most of Ian McEwan's work, or John Steinbeck.

I'll put up with ordinary writing in my light reading, e.g. Kathy Reichs. Her style is purely descriptive and functional, but I love forensics. (Why is it that the forensic investigators like Tempe Brennan and Kay Scarpetta always need to tell us in great detail what they had for lunch, dinner and breakfast?)

Can't bear bad writing, though, nor a complete absence of plot. There are so many good books around that there's just no point sticking with a mediocre one, leave alone a bad one, unless one enjoys it!

Re Science Fiction & quality - anyone familiar with Theodore Sturgeon? He had great stories and a lovely style, but isn't all that well known now.

I have heard of him, but I have actually never read any of his stuff. The only thing I know for certain about him is that Kilgore Trout (the appallingly bad science-fiction writer in a few Kurt Vonnegut books) is intended as an affectionate spoof of Theodore Sturgeon.

I like a plain, unadorned prose, like David Mitchell or Kazuo Ishiguro or Diana Wynne Jones or Edith Wharton. I do not like heavy, poetic language laden with metaphors or "deep thoughts". I have a lot of trouble with many contemporary French authors because of this. Basically, most of them suck at writing, IMO, and they don't even have a plot to hang it on to boot.

Bad writing, I can't describe it, but I know it when I see it. Usually it's cliche-ridden, too much dialogue, and written as if hopeful for the cinematic adaptation, lots of tell as opposed to show.

Plots don't have to be adrenaline-filled, but I like them to be inventive. And I don't think writers should set up expectations they can't keep. If he hints a character has a deep dark secret in the first chapter, well it better be a good one by the time he reveals it in the last chapter. The Birth of Venus was horribly unsatisfying in that respect.

Good writing is very important to me, but I also like to be startled, surprised, jerked out of my rut when I read a work. For me a perfect example is the work of the late W.G. Sebald: "Austerlitz", "The Emigrants", and "The Rings of Saturn." I liked very much his original approach and use of b & w photos as a subtext to add layered meanings and emphasis.

By those standards, I ought to have liked Mitchell's "Cloud Atlas" a lot more than I did. I found the writing exquisite and original, yet I somehow got lost in the narrative approach.

Another work I found as satisfying as savoring a fantastic meal was Lief Enger's "Peace Like a River." (nice writing, and original characters which held my interest from the very beginning. (I am not a patient reader!)

On the other hand, I will read (although not with great enthusiasm) novels which are badly written, if they force me to look at traditional thinking with a fresh view. And Janalyn had the perfect example above: the novels of Dan Brown!

I guess I am oblivious to style when the ideas engage me, because I'm one of those who loved the first couple of Dan Brown's I read (reverse order starting with TDVC.)

Janalyn, can we credit Atwood with marrying ideas with style if the ideas have been done to death by other authors?

Cindy, I enjoyed reading Picoult's The Pact for my book club, but have felt no need to read her further. How do you see her as beating one over the head with her ideas? I tend to lump her with the current crop of writers who I swear are on assignment from their therapists. They don't realize they can use many literary devices to get their points across without tedious blow by blow accounts of dysfunction.

Hmmmm. Maybe that means I only buy into the stories if the ideas are those I like. Btw, I once read a George Elliot (or maybe it was a George Sand, I've tried to wipe it out of my memory) short story in which the entire first page was one sentence.

Martin, you are right, it isn't exclusive to science fiction. However, I will use a science fiction example to note that I'll probable endure inadequate writing for the ideas more than I'll endure empty style. I don't like the writing style of Arthur C. Clarke at all, but he did have some fascinating ideas. (ducking for cover now) Does Kate Mosse have any fresh ideas? I thought she was reusing old stories.

Anya, I've never gotten around to reading Sturgeon, but you have just moved him up on my list.

Venusia, sure you didn't have too high expectations of The Birth of Venus what with your self-identification with the goddess? ;) I would have said that David Mitchell's prose, at least in Cloud Atlas showed a wide repertoire of style. I like your description of "lots of tell as opposed to show." I completely agree; it is one of my pet peeves.

Mary, Mitchell's narrative approach was what kept me reading Cloud Atlas. Well, that and the fact that we were discussing it here. Sebald is another writer I want to read.

I guess I come down on the side of ideas. I read all of Eco, even though I don't particularly like the writing, or maybe it is the translating in his case.

I tend to be attracted to fiction that is idea-driven, and I will cut the author some aesthetic slack if I like the ideas being presented. However, I think Janalyn expressed it very well. The idea and the writing style need to be able to work together and properly put in context the writer's ideas. Otherwise, it may fizzle. Given a choice, I can put up with some mediocre writing but a good idea over highly stylized writing with no substance.

I think Ursula Le Guin is a writer whose works are often based on ideas and without being too heavy on style.
I have a few Sturgeon books. The ones I've read are "To Marry Medusa" and "More Than Human". I think he also wrote a few Star Trek episodes. Does anyone know whether the X-Men comic books were influenced by "More Than Human"? It seems to me they might have been, but maybe I'm reading too much into it.

Georgia, you're quite right - Sturgeon wrote two or three Star Trek eps, rather good ones as far as I recall!

I've given the question of ideas vs wordcraft some more thought, especially because of the Margaret Atwood thread, and have realised that what makes a story most enjoyable and engaging for me are the characters. While characterisation is a feature of good writing, it is not exactly wordcraft (depending on how you define that term).

Atwood is particularly good at character-driven novels; especially in The Robber Bride each of the main three women felt completely real to me, and although they were totally different from each other (and from me) they were each completely engaging.

Hal Duncan, who wrote Vellum (which I read recently), wrote an interesting rebuttal on style in defense of his book after SF critic, John Clute, eviscerated his verbal acrobatics in a review. I think it is relevant to this discussion (see attached article).

Characterization, too, can make all the difference in a novel.

Here is a link that might be useful: Strange Sentences by Hal Duncan

Janalyn, can we credit Atwood with marrying ideas with style if the ideas have been done to death by other authors?

Actually, I don't know if ideas can ever be done to death. Well, perhaps the dysfunctional family novels have me writhing and asking to be put out of my misery. But the really good ideas and themes bear repetition because of their truth. Readers may have preferences as to the vehicles of those ideas. For example, some might prefer Shakespeare and disdain sci-fi. And vice versa. But look at the Star Trek novels/Tv shows. Many of the best ones have the same themes that appear in Shakespeare, and this was intentional. Different vehicles.
Does Atwood borrow ideas from other sci-fi writers? I don't think so, she uses universal themes and dresses them with her own interpretation, then presents that to a reader. She also credits her readers with some intelligence so that the reader is left pondering and questioning. I don't like leaving a novel with the feeling. "OK, Ok I get it, I get it. Enough!!"

Anyanka, I too enjoyed the characters in The Robber Bride and it was one of the first books we discussed here many years ago. I do enjoy memorable characters and would probably put characterization over plot. I don't insist that I have to like them but they have to be engaging. A fascinating evil character will grab me as much as one I fall in love with. I recently read The Silence of the Lambs and Mr. Lecter was mesmerizing.

janalyn, I so agree with you about ideas being repeated. You can have the same idea of, say, false identity, and how that idea is expressed will be totally different depending on the time written, the country its written in, and the writer's vision. But like you, dysfunctional families are books that I don't even bother to pick up anymore. And this includes memoirs.

>The ideal book is one where graceful reading and ideas are in a perfect marriage

Yes - and I think that goes across genres. When I think of my fav books in a variety of genres - Dune, Katherine by Anya Seton, Dream of Scipio, and yes many of Atwoods, they are all so different yet have the same match of writing to the idea. Those are the books that often take my breath away.

>I recently read The Silence of the Lambs and Mr. Lecter was mesmerizing.

I suspect then you'd love The Portait by Iain Pears. Very similar tone.

>How do you see her as beating one over the head with her ideas?

Chris, Picoult's subjects, such as domestic violence, were obvious in her story, and any good reader would understand what was happening and why. But her constant reminders to the reader of what was happening and why was what felt like hammering.

I just finished a book that combines both beautifully-Thread of Grace by Mary Doria Russell. Beautifully word-crafted, no "dragged a little in the middle" about it. All the characters finely drawn and engaging, and they will stay with me a while. I learned a lot about a period of history and geography I knew little of, and her research is reliable. P.D. James is also consummate wordsmith in her mysteries, developing setting and characters beyond the crime and solution.

I have read, and admired, authors strictly for their wordcraft, while loathing the book-Fall On Your Knees comes to mind. Beautifully written, horrible story with loathesome characters that made my skin crawl. On the other hand, Dan Brown is pretty bad-talk about hammering you over the head...but if you are looking for a rip-roaring adventure story, jump in. Suspend disbelief and enjoy the ride. Just don't take him seriously. It has boggled my mind why readers don't see that he's just telling a story-in A&D, the Church is the victim, in DVC, the criminal...he obviously doesn't have an ax to grind.
I agree wholeheartedly with Cindy re: Pichoult...she's a manipulative writer..."time for another gut-wrenching scene d'issue, they haven't cried in this chapter yet." And she telegraphs endings in neon. (I know, a mixed metaphor...)

I'd have to put The Stolen Child in here too-fascinating premise for the plot, well-crafted writing.