What do you prefer to read-

[Anonymous_Buttfart]

A] A shitty story, good as pointless but with interesting narration and writing skills followed by perfect grammar

OR

B] A good story with good ch, the narration is a bit meh and the grammar needs work.

OR

C] I'll just watch another episode of Rick & Morty... peace out.

*Just asking for a survey... thank you.

 

[jimbobthethird]

B (assuming C is off the table for whatever reason)

 

[Saileri]

Even though I'm pretty heavy on myself for being a perfectionist, I can totally understand that not everyone is pr0 at English, thus I don't mind if the grammar is not the highest level as long as it is understandable.

Honestly, both A and B options are fine. Even if the story isn't something great, reading fun and interesting writing is just... fun. Guess I'd choose A in the end, but both are fine to me.

 

[HURGMCGURG]

A. I'm a grammar nazi. I like it when someone can write in a way that engages me even if the story is not that interesting.
For example, I read a few pages about a table that literally did nothing the entire time. I loved it because the writer made it interesting despite there not being anything interesting actually happening in the story.

 

[atgongumerki]

B)
since I already did C multiple times and it becomes kinda samey after the n-th time
and I need some amount of story to keep me interested, thus A is not an option

 

[Deleted member 29316]

I'm going to go for B.

Grammar and narration could be fixed a bit easier (technical) than the story narration itself (which is in the character of the author). But both can be fixed, provided the author is open for corrections.

 

[Alienix]

B

I have self awareness. This is a fooking free site with various authors, newbies or veterans. If I want a perfect grammar, I will go to fooking bookstore or amazon to get a proper novel

 

[TRNRLogan]

B but only to a certain extent. I swear some of the stories on here are using Google translate...

 

[DubstheDuke]

So long as it isn't unreadable grammar, I usually can ignore some awkward wording or basic issues in a story.

Now, here's the thing- I feel that there are usually some lines that are supposed to be really epic and built up to, so if bad grammar makes these lines less epic, then that is quite the tragedy in of itself.

But either way, I prefer good story over being extremely well written.

 

[Ral]

This is stacked.

Still, I wouldn't ignore the importance of narration and writing skills. A lot of what makes written works stand out is the narration and writing. Humor, jokes, suspense and emotions for example are brought out by the narration and writing.

There actually are forms of writing where narrative and characters are not important, sometimes, not even necessary . . . like poetry and non-fiction. They could literally have no story to tell or are pretty shitty if told poorly.

There is also something to note with B when you say good characters. What makes the characters good have a lot to do with narration and writing skills. It is kinda easy to write what happens (the plot), most can do it; but it takes great writing skill to portray a believable character.

I would choose both A and B . . . and C. I mean, they all provide me great entertainment, why choose one when you can have all?

 

[SwirlyUnicorn]

B because if a character is a thot or a trash, It's time to forget that story. I do understand that there is a room for improvements so maybe I could give that story a second chance.

 

[K5Rakitan]

Unless I'm getting paid to edit those stories, I'll take C.

If I'm getting paid to edit the story, I'll take A because I'd trust the writer to fix up the story after I give my feedback on how to improve it. Developmental editing is more fun than fixing grammar.

“You have to give an editor something to change, or he gets frustrated. After he pees in it himself, he likes the flavor much better, so he buys it.”
― Robert A. Heinlein

 

[gaylolis]

i don't really care much about the grammar and writing as long i can understand it and the story is interesting enough.

i'll go with B i guess.

 

[BenJepheneT]

Depends on my mood. If I wanna read something good I'd go with B. If I wanna chillax I'd go with A. It's like between actually enjoying media and enjoying yourself. Sometimes you find yourself jamming to mindless Modern Warfare and at others you're sitting through another New Vegas run.

 

[BloodyLycoris]

I'm going to go for B.

Grammar and narration could be fixed a bit easier (technical) than the story narration itself (which is in the character of the author). But both can be fixed, provided the author is open for corrections.

Totally agree with him.

 

[NotaNuffian]

A, I read to destress and waste time, so I have the tendency to put plot at the far end and favor grammer (nothing more irritating than the problem on hand), that being said, if the plot is literally nothing, I will probably dropped the work and maybe come back later to see if there is any progression. Because in the end, the grammer attracts the reader initially, the plot makes them stay till the end.

 

[CL]

All three (option "C" often has subtitles for me to read and, by default, counts as reading) because it depends on if it catches my interest. The story can be pointless (or not) just so long as it keeps me entertained. Just curious: if the story isn't a fun read (has to be a story, not homework or bills or TOS or their boring ilk), what is the point of reading it?

 

[Nyaa]

A good story with shitty grammar is better than a shitty story with good grammar.
I don't want to read a shitty story regardless of grammar. I will read a good story regardless of grammar.

But I do wish that more authors with shitty grammar would to the bare minimum of using a grammar checker to fix their worst offenses.

 

[thedude3445]

I posted this on Royal Road forums too:


I've been listening to the Lord of the Rings audiobook the last few weeks (almost sixty hours between the three parts) and I can now firmly say that I would pick A in a heartbeat. The story of Lord of the Rings is so silly and plain and filled with long scenes where characters just walk around and look at stuff and camp underneath the trees. And it's wonderful!!! Every paragraph flows so nicely and paints such a nice portrait of the world. In a book where the first four hours are a bunch of Hobbits having a nice little party and talking to a silly wizard, I have never been so gripped by something so "boring."

I'm 1000% done with all these fantasy stories that pretend to be super original and a bit cool & edgy but have the writing style of a Wikipedia article. I want fantasy stories where foxes can talk and elves live in forest villages singing songs about ancient people and it's OK sometimes to just hang out in the woods and have lunch while you're traveling.