But is it not the same dichotomy as between cause and effect? There is no cause without effect, no effect without cause. Style is the vehicle by which the artist communicates his vision (substance) to the reader. The author uses style to create the effect, tell the story, communicate the emotions, which all add up to form the substance of the work. No style without substance, no substance without style, and yet they are not the same thing, or so it seems to me. That is why I'm finding this discussion confusing. I feel that the OP's question about the relative importance of style and substance is a legitimate one, which cannot be dismissed by saying they are just two ways of looking at the same aspect of the work.