So are most of the "great" writers not even great stylists?

[dfw]

for some reason I just get bored when I try to read books of the canon
that aren't impressive stylistically

there should be a canon for style

[Alexander III]

Many here would argue that the chief component of literature is style; if Homer were a great warrior or ethical philosopher or politician, he would have won great battles or gained a group of followers who would form an academy or he would have created the laws upon which polis' were founded on like Lycurgus of Laconia. But he did none of those things, what he did was sing of war and men and morales and nations in the most beautiful way. There were men at his time who knew far more of war and laws and philosophy and politics, but none knew better than him how to make them beautiful.

And so as with Homer went all of the cannon. Great writers have never been great men, they have always been merely the great singers of men. Alcibiades and Garibaldi were great men, and they knew the beauty of their greatness, they conveyed their beauty through their actions; but all great poets convey the beauty of men and their pastimes through the medium of language. They know how to imitate and add upon the beauty of men and their world and convey it through words. There is no such thing as a great writer who was not a great stylist; no more than there is a beautiful woman who no one has seen.

[kiki1982]

Well, it depends what you mean by boring.

If you're talking about translations, you're basically at the mercy of the translator, so if you don't like his/her style, it's going to be boring or something. If you're talking about genuine originals, I would be quite surprised that it wouldn't be good. Most of what I've read in terms of classics is not boring. Every writer and every era have their peculiarities (verbose or not, dense or not), but overall I can't say I find them really boring.

I guess that depends on the reader.

[MorpheusSandman]

Funny, because it seems to me most of the canon is canon precisely because of its style and how innovative/influential it was.

[PeterL]

This is purely about personal tastes. You may not enjoy the styles of some great writers and vice versa.

[bIGwIRE]

Great writers have never been great men, they have always been merely the great singers of men.

As with every rule or observation we can make, exceptions always exist. A man slaving for two passions usually disappoints on both fronts, however, this is not always the case, and the men who transcend this are a special group. Think Aeschylus, Hemingway, or Melville.

The problem, like the rest of your post pointed out, is that most of the time those who spent their time adventuring and such had less resources to develop a unique, beautiful style, and so their works become more substance/story driven, like... I don't know....Dumas?

Also, like Kiki wrote, style rarely translates faithfully.

[Corona]

In his "On the Genealogy of Moralities" Nietzsche pretty much summarized that well: what does it matter about the artist himself? It's very likely Homer wouldn't have created Achilles, neither Goethe his Faust if it hadn't been for his "vain desire" to either be Achilles or Faust! The artists wouldn't have had the need of creating their characters if they did already own the qualities their creations owned.
The artist - according to Nietzsche - has to cut himself off of the real, to always be separated from the reality.

It's arguable to which degree there's an actual detachment of the artist with his own work, but it's obvious artistic creation does always imply a kind of sublimation: that's not saying the artist HAS to be independent from his work; on the contrary.

[JBI]

As with every rule or observation we can make, exceptions always exist. A man slaving for two passions usually disappoints on both fronts, however, this is not always the case, and the men who transcend this are a special group. Think Aeschylus, Hemingway, or Melville.

The problem, like the rest of your post pointed out, is that most of the time those who spent their time adventuring and such had less resources to develop a unique, beautiful style, and so their works become more substance/story driven, like... I don't know....Dumas?

Also, like Kiki wrote, style rarely translates faithfully.

Actually, much of the appeal of Dumas is the style, the plots were written by others as for older being worse, that is laughable. In general art style is hardly effected by time, what is old is appreciated as itself, so that people still love Greek sculpture despite sculpture changing with trends. The style still has the power to move people, and us therefore still relevant, despite mIlenia having passed it.

[Desolation]

Of course they are...It's just that everyone has their own personal aesthetic, and different things move us all. It should go without saying that not everything, whether it's been tested for appeal over centuries or not, is going to work for everyone.

Like yourself, I'm not exactly a gigantic fan of a lot of classics. I try to read as many of the war horses as I can, because they're essential, but I'm not always so taken as others are. Take Flaubert, for instance, often consider the "ultimate novelist." When I read Flaubert, I realize that I'm in the midst of a great artist, I appreciate the way he uses words and the effort that went into crafting every single sentence (it has been said that Flaubert was the type with very little in the way of natural skill for writing, but he labored over his craft obsessively to create beauty, sometimes taking weeks to craft a single sentence)...But I'm not really moved. Is this Flaubert's fault? Of course not. I'm the one not being moved; it's not Flaubert who isn't doing the moving. As you go along through studying literature, you start to become keenly aware of the difference between "This style isn't really my thing" and "This style is poor."

Luckily, you don't have to like everything, or anything. There are thousands upon thousands of really great books out there, and plenty to keep anyone, no matter what works for them, satisfied for a lifetime.

[Mariner]

I always thought the paperback bestsellers club of writers like Grisham, Crichton, Evanovich, etc. are awful stylists, but outstanding storytellers. Some writers are great because their prose kicks ***, while others are great because they entrance with characters and plot.

[PeterL]

Crichton an "outstanding storytellers"!I don't think so. Have you ever read Sphere? Or anything that he wrote? I will admit that he wrote some fair novels before he became popular, but moviemakers made him popular, not his writing.

[Alexander III]

I always thought the paperback bestsellers club of writers like Grisham, Crichton, Evanovich, etc. are awful stylists, but outstanding storytellers. Some writers are great because their prose kicks ***, while others are great because they entrance with characters and plot.

May we agree that that Grisham & co create and convey their characters through the medium of language? And may we agree that the creation and conveying of peoples and places and stories, through the medium of language, necessitates the ability to command and manipulate language in order to convey an 'ideal' form to the reader. And is that not the essence of style?

[bIGwIRE]

Actually, much of the appeal of Dumas is the style, the plots were written by others as for older being worse, that is laughable. In general art style is hardly effected by time, what is old is appreciated as itself, so that people still love Greek sculpture despite sculpture changing with trends. The style still has the power to move people, and us therefore still relevant, despite mIlenia having passed it.

True enough, but I have always considered Dumas to be a step below authors like Proust or Tolstoy. I guess I have always wondered if I would still feel that way if he hadn't lived such a prolific life. Would a life more centered around the creation of art have improved his work, including his style...ect? That's what I meant by "more substance driven." More in relation to what it would have been otherwise. Pure conjecture, I know, and poorly worded. (Its 2:30am here, I'm at work)

Also, I didn't see where anyone said that older styles were inferior in any way. I hope we would all be on the same page on that discussion.

[Mariner]

May we agree that that Grisham & co create and convey their characters through the medium of language? And may we agree that the creation and conveying of peoples and places and stories, through the medium of language, necessitates the ability to command and manipulate language in order to convey an 'ideal' form to the reader. And is that not the essence of style?

No. Grisham & co. sure, they have style in spades. You could probably recognize their writing in a book with a blank cover. But their prose is nothing memorable. And that's okay. Nothing against them. Just because you can make language your ***** like those folks can doesn't mean they spend any amount of time "flowering up" their writing.

To me they were always concerned with just content. Jesus, have you ever read a Stephen King book? He once said "I'm the literary equivalent of a Big Mac and fries." Now, why would he say that? Because his plots lacked substance? Wait, am I the one asking questions now? Damn it!

So maybe we could get into a long ole **** fest about the "essence of style," or "aesthetically pleasing prose" and split a million ****ing hairs over this but when I look at Grisham & co.'s word-choices and sentence structure they appear to value pretty sentence less than other writers, is what I'm saying.

[Drkshadow03]

for some reason I just get bored when I try to read books of the canon
that aren't impressive stylistically

there should be a canon for style

I would think most works on the Canon are stylistically interesting or impressive or at least influential in some shape or form. Do you have specific titles that didn't impress you?

[JCamilo]

Great storytelling usually has little to do with plot. It is often simple, akin to Poe's short story impact. A simple idea that you explore to maximun impact. The complexity of plot, etc come more from XIX,XX century novels, and this is what make a Dan Brown bad (or some of those mentioned in the list) is that they are plot driven. You jump from chapter to chapter to see what happens and he delays it with several tricks, one after another and thinks this is enough. He has not Doyle capacity to enhance two characters or Chandler hand for dialogues (Marlowe or Holmes tales are hardly sustained by the plot).

Take Dumas (here as the Dumas that is many). He, like Dickens discovered how to write to masses. But if Dickens had facebook, he would spam you with "causes" and Dumas would keep posting pictures of his last night party. So, Dumas went for humor and adventures, when Dickens went for Melodrama. Since Dumas is a shakespearean author, we read it because of the characters and dialogue, often settled on a vague historical background. (Of course, there is more behind Dickens and Shakespeare than this). And that makes Dumas a great storyteller.

Plus, i have no idea how it is possible to put apart style and characters, dialogue, etc. In art, style is substance.

[Drkshadow03]

The problem is people try to conceptualize character, setting, dialogue, style, plot, rhetorical techniques, conflict, symbolism, aesthetic vision, and themes as separate objects. However, they all come together to construct a story. With this in mind, I do think, sometimes, plot gets neglected as part of this relationship. Dialogue and interesting characters might amplify a plot, but plot also gives a guiding direction for those characters and dialogue to be interesting as well.

[mal4mac]

for some reason I just get bored when I try to read books of the canon
that aren't impressive stylistically

there should be a canon for style

Having just read Bram Stroker's Dracula, I think I agree. Of course, although it is in the "Oxford World Classics" series, there is some debate over whether it is a classic, or should really be in the canon. It certainly would not be in the stylistic canon, as the person writing the introduction spells out! It's a great adventure story, though, and makes excellent use of myth, which lean one to suggest it is a classic. Other authors have great style, but are not great story tellers, and do not use mythical, psychological or other "deep" elements. I think the literary canon should demand that all these elements are present! (and, indeed, in Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Dickens... etc.. they are) Isn't Dumas another borderline case? I've put off reading him because he has the reputation of just being a writer of adventures, without much depth. Then again, I like adventures, so I must read him soon...