Snow Queen
Mannceaux Signature Collection
We've all read books with good plots and bad plots, good story bad story. So what exactly makes a story "good"? Is it plot twists? Character development? Pacing?
What Defines a Good Story?
- Thread starter Snow Queen
- Start date
misskitten
Hello Sweetie!
Well-rounded, interesting characters, who you connect to and care about. For me a good story is always about the characters. They need to feel "real", like you could really imagine them out there. And when I mean "real", it doesn't matter if they *could* exist in our world or if this is a completely fantastical world. They can't be too perfect, and they can't be all flaws either. Mistakes are part of life, and should be a part of the character as well, but even the worst of people have redeeming qualities and will make good choices every now and them.
For me a good story is a character-driven story, where you find yourself caring about where their lives take them, and there needs to be some growth as the story moves, the character needs to be affected by the things that happen around them. Plot twists can be good or it can be bad, it really depends on how an author executes it. But I find the really good authors are the ones who leave enough clues within a story that a reader *could* potentially figure it out if they really *looked*, but successfully misdirects the reader's attention so that in most cases the reader winds up surprised. I've discovered this time and time again when I re-read some of my favourite stories. Suddenly things I glossed over during the first read-through becomes more apparent to me, and I almost berate myself for *not* having seen all those vital clues, how the truth always was *right there*. The Harry Potter books are a really good example of this. For those who have only read them once, read them again and you will see what I mean.
For me a good story is a character-driven story, where you find yourself caring about where their lives take them, and there needs to be some growth as the story moves, the character needs to be affected by the things that happen around them. Plot twists can be good or it can be bad, it really depends on how an author executes it. But I find the really good authors are the ones who leave enough clues within a story that a reader *could* potentially figure it out if they really *looked*, but successfully misdirects the reader's attention so that in most cases the reader winds up surprised. I've discovered this time and time again when I re-read some of my favourite stories. Suddenly things I glossed over during the first read-through becomes more apparent to me, and I almost berate myself for *not* having seen all those vital clues, how the truth always was *right there*. The Harry Potter books are a really good example of this. For those who have only read them once, read them again and you will see what I mean.
Blue Canary
Your Friendly Neighborhood S***poster
It is believable and immersive. It doesn't nessacarily have to be realistic, just believable.
Ultimately only one thing ever matters: If you enjoyed it. If you enjoyed the story, then it was a good story. Trying to conform to a rigid structure just limits options and holds back creativity. If you don't personally enjoy a story, someone else might. There are so many different tastes, so many different ways of thinking, that not every story can appeal to everyone. You could have a brilliant masterpiece... that someone else might have trouble understanding. For example the Lord of the Rings. Its' considered to be one of the best fantasy stories ever written, it defined the genre, but the style in which it was written can turn people off... people who can't understand how it was written tend to prefer the Jackson film adaptations. What constitutes a "good" story is far too subjective to really lay down. Much of the time, we can't even describe what we personally feel is a good story because it's a very complex idea that we're not in total control over. Some people just will never be able to enjoy a horror movie. Some will never like sci-fi. Some can't stand fantasy. And a lot of the time there's nothing they can do to change this. Sometimes it does change. It's too unpredictable.
For me, with what I can understand of myself, I like my stories to make logical sense in terms of stay self-consistent with their own rules. If a story establishes that "this is what can be done and this is how it is done and this is what will happen if you do this" and then it completely ignores that, you have a story that betrayed its own integrity (ex: Mass Effect 3 ending). This is something that I can't ever accept in a story. But some people don't care. If weird things happen that shouldn't happen by the story's in-universe rules, then at least the characters have to acknowledge that it is weird and makes no sense and then you come up with an eventual explanation as to how it happened. Stargate SG-1 did this whenever they wanted to go beyond what normal physics as we understand it allowed, as the show had a strict policy of being as scientifically accurate as possible (unlike Star Trek, which didn't give a damn about scientific accuracy), everything that ventured away from established physics got a confused and shocked reaction from the characters and an in-universe explanation. Beyond that, it is more about if I got enjoyment out of it.
For me, with what I can understand of myself, I like my stories to make logical sense in terms of stay self-consistent with their own rules. If a story establishes that "this is what can be done and this is how it is done and this is what will happen if you do this" and then it completely ignores that, you have a story that betrayed its own integrity (ex: Mass Effect 3 ending). This is something that I can't ever accept in a story. But some people don't care. If weird things happen that shouldn't happen by the story's in-universe rules, then at least the characters have to acknowledge that it is weird and makes no sense and then you come up with an eventual explanation as to how it happened. Stargate SG-1 did this whenever they wanted to go beyond what normal physics as we understand it allowed, as the show had a strict policy of being as scientifically accurate as possible (unlike Star Trek, which didn't give a damn about scientific accuracy), everything that ventured away from established physics got a confused and shocked reaction from the characters and an in-universe explanation. Beyond that, it is more about if I got enjoyment out of it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well for a start, as other have said, if you enjoyed it is the main one I think, for a lot of people. Personally I really like good, genuine characters. I like consistency in character writing, personalities, and interaction between them all. I'm the type who likes to become emotionally attached to the characters in the story, genuinely care about them and everything that goes on around them, and no story captivates me more than a one that makes me really care for the characters. I find you can't really have a deep, emotional moment, be it sad or happy, without previously having made me care about the characters. There's been a few times in bad games/movies when I've been a bit "Who cares? I think he's a dick" when someone dies. And then on the flipside I was crying at the end of Crisis Core. 
Because Zack was well written, loveable, and I really liked him!
So that's just me. I'm sure there's objectively good things that make a story good but, I don't care about those.
Because Zack was well written, loveable, and I really liked him! So that's just me. I'm sure there's objectively good things that make a story good but, I don't care about those.
Sweets
the lone swordsman
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2013
A well rounded plot, good character development, good style and voice and that about does it.
Ganondork
goo
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2010
I'm gonna be "That guy" who talks about how the utilization of rhetorical devices, and command of the English language. I think that those two are the most important foundation to a good story. If at your base, you don't have much strength to propel the story, it's doomed to fail. And I mean this before characters are even involved. You can imagine the most heart-wrenching scene in your mind, but if your manipulation of diction isn't there, the scene won't be nearly as powerful.
I recently read Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, and I absolutely loved it. Yet, literally nothing happens in the story. All of it is internal, and the story takes place within a single room. I realized, around halfway through, that I actually loved the story. Kafka's manipulation of his words made it such a good read, and it kept it refreshing. I don't want to spoil it for anyone interested in reading it, so I will leave it at that. I just think that this is a good example of how important the implementation of rhetorical devices and the use of the English language can be.
Then, when the characters are added, it's important to have fleshed out characters. A lot of people remember stories for their scenes. For instance, I like to think back on the scene in Halo: Reach when Jorge threw Noble Six out of the space vessel while he stayed back and detonated it. This scene fleshed out Jorge's character in its final moments, while propelling the story forward. Over time, I've realized that characters have to keep the story moving, as they aren't standing with a backdrop changing behind them every few minutes.
Emotion is an important thing, as well. I don't just mean sad, though. I mean that there needs to be the highs and lows, the characters need to reach the breaking point, and either admit defeat, or emerge stronger. You can't just have characters meander through unscathed; they have to evolve as the story progresses. It's important to be able to look back and see how they've changed, whether it's for better or worse. I think Herman Hesse's Siddhartha did this well. He began as an arrogant kid, searching for enlightenment, but ended as an old man, finally wise enough to find nirvana.
Above all, there needs to be a conflict. If there is no conflict, then no character development will ever happen. It will just be masterful use of the English language that only the hipsters in Starbucks will appreciate. Conflict is the catalyst that begins the evolution of characters, and keeps the story moving along. Without it, the story isn't going to be much.
For a long time, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar seemed like a story that was just conversations that led up to the death of the protagonist, who is also the title character. It wasn't until I realized that Marcus Brutus is the tragic hero that I saw the true conflict. It wasn't the story of killing Julius Caesar, it was the story of a man at war with himself because he must choose between killing his best friend, or seeing him turn into a tyrant.
I recently read Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka, and I absolutely loved it. Yet, literally nothing happens in the story. All of it is internal, and the story takes place within a single room. I realized, around halfway through, that I actually loved the story. Kafka's manipulation of his words made it such a good read, and it kept it refreshing. I don't want to spoil it for anyone interested in reading it, so I will leave it at that. I just think that this is a good example of how important the implementation of rhetorical devices and the use of the English language can be.
Then, when the characters are added, it's important to have fleshed out characters. A lot of people remember stories for their scenes. For instance, I like to think back on the scene in Halo: Reach when Jorge threw Noble Six out of the space vessel while he stayed back and detonated it. This scene fleshed out Jorge's character in its final moments, while propelling the story forward. Over time, I've realized that characters have to keep the story moving, as they aren't standing with a backdrop changing behind them every few minutes.
Emotion is an important thing, as well. I don't just mean sad, though. I mean that there needs to be the highs and lows, the characters need to reach the breaking point, and either admit defeat, or emerge stronger. You can't just have characters meander through unscathed; they have to evolve as the story progresses. It's important to be able to look back and see how they've changed, whether it's for better or worse. I think Herman Hesse's Siddhartha did this well. He began as an arrogant kid, searching for enlightenment, but ended as an old man, finally wise enough to find nirvana.
Above all, there needs to be a conflict. If there is no conflict, then no character development will ever happen. It will just be masterful use of the English language that only the hipsters in Starbucks will appreciate. Conflict is the catalyst that begins the evolution of characters, and keeps the story moving along. Without it, the story isn't going to be much.
For a long time, Shakespeare's Julius Caesar seemed like a story that was just conversations that led up to the death of the protagonist, who is also the title character. It wasn't until I realized that Marcus Brutus is the tragic hero that I saw the true conflict. It wasn't the story of killing Julius Caesar, it was the story of a man at war with himself because he must choose between killing his best friend, or seeing him turn into a tyrant.