I have read a lot of books in my time; from fiction to non-fiction. I have read some wonderfully written books, and some that have left me feeling like I've lost a few brain cells during the process.

Which leads me to my question: What do you find makes or breaks a story? What key ingredients must be necessary to make a tale resonate and leave you satisfied? And do you find certain things in particular will completely ruin the flow of a story and render it irredeemable? You can include specific books / comics / any literary material you can think of if you have any in mind.

Myself? As far as fiction - I think characterization is an important factor. Ill defined, shallow, or just plain terrible (as far as creation, not personality) characters will turn me off of a story. But for both fiction and non-fiction I think pacing and overall goals for the books should be consistent as well as flowing in a logical fashion.

For instance, I read a series a while back called The Witches of Eileanan (six book series) by Kate Forsyth. I found this series to have good story plot, intricate details, believable characters, as well as surprises that left me craving for the next installment. Then I read a follow up series by the same author; a trilogy called Rhiannon's Ride. This secondary series, involving the same 'universe' as well as several of the same characters, left me puzzled and disappointed. I found this trilogy to have a story line that was chaotic and did not seem as well thought out - the new title characters sharing the same sad fate as the plot. These details, once lost, tarnished a little of my love for this author.

I agree completely. Characterization and the development of the characters makes or breaks a story for me. Even the best, plot-driven stories can be ruined by poor characterization.

I really quite liked the plot for The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorn and, unlike a lot of people I've talked to, I don't mind his long and unwieldy sentences. However, I found a lot of his characters so unlikable that it ruined the book for me. That being said, the book did have some interesting development in the characters, but I never found anything redeemable in them.

The same went for A Tale of Two Cities. I really quite like Charles Dickins, but oh my goodness, Darnay (was that how his name was spelled?) and Lucy were so bland and uninteresting that it essentially ruined the book for me. The supporting cast, setting, and overall plot of the story was immensely interesting to me. But I disliked the main two characters so much that I had trouble reading anything about them. And, due to their main character status, was quite a large bit of the book.

On the other hand, I didn't find Eragon by Christopher Paolini a particularly interesting book as far as plot went. But I thought the interaction and development between Seraphine (was that the dragon's name? I can't even remember.) and Eragon was interesting enough to warrant reading the first two books. (I never got around to the third.)

Originally Posted by Nolori

I really quite liked the plot for The Scarlet Letter by Nathaniel Hawthorn and, unlike a lot of people I've talked to, I don't mind his long and unwieldy sentences. However, I found a lot of his characters so unlikable that it ruined the book for me. That being said, the book did have some interesting development in the characters, but I never found anything redeemable in them.

I kind of pitied the main character myself. Hester was under the impression her husband was lost at sea - dead in a sense. I think she genuinely loved Dimmsdale, she wanted to run away with him to Europe so they could both raise Pearl together. Now it does not seem immoral or unusual to have a child with someone you are not married to. But since Hester lived in an archaic time she would have been forced to live alone for the rest of her life because it would have been improper for her to remarry and having a child out of wedlock was some horrible sin; which is ridiculous. Hester remains dignified and loyal the whole book. Even after the whole mess is through and her daughter is married and well off, she returns to resume her life of 'punishment' and to help others, which I found to be rather noble IMHO.
Also, I didn't mind Hawthorn's sentence structure either.;) But then again, I also like poet Robert frost, Alfred Lord Tennyson, and writer Anne Rice who all have the command of near coma inducing long sentences.:sweat:

Robert Frost I'm not a huge fan of, but that's mostly because it takes quite a bit for me to actually sit down and enjoy poetry. Alfred Lord Tennyson (whose poetry I forgive because I feel they tend to tell more of an epic tale than Frost does) and Anne Rice I like quite a bit too.
Granted, I can't recall Mrs. Rice (or is Rice her maiden name? I'm not sure) having long sentences like the other two. Clearly I need to go back to reading the Vampire Chronicles. =]


Well, most of what you just described I considered plot really, rather than characterization. Although I will agree with you on Hester's return to help others being a noble and honorable gesture. I had forgotten about that.
When I wrote my first post, I was mostly thinking of Dimmsdale. While the characterization for him was well-written and there was certainly development within him, I never found anything that made me pity, sympathize or even remotely like him.

One character that I should've pointed out entirely escaped my criticism is Pearle. While she seemed to mostly be symbolism rather than an actual character for the majority of the book, her wild nature made me happy for some reason. Perhaps because she seemed to serve as a kind of punishment for Dimmsdale.

Originally Posted by Nolori

Well, most of what you just described I considered plot really, rather than characterization.

The plot and setting seem to make the choices for Hester's character. If the circumstances in the plot were different, Hester may not have been a more sympathetic figure. Had setting been different, she would have changed as a character due to either more rights granted to her as a woman, or less, considering which way in time and region you go.
But I do agree with you on Dimmsdale, but I think he was meant to be that way - a villain for the piece.
Anne Rice (that's her married name) has the habit of taking near five pages to describe a room, what someone is wearing, etc. Memnoch the Devil in particular had this trend.

The three most important things are pacing, pacing, and pacing.

Maintaining the reader's interest is a prerequisite for getting the reader to actually pay attention to your plot and characterization. Fail to put in enough description to create atmosphere, and your readership will just turn pages without really caring. Put in too much description, though, and they'll close your book altogether after realizing you just wasted a page and a half explaining your idea of the symbolism of the color white. (I'm looking at YOU, Herman Melville.) Over-description has very, very powerful negative effects. For instance, it caused me - an avid reader, and even more so at the time - to decide that Lord Of The Rings was heavily overrated. And by heavily overrated, I mean terribly paced and a waste of time that I could have been using to read books that spend more wordcount on characterization and advancing the plot.

My big thing, right behind the plot, has to be twists. I hate it when I know what's going to happen chapters in advance! Why bother reading it if you can figure it out? You already know what's going to happen!

Third has to be pacing (you beat me to it, Overton!). I recently started The Warrior Heir, and it was terrible. The plot sounded so promising, but so much happened in the first chapter alone, I was swamped! First he forgets to take his heart medicine, then he's flirting with the new girl in class, then he's at soccer tryouts, then his ex flirts with him, then the new girl hates him, then he's in a fight, then he has this creepy encounter walking home, and TOO MUCH! :gonk: