I think we need to work on our definitions here. Plot and prose are two distinct parts of a text, and I'll stick to my guns and say that you definitely can talk about them seperately. The plot is the events in the text, the story itself. The prose is the vocabulary and style in which it's written - the way that those events are being told or conveyed to the reader. What you cannot do is say that you like only either prose or plot, since a book needs both in order to be defined as a piece of fiction. But the question in thread was, which would you like more, one that has more of one or the other.
Of course a novel has events. "Actual" doesn't just mean "happening in real life". You can talk about "what's actually happening in a book" that has several layers or an unreliable narrator, for example.
Well, to be precise, *you* tell me that plot and prose are two distinct parts of a text. That doesn't necessarily mean they are. Narratologists have worked this out in some detail, and one of their basic tenets is that you can't acquire a story or a plot except off the words on the page. I'll try some definitions of my own here, because I find yours somewhat inexact. Feel free to comment on them however you like
Story - the overall structure you acquire off the words on the page, aimed at providing you with vicarious experience. It includes emotional and intellectual impact and significance, as well as plot, so it's not simply "what happens". It that sense, plot is subsumed into "story", as is "style". I've chosen this definition, because "story" to me isn't just a narration of events, it's their meaning as well.
Plot - the way the events of the story are structured and narrated. Straightforward chronology isn't the only option.
Event in a story - a combinations of a number of factors, the main being a time and place of the action (also duration), a doer of the action, something/someone the action's been done to, and someone who narrates what's happening. An event involves a transition from one state into another.
Style - the author's conscious and subconscious choices of structure, be it on the level of the sentence, or the level of chapter alternation.
In that sense, plot is effected through style, because plot is structure.
To me, the definition "prose = vocabulary and style" is tautological and logically wrong. Style is made up of prose, not the other way around. Also, vocabulary is a natural part of every and all kinds of style, so I don't see the point in its being separated from it.
I've no idea how to measure if a book has more "prose" or more "plot". Seriously, do these generalizations really hold up in the practice of reading? Any examples?
Also, I made the distinction between actual real-life events and the same events in a book in order to illustrate that stuff that *would be* exciting in real-life (murder, sex, a heist, a battle, a chase) is *not* exciting in literature unless held up by good prose. By the same token, *series* of events (in other words, a plot) that would be exciting in real life are dull in literature unless the prose is good.
@BreakLater:
What is effective? Well, obviously that's very subjective but we'd probably agree that a plot with little conflict and no complications is going to be inferior to a plot with high-stakes conflict and unexpected complications. We'd probably agree that grammatically sound prose is going to trump prose that is marred by grammatical error.
Well, that calls for further definitions, doesn't it?
Conflict, complications? Also, basically EVERYTHING trumps prose with grammar errors, so I'm not sure it should even be part of that hierarchy
The basic question of the thread will not be sound until, as you say, we start speaking with examples and start giving definitions (some sort at least) for the words we use. A story with a single character walking around in a garden could have conflict and tension, could be a great story; the question is if it's the kind you consider a good enough plot.
Because according to your definition the structure of a fat detective novel, if competent enough, is always going to be better than a Gene Wolfe short story. Unless we start particularizing stuff
KatG wrote:
For me, a prose stylist is someone putting a great deal of effort into the sound of the language, to create one style or another, and making use of imagery, repetition, alliteration, metaphor, dialogue cadence, etc. to support and tone that style. It may be noir, it may be bardic, or it may be both, as with someone like Mieville, or something else entirely, but it is using language and language devices to hold readers' attention and emotionally power the story. Authors who are not prose stylists still may write very good prose, but they aren't focusing as much on the sound of language used and on imagery. And authors who aren't prose stylists still might have troubles with plots. Prose stylists are quite often brilliant plotters. So the two really don't form a see-saw.
I think this is still limiting style a bit to "fancy sentences". It's not what it's all about, I would say
Which is also why I said earlier that of course the question just gets silly if you take it too far. You can't answer that question unless you're willing to allow a distinction between the two, and regard plot as simply "what happens" and prose as "how is it conveyed". If you look at Donteb84's original question again, I think we can agree that that was what he meant.
