Veeky Forums poll

none

elaborate descriptions of the female form

The distinction might not be clear, but for the sake of a poll I'd say Ideas are gotten across by showing, and aren't necessarily utilitarian, while lessons are gotten across by telling (Aesop's fables explicitly end with the statement of the lesson, in case the allegory didn't hit you hard enough), and are utilitarian.

I think that the most important facet of a good novel is immersion. Ideas, philosophy and story all have to be illustrated through the authors words. If an author can't provide an authentic experience, the book may as well be meaningless strings of numbers. Good authors are usually the people who you would want to be around and converse with. Basement dwelling creeps who don't go outside and live only within the pages of others experiences can't write well from any perspective but their own.

Myself

>le open interpretation meme
The ultimate brainlet approach to literature. If you want to masturbate to an endless pursuit of exceptionalism you are nothing but a hedonist.

Ignoring the feeling of adventure and embracing reality in its most quantitative form is embracing manhood, and the fight against atrophy.

Where the fuck are characters? Bland ones will ruin every plot, make it a lot less fun to read, surprises won't work because you don't give a shit what happens to RandomMcRandomface and length won't matter either. Delivering any ideas or knowledge without the readers attention won't work too well either.

Obviously it's:
>#1 characters
>#2 prose aka. fun to read (obviously there is a certain minimum, since horrible prose will kill characters)
>#3 ideas
>#4 plot (which includes surprises and the optimal length for the story in question)
>#5 knowledge (stuff you passively learn)

>Plot, structure, reader expectations, marketability, target demographics, etc.
Marketability is where the idea comes into play. You need at least SOMETHING to make the shit stand out. It's just ideas are such an easy part, even beginners can come with a cool one, or two hundred.

Forgot a crucial bit...

>#1.5 Voice

>Where the fuck are characters?

Same. Characters are usually the first thing that comes to mind when I think back on a book I've read.

AvAnT gArDe TeChNiQuEs

Where is prose you dumbass

Ah yes, the prose. The prooooooose. the PROOOOOOOSE. There's a reason why the pseuds on this website are always so willing to talk about "the prose" of a book when discussing its merits or flaws. Why attempt to analyze the merits and effects of the literary devices used to add to the development of characters, why attempt to understand the interplay of the perspectives of different characters and the emphasis this places on different themes, the spectrum of ironies used throughout the novel, the historical significance of the novel and the influence it has spawned in literary tradition or the influences seen throughout the work, the specific structure and literary underpinnings of the novel and the way it influences the tone, the author's relationship to the characters and the theme, the presentation of the novel itself to the audience and thus the relationship between reader and text --- why do any of this, when you could talk about "the prose?" You know that you have such a deep understanding of the book, don't you, when you talk about "the prose," the "musicality of it," the "sparseness." What a great artistic touch you have, don't you! Such a highly refined poetic sense! And you feel like such a true reader of literature when you are able to compare these styles: "I am partial to the lyricism of Joyce's prose, as well as the clean and scientific prose of Borges," you might say. What a deep understanding you show! Because the "prose" of a work is such an accessible topic, something that is felt immediately in the body and senses, a nice little sensation and flutter of the heart. Art obviously has nothing else to it, nothing other than the little sensations that I experience, because why should i attempt to understand it on a deeper level than this, when I have such a "refined" sense of the "prose?" Why even attempt to analyze the prose and the poetic and rhythmical underpinnings of it, when I could use a pretty little metaphor for it? It matters little that virtually every reader of literature has access to the music of the words and so my understanding is not quite so advanced as I would think, that form is something that goes hand in hand with theme, that I missed all the deep relationships between characters and between text and reader that existed in the work and that comprise a large part of the literary merit of the text, for my understanding of "the prose" shows such a mastery of language, a fine-tuned sense of the magical flow of the words! Having understood this work, I may as well move onto the next, the next bundle of pretty sensations to experience, the next bagful of fun linguistic treats!

Why not attempt paragraphs to make your wall of text readable?

you forgot something, you animal

>strawpoll.me/14186345
I look for the overall direction of the story. Something that's present from the first line and just kind of reverberates through the whole story.

Breece DJ Pancake's "Trilobites" is a good example of this. The theme underlies every sentence.

666 posts are at least 3% better than the average post

Good chance this is samefagging
Sad, really

>can only pick one option

You're sad, really.

Regardless of what I vote for you should endeavor to all of these things, OP.

I don't get this, what is the point of the fiction if it's a sin to care about any of the fiction-related elements? I'd rather it get to the fucking point than pretend to be telling a story when actually it's some sort of puzzle to get a vague idea across that's about as coherent and planned by the author as the fucking constellations are to the stars.