Pro's of Prose

I've mentioned before on this blog that the story is more important than how you tell it. Well, I haven't changed that opinion, but I wanted to quantify it. Some of the greatest works of literature are among those hardest to read. It takes involvement to engage oneself in those works, i.e. Melville, Dostoevsky, Poe and Tolkien (his prose is particularly harsh for a work of Fantasy). While a manuscript should not exist with one extraneous word, one superfluous thought, it may be equally true that a sentence which require multiple readings to understand is also detrimental to the unfolding of the story. Unless, of course, it's simply the reader's fault for not 'getting it'. I know that I've put down a great work simply because I didn't understand it and couldn't be bothered to put forth the effort to involve myself. Has that ever happened to you?

There needs to be a flow to the prose. It must quickly engage the reader and be hard to put down. At the same time, it must cover the essentials of a good story: plot, setting, themes, characters and development (did I miss anything?). Dialogue should be sparse and used to convey characterization, not to tell the story. The narrative should not be interrupted by bringing attention to the writing. Again, each word should add something relevant to the overall work. (Of course, this is all subjective, and shouldn't be treated as a rule).

How is it then, as readers, we fall prey to a writer's self-indulgence? J.K. Rowling admits that her characters essentially got away from her. But, she jammed those characters back into the storyline that she envisioned. And my question to her: did there really need to be half a dozen books or so to tell the story of Harry Potter? The answer to the question I pose lies within her purple prose.