Great Stories, Part 1: What Makes a Story Great?

This is the first of a 3-post discussion on great stories: “What Makes a Story Great?”, “Agreeing on Great Stories”, and “The Common Quality.”

A few days ago – last Thursday – I got into a conversation with a friend and a former teacher. The friend, who’s a sophomore at my school, has been reading “The Catcher in the Rye” in English.

To just say it: I love, love, love that book. All of Salinger’s stuff, actually. I had this prolonged moment of immense awe at the end of “Franny and Zooey”, a novella of his.

My friend wasn’t quite as moved. She did seem to like the novel, but hadn’t formed much of an opinion on it. She’s this way about most books, not big on critical analysis.

Then there was the teacher. She seriously disliked the book, completely dismissed it from the canon of great lit. Of course, I had a mixed reaction – equal parts shock, confusion, and loud, angry noises – and she somewhat hesitantly explained.

Her idea was that the book just wasn’t very good. It didn’t have any great metaphors; any symbols it contained were far too obvious. And teens mostly liked it because of the cussing.

I tried to explain why I think it’s great – it’s the best depiction of an adolescent EVER (Dostoevsky's "The Adolescent" gets spot #2.) I don’t think the teacher recognized it: She complained about the cussing, but it's crucial to the voice. The story never would have survived if it had been censored, I argued. And even though the sophomore English teacher didn’t especially like teaching the book, it was great for the students. Holden’s voice is attractive to angsty teens, lures them into the kind of critical thought and discussion most kids automatically reject. They want to talk about this book – or a large number of them, anyways.

Something I found interesting was that the teacher who disliked "Catcher" so greatly agreed with me on another novel: Harper Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird." I've never actually met - or heard - of someone with criticisms for it (aside from a completely awful character in "The Perks of Being a Wallflower")... So why would one classic be met with such debate, another with such overwhelming love? I'd guess it's got to do with the target audience & style - "Mockingbird" is more of a traditional classic, and it was really quite loving to the South, despite the topic; whereas "Catcher" is, as I've said, totally angsty. And Holden does cuss a lot.

Now for the point: Whether you agree with the teacher, myself, or have an entirely different opinion on this, you've got to ask: What makes a story great? Whether it’s a novel, movie, TV – beyond the basic entertainment, what makes a story last and worth remembering? In the next two posts, I'll try to overview the discussion on this, and provide my own answers.

So - what do you think?