It depends. Good chem can make average writing look pretty great, but to me it doesn't save really, really bad writing to me. I think they could have cast Max and Liz as Clark and Lana and I still would have thought it was a terrible storyline.
Now good writing without chemistry is at least unoffensive to me. Then again, I consider it the nature of good writing to compliment the actors and their type of chemistry. So even if there wasn't much chemistry, good writing should find a way to incorporate that. So even if I could never buy good writing/no chemistry as a big real shippy romance, maybe I could at least appreciate it as a good storyline. On the other hand truly bad writing will always be a waste of space to me.
It's OK to have romance as a tertiary thing in a story that is primarily something else
Agreed. But a romance is a storyline, even if it just pops up every three or five or ten episodes. It needs continuity and logic and progress just like every other storyline would. Sometimes I'm not sure if all writers realize that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2006-06-16 06:21 pm (UTC)Now good writing without chemistry is at least unoffensive to me. Then again, I consider it the nature of good writing to compliment the actors and their type of chemistry. So even if there wasn't much chemistry, good writing should find a way to incorporate that. So even if I could never buy good writing/no chemistry as a big real shippy romance, maybe I could at least appreciate it as a good storyline. On the other hand truly bad writing will always be a waste of space to me.
It's OK to have romance as a tertiary thing in a story that is primarily something else
Agreed. But a romance is a storyline, even if it just pops up every three or five or ten episodes. It needs continuity and logic and progress just like every other storyline would. Sometimes I'm not sure if all writers realize that.