Plotting vs. writing

In several discussions over the past few weeks (okay, years...), I've made the distinction between authors who can write ( i.e. use words well, have varied and interesting vocabulary and sentence structure, etc.) - and those who can plot (i.e. those who generally know exactly what's going to happen and when {and sometimes "y".})

Now, I love me a book written by a fellow word-nerd, and it's pretty easy to tell which ones those are - the ones where "nothing happens" for a page or two and yet you're still drawn into the story despite the lack of aliens to blow up; or you've just finished a chapter and find yourself recalling the particularly apposite phrase before a section break rather than what the consequences turn out to be for the characters in the story (because as much as you might like to try it, Unicef can't turn you into a cactus).

The example I frequently give is Stephen King and Dean Koontz. Both have huge backlists, with some smaller "series" inside a larger group; but where King's words seize the necessary information and generally convey it without further fuss, Koontz's trigger more than just the simple actions you might think belong in books labeled "Horror".

What about Dan Brown, while we're at it? He's another tally-mark in the "plot" column - events race forward at breakneck speed, keeping you turning pages but probably not causing anyone to slow down and appreciate any nice turns of phrase as they race by.

Each style has its proponents, of course - thriller writers almost always plump for plot over wordwork, while poets can't be bothered to answer the straightforward questions that are the lot of their opposite number, opting instead for carefully chosen words and phrasings that invoke the emotions of a piece. Me? Well, considering I usually can't plot to save my life, it's a good thing I'm such a fan of fancy vocabulary, huh? ;-)

Thoughts/opinions of your own? Got more examples of "writers" as opposed to "plotters"? Do tell... :-)