One of the many things that I've noticed about the writing industry - and the conception of a writer's talent in general - is the critique of their style. But before I get too deep into this post, there's one question I have to answer first: What is 'style', exactly?
Technically speaking, a writer's style is kind of like their trademark. It's the specific way a novel, poem, or other piece of literature is written. It's very easy to spot in poetry, with the breaking up of lines and isolation of important words. It's harder in prose, but if you look, you can see how an author writes. Are their lines flowy, do they spend time describing their surroundings or talking about nature instead of the action, are they generally specific about what their characters or subjects look like, or do they leave that up to you?
And what seems to be a common misconception is that a writer is only good if their writing is almost poetry- flowing lines, deep meanings interwoven into vague passages that allude to several things at once and if it isn't just like one of the classics you read in high school or college, it's literary trash.
That's probably the most horrendously wrong and slanderous conception I've ever heard. Really, you're judging the quality of a piece on whether it's flowy or not? I've read prose so purple I'm surprised it's not part of a Baltimore Ravens jersey or something, it says nothing but it says it beautifully. The beauty of a piece isn't necessarily the value. Are those qualities nice? Absolutely. In fact, James Joyce is a champ at that kind of writing, as is Thoreau and a couple other staple authors you'd find in a high school or college curriculum. But it's not the only way to write. The author's style has to match the piece they're writing. I mean, can you imagine if The Hunger Games, Divergent, Harry Potter, or other bombshell literary pieces were written like that? No one would have read through the second book of Harry Potter because the audience would get bored (a seven-year-old reading about how beautiful the grounds were? Please.) and in the case of the others, the style doesn't match. Katniss wouldn't be marveling at how absolutely like the tragedy of Julius Caesar her story was, and Tris would most definitely not even bat an eyelash considering the grace with which her combat opponent moved. That's not how their stories work.
What should define a writer's worth, at least in my opinion, is how a writer's style enhances their story. It should complement it, make the reader jump right into the pages with the protagonist and take on the ride with them. That feeling, that 'oh my gosh, that just happened. Oh wait. It didn't, really' sensation is what marks a brilliant writer. J.K. Rowling's prose is by no means illustrious. But she wrote the Harry Potter series for children, for goodness sakes. It was meant to connect with the child, to take them on this magical adventure with the Golden Trio and teach them some things about life along the way. Most people I know still have that nostalgic love for the books well into their late teens and twenties. The books certainly aren't for us, anymore. But the mark of a good writer is the impact their style has on the reader.
Let me explain a little further.
Suzanne Collins (The Hunger Games) and Veronica Roth (Divergent) have a similar style when they write their dystopians. Short. Punchy. Emotive. There aren't many passages describing the setting unless Tris is on a zipline zooming over Chicago or Katniss is looking for a place to sleep in the arena. They're far more concerned with their own safety, the actions of others, the implications those actions have on them. In their world, the setting doesn't matter so much as whether the guy next to them has a weapon or the people leading them have their heads in the right place. It may seem like low-level reading because the sentences are relatively simple and the words aren't high-powered SAT vocabulary, but so what?
When Peeta ran into the arena wall and his heart stopped, mine did. When Tris initially jumped from the roof into the Dauntless pit, I felt my own fear of heights spring up and paralyze my chest. I stopped breathing for a couple seconds. That is the mark of good writing.
And more than that, an author's style changes. There will always be similar elements to it, but with each new story, the style has to alter. Collins does it between her fantasy books and The Hunger Games. Rowling between Harry Potter and The Vacancy. In fact, that was my main challenge with my current work, because I'm actually more intelligent than my protagonist. I mean, don't get me wrong, she's cleverer than I'll ever be, but she went to a trade school, she barely had formal education like I've been privileged to have. So her style of thought and therefore my writing style can't be constantly perceiving all these settings that don't matter to her, or the fact that elements of her world come from the world I've studied. How would she know about these? She never learned. But what she does know is what's in front of her. She thinks in fragments, logically, and she highlights on important aspects of the world around her. I've never had a character like her before, the rest have all been educated to some degree and never in a world so dystopian or dangerous as hers. My style had to change from some flowing descriptions and tons of inner thought to more dialogue, more analysis of what others said. But I don't think she could be written another way. I can see it in the writing of the other lovely ladies here, they're all writing differently. But they tell their stories in the best style for the story. I've wanted to smack certain ones for killing off characters I love or for writing such a heartless dialogue exchange. They're not all writing Joyce-like run-ons with allusions enough to fill half a page with footnotes, but they make their stories come alive.
In short, don't judge a writer by his or her style. It could be short fragments all the way or long run-ons until the cows come home. Their writing does, however, need panache: lots of energy and style, their own style that works. Style isn't the indicator of good literature, it's part of what makes literature good. When different combinations of twenty-six letters make you cry, make you want to throw a book at a wall, that's good literature. That's good style.
Go forth and conquer,
Brie
Technically speaking, a writer's style is kind of like their trademark. It's the specific way a novel, poem, or other piece of literature is written. It's very easy to spot in poetry, with the breaking up of lines and isolation of important words. It's harder in prose, but if you look, you can see how an author writes. Are their lines flowy, do they spend time describing their surroundings or talking about nature instead of the action, are they generally specific about what their characters or subjects look like, or do they leave that up to you?
And what seems to be a common misconception is that a writer is only good if their writing is almost poetry- flowing lines, deep meanings interwoven into vague passages that allude to several things at once and if it isn't just like one of the classics you read in high school or college, it's literary trash.
That's probably the most horrendously wrong and slanderous conception I've ever heard. Really, you're judging the quality of a piece on whether it's flowy or not? I've read prose so purple I'm surprised it's not part of a Baltimore Ravens jersey or something, it says nothing but it says it beautifully. The beauty of a piece isn't necessarily the value. Are those qualities nice? Absolutely. In fact, James Joyce is a champ at that kind of writing, as is Thoreau and a couple other staple authors you'd find in a high school or college curriculum. But it's not the only way to write. The author's style has to match the piece they're writing. I mean, can you imagine if The Hunger Games, Divergent, Harry Potter, or other bombshell literary pieces were written like that? No one would have read through the second book of Harry Potter because the audience would get bored (a seven-year-old reading about how beautiful the grounds were? Please.) and in the case of the others, the style doesn't match. Katniss wouldn't be marveling at how absolutely like the tragedy of Julius Caesar her story was, and Tris would most definitely not even bat an eyelash considering the grace with which her combat opponent moved. That's not how their stories work.
What should define a writer's worth, at least in my opinion, is how a writer's style enhances their story. It should complement it, make the reader jump right into the pages with the protagonist and take on the ride with them. That feeling, that 'oh my gosh, that just happened. Oh wait. It didn't, really' sensation is what marks a brilliant writer. J.K. Rowling's prose is by no means illustrious. But she wrote the Harry Potter series for children, for goodness sakes. It was meant to connect with the child, to take them on this magical adventure with the Golden Trio and teach them some things about life along the way. Most people I know still have that nostalgic love for the books well into their late teens and twenties. The books certainly aren't for us, anymore. But the mark of a good writer is the impact their style has on the reader.
Let me explain a little further.
Suzanne Collins (The Hunger Games) and Veronica Roth (Divergent) have a similar style when they write their dystopians. Short. Punchy. Emotive. There aren't many passages describing the setting unless Tris is on a zipline zooming over Chicago or Katniss is looking for a place to sleep in the arena. They're far more concerned with their own safety, the actions of others, the implications those actions have on them. In their world, the setting doesn't matter so much as whether the guy next to them has a weapon or the people leading them have their heads in the right place. It may seem like low-level reading because the sentences are relatively simple and the words aren't high-powered SAT vocabulary, but so what?
When Peeta ran into the arena wall and his heart stopped, mine did. When Tris initially jumped from the roof into the Dauntless pit, I felt my own fear of heights spring up and paralyze my chest. I stopped breathing for a couple seconds. That is the mark of good writing.
And more than that, an author's style changes. There will always be similar elements to it, but with each new story, the style has to alter. Collins does it between her fantasy books and The Hunger Games. Rowling between Harry Potter and The Vacancy. In fact, that was my main challenge with my current work, because I'm actually more intelligent than my protagonist. I mean, don't get me wrong, she's cleverer than I'll ever be, but she went to a trade school, she barely had formal education like I've been privileged to have. So her style of thought and therefore my writing style can't be constantly perceiving all these settings that don't matter to her, or the fact that elements of her world come from the world I've studied. How would she know about these? She never learned. But what she does know is what's in front of her. She thinks in fragments, logically, and she highlights on important aspects of the world around her. I've never had a character like her before, the rest have all been educated to some degree and never in a world so dystopian or dangerous as hers. My style had to change from some flowing descriptions and tons of inner thought to more dialogue, more analysis of what others said. But I don't think she could be written another way. I can see it in the writing of the other lovely ladies here, they're all writing differently. But they tell their stories in the best style for the story. I've wanted to smack certain ones for killing off characters I love or for writing such a heartless dialogue exchange. They're not all writing Joyce-like run-ons with allusions enough to fill half a page with footnotes, but they make their stories come alive.
In short, don't judge a writer by his or her style. It could be short fragments all the way or long run-ons until the cows come home. Their writing does, however, need panache: lots of energy and style, their own style that works. Style isn't the indicator of good literature, it's part of what makes literature good. When different combinations of twenty-six letters make you cry, make you want to throw a book at a wall, that's good literature. That's good style.
Go forth and conquer,
Brie
No comments:
Post a Comment