How Important is Style?

[fungi from Yuggoth]

Without personal style all writers are just conveying information. Style can make a boring story a great one, or a great story an unreadable one. It can build emotions, convey ideas, make you laugh or cry. It can inspire you and take you on a journey of the imagination. At the end of the day, if style wasn't important then all writers would read the same.

As for whether I read authors just for their characteristic style, absolutely! Do I notice? It's hard not to. At the same time I'm a firm believer that style is only a tool to tell a story, not the other way round. There are a number of SF and F books I've read (I won't name them here) that seem to want nothing more than to show off their capacious vocabularies and snazzy writing styles at the expense of the actual plot.

A good writer for me is first and foremost someone who can tell a good story without the words getting in the way of the idea. If that criterion is accomplished then I feel I can settle in to the author's world and allow the style to take over.

[GOLLUM]

Fungi from Yuggoth, you make a very lucid case for an excellent point that dwndrgn also alluded to. That is, I find a good writing style is important to liking a story but as long as it doesn't become too obvious that the writer is trying to impress their fans with a string of adjectives or complex or uncommon words. Then as you say, the prose can potentially take over from the storyline and actually detract from it rather than enhance it, as would be the case with a more judiciuos approach to using good prose.

Having said that, if the storyline is crap then there's almost no hope of saving it no matter how good the prose is!!

BTW dialogue as a part of prose is another aspect I really enjoy when it is intelligently done. It can really add to a story and obviously one's empathies or otherwise towards a character in adition to building greater depth into the characters in the story. However, it can just as easily destroy things for me if it's poorly done i.e comes across a being perhaps a little too childish or forced.

Over and out..

P.S. I take it you're something of a Lovecraft fan then?..

[rune]

Originally Posted by fungi from Yuggoth

Without personal style all writers are just conveying information. Style can make a boring story a great one, or a great story an unreadable one. It can build emotions, convey ideas, make you laugh or cry. It can inspire you and take you on a journey of the imagination. At the end of the day, if style wasn't important then all writers would read the same.

As for whether I read authors just for their characteristic style, absolutely! Do I notice? It's hard not to. At the same time I'm a firm believer that style is only a tool to tell a story, not the other way round. There are a number of SF and F books I've read (I won't name them here) that seem to want nothing more than to show off their capacious vocabularies and snazzy writing styles at the expense of the actual plot.

A good writer for me is first and foremost someone who can tell a good story without the words getting in the way of the idea. If that criterion is accomplished then I feel I can settle in to the author's world and allow the style to take over.

You've expressed how I feel about author's style very well It does make a big different to what I love reading, what I find OK and what I really dont like.
I'll buy all the books (as much as possible) for the author's who style I love. I'll buy some of the books for those I find OK, reasonably entertaining and I won't even look at the others.

[Jay]

A bit of a rant, for that I apologize, it's not directed at anyone, just some random thougths and observations. I also want to note these are merely my opinions, and are only for the purpsoes of conversation not to incite the anger of someone who wants to take umbrage over a post on an oline messageboard not directed at them personally.

Without personal style all writers are just conveying information.

That statement is simply stated yet oh so definitive IMHO. Agree 100%.

I'll have to admit that whether style is important to me depends on what I'm looking for a book or short story to do. If I'm just looking for entertainment, style isn't nearly as important as when I'm looking for something to feel my intellect, or to feed my soul

.

This is a statement one will see often, and one that on the surface I think I may have agreed with before, but speaking just for myself I don't differntiate the two anymore. I think an entertaining books is supposed to "move" me, if a book isn't written with some respectable amount of intellect and doesn't move me, I with very few exceptions consider it a failure in entertainment value for me. This is why some people are entertained by shows like Survivor, or American Idol, and some people (me included) just think there stupid. That said I do know many others who differentiate there reading habits, but IMHO for me to do so is somehow a slight in that for some reason many fans exclusive to the genre books you very nicely label "popcorn books" think that when some someone describes a novel as "well written literary fantasy" it automatically means either boring or containing less action than their preferred "popcorn" (which I call Bubblegum). Quite frankly I think this conclusion is made because it easier for someone to claim something is to dense or to boring to them than say they merely lack the reading background or perhaps even reading level to digest anything more complicated than a novel that features setences slightly more complex than "See spot run".

I see this all the time and although we must generally be politically correct, and always be respectful of others opinions. One example that I see quite often is this; I can understand if someone is not a fan of epic fantasy not enjoy Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, however invariably you will run into fans of Terry Brook's who claim he is a better writer than Tolkien? It is true, people should be allowed to have there opinions I agree...no matter how stupid they are in some cases. Have you ever ran into fans of epic fantasy that don't like Martin? Unless someone is moral beyond belief (as the series does have some instances of elements that some Bible Boomers may deem inappropriate, as they scuttle back to the saftey of CS Lewis or George Macdonald) I (and perhaps this is a weakness in my own understanding) cannot fathom how anyone can claim this is not a superb example of epic fantasy, yet you see quite often, siteing of all things, a dislike for the characterizations, as they run back to read the next stunning novel in a charactization filled Dragonlance seriesl. And my answer to those who put down R. Scott Bakker's Darkness that Comes Before (book 1 of his Prince of Nothing series) after the first few chapters, no it's not inaccesible, no it's not badly written fantasy, to be quite frank your expectations on what a fantasy novel is and can be is just to low, or either that your reading level leaves something to be desired if your an adult.

What is alarming to me is not that opinions and preferences of others, but there failure to differntiate their preferences from what is good writing. People don't have to enjoy or appreciate quality writing, for instance I respect Shakespeare's talent, however I simply cannot stand his work, his style is unique and distinctive, I just don't like it, that said however I don't attempt to Shakespeare's talent or his incredible impact and influence, saying other I enjoy surpass him in talent, just because I don't care for his work. Ask a person for a list of there favorite reads in fantasy, than ask them for a list of what they think are the best and often times it's the same list. That's absurd IMHO, and belies a complete absence of objective thought.

I myself, enjoy a David Gemmell novel every now and then however you will never see me attempt to argue his place on any list which subject has somthing to do with the best authors in fantasy. I understand that on a whole his work is soemthing in between trash and average, yet there are some elements I like enough in them to continue reading them at times. I don't requre to validate what I enjoy by having to claim it's also among the best. For instance I loved the move Shaun of the Dead, basically a comedic/horror spoof, msot would think is dumb on the surface, but had enough wit and humor for me to enjoy and appreciate the intelligence behind it, however I don't delude myself in thinking is should have been nominated for a Academy Award.


I think I went on a tanget, but bascialy my opinion is this, an author doesn't ahve to write overly complex plotlines, or balance a myriad of charactes, to have good prose. Good prose shows in whatever work any talented author writes IMHO. Gene Wolfe's short stories still has flawless, distinctive prose, and it has nothin gto do with complexities or whether its categorized as "intellectual/literal" or "Popcorn or Bubblegum" Good Prose is not turned off in the presence short or simple stories. Some have it, some don't IMHO. It is the essentially the difference between a true writer, and someone who is just an author. A rather large difference IMHO.

[Leto]

Originally Posted by Ainulindale

And my answer to those who put down R. Scott Bakker's Darkness that Comes Before (book 1 of his Prince of Nothing series) after the first few chapters, no it's not inaccesible, no it's not badly written fantasy, to be quite frank your expectations on what a fantasy novel is and can be is just to low, or either that your reading level leaves something to be desired if your an adult.

Thanks for telling all people who didn't like the book don't have reading level for an adult (BTW, how can this be defined ?).
Sorry but Scott Bakker IMO is boring. Not only because of his writing style itself but because there's nothing original or remotely interesting for me in his plot. His characters are just lifeless cliché and I don't care what will going to happen to them. For my work I had to read it, but you can be certain I'll never buy book 2. It doesn't mean my expectations are too low. Just that we don't share the same tastes.

[Winters_Sorrow]

I think 'style' like most things in life, are distinctly personal. Books I like, other people don't, just as some of the clothes I see people wearing, I never would.
I don't think that there is 1 'style' which would be universally accepted - just some that are more popular than others

I tend to agree that I enjoy books where I don't know what will happen next, or with realistic characters so I will care what happens to them

my tuppence worth anyways

[Jay]

Thanks for telling all people who didn't like the book don't have reading level for an adult

Even with the quote right above your staement the answer misrepresents my statement by only high lighting one aspect of my post which culminates in your statement here:

Just that we don't share the same tastes.

As I said ones preferences and what is quality is I feel miscontrued (if you don't agree with me, that's fine). I find Shakespeare boring, I don't care about his characters at all, yet I don't begrudge the fact that he is without question a talent, and a good writer. My statement isn't about what anyone likes or dislikes, it's about what is well written comparitively to what is not, it is about who has style/prose and who doesn't. The inclusion of Bakker in my post is because he represents someone (particualry in this case an epic fantasy writer) who has a distinct style and prose to his writing.

"Not having the same tastes" is a cop out IMHO (and I'm not just talking about your post, but it's a widely used answer on many threads on many boards to end a discussion that is unresolved). For instance I do not accept somone's claim The Sword of Shananra is the best fantasy ever written just as a mere contrast in taste between me and another person, the notion is ridiculous, and should not be glossed over under the category of "different tastes". I as pompous as it may sound would call such a claim ridiculous, and in fact incorrect. I have no issue with someone caliing any title their "favorite" title but as mentioned before that by defintion is completely different than best written.

[Leto]

Question, who decide what is best written if it's not the readers of today and of the years and centuries to come ?

[Winters_Sorrow]

beat me to the punch, Leto!
by best written do you mean grammar, language & sentence structure?

In which case, Tolkien being a professor of English wins against anyone.
Also Shakespeare merely wrote to the conventions of his time, to compare him against modern use of the English language is just plain wrong.

Best written is again subjective, based on current social trends. Probably best if you give an example of what you would define as "well written" work

p.s. on an aside - fiction writing is all about story telling, if I wanted correct grammar and syntax, I'd read a dictionary.

[Jay]

by best written do you mean grammar, language & sentence structure?

No that is largely an editors job IMHO. I mean more in regards to simple style of writing, creativity with word, and author who is mindful of the language and it's relation to the setting he is depicting.

In which case, Tolkien being a professor of English wins against anyone.

That's like saying a good Sci-fi writer has to have a PHD in the field. I would imagine Tolkien's is not the only professor of English who has written a book (the oppsite is probably more true) , and I also suggest that not all such examples are flawlesly written.

Question, who decide what is best written if it's not the readers of today and of the years and centuries to come?

I never said it was otherwise. However, at the same time I don't think it's a leap of faith to suggest popular opinion has little to do with quality. Again people don't often discuss what's best written, or if they do it's really a shroud over the topic of favorite.

This goes back to the quote I quoted before, what's popular will be mainstream, what is often mainstream can fall under this category:

That such writers also depend upon recycling the plots of their literary superiors and are rewarded for this bland repetition isn't surprising in a world of sensation movies and manufactured pop bands. That they are rewarded with the lavish lifestyles of the most successful whores is also unsurprising. To pretend that this addictive cabbage is anything more than the worst sort of pulp historical romance or western is, however, a depressing sign of our intellectual decline and our free-falling academic standards.

Moorcock states it exactly as I feel 100%.

BTW this is fast becoming a Q and A of my opinions, I humbly ask if someone has an issue with what I say present your case, not focus an attempt to find flaws in my own thougth process through some form of hit and miss questions. I'm all for a discussion, but don't care to for nit picking. Present your argument (as I have my own), or thougths, and lets compare, please don't attempt to find errors in mine to formulate a basis that should be your own.

I also want to point out something, in my examples I am not at all saying that what I like is well written, and what I don't like isn't. I am implying, however, there are some obvious examples of novels that are popular and top many lists of people generic (including any list I would make) that are not well written at all (Dan Brown). Which should surprise nobody.

*EDITED* Sorry wanted to add that last bit

[Teresa Edgerton]

I'm afraid I always bristle up whenever anyone equates reading preferences with maturity levels.

It's true that I care far more about matters of style (for instance) than I did many years ago, but I submit that the change is a result of spending the last quarter of a century actively attempting to improve my own writing skills, rather than my (now) greater age or life experience. Certainly, I can still enjoy a beautifully written book meant for young readers.

[Jay]

Certainly, I can still enjoy a beautifully written book meant for young readers.

I completely agree. What is alarming often times these novels seem even more advanced and better written than other works that are not found in juveniile sections or marketed toward children. I think some works like Pullman's Dark Material's, Barker's Abarat, Nix's Keys to the Kingdom, Gaiman's Corlaline, Tolkien's Hobbit and otehr classics that are rather timeless classic like Adam's Watership Down, or Peter Beagle's Last Unicorn, as well as many of Heinlen's novels, Rowling's Harry Potter show much better examples of style/prose/creativity/ than numerous titles directed toward adults (or at least said to be directed toward adults).

[Winters_Sorrow]

Originally Posted by Ainulindale

That such writers also depend upon recycling the plots of their literary superiors and are rewarded for this bland repetition isn't surprising in a world of sensation movies and manufactured pop bands. That they are rewarded with the lavish lifestyles of the most successful whores is also unsurprising. To pretend that this addictive cabbage is anything more than the worst sort of pulp historical romance or western is, however, a depressing sign of our intellectual decline and our free-falling academic standards

Moorcock states it exactly as I feel 100%.

This appears to be the writings of a very bitter man.
I liked some of Moorcock's work, but found some later books to be too surrealist for me to get to grips with and I stopped trying.
He may be correct in his assumption that some "successful" writers are far from inventive *cough, Eddings!, cough cough* but to imply that because I don't worship the ground he walks on, my "academic standards have been dumbed down" is highly insulting and puts him into the "head firmly up his own a*se" set along with Terry Goodkind in my mind.
His bitterness is summed up best by one of his own phrases "That they are rewarded with the lavish lifestyles of the most successful whores is also unsurprising." Meow!

Try writing some books without nonsensical mystical hokum about Eternal Champions and I'll see if I can stomach it, ya loon!

[Jay]

This appears to be the writings of a very bitter man.

His bitterness is summed up best by one of his own phrases "That they are rewarded with the lavish lifestyles of the most successful whores is also unsurprising." Meow!

An interesting opinion, however why would he be bitter? Moorcock has been a legend in this genre since the late 60's. He is credited with the likes of JG Ballard to have spearheaded The New Wave, both Sterling and William Gibson credit him for his initial influence on steampunk. Comparing Moorcock to Goodkind is IMHO almost criminal, everything Goodkind tells us his work is, Moorcock's work really is, and the best part about it is that Moorcock doesn't have to tell us his about it (like Goodkind does), his significance and influence on the history of the genre is proof enough. The man is a legend, hence the term Moorcockian Fantasy. There is no honor/award/acholade that Moorcock has not achieved in this genre. It can be argued no other a writer alive in the genre today has had more influence or is as respected. He certainly has been immensely succesful, to say the least. The two are simply not comparable.

head firmly up his own a*se" set along with Terry Goodkind in my mind.

Since you brougth up Goodkind, here is a quote from the same article. Moorcock obviously partially speaking about Goodkind:

Terry Pratchett once remarked that all his readers were called Kevin. He is lucky in that he appears to be the only Terry in fantasy land who is able to write a decent complex sentence.

You just have to love Michael Moorcock

[Teresa Edgerton]

I, too, find Moorcock unreadable, for reasons of content (morbid, repetitive) rather than style.

Moorcock is, certainly, famous, respected, and influential, but not, I believe, rolling in wealth. And he is at the age where people tend to ascribe their successes to their own hard work and talent, and everything they haven't achieved to the stupidity or cupidity of others. So yes, it would be entirely possible for him to feel bitter toward writers who make more money or whose books enjoy a wider readership than his own.

We all tend to feel a certain frustration, don't we, either on our own behalf (if we write) or on behalf of the writers we particularly enjoy and admire, when we see the popularity of writers whose books we genuinely don't like? It's a mistake to ascribe that initial dislike to mere bitterness or envy (personal or sympathetic) but these things have been known to contribute to the violence of my own likes and dislikes.

Has anyone here noticed an evolution or improvement in the style of a favorite writer? I find Tanith Lee's first few books far inferior in that respect to her more recent books. And I also recall hearing Alis Rasmussen aka Kate Elliott saying several times over the years that she had no particular style in her writing (though admired it in others), yet her style is something readers of her current Crown of Stars often comment on favorably. In her case, it looks like a distinctive and admirable style crept up on her while she wasn't even looking.