How Important is Style?

[Teresa Edgerton]

More and more, I come to realize that my favorite authors have, each one, a distinctive (and inimitable) style: Patricia McKillip, C.J. Cherryh, Tanith Lee, T.H. White, Charles Dickens, Leon Garfield, Ursula K. LeGuin, Mervyn Peake. In my favorite books -- the ones that really move me, and which I feel impelled to go back to and read again and again -- it's not just the characters that draw me in and draw me back (although certainly they're important, too) but also the mood and the setting, and I find that the style of the prose can contribute to (or detract from) both of these so much that they can have an enormous effect on my enjoyment of a book.

So what about the rest of you, when it comes to style: Do you notice? Do you care?

[rune]

I would I agree that style is important.
I find my favourite authors are the ones that have a writing style that I can engage with and really like These are the authors that when i pick up their book I forget to eat and hours go by before I realise I've sat for so long reading their book

[Jay]

Interesting topic. Prose has become very important to me. In many ways it seperate whom I percieve as a good writer and somebody that just had a good idea, and I think there is a big difference.

SF/F authors who I think have among the best quality of proses include, China Mieville (I jyst don't think anyone gets more out of a sentence or paragraph than Mieville can right now, he's flawless), Mervyn Peake, Gene Wolfe, among many others. I also think even with a distinct prose it can get anboying (as I'm sure Cal wil point out in regards to the prodigous Mieville later. For me such an example is Patrica Mckillip, make no mistake I love her Riddle Master series, and count it among the elite epic fantasies ever written, but generally I can't stand any of her other work due to her flowerey prose. I better mention another writer I recently read who has unbelievable prose Catherynne M. Valente (another great recomendation Kirsten, Thanks!), and also another author who isn't as audacious with his prose (like a Mieville) Jeff VanderMeer who's work just flows with absolute precison.

Regarding some examples of epic fantasy (we already noted Mckillip) I think one of the things that clearly seperates who I think are the elite writers in the branch is there prose. Many people complain about the unaccesibility of R. Scott Bakker's wonderful series (The Prince of Nothing), and I beg to differ as fans that read this work having only read say a Terry Brooks or David Eddings merely mistake inaccesibility with their first exposure to a talented author's prose Martin's trademark gritty style is a huge factor in his popularity, and Erikson keep improving adding to the huge scope of his ideas.

I think I like what others would call dense writing, and one reason I absolute despise Dan Brown's ridiculous Davinci Code even not taking into account none of it is his idea, his prose is sophmoric and ordinary, there is nothing in his writing that makes me feel like he is a gifted writer, only that he came up with a good idea. The book most often brought up when speaking of Brown's work is the peerless Umberto Ecco's Focault's Pendulumn, which is essentially The Davinci Code written before The Davinci Code only written by someone who actuallly has merit and talent as a writer. This is essentially what prose means to me.

Prose is huge IMHO, just reading the first pages of books of such talents like Mieville, Wolfe, or Charles de Lint, Tim Powers, or Jonathan Carroll, whose prose distinguishes them from many others instantly puts me in tune to the story.

I just simply can stand Brook's like work any more: "Allanon saw a demon. Allanon raised his hands to unleash Druid fire. The Demon died. Allanon was tired. He will need his druid sleep he thinks to himself"......I mean that's just so mindless!

[Teresa Edgerton]

Not to start an argument, but because I'd really like to know exactly what you mean -- I find your references, here and elsewhere, to McKillip's "flowery" prose a little puzzling. Especially because you say you favor a dense style, and certainly McKillip is not at all verbose compared to some of the authors you recommend.

Is it because she not infrequently describes beautiful things and homely things with the same enthusiasm other writers generally devote to the darker and "grittier" details?

Heaven knows that I love Peake, but compared to him, McKillip's prose strikes me as spare and concise.

[Leto]

Originally Posted by Kelpie

So what about the rest of you, when it comes to style: Do you notice? Do you care?

Do I notice ? Yes
Do I care ? It's vital. A good story without distinctive style is just bones without meat. Style is the conversational talent of the author which get you going from one sentence to another, from one page to another.
Light or dense, fast or slow, I don't care. But there must be style in it to be readable.

[Neon]

I agree with Leto. I'm not a stickler for any one type of style, so long as it's readable and the material flows well. The most annoying thing is to have little, fragmented sentences one after another to get a point across. But I've disliked very few books because of a lack in style (as opposed to a lack in the actual plot/storyline).

[I, Brian]

For some reason I can't help but feel that the more mainstream a book is, the less likely that there will be much emphasis on personal style - I suspect that if you could take a sample of different bestselling authors there might not be too much between their narrative styles.

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well put, Leto.

Brian, I think you are absolutely right if you mean "popular" mainstream fiction, which does tend to favor an absolutely transparent style. But I think a distinctive style can be very important in "literary" mainstream fiction. Not that that makes me any more inclined to read it.

[Leto]

I don't agree Brian . If style is the author's voice, mainstream publishers are like mainstream radio and will prefer a certain type of style other variations. Just as BBC prefer certains type of accent and voice.
Make a test and ask someone from BBC world news to CNN International News (the British edition). Just by your ear, you can tell which channel is it (I know I've tried). Same goes with most mainstream publishers. Each one tend to specialize in one or two type of writing style.

[Jay]

I find your references, here and elsewhere, to McKillip's "flowery" prose a little puzzling. Especially because you say you favor a dense style, and certainly McKillip is not at all verbose compared to some of the authors you recommend.

Which is why I said I don't care for Mckillip's novels with the exception of her Riddle Master series, which just for some reason or another worked for me, perhaps because It was my first book I read by her, and I read it quite some time before I really started paying attention to what I read, outside of just reading whats provided on the surface, or perhaps simply because it just all seemed to fit perfectly with that particular given plot and story. Most importantly I just wanted to agree with you that Mckillp defintely does have a distinct style, and just because I don't care for it doesn't change the fact that is in fact distinct, and not synonymous with others who have no apparent style at all, or at least one that differentiates from the mainstream writers.

Regarding most mainstream writers pariticularly in regards to this genre (but certainly not isolated to it by any means), and although I respect anyone's own personal opinions I tend to agree with this thought (has to be the most useful quote in the world) from Moorcock:

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.

Amen I say.

[GOLLUM]

Whew!

Interesting discussion to say the least!


The way I judge a book is first and foremost is by the prose or style of writing. I’ve found from my experience at least that if the writing is good i.e. intelligently considered prose, which is also tightly written, then generally speaking the story tends to be good also. This is not always the case but a general correlation I have noticed over the years. I also enjoy the world building aspect and the emphasis on the more realistic and gritty grey characters one can relate to. It is also probably why I particularly enjoy authors including, Gene Wolfe, George RR Martin, R Scott Bakker, Janny Wurts, Steven Erikson, China Melvielle, Kate Elliott, Stephen Donaldson, JV Jones current series, Paul Kearney’s Mark Of Ran, Ricardo Pinto, Neal Stephenson etc…

My two cents worth…

[Tsujigiri]

I'd agree that style of writing is very important. I have waded through a book despite the writers horeendous style because I was curious, but similarly and much more enjoyably I have flown through other books with a thirst for each new page...

[dwndrgn]

To me, the style (whether it is gritty or flowery or whatever) is what holds the story together. I'm not picky though. The only styles I dislike are the ones that are too stylish, they seem to have overdone or tried so hard; so much that the story gets lost.

[littlemissattitude]

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. I"ve talked before here about what a friend of mine calls "popcorn books". Usually when she is talking about them, she means romance novels. My popcorn books are generally mysteries, police procedurals or action-adventure. Science fiction is usually not in that category for me, because I look to science fiction to stimulate my imagination and to give me things to think about. So, style is much more important when I read science fiction than when I read other fiction.

I don't read too much mainstream fiction, and one of the reasons that I don't is that in too much of the mainstream fiction that I have read the style is much too obvious. That can happen in other fiction as well, but it seems like in a certain subset of mainstream fiction, the belief seems to be that if you have enough style then you don't need, oh, a story to tell. You see, one of the things that I am certain about when it comes to style in fiction is that it can't be too obvious. It's like film music - it needs to be there, but if I hear it, it's probably too showy and is just getting in the way of the pictures.

Just my two cents' worth.

[dwndrgn]

Originally Posted by littlemissattitude

You see, one of the things that I am certain about when it comes to style in fiction is that it can't be too obvious. It's like film music - it needs to be there, but if I hear it, it's probably too showy and is just getting in the way of the pictures.

Just my two cents' worth.

That's what I meant when I said they go overboard. LittleMiss, you have a much better way with words than I do Probably one of the reasons you're a writer and I ain't