I'm hesitant to write this. Not that I think it'll be controversial, but because I'm not sure it's even a problem worth discussing. I think I'm out of touch with my writing style and goals. Almost everything I've ever written is either modelled on archaic prose or has a 19th century feeling to it. The controversial part is that I don't much value common speech and contemporary novels. I think the newest novel I read was either One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or We Have Always Lived in the Castle. I respect the "high style" of authors such as Peake, Dunsany, Macdonald, Ashton Smith, Tolkien, Homer, so much that anything else sounds wrong to me. Almost too common or basic to be worth reading. I don't think it's fair to say I'm a one-track sort of person as I have read more realistic contemporary novels, but a lot of these are from excellent prose stylists such as Ernesto Sabato or Knut Hamsun or Nabokov. Still, none of these are 'modern.' It's just that whenever I read sentences like, "Yeah, okay, man" or, "What the fuck?" I'm jarred back to reality. I can't say I have much time for it. Yet I know this greatly hampers my overall reading experience and the chance to learn a thing or two from new writers. I think a lot of it comes down to the marriage between theme and style. I think it's not erroneous to suggest that a story's theme and message, the very register on which it operates, will affect the style or vice versa. It's my own problem since I don't care for a lot of aspects of modernity and am thus naturally drawn toward older writers. I want to escape from the modern world and its degraded speech so why, I think to myself, would I read something written in the 2000s? Obviously genre has a large role to play. I mostly write fantastical stories. If I see expletives in a fantasy story or everyday language, I'm immediately taken out of the story. It's as if the author, to me, doesn't care. It's almost obnoxious. The idea that the writer has no regard for the concept of creating a secondary world in which to believe. In fact, I so firmly believe in polite/beautiful/formal speech that I've written several short stories about this very idea. This gets into a topic too large and tangential for this thread, but it has a lot to do with cordiality, chivalry and a sense of romance. I would take a single line of Beregond's over anything a modern "hip" writer has to offer. ‘That is what we call ourselves,’ said Pippin. ‘I am glad to learn it,’ said Beregond, ‘for now I may say that strange accents do not mar fair speech, and hobbits are a fair-spoken folk. But come! You shall make me acquainted with this good horse. I love beasts, and we see them seldom in this stony city; for my people came from the mountain-vales, and before that from Ithilien. But fear not! The visit shall be short, a mere call of courtesy, and we will go thence to the butteries.’ Incidentally, Tolkien is a master of recognising beautiful speech. He makes a point of it in all of his tales. Men often"marvel at tongues" or are "in amazement to see" that one has come who has a kingly and noble voice, etc. I'd like for this to be a typical case of seniority and nostalgia, but I'm in my late twenties. Has anyone else had similar thoughts? Do similar issues ever put you off writing or want to change your market? I'll be here to listen.
On the subject of curse words, of course people in those historical periods mostly probably cussed like sailers. I think the desire to read/hear/see only cleaned-up speech might be a fantasy of comfort or a childlike affectation, a desire for a return to innocence.
I agree. I probably gave the impression that I want censorship. I was referring to the placement of common swears in certain genres though, among other things. It's not quite on-topic, but my own love of older dialogue, especially in fantasy, comes from the formality. Formality is key. It's as if the speech is given greater weight. For example: Then Mim rose and looked long at Turin. 'I hear you,' he said. 'You speak like a dwarf- lord of old; and at that I marvel." 'Seldom does the march-warden favour us with his company,' he said; 'and I gladly yield my accustomed seat for the chance of speech with him.' Again, a little off-topic, but it's what I appreciate.
If you're writing for an audience, you have to be writing for that audience's expectations. You're not going to find a lot of people from the 19th century reading books today.
I think you already said this above somewhere, but if you want to write like this you just need to write in the right genres—historical fantasy or fantasy in a medievalesque or ancient setting.
I vary my style according to what I'm writing. I use quite a stilted style in my fantasy story "A Writer's Tale", a hyper formal and correct style in the excerpt from my abandoned novel (which I didn't think worked, but people seem to like), a whimsical style in my Rufin stories and a modern style in most other things. Be flexible, and match what you want to write. That's not to say different styles don't work in different genres, but if you use a style that's a mismatch for the story, it'll be hard work to pull it off. And note - I'm not just talking about dialogue, but narrative as well.
I have to say that you're missing out on a lot of great books if you don't read much from the last hundred years. Of course any book that uses the word "buttery" has earned my respect, but Tolkien was writing high fantasy in a formal register, using florid language to achieve an effect. I don't see the distinction being so much between beautiful, high language and common, vulgar language as it is between appropriate language and inappropriate language, depending on what you are trying to write. Whether or not you like expletives, they are commonly used in real life and their use should be evaluated depending on whether they have accurately portrayed whatever piece of the human experience the writer is trying to portray. The same for your chivalry and romance--any story which tries to portray these things should use language commensurate with that goal. And if you are writing a story about Detroit factory workers in the 60's you would expect the same thing.
I can't see myself ever reading a story in which mobile phones, text messaging, the internet and youth culture is prevalent. Indeed, I understand this. It's certainly the case that style and language should be commensurate with the viewpoint character's environment and upbringing. I'm not for a second suggesting that everything and everyone be the same. It has more to do with my dislike or suspicion for new stories overall than for dialogue-specific issues. I just can't find myself ever picking up a modern book full of references to phones, text messaging, youth culture and the internet. Even more general elements such as offices or hotels put me off now. It wasn't always the case, I assure you. I know it limits me severely. I just don't think it's possible for such a story to contain within it the sort of message, ideals or concepts I'm interested in. I'm not saying these things are intrinsically bad either. I know that you can take my sentence about never reading a story full of references to phones, etc. and turn it back on me regarding nature, creation, myth, fantasy, and introspection. I feel like I'm limiting myself, but it might also be said that the modern world of writing/reading is limiting itself if focuses on technology and the like in its narratives.
....I'm in the same boat, though I admit a stronger bias against modernity. I dunno, if you write something that's interesting, old fashioned language shouldn't stop people from reading your work.
I'm not sure we have the same level of optimism concerning readers. Isn't it a victory to get people to read at all? I've always been of the view that simple language is a requirement for stories to gain traction. You write a simple story with a simple message and that's what sells. Obviously Hemingway and others wrote brilliantly with sparse prose, but he and the few others were the exception, I think.
It sounds to me more like you're disillusioned with the modern world in general. And I don't see why you jumped immediately to talking about youth culture; many stories that involve text messaging have nothing to do with youth culture.
I understand the addictive nature of the old fashioned prose, at least of certain types. I once wrote a story set partly in my own version of Dante's Inferno and did some research on Wikipedia. Had never read the Inferno at all, only the Wiki page, and the excerpts there fired me up so strongly that my writing changed for a while afterwards. That was fine though, because it was a very postmodern comedy with a wild style—pretty much anything goes. A lot of meta references to myself as the author and directly to the readers etc, and I even mentioned that I had switched over to Dante-inspired writing. The rest of the story was in exactly the kind of writing you would hate, and it's largely the contrast between the two that made it funny, though the old-fashioned prose took on a lot of power and dignity.
I would think it's because there was no youth culture when that kind of elegant language was in use. There was a certain dignity that we've lost. Just look at old tintype photographs from the late 19th century, where the men had weird beards or mutton chop sideburns, and where people didn't smile for photographs. It's because they had personal dignity—they wanted to be seen as serious people, not as grinning buffoons. Now the photographer makes an ass of himself, tries to make people laugh, tells them all to say cheese, and everybody competes to look sillier than everybody else. Look at all the cartoonish colors in modern pictures, shirts with pictures on them... compared to the clothes of earlier days we do look buffoonish, all decked out in factory made clothes and our fashions decided for us each year by advertisers.
Yes, I certainly agree, but I don't know if I would attribute all of that to youth culture per se. Culture in general has taken a downward spiral towards buffoonery.
Well no, I wouldn't either, and I don't think Teledan was saying it's because of youth culture. It's just one symptom of our modern clownishness. Ok, that's not quite what I meant to say. Rather, youth culture belongs to these modern times.
Lol, I'm not optimistic, per say. I just have no capability to write anything besides what I want to.
I understand what you're saying and for a long time I felt the same way. I remember crying all the time when I was thirteen because I thought I was born in the wrong century. I just couldn't relate to anyone around me and preferred to bury myself in Dickens and Gaskell. Formal language has a certain gravitas - look at the Bible, for example. Would it have as much authority if modern language was used? 'Believe in Jesus and you'll go to heaven' doesn't sound as impressive as 'Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved'. No matter what type of language is used, the story or message should stand. I now read and write in a more contemporary style because I enjoy books set in the present and find them to be just as much of an escape as the classics or books set in other worlds. I find a strong story with sympathetic and relatable characters to be higher up my priority list than language. Saying that, I enjoy lyrical prose and I think a lot of readers still do, so if that's the style you want to write in then go for it.
Of course there was, it just wasn't OUR youth culture. There has always been and will always b e a youth culture.
Not in the sense we're talking about: Youth cultures have not been part of all societies throughout history; they appear most frequently where significant realms of social autonomy for young people become regularized and expected features of the socialization process. Most scholars would agree that the conditions necessary for the mass youth cultures recognizable today appeared after the formation of modern nation-states and the routinization of the human life course in the industrializing nations of the nineteenth century. The mass institutions of the nation-state, which separate young people from adults and gather them in large numbers for education, religious instruction, training, work, or punishment have been consistent locations in which youth cultures have developed. There is some evidence suggesting that youth cultures may have existed in certain circumstances during the medieval period. Also, it is important to recognize that there are significant gaps in our historical understanding, particularly for populations outside of Europe and the United States. Youth cultures have been clearly evident in the twentieth century, particularly since the end of World War II.Source
I think you just really have to expose yourself to more. There's highbrow and lowbrow literature. I prefer highbrow. You might as well. Language can still be a beautiful part of today's writing. And it often is. I'm not sure how this translates into genre. I discovered a lot of the authors I like after subscribing to literary journals and magazines. They always had author bios that mentioned books the writing had published or forthcoming. So, then I read those books because they had good stories. It just sort of grew from there. Look at the top mags in your genre. Then look at the bios. It's silly to think today's writing hasn't evolved and gotten better. Sure, there's crap out there. But when we look at more highbrow publications and works, it should change things.
I say write in whichever style you feel comfortable. If you enjoy writing in a grandiose, florid style with elegant conversational structures, stick with it. But ... if you’re wanting/expecting to get such a book published, you may have to temper your expectations. Such a novel could find a niche, but that would, most likely, be all it would be. A niche novel. There’s nothing wrong with niche novels, per se, but those audiences are small.
