I've noticed this in a few really long books, that the author's style changed as he wrote. To be honest, it didn't bother me because writing styles usually only get better, not worse, so it wound up immersing me into the stories the more of them I read.
I think when you revise later, you can try and bring everything to the same 'standard'. I had some trouble when revising parts of something (very) old I'd written. Initially, I wanted to change only some things, but noticed how different my style is now v then. What I did is revise the whole thing in the end to have some consistency throughout.
I agree with VM80. That is one of those stuff you correct when revising. I notice the same thing in my WIP, and I find it rather pleasant to see I have learned while writing the same piece of work. I just hope that I will be able to see through the old version and come up with an improved way of writing the same parts. I think I have a tendency to get blind to my own errors even though Im not completely satisfied with it, that is when I start rewriting the same part/chapter/scene from scratch, with new words instead of changing words here and there.
this is why the beginning fiction writer would be wise to start out with short stories and not jump right into a novel... as you write short stories, you'll be developing your 'voice' and by the time you've honed your basic skills with a few [or many, if it takes that long], you'll be able to get through to the end of a novel in a single voice/style, instead of ending up with a patchwork quilt that reads as if a committee wrote it...
Thanks for the help I have a story stuck in my mind and the length it will require is out of my control. And because I cant seem to get it out of my head I guess I will just have to develop my skills and style through it.
I've noticed this with authors as well, and myself. I'm on the third book of Stephen King's The Dark Tower series, and his writing is much better then the first one. Not that the first book was badly written, but his style is just more different. I also think at this point he really knew who he was as a writer, as compared to The Gunslinger when he wrote it back in the 78'. Once you find your writing style though, you really take off. Beginning writers always have trouble putting their thoughts into words cause they don't know how without seeming clunky. But once you hit that groove, you improve.
The more you write, the more developed your voice becomes. When you reach the end of the work, it's a good idea to unify the work with consistent voice in revising and editing.
I think it's amazing that your first draft is even readable. Mine always sucks and voice is the last thing I'm worried about.
It's a good thing if your writing improves. The first draft is almost unreadable sometimes, and you can always go back and edit.
I personally am very picky about what I read and that is reflected in my writing straight away. I know what I do no like so I am guessing that is a good place to start. I definetely do not find macabre/gorish style of writing appealing so I do not go there. where is there is blood/death/violence I switch off,in fact books could do with warnings about the context and language to tell the reader before you get there and In other words there are things I stumble onto that I wished I had not seen heard or read. does that happen to you?
I am the same exact way! I normally like books that none of my friends have ever read, with a dark side and a lot of character development (Ex: Dark Objects by Gillian Flynn). I've noticed that I like to read the same kind of writing I like to write. So sometimes the only time I get a good read is when I write it. :3 All of my stories are dark and unique, and they probably wouldn't make a best seller because of the concepts I work with (but I'm not really interested in publishing, so I don't really mind). I don't like depressing stories about weak people with no character development. (Cough cough, Twilight, cough cough.) There was this one book I read, where this woman is obsessed with the Jane Austin novels. She becomes a hopeless romantic & is heart broken when she finds out that true love doesn't really exist or some stupid crap like that. So she sets off to find some letters to expose Jane Austen to win her job back, (because her husbands mistress got her fired.) It's really stupid and pathetic in my opinion. "Jane Austin Ruined My Life" I believe it's called.
Yes. I worked to develop my writing by reading and studying authors I enjoyed reading. Add to that my interest in reading history (mainly WW II and the U.S. Civil War), and I believe it shows. It would've been hard (and would remain difficult) to learn from published authors if I didn't enjoy both the content and style.
Unfortunately, no. I love a good legal or medical thriller, but I don't feel I have the knowledge to write about either accurately. That's what has stopped me for a long time. I like thrillers in general, or a true mystery, and I agree with others about good character development. I'm working right now on better setting and character development and experimenting on alternative points of view. However, I like any story where I actually learn something, and where the ending is plausible but not too easy to guess. That's what I'm shooting for, and I'm finding it more difficult than I realized. I do not like too much gore. Some is okay, but I randomly picked up a novel by some author I didn't know which sounded interesting, but after just three pages, I was so disgusted by the content, I had to put it down. I have no desire to read about a killer who skins vicitims alive!
Not really. I read a wide range of styles and genres, so my writing would be a mess if it reflected all of that.
I'm the same as Steerpike. I'll read anything at all, and can usually enjoy it and learn something unless it puts me to sleep, lol. I could never put all of that into one style
Well... somewhat, but not really. I enjoy writing fantasy and adventure, but while I do enjoy reading those, I'll also read genres I have no interest in writing: mystery, thriller, crime, and some others. My favorite authors are also really funny, like Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett, something I don't think I'd be able to copy, based on my writing style.
wow...about the Jane Austen that just goes to confirm that it is not a good idea to reveal who the writer is all together if or when you write a book. Imagine you in 30 years time someone writes a book about you using you name, your intellectuall property, to write another 'retaleation riposte book' to put you down. How bad is that . Imagine if the said Austin was around now what would she have thought or even felt that her whole 'writer's reputation has been jeorperdised. I would not want to be here!! Another point: what do the Austen family think about their name being used in this way? and God forbid, what if there is a Jane Austin around to day with that same name? How would he/she feel aboutit all? These are thoughts that spring to mind. write yes,publish it if you really need to but put no name to it, cause is it really worth it? the risk is there , your family name could be at stake if you you declare it on a book cover. On the other hand, is this book 'Jane Austin ruined my life' of a so called pathetic writer, who apparently got messed up because an Austin told her love is a piece of pie she can have for breakfast? come on this so called writer who believed in fairy tale suddenly became a writer. Oh dear well at least I would say that Austin is a genius one to have managed to turn a simpleton into a writer rolleyes: oh well it takes all sorts I imagine andthis story just takes the biscuit.
wow that is gruesome indeed and this is the kind of thing which brings me to think about the role and the validity of a title that does not give anyhting away. so you picked a book looked at the title and then thought nothing of it, then you stumble into this kind of gruesome images and it is too late to go back.
couldn't yoru writing then reflect a mix of them all? your signature about tyranny is interesting. I a satyrical article called 'Supremacy and Sarcasm Honestly Prized' and it reminded me of it. about your second signature there is one similar about Charlotte Bronte they sound or come across as similar.
To think that ANY person with the same name would be offended for such a book is pretty far fetched, since it's quite obvious who the book title refers to, and it's not the Jane Austens living today. Exactly like the John Smiths of the world probably don't bother about all the ones with the same name in literature because no one with some common sense would believe that it's about them just because they have the same name.
no... i can write in just about any style and have written in many, not all of which reflect my reading preferences...
My favorite reading genre is fantasy and I love to write fantasy. So I guess there's something behind your line of thinking because there are probably more people out there who can say they like to read the same thing that they like to write than those who say otherwise.
In many cases, I think it does. Or rather, my tastes in reading at a given time influence my style. When I was reading Ayn Rand, I tried my hand at philosophy; I wrote some god-awful poems in my T.S. Eliot stage; after reading McEwan's Solar, my focus was antiheroes and anecdotes. I just finished a David Mitchel book, and I'm suddenly compelled to try out some shifting timelines. I'm not going through phases, I swear I swear! I'm just building up to something big.
