In answer to a question on another site, one user said that there exist writers who are arrhythmic, writers who hear no rhythm in their minds when either drafting or polishing. According to them, these kind of writers can never create prose with rhythm, for there exists no set of rules able to produce it, and therefore without a rhythmic sense, they have no way to yield it. As for me, I have times when I am more rhythmical then others, and several years ago I wrote one work of prose with perfect rhythm. But many times I find myself lacking a sense of the kind of rhythm I want to produce. But the idea that not any rules exist that you can use to generate rhythm, with that I must disagree, for though it would be counterproductive to plan out rhythm according to rules, yet nonetheless there are certain rules able to help you avoid unpleasant rhythms. But I have yet to fully discover such rules. But what do you think? Are there rhythmic and arrhythmic writers? Or do all writers have a sense of rhythm which they can develop?
Isn't that what Prose is? I mean Blank Verse is a form of writing where the writer writes to a certain Rhythm, while Prose is writing that is not bound by this restriction and pays attnetion purely to sentence construction.
Is not 'arrhythmic' prose 'creative writing' by another name, crap that blathers on about Jesus for 600 pages or hockey players who are kissing? [oh, and sci-fi]. And sometimes the unique genre squares the circle [maybe, I think, will research square circles] and becomes 'outsider art,' y'know, elevated...
Well, I guess a lot of the prose that we read is devoid of any noticeable rhythm, but there are works of prose that have a kind of rhythm, not totally regular like that of poetry, but not completely free like that of prose. In most prose, where the goal is simply to convey information to the reader, rather than to delight their ear, there is often found no noticeable rhythm. Nonetheless, this kind of prose must not sound unpleasant, so there must at least be some principle of variety applied when writing it, to avoid any recurrence of sounds that the ear would object to. This may be called harmony, but I think prose with harmony is even smoother than prose of this kind, where the goal is simply to convey the author's thoughts clearly, and not to give pleasure to the ear of the reader. If you look at some of the prose of Edgar Allan Poe, (who, I must admit, lived over fifty years ago), you will find that it has a certain quality of voice for producing a certain mood, a quality which I would call its rhythm. For when I speak of rhythm, I do not mean the regular recurrence of beats as that of poetry, but a judicious placement of sounds so as to create a certain voice, distinct from others, not that of prose whose author wanted only to convey his thoughts, rather than to yield through sound a certain effect on the reader. But today it is esteemed the highest virtue that prose should be without rhythm, because in modern times the traits have changed that once were common in writing, the rhythm of prose being no longer valued among readers and many critics, who I suppose have no idea how it would even sound. This is not to say that rhythm is more important than clarity, but even in the plainest prose the words should be enjoyable, and in order to accomplish this you must pay attention at least a little to sound. For even in conversational prose, the words must conform to the rhythm of speech, otherwise their sound would be unpleasant. And by striving too hard to be succinct, you may write prose that sounds unpleasant, where the addition of certain words could improve its flow. But I could be wrong about much of this, since I am making many assumptions about the history of prose. But the truth remains that rhythm exists in certain kinds of prose.
Rhythm and Sound are two completely separate elements; the terms should not be interchangeable. There are three signature devices that Poe is famous for, one of them is that his work is very Onomatopoetic (a sound device). - There no reason no one can't learn how to write with Rhythm, but the fact remains, not every writer wants to or cares about such things; and really, that is all right.
Did you mean no reason that no one can't learn or no reason no one can learn? I am fine with not every writer caring about rhythm, as long as I am free to care about it myself. And hopefully there are some readers who like rhythm.
This is an old argument that goes back to Aristotle. He thought prose should not follow a single meter, but it should hint at rhythm. I don't remember what rhythm he wanted as the foundation . . . but he had one chosen. Some of his peers wanted more variety. Others said there shouldn't be any poetic rhythm in there at all. * looks it up * Found it. . . "From these remarks it may be gathered that a definite metrical effect in prose ought to be avoided, but that rhythm must not be banished, and that the secret of its beauty lies in the variety of its melody." -- Rhythm in Prose (1912) Whenever I see anything new written about prose rhythm, it's usually talking about sentence rhythm. And with that, it's usually just short/long sentences, and that's all they mention. It's really sentence variety they're talking about, and it builds flow. (Which they never explain, but it's the momentum of the paragraph.) So by avoiding sentences in rigid patterns, you create this larger structure (the paragraph) that feels dynamic. I have a new writing book by Chuck Wendig, that is the first I've ever seen that mentions one of my theories (validation!), namely that rhythm moves beyond sentences. When you see all of its parts, you realize that rhythm is the mechanical core of writing. (I'm ignoring storytelling and creativity here. Just looking at structure. Mechanics.) Because you can look beyond short/long sentences. Consider: variation of phrases, clarity/imagery, monosyllabic/polysyllabic words, complex and simple wordings, the mix of action/dialog/setting, dialog tags vs action beats, sentence patterns (which there a thousands of), grammar vs style, purple vs plain. All of those follow a rhythm. Too much of one and it becomes a flaw. But there's a catch. The proper rhythm is arrhythmical. It doesn't seem to be there. Sometimes, because that's a rhythm too. I've written like that before, with a very deliberate rhythm. I don't do it much though. I actually have a contest piece here that does it on the last lines . . . So someone who can't hear the rhythm is really stuck in a rhythm and not realizing it. It's not like they lack rhythm and are staggered everywhere (because that would be a kind of strength). Instead, they begin every other sentence with an -ing phrase, or an as-clause. Their tags are always "said-verbily." Or the prose is dense everywhere and it feels like sludge. Or someone who can't see their own purple prose. That's also a poor rhythm. Go open up Alan Moore's new book, Jerusalem. He's smart as hell, and is some sort of genius, but there's a rhythm, and it's not a good one. (Editor should have reeled him in.) The readers are complaining about it all over the Amazon reviews. Really, what they're hearing is someone who's unconcerned with his rhythm. It didn't help that he seemed to be writing for a visual medium. (Writing is not cinema.)
I understand this idea as Timothy Steel makes the argument that Metrical writing is a tension between Rhythm (which is born from syllable stress) and the abstract pattern of Meter. If we take away the abstract pattern of meter, we left with three things that can help influence Rhythm: Word choice (mono/di-syllable vs polysyllable words), Punctuation, and Syntax construction.
You seem to be equating rhythm, sound, variety, and flow, and using 'rhythm' as the word to encompass the whole group. If you want to combine these concepts, I think that 'flow' is a much better word.
That's excellent. I like seeing this coming from different pros. It means there's something to it. You can choose your words by length, complexity, syllable, etc. You stagger them perfectly (so easy, haha) and the rhythm moves.
Yep. I'm saying rhythm is a superstructure. All the parts are moving under it. Whenever rhythm's mentioned in prose books, it's just talking about sentence length for the most part. That's why I was so happy to see Wendig mention it as a greater concept. It was a long sentence followed by a short sentence, a fancy word followed by a simple word, trust followed by mistrust. I'd have to look it up to see how he worded it. Flow is the movement of rhythm. But I've always felt there was more to it than the number of words before a full stop. You build a good flow with a variety of sentence lengths, but what's in them changes the flow too. How you're using the words. The sentence structure and its purpose and the way it's written.
Syllable stress is the most important. A (1) rock (4) and (1) Mouse (4) vs. un (1) hap (4)pi (1)ly (2) English stress is on one a 1-4 scale. Despite 'A rock and mouse' having the same syllable count as 'unhappily,' Unhappily is pronounced faster due to have only one heavy-stressed syllable. So using a bunch of polysyllable words can make a sentence go faster (in terms of Rhythm), but again, I don't know if all this is important to prose or not. I mean when I read poetry, I enjoy hearing the Rhythm of the line, but I don't go into reading prose with the same mindset.
I have the highest respect for poets. They're not just choosing words, they're choosing syllables. It seems almost impossible.
I use Blank Verse as my medium well because I enjoy the challenge. I just take it one layer at a time, but I will say this; writing in Blank Verse has made me fall in Love with Syntax because you have to strong understanding of how it works so that not all your sentences are Subject -Verb -> Direct object- Pre phrase, just so you can get the meter to work. Like I read some poets, and they write -grammatically- just amazing sentences that still fits the meter; sentences that some prose writers couldn't pull off. Actually, writing in meter opened my eyes to how much you can do with 'writing.' But like all things, you just need to take it one step at a time.
That's exactly what it is. Use flow and rhythm to evoke emotions, even so far as using wordplay to set the tone. At any rate that's what I try to do. Set the stage and then step back and let the characters take over. There is a danger though. You can get too cute with it and the writing turns to whimsical mush. The passage below is one I've struggled with, trying to find that sweet spot between playful, and mush. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ “I’m so relieved my prayers were answered and you’ve come back to us, but it can’t be safe for you, not the way things are now. My uncle is very worried you’ll be found out.” “Rose, what do you believe in?” “What do you mean?” “It’s a simple enough question. Indulge me — what rules your stars?” Valerie caressed the locket that hung from her neck, rubbing it between her thumb and forefinger. Then in a pillowy voice, she began anew. “Are you moonstruck by the pagan ways, searching the constellations for omens and boiling entrails on Solstice Eve to curry favor with the goat god? Or are you smitten by the meddling gods of antiquity, we creatures great and small moved like pieces on a chessboard, mere amusements in a parlor game? Tell me, have you met the new god who tinkers not in the affairs of man, a convenient deity invented by a cult of impotent men that meet in secret and plot great mischief? Such men put their faith in divine reason, but do they tally the cost? No, I think not. I know the God you pray to, the Lord of our hopes and fears, his Son, our Savior — ” Valerie arched her back and thrust her arms out, face and palms lifted heavenward in mock crucifixion. “We try best we can to walk in his footsteps. But these are perilous times. They’ve made it a crime to mention Him in a certain light, and now, God leaves us only breadcrumbs to follow.”
