As others have pointed out in other threads, you seem very concerned with always using a top-notch, academically advanced vocabulary. I'm not sure if you're studying for the SAT or what, but in actual writing (both with professional journalism and fiction), high-level SAT vocab does not mean good vocab. If you're writing something for the general public to read - say, a news article, or PR writing to advance and promote something - you want to keep it at a 3rd-to-6th-grade level. Not condescending mind you, but easy and simple words that anyone can understand. People aren't going to read something they can't understand. If you're talking about fiction, as others have mentioned, the key thing to ask yourself is whether your writing sounds within the realm of the POV character. Let's go with your example about someone not laughing. A sentence like "She ain't never got no smile on her face" is bad gramatically, but if your POV character is a street kid living in a bad part of town, or someone living in the middle of nowhere who didn't go to high school, then it is much more appropriate than to use a stuffier, more educated-sounding voice that does not fit the character. If you're going for something Lovecraftian or have a stuffier POV, you could try something like "Nestled day upon day in the confinements of her shadowed and dusty recluse, the sour stain of unforgiving, prim pessimism had settled its heavy weight upon her mannerisms." If this is for fiction, it depends on character - look at the MC's location (small town, inner-city, countryside, backwoods etc), time period (what era does this take place in), age, socioeconomic levels, personality traits, etc and this will give you an idea of which voice makes the character the most real. If this is for a professional, non-fiction context, keep it simple. Don't use vague words or unneeded lengthiness. Just try "She maintains a serious exterior" or something, but it really does depend on the context of the paper/article/etc you are writing.
Then write clearly and concisely. If you try to be "literary" in your writing, you will only sound pretentious.
Keeping in mind that minimalism and basic, straightforward prose is actually a hallmark of literary writing. So no need to make ties between "literary" and pretentious, since overwrought, flowery prose is probably more a mark of genre writing, especially in Fantasy genres. So, yeah, I agree, write clearly and concisely, because if someone tries to be all "Fantasy genre" they'll just end up sounding pretentious.
Humor is always called for. Writers need a sense of humor. Isn't that the point you're making by berating a character for not having a sense of humor?
Have you considered the difference between literary writing and trying to make your writing literary? Please note which one I was warning against.
So literary writers aren't literary writers by trying to make their writing literary writing. How confusing.
Imagine a layer cake. Two layers, and a perfect coating of gleaming chocolate icing. It already looks good, right? Simple, elegant, and you want to cut a slice and eat it right now. Now imagine putting a border of fluted icing around the top. That might be OK. Some people might consider it an improvement. Now add three icing roses on top. Maybe still OK. Some people might consider it a further improvement. Now add sixteen more icing roses. That cake is starting to look a little cluttered. Fewer people would consider this an improvement. Now cover the entire top of the cake with icing roses, and coat the sides with row after row of icing in different patterns. It's over-cluttered, and just looking at it gives you indigestion. You've ruined the cake. When you pack your writing with lots of big fancy words that don't belong there, that's what you're doing to it. Elegant simplicity is not a flaw. Adding gaudy decoration is not an improvement. Some people like a few icing roses, some people like the minimalist cake, but very few people like their cake covered in a heap of collapsing decorations. ChickenFreak
I'd argue that literary writers write literary writing because that's the kind of writing they write best, not because they decided to adopt a literary pretense/affectation.
I guess my point is there's only a literary pretense/affectation or one can only use the term "literary" in a derogatory way if they, themselves, are assuming such negative assumptions. I know, I know, it's fun to ironically snub one's nose at 'literary' notions, but it's at the same time embarrassingly ignorant to see on a forum of writers trying to improve their craft and discuss technique, styles, trends, etc, which are all very much what literary writers do. In reality, most people here by even trying to dissect and discuss craft elements, are verging into literary territory as writers. lol. I guess what I'm saying is it's obnoxious and inappropriate to see snotty 'trying to be literary' or 'literary pretense/affectation' comments, because it's only true if one is ignorant enough to bind themselves to prejudices and stereotypes.
The difference between a literary author and a writer who adopts a literary affectation is the difference between a person from England and an American who does an English accent to sound sophisticated. The real struggle of the burgeoning author is to find one's own voice. It's fairly easy to tell when writers haven't found it or just don't have it because reading their stuff, you've read that kind of thing before but done better. It's why Chuck Palahniuk is not as good as Amy Hempel.
As has already been shown, there are umpteen way of restructuring your sentence - in the end I think it comes down to voice - your voice as a writer. The point you are making is that this person is of a serious disposition and hardly ever laughs. There could be for a number of reasons for this; no sense of humour, a troubled life, personal problems - therefore I think popsicles advice of 'show and don't tell' may be best. To get back to the sentence; She was serious minded and hardly ever laughed/never laughed. She was of a serious disposition and never/hardly ever laughed Or more informal 'If she laughed, she crack her face', 'She looks, as if she's sucking on a sour plum' okay they are well known sayings but they fit in this instance, come up with an original one.
He looked at her and said, "Those who can laugh at their seriousness, can be serious about laughing." The question is, do you write to be literary, or are you literary to be able to write? You must ask yourself, are you using your vocabulary, or is your vocabulary using you? On a more serious note: Well, that's a worthy pursuit. When I try to write beautifully, I try to pay attention to rhythm, use visual metaphors, and strive to avoid common clichés: "In vain he searched her face for a hint of laughter, an upturned lip, a glimmer of joy in her eyes, but she only returned his gaze with dead seriousness." I think it's roughly the same principles as when you write poetry.
Aaahh, finally the reply I was looking for a couple of months ago when I asked if 'literary writers' are aware of them being literary when writing their first novel or if it just happens to come out that way because that is their personal style as opposed to a conscious effort of being literary. thanks.
A. You think I would bother answering it if I didn't? B. You seem to think that typing out a sentence in latin is profound just because people don't understand it? That's a bit unhelpful, really. (and not at all profound) I fail to see what purpose the post served. If they understood it they rolled their eyes like I did or maybe they chuckled a little. If they didn't understand it they probably still rolled their eyes.
I must have missed that thread. It's always interesting, though, when discussions on 'literary' spring up on the forums, as ironically many here are having 'literary' discussions and even adopting 'literary' techniques and methods, but at the same time are either ignorant of or rail against what they perceive as 'literary.' I know a lot of literary writers, some quite acclaimed, and all of them recognized and understood the 'literary' in their work before their first publication. Why? Because to be literary (when you're actually a literary writer, not just someone thinking they know something because they heard some rumors and formed some stereotypes) is to study fiction and try to maximize and perfect it's craft. This is what every literary writer I know agrees with when it comes to the 'literary' designation. So yes, they're aware of being 'literary' because they're aware of having read and studied and crafted and consciously tried to do all the things with their fiction that makes it literary. And sure, there are some subjects, themes, styles that find more success in literary markets, but it's mostly because, like all types of writing, there is personal subjectivity from editors and slush-pile readers, not because of some uninformed notion all literary writer in overwrought, all tries to sound pretentious and smart, that all literary writing is realism, or that all literary is about alcoholic professors whose wives are dying of cancer. Sure, there are enough of those things, enough that uninformed people can then form stereotypes and biases so they then don't have to admit they're uninformed, but the only common thread with literary writing IS that aspect of fiction being consciously and deliberately fashioned. The realism writers who aren't doing this, aren't literary so much as mainstream most of the time. And there are plenty of writers like George Saunders or Karen Russell who are very literary, being published in the top traditionally literary journals with stories about zombies and werewolves. So yes, literary writers know they're literary writers most of the time, because what makes them literary in most instances is the very consciousness that they're trying to consciously and deliberately study and craft fiction in specific ways that will engage and move and be the most effective fiction possible. And sure, that doesn't mean all literary fiction is good (like all genres, there is a lot of bad writing in general, it's just a different kind of bad), and it doesn't mean that there isn't sometimes examples of overwritten, self-consciously pretentious language (though, again, I've seen plenty in other genres). It mostly just means the writer is conscious of what they were doing and has a methodology behind their craft. Which, yes, ironically means there are tons of 'literary' writers writing about zombies and werewolves that of course get ignored when commercial/genre writers like to tease and joke about what they think literary writing is, as the literary writers just roll their eyes and win their commercial/genre writing awards as well, which is the trend these days, that literary is basically dead anyways as a 'genre' because all writers need to be literary as a 'style' and 'methodology' to succeed despite the genre. So yeah, sorry, but derogatory jokes about people 'trying to be literary' are ignorant and, umm, derogatory, though it's the ignorance that is bothersome. It's like the people I see making fun of others who are educated. As a writer, 'literary' is basically our education, these days. If nothing else, fake it til you make it, don't diss it as if 'literary' is something BAD to be in today's publishing world.
I'm going to second the first suggestion in this thread -- the one that Cogito made. Few points here -- (1) If you're chasing profundity or beauty in your writing, you'll find it by building momentum and becoming impassioned. You won't find it by dissecting and reconstructing sentences. (2) You're allowed to write sentences that aren't profound. Sometimes those are better. (3) Without context there's no way to make this sentence "profound." Notice that a lot of the suggestions in this thread are just simplifying what you said and then adding details. Make it into a paragraph, not just a sentence. Add more details (show, don't tell.) Minimize your use of adjectives.
How do you know why he is trying to insert big words? Maybe it's something about the character speaking them.
I'm not sure what we mean by "literary" then, because when I was studying English at university "literary" meant all writing that is not "genre" writing. For "literary" in that sense to have ever been a genre would have been a contradiction. You seem to be using it as a synonym for "well-written" (and the genre writers mocking literary writing seem to be using it as a synonym for pretentious).
i'd love to know how you got to know the 'quite acclaimed' ones and who they are... care to share?... is idaho a hot spot for famous writers, as well as movie stars?... that's [ketchum?] where 'papa' lived/died, isn't it?
