In various articles and books, I have read that it is helpful to imitate the rhythm and structure of well-crafted sentences, not for the purpose of writing a complete work, but for the purpose of internalizing rhythm and syntax. Now some here have supposed that in the past I actually tried this exercise with some degree of seriousness because I had repeatedly posted paragraphs of mine, claiming that they were supposed to sound like the King James Bible. And supposing this, they have advised me against direct imitation, thinking that it was through this that my prose became unclear. But almost never did I write anything with the KJV open in front of me, imitating the structure or rhythm of its sentences, but wrote (often without much care or revision), not having in mind any fully formed model, but only an idea of the style which I had wanted to imitate. Therefore, would you consider it helpful to do these imitation exercises? What do you think about imitation exercises?
Personally I think you need to concentrate on developing your own style not on trying to sound like another writer
I don't want to imitate anybody else's style, so I can't see much benefit in these exercises. I think part of being a writer is finding your own style, and I do believe we all have one. I also believe that trying to force our natural style into something it's not is never going to end well...
I supposes there could be some merit in specific circumstances - like if you were writing about a cult you might want the cult leader to sound messianic and get their by imitating biblical style, or if you were writing a crime novel where a witness is a rapper you might want him to sound like Dr Dre .... but I can't see it being useful for the OP given the situation on other threads
Well, this thread is not about imitating the writing styles of the KJV but about internalizing rhythm and syntax by imitating any author. You do not then have to directly copy their style, but can derive your own from what you have learned.
I don't know what that means. Internalising rhythm and syntax? We all do that passively when we read, and if we try to do it actively then that sounds very much like imitation to me.
I don't understand the purpose of "internalizing rhythm and syntax". What is there to internalize? I mean, it would be a different question if we were talking about poetry where rhythm and meter are most certainly present, or if the target of the advice you mention (which I have never come across) were people who were learning English as a second language and trying to gain an idiomatic sense of how the language functions. In those cases, yes, it makes sense. But for prose being written by native speakers, it feels very much like a red herring.
I don't think everyone internalizes the full rhythm and syntax of the things they read. If that were the case, you could become the best writer only by reading. Also, there would be no point in teaching grammar.
So you are assuming that all native speakers have perfect command of syntax, and that there is nothing for them to learn?
Sorry, didn't realize this was a sparring match. Thought you actually wanted opinions. *leaves dojo to get back to his WIP*
I do think the way you become the best writer you can be is by reading. Just reading, not making it into an 'exercise' to 'internalise rhythm and syntax.' I also learned spelling and grammar from reading. My formal education in SPAG was almost non-existent.
you've missed the eternal joy of these threads have brought to the forum over the last few months due to your hurricane..... I thought i'd give him another chance out of xmas cheer and goodwill to all trolls men but nothing ever changes so its back on the ignore list and walking away with my fingers in my ears singing loudly "good king wreybies looked out upon his snoring forum hurricane debris lay roundabout keeping him away from mor... no bad moose, down boy "
No he's saying that native speakers can improve their command of syntax in many ways, including by reading books written in the last 50 years (deja vu), but are not likely to do so by imitating the style of a third party
This is definitely my approach. I think I have a clear and consistent writing style, but it's really just an amalgamation of all the different influences I've had based on about 40 years worth of reading at this point. It's like a musician who grew up listening to many different genres and puts all the experience together to make their own music. It's osmosis, not studied exercises that have made me the writer I am today. I've also had little formal training in grammar; however, if you give me a grammatically correct sentence and one that's grammatically incorrect I can almost always tell which one is right based on how it sounds in my head. I just can't tell you why, or what the particular grammar rule it is or isn't breaking.
I don't see imitation exercises helping me much. Like others have brought up, I learned the things that I thikn it would offer by just reading, attentively and just ... a lot. I'm now remembering that I actually did something kind of like this in school - it was just transcription. All it made me better at was transcribing - which to be fair, I'm not and wasn't very good at, but I don't think transcribing Pride & Prejudice made me a better writer. I don't think imitating the style would have, either. I think maybe if you haven't read a ton, imitating another style could be a good way to really cram on the particulars of that one specific writer's style, and you might be better served by doing that for a few quite distinct styles than simply reading a bunch scattershot. But I also think you could just read those select styles attentively without imitating. So, personally, I don't see it really being helpful at all. It can be fun, though.
I've thought about doing this before, and I can see how it might help--copying stuff out can force you to pay attention in a way that you don't get (or at least I don't get) just by reading. I guess that doesn't really help you since I haven't actually tried it, so can't report on how well it works in practice...
You can absolutely become a better writer by reading. So read. I know that you determinedly resist reading, but you're going to have to do it if you want to be able to write. It's more useful to...read.
Nope, just not particularly useful to me personally. I don't really approach writing from an intellectual standpoint, I just want to create characters and stories that other people enjoy, and so far I seem to be accomplishing that.
Me, too. I have never had to study spelling, punctuation, or grammar. Zion? Give up and read. I'll bet that whoever is giving the imitation exercise advice assumes that you're already doing lots of reading.
I've used this exercise before, mostly if I'm stuck and/or need a jolt to get my creative gears going again. I usually pull out a poem, something with strict measure and diction, and use it as a primer to get started if I'm in a rut. Poems work great for me because I feel they helped me develop a style/voice without adhering too closely to another author's unique style. But then isn't all art imitation on some level? Good topic for discussion.
Not at all - I heartily recommend reading Eats shoots and leaves by Lynne Truss but that has nothing to do with your original question
Also write something - as well as reading you learn to write by writing and correcting your mistakes - this means actually writing something in your own stuyle then submitting it for critique, not constantly rewriting one paragraph without listening to advice onhow to improve it
Yes. I've just pretty much given up on the idea of Zion ever actually writing. His primary purpose on this forum is still, as far as I can tell, making sure that that never happens.
