Hello everyone, I'm writing my 2nd book (1st unpublished, just for fun. I had no idea what I was doing). This time I've taken a writing course and done a lot of research,and I think it's going a lot better. My partner is proof reading for me (she reads constantly and knows a good book). She has commented my writing sounds old, already heard and not modern, like I'm a 1920s writer. She says a modern reader isn't into that and I need to modernise my style. The problem is no matter what I write Its got an old tone. Would anyone be able to help me find a modern voice, I'm writing high fantasy. Thanks all. Please excuse the post, I'm tying on a tablet and I'm trying to get the point across in brief, typing on a tablet is frustrating!
It's going to be hard to answer unless you post some examples. Not sure if it would need to be posted in the workshop which would require workshop credits. Maybe a passage or two here may be O.K. Is it your word choices? Two much telling? Hard to say without seeing a sample.
Hi, Here's a snippet: The murk of midnight was upon the cosmos. Darkness, the all in all of existence. The world was awash with the seas, no speck of muck or crag of rock stood above the devouring deep. The ocean perched on the edges of infinity, deathly still for aeon upon aeon. Thanks for the help.
I can see what you mean about that old tone. Most modern books wouldn't describe a scene like that. My best advice would be to read more modern fantasy books and pay attention to how modern authors write. From my perspective modern writing is a lot more focused on characters and internal conflict, than on description. Description tends to be very functional and lacks the poetics of older works. Though that could just be what I read, since I find flowery descriptions off-putting, I avoid them when I can.
I'm not as avid a reader as some of the other members, but here's my take: I think the style is fine for a Lovecraftian horror story, and may be acceptable if used sparingly in a Tolkien-esque fantasy story. So it depends on how much you use this type of description in your high fantasy novel. But I would think high fantasy readers would tolerate more of this type of writing than say SciFi or Modern Romance. Three out of four of your sentences begin with 'The', I'd maybe write the last sentence Oceans perched on the edges of infinity, deathly still for aeon upon aeon. But that's just my preference. I'm a bit old fashioned too, hopefully other members can chime in and give their thoughts.
Also, the second comma (in the third sentence) should technically be a semicolon (I think) which a lot of people today don't like. I don't know why, I think semicolons are great when used appropriately. Assuming it should be a semicolon, you could preserve the comma in different ways, one way I thought when first reading it was: The world was Awash with seas, no speck of muck or crag of rock stood above the devouring deep. But that changes the meaning as it's not clear you're talking about Earth, and I'm drifting off topic. Edit: the change I suggested may be incorrect too, it could be a misplaced modifier.
That's getting rather purple. You have to have an audience in mind and understand what they want. Also, put your thesaurus away. Unusual words for the sake of unusual words won't impress anyone. Read heavily in the genre that you're aiming at and emulate the style.
There's nothing wrong with that. I have several pieces of work in the Workshop that deliberately use either a very stilted, or archaic narration and dialogue style, and I've mostly had positive feedback on them. Done well, it can be very effective. Of course, it's understandable if you want to be able to break out of that style. It takes practise.
So let's deconstruct this. The very first thing that jumps out at me is the repeat use of the word "of". "murk of midnight", "all of existence" etc. That on its own gives it an archaic feeling. Try to rewrite those phrases. Also, consider your choice of words. Certain words, such as "upon" or "aeon" are not commonly used in everyday language. The more of these you use, the less modern it sounds. Also, I would endeavour to cut out some of the flowery description. It looks good on paper, but readers will get bored if you repeat everything three times. It's also very passive. Things happen. The only active sentence in the four you've posted is the last one, the ocean perching on the edge of infinity. I dunno, I'd write something along the lines of (obviously, I don't know the setup of your world): The world spun through the endless, dark cosmos, its surface covered in a vast, silent ocean. There were no shores on which the black waves would break, and no one knew how long it had been this way. There was no one to know. It's a matter of taste, of course. To some people, the above might sound equally, or maybe even more archaic.
The murk of midnight was upon the cosmos. Darkness, the all in all of existence. The world was awash with the seas, no speck of muck or crag of rock stood above the devouring deep. The ocean perched on the edges of infinity, deathly still for aeon upon aeon. Yeah, I see what she means. Typically, your 19th century style writing will build phrase upon phrase into long sentences. It likes to invert word/phrase order (anastrophe), toss in appositives, and will readily lean into other rhetorical devices too. This has to do with authors emulating the prose of the Bible. It was the most common book at the time, so that's not surprising. I'm guessing you're doing some of those, even though I don't see them here . . . I'd bet money on it, haha. What I do see with these is every line using personification. That might just be a coincidence and just the nature of this paragraph. There's nothing "wrong" about it, but it's an effect you have to keep in mind. When you have one of these stylistic techniques in play, you have to let it breathe. What I mean by that, is that the text has to embrace just that style. If you pile more onto it, then you'll get paragraphs that are stylistically dense (which becomes monotonous) or are just so complex that they overwhelm the reader. So looking at what you've posted, I would look at 3 issues. vary the rhythm of the sentences by adding in simple SVO lines with zero stylistic tricks when you use a style, don't add other styles to it (less is more) when you do elevate one of the three aspects of a sentence (vocabulary, grammar, style), keep the other two simple. 1. Like say, for the first one . . . I'd replace "Darkness, the all in all of existence" with a simpler "Darkness fell across the land." I know it's almost too easy, but that's the point. It creates room for the style in the surrounding lines. 2. In your lines I see alliteration, personification, parallelism of triplet phrases, and even a strange one that's almost like a reversed alliteration (speck of muck or crag of rock). I know there's a name for that one but I've forgotten the term . . . eh, I'd have to look in my books. Anyway, I realize your lines are just an example and aren't what you're wanting addressed specifically, but know that you're using multiple stylistic devices at once. The effect is a type of monotony. I'm not trying to be insulting saying this (please don't take it that way). Sometimes monotony takes skill. You have to pare down the styles. Just let one run at a time. And sometimes have none. That makes the writing more "modern" for lack of a better term. I would probably also lose half of the the personification because there's a lot of them. I'd keep the best ones. 3. You're using an elevated style, so the grammar and vocabulary should both be simple. Grammar isn't a problem with what you have going on in your example, but maybe in other lines you've written it's there. Perhaps the final line here could be grammatically simplified, but it's right on the edge. It's probably okay. The real issue is the vocabulary layered over the style. I would simplify key words. Your targets are words that are unusual (cosmos, awash, aeon) and words that are long (existence, devouring). I know this seems borderline short-bus and why would an author compromise his work? They're your words and they work fine, but you are relaxing the vocabulary to allow the style. If you relaxed the style, then the words would work, but you can't do them both at the same time without making the lines feel elevated. Then you wind up with a King James feel. (I don't mean that you actually grope King James, you feel like him, haha. I just read that last line.)
I don't think the problem is that it is "archaic." First paragraph of Mountains of Madness (by Lovecraft) below. "I am forced into speech because men of science have refused to follow my advice without knowing why. It is altogether against my will that I tell my reasons for opposing this contemplated invasion of the antarctic—with its vast fossil hunt and its wholesale boring and melting of the ancient ice caps. And I am the more reluctant because my warning may be in vain." First paragraph of Fellowship of the Ring (by Tolkien) below. "When Mr. Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton." Notice in both cases the author is proving specific information-- a setting, a character, and a event. The language may not be super digestible to modern readers (especially in the first except) but it is clear enough for us to get the picture. In your text, nothing is very clear and nothing very specific is being provided. In fact, the second half of your last sentence "deathly still for aeon upon aeon" suggests that literally nothing in your story is happening. In general, I don't think the problem is the archaic voice itself, but rather attempting to use one in the first place. My advice-focus on making sure your readers understand what is happening in your story.
