I believe writing is bad or rather, it fails it's core purpose (which is to effectively communicate your ideas to the reader) when it fails to engage. How many people it manages to engage is another matter. Perhaps your reading will have a following, maybe it won't be a bestseller scale following, but it will speak to some people. If that's your purpose of maintaining your style, then it won't be a failure. If your purpose is to become a bestselling writer and make a living out of it, and it fails to engage a sufficient number of readers to make it work, then you might consider it a failure. As with most things in life, this is all relative.
But then we have to consider: which style of writing sells a lot? And does it sell because it's a good writing style? Or because the author simply does it well? If it's the style, can we imitate it? Or is it a quality that a writer must already possess in order to HAVE a 'sellable' or 'particular' style?
I would argue that no single style of writing "sells a lot", any more than any particular story line sells a lot. Reader preference is an erratically moving target. That's why the writing style has to be suited to a purpose other than just its own existence.
Well, worrying about selling becomes relevant only if you want to be a bestselling author. Not all writers have that as a goal, and even some of those become bestsellers. So it's just one of those unpredictable things, I suppose. For unique styles that definitely have a chance, look at Haruki Murakami. The man is a global superstar, and also the author of some of the best written literary fiction today. I believe the crucial elements to becoming successful writer is ability to tell the story in an engaging manner, and an innate sense for drama. Some people naturally have these, others do not. I think style and everything else is secondary.
Like many above me, I agree that style for the sake of style and being different for the sake of being different tends to yield bad results. That's because it doesn't read naturally--it reads like a pretentious "artist" trying to show of his or her "genius." The idea is to draw the reader in, however you can. We all have our preferences, our niches, our target audiences, and hopefully we have an idea of how best to engage with that particular group. The hard work is in pulling it off. But most importantly I think it needs to feel natural. Flashy style without substance can feel forced, leading to the above impressions. Write honestly, write in a way that will communicate to your readers whatever it is you want to get to them, and I think you're probably off to a good start.
I may be alone in this, but I personally don't think this works at all. It may be that it's out of context, it may be that I'm not used to it, but it comes across to me as choppy. I like each little section, and the images, but I find no cohesion. Maybe it's the section you chose... That's not to invalidate your example by any means. My point in saying that is to add credence to @thirdwind's post. I think that a lot of has to do with preference and exposure. However, even more than that I think it depends heavily on clarity and cohesion. I don't mind a challenge and having to read something more than once to fully grasp it, but if i can't understand the punctuation choices--or rather the structural choices that inhibit my ability to interpret it from the punctuation, I just can't get into it. The example above doesn't read like anything more than a collection of interesting image to me, stills that do not come together to make any whole or translate any unified meaning. When it comes to style in general. If clarity is sacrificed, then one must rethink, or at least take heavy consideration of, what they've written to ensure that there is cohesion within the piece as a whole. If the idea behind the words doesn't translate, it is no good for me. I don't mean to seem impatient or stuck up, but I'm of the school of thought that one can be creative within certain bounds. I believe one should always focus on being clear first and then creating the voice and style they want. That way they can have more certainty that the message is there. No one else has to subscribe to that though. Style is a great way to convey to readers how authors perceive things and process information, but I feel that the language, in general, should take a back seat to (1) the content, what's being said, what's actually going and (2) the intent, what the author was trying to do or say, the meaning. I like the idea of the language becoming transparent unless th way something is written contributes to how we, the readers, should consider/think about what's being presented.
"Different" becomes "bad" when you are trying to use it to make your writing stand out. Gimmicks never work over solid writing. When "different" evolves naturally from solid writing as a means of expressing yourself even better, it may be a good choice. It is always risky.
Like you, I don't like the passage that much, but this may be one of those cases where it works beautifully within context. There are other ways to look at that passage, and we should be aware of those. For example, what does that passage say about the narrator? What can we learn about him/her that we couldn't have otherwise? Sometimes it's important (and necessary) not to focus on the writer's style too much.
No worries, Pops. jk No, you're right. I bet the context could illuminate what we're meant to take away from it. When it comes to style, I try not to judge other writers' work in that area because there are many purposes for which one can use different elements of style. I don't always consider style "bad," but more or less effective for me based on how much I can take away from it given the context. If there is cohesion so that something comes through, then I like it, generally--or rather, I accept it.
Believe or not that quote is from the opening of her novel. Here's the following paragraph - She takes some getting used to. You either love her style or hate it or don't get it. Personally, I love it - I think she's ten times the author that King is. Not to knock King cause I loved his novel The Stand, I just think he's pretty pedestrian ( but his characters, I have to admit, that's what he excels in. ) I think Koja's jarring style works for the story because it's psychological horror, and the mc works with metal. The sentences in a way seem to be as sharp and clanging as her sculptures. It would be interesting to read her work outside of horror to see if she keeps up the jarring prose.
I agree with this. What's the point of having a unique style if nobody can understand your imagery or follow your story?And the only benefit of being purple is if you're amazing at it - i.e. Nabokov or Marguerite Young. Anyone ever read Amanda McKittrick Ros? Talk about style sinking a story. . This is the beginning of a chapter and the first two long winded sentences are utter horsepucky. But I can see how this can happen. You want to sound interesting, writerly, like you have deep thoughts. And there's a natural struggle that extravagance trumps plain. Everyone wants ( or rather thinks they want ) elaboration not simplicity. I struggle with this myself - and have cringed over my attempts. But I'm finding - extravagance and plain don't have to be opposites. And plain doesn't have to be kiss of death. I'm all for trying out styles, but there's a also a greater responsibility in your daring style than a simpler one - you have to be more exacting in trimming what doesn't work. Which is ten times harder than a person with a simpler style fixing their more ordinary problems.
One thing I've noticed is that we're all very biased when it comes to judging writing in general. We are less critical of someone like Nabokov because, well, it's Nabokov. He could use the most ridiculous style imaginable, and I doubt many of us would actually call him out on that. On the other hand, if a new writer tried that, we'd be criticizing him until the end of time. That's a lesson in human nature I guess.
Actually as much as I love his writing ( and I bring him up a lot ) when I'm reading him he can annoy me. The scene where Humbert's off buying bananas for Lo and he comes back to the motel and realizes she's been unfaithful - I loved him calling her teeth like wine-tinged poker chips, I hated him saying I plumped down the bag. Truly, I felt plumped down the bag was too 'fun' for the context.
Mmmm.... I repair to a previous statement I made concerning exposure and preference. Nabakov is no one to me. I mean, yes, academically I know full well who Vlad is, but I have no connection to his work in an experiential way. My interest level in his subject matter is exactly zero. I'm sure you could quote a paragraph of his and I would find things to give me eyerolls.
Wow, the opening, huh? I'll give her credit because the style alone makes me want to get it. That or the content behind it is still done well enough that I inherently want to get it. It's not bad, just hard for me to really get into. However, I found the second paragraph much more "standard," if you will. It made more sense to me on it's own than the first. After reading it, the first made a little more sense, especially when reading it all together. I've accepted, though, that I won't get everything in the first paragraph word for word. It reminds me of learning french earlier on, as I wasn't able to understand every word or the mechanics of each sentence, but I could pick out a few key words and some context clues to get a general idea. (I just hate that feeling because it's like I'm not really able to appreciate the language.)
I totally get why this has problems for certain readers. It's like the author s trying too hard to create a certain voice. imo. The difference between this and other long-winded but valued sentences is what is being said. Great writers can write long sentences because the information in the sentence is interesting or provides access to the psychology of the character, narrator, or writer. Or it moves us forward in unexpected ways. Right now, I guess I'm going for a more plain and straightforwards style. I have to fight myself a bit because I want to inject some style into my writing. I like mixing longer and shorter sentences, varying the structure a bit, using coordinating and subordinating cumulative forms, using a bit of figurative language. The trouble is, I've not yet mastered it. So as much as I need to improve my style a bit, I think I need to focus on the information I'm convey, how and why I'm presenting it, and how well it flows. The sentences should be the vehicle of the info, imo. It seems we cannot escape our biases... What I'm finding, though, is that there are generally too schools of thought. In the first, writing should be simple, concise, clean and clear. It should fade into the back so that readers become immersed in the action or imagery behind them. In the other, the language is just as (sometimes more) important than what's going on. It determines how a work should be read and information interpreted. Of course, there is an entire spectrum in between these two extremes, and most writers tend to fall someone on it usually closer to one end or the other. What is more important though, is that you choose a style appropriate for the story and tone you want to tell and portray.
I can't help but draw a parallel to mind alteration. For many, no kind of mind alteration is acceptable at all. For many others, it's permitted, but only to an extent, only in a given way or manner. A small group would like to experience more latitude and an even smaller group comes to consider the idea of rising up into a moment of lucidity on one's knees in a public restroom as a small price to pay for the time they spent in the place whence they rose. It took me a while to get into Delany's style. It took me a while to learn how to read his work. But his work is like a drug to me now. Anything I pick up after him feels as dead as food tastes after rolling.
That's actually quite good, to honest. But my point wasn't so much that I would definitely find eyeroll worthy moments in his style, as it was the fact that Nabokov's Nabokovness, his larger than life mythos, would not deter me from being a critic. I don't go all big anime eye sparkle at the mention of his name, but that's me. I know plenty of people who've written reviews of Delany's work to the tune of "couldn't get past the first tortured paragraph", which in me, such a review elicits the famous clutching of the pearls. I worship Delany, but not everyone does. In like manner, I've yet to get the "holy spirit" with Nabokov and I think a similar dynamic is always in play with any reader and their given Church of (fill in the writer).
The Portuguese writer Jose Saramago has a very unique style, and it's especially evident in the way he handles dialogue. He uses no quotation marks, and there are multiple speakers in the same sentence. Every time the speaker changes, Saramago capitalizes the first word so that it's clear who's talking. People either love this approach or hate it. Here's an example of what I'm talking about, taken from his novel Blindness:
My question becomes, is this something he employes in other works or just in Blindness? I know that story from the film and I can see how this technique could be a way of portraying the contextual subtraction experienced by the populace suddenly blinded in the story.
