I don't know if I could write in another style. It might be an interesting exercise... I suspect I would fail. From my observations on writing forums, it seems a lot of people start out by emulating their favourite authors. IMO that rarely works, and the successes start coming when writers find their own style. I don't know where mine comes from; I've been compared to the same author by multiple people, but I'd never read any of her books before I began writing--I sought one out because I was curious and yep, I can definitely see the similarities. I think I just write the way I want to read--simple, clean, minimal description, dry humour, snappy dialogue. Yeah, honestly, I like my style. I'm sure it will develop over the years, but I think I already have an overarching 'voice' and I'm pleased with that.
For what's worth, when I started out my 'style' very clearly was influenced by my favourite author (back then, I have gone on to pastures new in the meantime). I didn't seek to write like this author, it was just that I had read too many books too many times. Since, it evolved out of all recognition, and at each and every step I could see the change. It wasn't there at a specific point in time, it crept up on me. Creepy business, really And yeah, I like how I write!
I do this, which I suppose should be a concern, but it's more that the style I'm trying to emulate speaks / connects to my own. Does that make sense? But isn't this the same as emulating other writers, in a roundabout kind of way? Or are you saying you write in a style you seek as reading material, but have been unable to do so?
Yup, from what I've read of your prose, I'd say you're the writer equivalent of an 'anger' actor, all charisma and panache.
I was wondering the same thing, and came to the conclusion they are one and the same. That's only my own conclusion, though.
Not such a dumb question, really. I'd go so far as to say it's not dumb at all. And I think they are related. Style, IMHO, can stay the same from novel to novel, but voice may change. It'll be adapted to POV based on choices made for narrating the story. The narrator's vocabulary and grammar feature in as two of these choices. Style, I think, is more like an 'upper level' kind of thing that goes to overall storytelling approach. Bottom line: I think style is about the macrocosm whereas voice is about microcosm.
I don't think it's the same. There's nobody I look to as the pinnacle of good writing, and there's nobody I can look at and say, "Yep, you influenced my style." It comes from me, not because I want to be like someone else.
It seems to me that writers have a style of their own that is the natural product of their writing process. But writers can certain adopt varying styles for certain purposes. You find writers who have multiple works in varying styles, depending on what they're trying to achieve in a given work.
This is something that's been bothering me for a while now, I don't know what my writing "style" is. I can generally work out other peoples but when I read my own I'm just lost and can't work it out. I'm interested to know as it'll affect the flow of the piece I'm working on when someone reads it. Here's a quick 2 paragraphs sample: " Turus Agan balanced on the monochrome stretch of steel as he remained in his tranquil stance; face slack, mind devoid of emotion. He recollected the events of the Shadow Tower: Lan's triumphant glare from the head of the table as he meticulously sipped from his jeweled goblet, his eyes lit with the first sign of something eminently emotional about his character. Ruudol had not been present as Turus was guided to this small, dingy cell - just as well, Ruudol would have started a scene about the whole undertaking. The members Shadow Council had not fully taken in the gravity of the situation until the deed was done and Turus' freedom stripped from him, his only protection which he had played against Lan for the past year. Or at least in their eyes. Out of those eight other Shades who had been granted a seat of power in the Empire, close to a half had been playing out a facade of confusion as the arrest unravelled before their very eyes. Turus allowed his lip to curl for a split second, dropping his emotionless trance: Well played, he thought, most well played. " So any help appreciated, thanks
Not sure it has a distinct "style" per se. I'd say you're prone to slightly cluttered, long sentences that could do with a bit of pruning. From the language, it's pretty obvious it's a fantasy novel even if the names had not been fantasy names. It appears your story/world is rather rich - but since I am without any context of your story, the paragraphs are just confusing. If you're trying to get people to guess at your style, perhaps something a little less dependent on context might be better, because right now I am a little preoccupied with how confused I am by the content. Anyway, you seem prone to long words, complex words with many syllables, so the rhythm and feel of the narrative is kinda... dense. I don't hear any obvious "music" in the narrative, if that makes sense, however it reads with a certain old style to it - eg. not like how modern English would sound if you went outside right now - which is probably quite suitable to the fact that it's set in a different world and time. Note: it shouldn't be a comma between "goblet" and "his eyes lit". I thought the second clause was a continuation of the recounting of past events (thanks to the fact that you used a colon previous to this), and it's not. Use a full stop instead. I'm guessing you will need to edit and practice a little more to make your writing a little cleaner without necessarily losing your long words and long sentences. Refining/fleshing out that tone you have going that sounds a little like a historic tale would probably be a good thing, because it's quite clearly already in your writing. I'd say definitely find a way of simplifying your writing while maintaining that complexity of structure and word choice. Yours is probably not the kind of writing that would do well if you tried to mimic the rather trendy/more popular minimalist style. In your case, I don't think metaphors and similes would add to your writing - it'd make it overly cluttered, as the existing narrative already sounds dense enough as it is. But perhaps a bit more rhythm - a sort of stylistic structure to the sentences. I guess I am now going back to my first point: try to refine and flesh out that tone of telling a historic tale, which means emphasis on rhythm and structure more than necessarily creating visual images. All this is just my feeling from one reading. I could be wrong see if you feel I am right, take what you feel is right and discard the rest!
What does it matter? Styles change, especially when you haven't been writing long, and trying to pin it down seems to me to only be likely to make you think you have to write a certain way or it's not 'you' anymore. But then I've recently realized I'm in the middle of a stylistic shift myself, at the moment, so I might not be the best to offer an opinion. Either way, my advice is to not worry about it and just write.
If I'm reading this correctly, forgive me if I'm wrong, but I do feel the comma is right since the second clause describing the eyes is part of the retelling of past events. I'm thinking I should make this more obvious by adding more past events. Whilst I'm glad it has that effect, I do agree. I'm thinking of removing and adding clauses so that I can split them into smaller sentances. Honestly didn't realise the structure and word choice was that complex however. I'm not sure how I'd feel on removing visual images since a large part of the work this comes from is centred around large, dramatic locations such as the midst of battles. I personally feel the narrative is mainly dense because of the amount of information I had to cram in due to the retelling of past events. For example, as this scene progresses it switches back to the present day and leads into a trial, this seems to thin it out a little. This bit I 110% agree on. I will add a context right now, well no since you can't edit your original post in a topic Probably since most of what I read is people like Dickens, Stevenson, Tolkien and Martin. That's a good point
To me, the writing style is an expression of the human being himself. Having practiced hard; read well, and grasped the true meaning of life he would express his words according to his own talents. But first should adhere to facts. The writing style is nearly everything. That's why a person should take into consideration that words are not just letters, but dangerous tools that could either be to good or to evil, for in my opinion, they are the most effective thing to use when expressing yourself.
@TMK - aha, if the eyes lighting up is part of the recollected events, then you're right that the comma is correct. I just honestly thought it was referring to the present. Your character was standing there with no obvious emotion, as you stated in the beginning, then he recalls someone glaring at him feeling all smug and arrogant, and "his eyes lit with the first sign of something eminently emotional" - the words "first sign" definitely made me connect it with the present. The guy goes from no emotion to having the first signs of it. You may have to restructure it to eliminate the confusion - I don't think merely adding more events would help. If anything, considering how packed the paragraph already is, I strongly suggest not to add more events. Feel free to chop up your sentences and see if it works better for you. The best writing will generally vary sentence lengths and beats anyway I'm just saying you shouldn't aim to make your writing sound like Hemingway - stick with Tolkien or Nabokov and guys with more flare and colour. I don't mean that you shouldn't describe things or that you shouldn't have images in your writing lol. I mean, by writing you necessarily create images in the reader's head. I mean stuff like... She ran like the wind into the howling darkness. Gnarled trees like gargoyles twisted towards her, sharp branches whipping into her arms and neck as she sprinted. She didn't know if the demons were in her head or in the trees. ^You can probably see how that looks nothing like your own writing. Yours is much more grounded, if that makes sense - if it's a building, it's a building. If it's a tree, it's a tree. You might describe the tree but it's still a tree. Mine - they're gnarled gargoyles. Now I don't know for sure but my guess is that these kind of poetic devices do not fit well into the tone and character of what you have written above. Note: I wasn't trying to write well. I was trying to cram in as many metaphors and poetic devices as I can think of on the spot without too much effort to make a point. lol
The great thing about writing is that just about anything is possible in the right context. There are a lot of rules that we follow. The easiest thing to do is follow the rule. For myself, that tends to cause a lot of tunnel-vision in my writing. When I was in college I told by a writing professor that I could not use multiple perspectives in the same story, it just wouldn't work. So I turned in a 15 page short story that used 1st person plural as well as 2nd person perspective. I think it definitely helps me grow as a writer to try to bend these rules. (I ended up getting an A on the paper, but the professor was sure to tell me, "I think it could have worked better in third person limited.") The point wasn't to write the story the best way possible, it was to challenge my ability to write. You may end up wrong, and it may end up horrible. The point is, experiment with your writing and develop your own style. The things people tell you that you can and can't do are not always definitive. Anyone else have any similar stories?
I prefer not to think of anything as a rule. I think of it as tools, not rules. You've got a toolbox. A big one. A lavish one! It's tricked out. It's the Language Toolbox. SO MANY TOOLS! But you can't do shit with them until you learn what they are for and what they do. Can you drive a nail in with a big set of pliers. Sure. I guess. If you try hard enough. But there's this thing called a hammer and it's flipping perfect for nails. Use that instead. Do you have to use the hammer? No, not really, but... Tools, not rules. In another thread just now someone was asking when they should use active and passive voice, respectively. The only answer that matters is: Know what each of those two syntactic structures does and intones and implies, then pick the one that best fits.
Hate to say it, but your professor might have been right. I would much rather read a short story in limited third than one that uses a combination of first person plural and second person. And if you want to talk about contemporary short fiction being published today, a story in limited third is probably more likely to sell. I don't think your professor was trying to hurt you his this advice. I'm sure he wanted you to write a story to the best of your abilities regardless of how you did it. I've got to disagree about the point not being to write the best story possible but to challenge your ability to write. Can't a good story do both? I'm after writing the best story possible, and I think that's a good goal for people to have. I don't think following the rules is the easiest thing like you said. I also don't think breaking rules makes you any better of a writer than following them. In fact someone who follows the rules of writing probably has better odds of making it, I would think. Sure, there are times when we all break the rules, and maybe you were just trying to have fun with your writing. But that doesn't mean your professor wasn't trying to help nor that all writing rules are bad and for beginners. Here's a tip -- Starting a new sentence does not mean you start a new line.
Here's a tip- Writing style may differ from your own, even in that some may write their forum posts differently. I was not referring to what will sell best. I was referring to trying different things and challenging yourself with bending rules as a writing exercise. I am not saying that you don't need to learn spelling, or sentence structure. I am speaking of finding your style/voice, not just copying someone else's. I'm sure the professor may have been right. Yet half the critiques argued that they liked the way it was written because it conveyed things that would not have been possible otherwise. The professor herself agreed that writing it in 3rd person would change the story. She never said it would definitely make it better, or worse. The point was to see if I could accomplish it and gain more tools in my writing arsenal. I was not attempting to tell people they have to follow my lead. I was simply giving an example where "rising to the challenge" helped me improve as a writer. If I wanted to just sell books, I'd focus most of my attention away from fantasy and sci-fi. Also- There is no definitive style to writing forum entries. No need to be a dick because I felt like writing in a way that conveyed my personal voice at the moment.
I think your point is a good one. Writers have guidelines more so than actual rules. A lot of the "rules" can definitely help you - and "breaking" one or more of those rules can increase the difficulty of what you're doing - because those rules tend to guide you toward the simple, clean way of telling a story. If you follow the rules, you'll have an easier time with the craft - and if you just assume your stuff will be good no matter how many rules you break, well, sorry but there is such a thing as bad writing. That said, a lot of us want to break one or more of those rules in some way. I know I do. I'm working on a first novel, and my entire goal was to tell a large-cast ensemble workplace drama more in the mold of TV Shows like "Grey's Anatomy" or "The West Wing" - which I've since learned really aren't done in novel form, because the medium doesn't lend itself to it. I've actually repeatedly toyed with the idea of putting that novel down until I have more skills at doing things "the right way" - but every time I get pulled back to the passion project and so I keep writing it. And I'm now in editing and beta-stages - and I know the book has a lot of things people (meaning agents and publishers) don't like to see in debut novels. For one, it's too long (just under 148,000 words currently, that's after slashing the rough from over 160,000). Secondly, at last count, I have nine POV characters. And lastly, the story is punctuated by 19 flashback sequences that work backwards in time as the main narrative goes forward. That's a LOT of broken rules, but it's also the story I knew I wanted to tell from the beginning. It's going to be hard to sell. That said, the reason I'm going to even bother to try and sell it is that I put in a lot of work making sure I broke those rules in ways that worked with the nature of the craft. I realized really early that flashback sequences could be a real problem - but also that it was hard to tell the story without them - so I put a lot of time into figuring out how to structure the narrative so that flashback chapters preserve the overall narrative's forward momentum rather than stopping it. Nine POV characters is a LOT - so I put a lot of time into introducing them gradually, giving them distinctive thought processes, and not disorienting the reader. That, and one of the reasons I'm keeping the longer length is that the extra room helps me hold all of those crazy elements together, and I know that taking it down farther might make it a lot choppier. Those are all conscious decisions about how to make the narrative work rather than haphazard statements about doing whatever I want - and I have still had to "kill a lot of darlings" to make it better (guessing I'll probably have to kill more). With all of that stressing about rule-breaking, I finally got my first beta-reader report back last week - from someone I trust and who has experience as a beta - and she not only really liked it but told me specifically not to cut the number of characters and liked the flashback timelines. Now, that's not to say my book is an instant classic - all it really means is that I now have to send it off to more aggressive betas who I know can play Simon Cowell if needed. However, what the experience has taught me so far is that, while the rules are totally there for a reason, you can have a lot of fun breaking them if you're willing to put in the extra work.
I'm on the other side of the fence, in that I'm not resentful of "the rules" in the way some writers are. I think they exist for a reason and it's better for us to follow them unless there's a compelling reason not to. In your case, you had a reason - you wanted to experiment. If you wanted to sell that piece then I think your professor was right, and choosing one 'person' was the right way to go. Some authors can break rules and make something spectacular. Those authors are very few and far between, and I wouldn't advise any newbie author banking on being one of them. In my experience, the people most resentful about the rules are the ones who want to have their cake and eat it: to write for themselves, the way they want to, but have other people pay to publish or read it. It doesn't work like that. Happily, I'm content to play by the rules and I'm slowly achieving my writing goals. Others who are angry about the rules just don't understand the rules. Like the dialogue tag "rule" which doesn't mean literally never use anything but "X said." If I had a pound for all the people who come on writing forums to rant about non-existent rules... I've gone on a bit of a tangent. I suppose I'm saying I don't like the so-common undertone that the rules are shackles holding us back. They're actually ropes helping us scale the walls of Unpublished Writer Land. You can ignore them and try to find another way out, but beware there's nothing in that pit except several million desperate writers, freely available rope, and sheer walls as far as you can see...
First rule of write club; you don't post about write club. Second rule of write club; show, don't tell. Third, and only real rule of write club; if you're breaking an established rule/guideline of writing, make sure you understand why it's there and what it does.
I hope it wasn't implied that I don't like the rules. I am a huge fan of guidelines/rules. Most of them are there for a reason. You don't tend to want to put zero chapters in your book and leave no identify-able stopping points for your reader after all. I was more thinking of "rules" in the aspect of someone simply telling you that you can't do something because they don't have a good example of it on hand. Though you are right in that most of the time, there are more standard alternatives that are even more effective. I was speaking more of honing your craft with a short story writing exercise. Not of trying to write the first novel of it's kind. There are plenty of guidelines that are just other people trying to make you follow their specific style though. I think it's important to develop your own style, challenging yourself to do the unique from time to time. I also think it's important to be able to adapt other people's style into your own work. I was only speaking of one side of the spectrum in this post and I apologize if it sounded as though I hate writing rules and guidelines. I will always experiment with something that someone says can't be done if I think it sounds fun. I won't have it consume months upon months of my life. Once it is no longer fun, and has shown that I am wrong, I'll move on. I've even started writing the same short story from third person limited, and it's interesting to look at the story/characters from a new perspective. What I meant to say was have fun with writing from time to time. Whether you're like me and challenges are what entertains you, or if following specific guidelines is what entertains you. Some "rules" are actual rules. Others are not. I recommend reading a book on writing by one of your favorite authors. I am by all means a novice. I am not Patrick Rothfuss, Peter V. Brett, Brandon Sanderson, and so on. I write for fun and have only had a few short stories published which were not even my favorite ones I had submitted. If I never get a novel published I won't be too upset. Writing is important to me, but my day job is what feeds my family.
