OP, I've experienced criticism of my prose as well. My advice, simply be careful of what advice you take. There are many writers who will pick apart things that aren't really bad but don't match what they percieve as the correct style. In other words, want you to be a clone of them. You need to do what works for you, not anyone else.
By translation I meant the meaning of the text being lost to the reader, and to myself as I wrote it down. As many have said in their replies, if I were to try and write as another author it wouldn't feel right and I would get too bogged down in how I was writing, and not what I was writing.
Chuck Palahniuk's style is really fun to ape, but emulating a writers' style isn't the right way to go, as I'm sure has been said numerous times here already.
All I can add, or suggest, is for you to read as much good writing as you can, and then read some more! Read from the perspective of an aspiring writer, being aware of the hows and whys, but not to copy. Inhale what you read and allow its essense to permeate your creative faculties. Then write, but from your soul, not with your 'favourite' author in mind. 'Good writing in - good writing out.'
It's important to have your own distinctive style, otherwise you have very little hope of getting anywhere with your writing; if people have already heard it, they may want to hear it again, but not from separate authors. I often note what I think makes a good piece of writing, much of which I take from my favourite authors and stories, but I do not try to emulate them at all; the thing about creative writing is that it should be original (...usually. There is a time and a place for using another author as a springboard, which you can see done well with Jane Smiley's interpretation of Shakespeare's King Lear in her own novel Ten Thousand Acres). That said, I can usually spot my influences immediately. Bottom line, if there's something about an author that I like, I'll take note of that characteristic or style and try to integrate it into my own style, but I take from several different authors, and a good 98% of my writing is from my own, natural voice. Aaaand, like maia, I also adore Cheeno's entire post, I want to be his new best friend.
The problem is that there were so many obscure words, in the last sentence, that it was difficult to make out. Furthermore, even had I known every word, it would have been still a bit confusing: Treat the impressive dictionary (or vocabulary) as a celebrity? The wording does not actually FIT with what you are saying. Allow me to attempt more apt wording: Regard your language with sufficient respect to not stint in its usage for the sake of the ignorant masses. More verbose, but more stipulated as well, I think.
Sorry to say, Maia, it's not, and for the life of me I can't recall whose it is, but I love it and recommend it to any aspirant.
Here's a good quote by Vonnegut about how a writer should determine what they sound like on paper: "I myself find that I trust my own writing most, and others seem to trust it most, too, when I sound most like a person from Indianapolis, which is what I am. What alternatives do I have? The one most vehemently recommended by teachers has no doubt been pressed on you, as well: to write like cultivated Englishmen of a century or more ago." --Kurt Vonnegut
The problem for me, with this, is that I LIKE to sound like a cultivated Englishmen of a century or more ago. I enjoy the idea of having the ability to express myself with apt wording without using crevices such as 'um' and 'uh' every other word because my vocabulary is simply inefficient. This desire can only be fulfilled, really, in story format because in this day and age, it is virtually impossible to quickly and efficaciously elicit useful and poignant words to the front of the mind during verbal conversation. There are simply not enough folk who have a decent vocabulary to actually cultivate good speech habits filled with words for any situation.
Yes, but it is enjoyable to simply have a bout of badinage, anyhow. I knew you were not serious, but any time a person attempts to sound intelligent via the use of verbose sentences filled with obscure words, he tends to improperly use words. I then consider myself, and my own word usage. I like to think that I can use obscure wording in such a way that context alone provides an axiom for the meaning.
i hate to break it to you, atari, but that was an altogether improper use of 'axiom'! ;-) [your thesaurus must have misled you...which'll happen, if one doesn't look up the word in the dictionary, before grabbing it]
There is still a market for works written in an archaic style. That is why there is always a 'Classics' section in every bookstore (Or indeed a shop that sells books) that I go into, and also why sales of Edgar Allen Poe and H.P. Lovecraft has increased in the last decade. At least in the UK this is true. There are also a number of writers who employ an archaic style in writing, though the names have now escaped me. Though I must admit, this is a small area of the market that is taken up with the new fad - Harry Potter, Twilight; things like that.
'classics' does not refer to modernday writers writing in a classic style, lem... it only refers to the real 'classics'--stuff that was written long ago, not last year... and neither poe nor lovecraft are contemporary authors! no bookstore with a manager having half a brain is going to put 'twilight' or rowling's pop-scheiss on a shelf with homer, shelley and poe...
Of course, that isn't what I'm saying. I'm saying there is still a market for both the classics such as D.H. Lawrence and such and people using that style. Such as Michael Moorcock and David Gemmell.
Don't feel bad guys... maia knows her usage of words...she's gotten me a few times for using the thesaurus incorrectly too :redface:
Hmm. I didn't use a thesaurus, but in any case, you're right. The proper word would be 'explicit,' though I would have to then change the entire sentence structure. Thanks a lot.
you're sooooo welcome, a!... but now you've really got me wondering... how in the heck could you possibly use 'explicit' as a replacement for 'axiom' no matter how you arrange that sentence???
I was using 'axiom' to mean, 'a meaning so obvious that it need not be explained'. That is, I was using it as a noun. Explicit means, adjective 1 clear and detailed, with no room for confusion or doubt Hmm. . . I was so sure that I could, but after trying for ten minutes, I cannot appropriately substitute one word for the other. Oh, well; live and learn.
Hmph. I think of it as "Kung Fu vs Judo". Kung Fu is very effective - if you've spent ages and ages on it. You can maybe get competent in 5 years, good in 10, and very good in 20. Judo gives you practical stuff right now. You can get useful ideas from the very beginning. When you throw down in a bar, stuff from your very first few lessons will probably be handy. Break his balance and throw him. In this analogy, Kung Fu is complex prose. If you want to use it, you'd better know what you're doing. Keeping it simple is likely to give better results earlier on. People can and will spot a 'false' voice. If you don't really know what you're doing, you just sound pretentious. This is probably why many people distrust verbose authors. Having said that, complex prose and long words are perfectly valid ways to express yourself. Don't feel obliged to pander to people who don't understand you because they dislike complex expressions, or have small vocabularies.
