Question about Style - Writers Forum

AdrienneW · 12-30-2005, 11:04 AM

Okay. I have a question about style.

Sometimes when I read a book/story I can't help but feel that the writer is trying to "impress" the reader with his/her use of vocabulary and complex sentence struture. Does any one just write to tell the story? Can you just write to tell the story?
I don't mean abadoning history, depth, or detail, but sometimes I just like a good story. I want something that is easily digestable.
Now I am by no means put off by a multi layer, complex book (I read evolutionary science for fun) but sometimes I feel that that the writer of a fiction work forgets about the story and just tries to sofocate the reader with all the detail. I like detail, don't get me wrong, but I also like some room left open for imagination?
So I guess here is my delima. I find myself writing like how I would like to read. Does that make sense? Can my story still be good written strait forward, uncluttered, and easily digestible?

Thanks

Icywind · 12-30-2005, 12:20 PM

Absolutely!!

I myself find it very hard sometimes to read a book filled with EVERY menial detail of the surroundings.

For example...like in Great Expectations....the author actually used a whole paragraph describing a door handle!!

I liked the book, but sometimes...the reading seemed more of a job rather than for fun.

So I totally agree with you if you want to write in a straightforward fashion.

But of course...you have to set the setting in your stories..so keep that in mind.

suzakugaiden · 12-30-2005, 01:30 PM

Well, big language and fancy prose isn't the same thing as suffocating the reader with detail. The former might just be a result of the writer's love for language, and their love for playing around with it. The latter's not all that useful most of the time, though.

Dresdor · 12-30-2005, 02:01 PM

Hehe...read a Tale of Two Cities...you'll cry at how much Dickens develops characters you never see again.

I write to tell a story, or try to at least. I keep the vocabulary appropriate for the story. I try to be precise with the use of language, but still use common words and phrases the average character will know. If I use a word beyond that I will put it in good context so the reader knows what it means without having to look it up.

I also know a lot of writers who will clog their work with detail. Imagery in itself is good, but it must be done appropriately to be truly good. Throwing stuff in half-heartidly to say "I have a lot of imagery, go me" is assanine. You must have enough imagery, placed cunningly enough to get the point accross without the reader having to stop to figure it out. Good writers can even sneak imagery by you, leaving you with a good picture but no idea how you got it. I love that kind of writing.

amusinglackoftalent · 12-30-2005, 02:58 PM

Do any of you guys cook or bake? If so, you have your 'favorite' recipe. You know when it turns out perfect and you know when it doesn't. You put too much salt because you were on the phone. You baked it too long because you stopped to listen to something Oprah was yammering about on the television or, in my case, to sit on the floor and love my cocker spaniel. The chemistry has to be 'just right' for your favorite to turn out properly. Look through your stack of manuscripts. Some shine in your eyes, others make you shrug and sigh. What is the difference in them? Your ingredients are perfect in some and not so perfect in others. Of course, the perfect recipe with writing is often in the eye of the reader, but you get my drift. A little bit of this, a little bit of that, a dash of thyme, a pinch of salt. Too much of anything and you SCREW IT UP.

AdrienneW, surely you've sat with an Ernest Hemingway work at some point. It is difficult to get the 'impression' from Ernest that he was trying to suffocate you with his genius for vocabulary... He stripped his writing down to the essentials and won the Nobel prize for his efforts. Still, this was Ernest's style. I say write the way you write best. Write until you feel your own voice writing. And STOP worrying about the way these other guys do or did it.

Icywind · 12-30-2005, 04:54 PM

Ditto...I actually think of writing as a kind of recipe too.

I mean...you have to add seasoning(characters, setting)...and the raw meat(plot) to it..so that the reader can enjoy something wholesome, and unforgettable..

And....I love to eat too^-^

cbrmale · 12-30-2005, 11:48 PM

I absolutely agree with the sentiment that too many authors slow their plot down with too much superfluous detail.

I like to spend some time describing places that are unique, like when a character arrives in a different city or country. In other places, I strip out most of the detail and let the plot take charge.

We need to paint a visual picture for the readers from time to time. And we need characters that the readers can know and relate to and get to like (or hate). But we don't need a whole paragraph to describe a door knob.

I have my style, it works for me. I like it, and many people who have read my work like it as well. Lets see if its good enough to go the next step.

suzakugaiden · 12-31-2005, 03:18 AM

Imagery is fun. Nice for showing what stuff looks like.

I don't know how useful it is for everything, though. You can illusrtate a tree with text, but can you make a person feel? You can describe what it's like to look at a black sphere collapsing in on itself indefinitely, but can you use that to make the reader fear?

Mike C · 12-31-2005, 05:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dresdor

I also know a lot of writers who will clog their work with detail. Imagery in itself is good, but it must be done appropriately to be truly good.

Descriptive detail and imagery are not the same thing. Imagery is figurative illustration, often an extended metaphor.

strangedaze · 12-31-2005, 01:38 PM

i find that the best writers avoid using pretentious, obscure diction and focus instead on using common language in unique ways. whenever i write i try to think about the things i usually skip when im reading the work of others. usually it means cutting out lengthy descriptive paragraphs about how characters look. i find, as a reader, that a lot of detail like that is unnecessary, since im going to piece together the characters appearance in my mind through his actions anyway. i also agree with mike - big difference between imagery and description, though the two often go hand in hand. lately ive been trying to pare down a lot of figurative language, especially similes, because its too easy for them to come off as self-conscious and pretentious.

anyway, my thoughts.

happy new years eve, you bunch of freakos. i hope we all have a merry time.

suzakugaiden · 12-31-2005, 08:08 PM

"Imagery is figurative illustration, often an extended metaphor."

I actually knew that. I just wasn't saying anything because I don't really care

Anyway, though, imagery is more important than descriptive prose. Descriptive can show you what a room looks like. Imagery can make you feel it, if used properly.

Dresdor · 01-01-2006, 07:58 PM

What I meant was that I know many writers that use imagery and descriptive detail to excess. Imagery is merely a type of descriptive detail (usually, as said, a more poetic and metaphoric one, but not always).

There are two main types of writers, those who have too much imagery and description, and have clogged works that are hard to read, and those that have too little, and whose works are two dimensional. There is a balance point in between the two, but few reach it.