Evolution of style

[athousandsorrows]

The title is called Anomaly. Best way I can describe it is just show what I've got so far. It's meant to go back and forth from two different perspectives. One from a mortal outlook the other an eternal. I just am at a loss for plot. Its essentially prose poetry.

____

Tired broke soul lost in the flames of a thousand suns, burning inexhaustible. Charred, marred, hope and flesh. Ignited from the fury of an eternal love. Escaping the inescapable. Pointless endeavour of an infinite routine, set in place by an unreachable height, and unfathomable depth.

Of course human, progeny of Adam. Your hope should be as endless as my wrath untouchable.

__
That's all I got so far. I'm in the middle of a regular novel at the moment. But the idea came I wanted to write it down.

 

[Night Herald]

The title is called Anomaly. Best way I can describe it is just show what I've got so far. It's meant to go back and forth from two different perspectives. One from a mortal outlook the other an eternal. I just am at a loss for plot. Its essentially prose poetry.

____

Tired broke soul lost in the flames of a thousand suns, burning inexhaustible. Charred, marred, hope and flesh. Ignited from the fury of an eternal love. Escaping the inescapable. Pointless endeavour of an infinite routine, set in place by an unreachable height, and unfathomable depth.

Of course human, progeny of Adam. Your hope should be as endless as my wrath untouchable.

__
That's all I got so far. I'm in the middle of a regular novel at the moment. But the idea came I wanted to write it down.

I like it, definitely something there to build on. It could go places.

 

[athousandsorrows]

I like it, definitely something there to build on. It could go places.

For real? It's not too verbose?

 

[Night Herald]

For real? It's not too verbose?

Maybe for some, I'm personally pretty fond of verbosity. I'm way too sleepy to offer anything remotely like sensible critique, but I will say I really like the line "Pointless endeavour of an infinite routine, set in place by an unreachable height, and unfathomable depth."

Pointless endeavour of an infinite routine. That's good stuff. Tastes like cosmic ennui.

 

[athousandsorrows]

Maybe for some, I'm personally pretty fond of verbosity. I'm way too sleepy to offer anything remotely like sensible critique, but I will say I really like the line "Pointless endeavour of an infinite routine, set in place by an unreachable height, and unfathomable depth."

Pointless endeavour of an infinite routine. That's good stuff. Tastes like cosmic ennui.

Sometimes a detailed critique isn't necessary. I'll see where it'll lead.

 

[Stuart Dren]

What I have found is that my earlier works were raw; in style and emotion, and later versions after, are smoother but sometimes the roughness of the earlier versions before connects more. Strange.

I've edited all the personality out of my short stories before.

I think I've since gotten better at resisting the self-critical urge to oatmeal everything, though.

 

[Also]

I write short stories as a way to learn my 'trade' but every time I edit, I save it under a new copy so if the new one doesn't quite work, I can fall back onto the version before.

It's such a strong reflex for me to press Ctrl-S each time I complete a decent bunch of paragraphs or finish rewriting one that I could only do this by saving a new copy when I begin editing. Many is the time I've spoiled a reference copy with that half-conscious Cttl-S. It's basically every time I lean back against the chairback for a deeper breath.

 

[Tallyfire]

I have a question related to the evolution of style.

Once I learned to concentrate on telling the story. Use the words that come naturally to me.

Once I stopped trying to produce a desired effect and just wrote what felt natural, it became a lot easier.

This is what I feel like I’m doing right now, and it’s going well. I’m happy with what comes out. But occasionally I come up against a wall where there’s a scene or a description I would like to write, but it turns out to be extremely difficult, and everything sounds wrong. How do you differentiate between (1) “this is just not my style, and I should find another way to express this,” and (2) “this is a weakness in my writing that I need to work on”?

Somewhat related, I find myself paying more and more attention to what writers leave out in their stories. For example, I’ve been reading a series where characters venture through portals into fantasy worlds. In those worlds, they become heroes and fight dragons and wage wars, but those adventures are never told. Instead, the pivotal emotional moments are shown, and nothing else. The story isn’t about the adventure, it’s about the personal growth. That seems like the writer’s style to me. Having read a huge number of classic adventure stories, this approach fascinates me (and I really enjoy the stories!). I want to recreate it in some way in my writing, but when it comes down to the actual scenes I still feel the urge to write the action (maybe just out of habit) and I’m left wondering if writing action scenes is just not my style or if I’m just bad at writing action scenes.

 

[Homer Potvin]

How do you differentiate between (1) “this is just not my style, and I should find another way to express this,” and (2) “this is a weakness in my writing that I need to work on”?

It comes with experience, I guess. Style is often described as the sum total of your decisions... all the zillions of tiny choices you make all the way down to the word level. After awhile, you know see what works and what doesn't and end up naturally making the same types of choices without really thinking about it.

or if I’m just bad at writing action scenes.

That's very common. My theory is that action is a weak function of the written word, unlike in film where the action was built for the visual medium. But that flips when dealing with interior monologue, which is impossible in film but built for the written word. Things like narrative summary kind of fall in the middle. I think it's always best to recognize what words do well and where they fail. They can very effective with action obviously, but there's more to it than basic visual description, which a camera captures unconsciously.

But occasionally I come up against a wall where there’s a scene or a description I would like to write, but it turns out to be extremely difficult, and everything sounds wrong.

You might be overthinking it. I know I usually am when I have similar issues. I think the trick is to know what needs description and what doesn't. Or which two or three traits out the possible dozens warrant the words. With description, remember that most readers already know what a thing looks like by the symbolic association of the word. Like "an old lady driving car" needs no further elaboration. The symbols create an immediate image in the mind and the imagination feels in the finer details. There may be occasion to add another detail that but only if it's interesting. A red car wouldn't be an interesting detail. Or the old lady wearing glasses. But if she had a Walter Mondale campaign sticker on the bumper... that's interesting. Lame example, but it's all I can think of at the moment.

 

[Also]

I do much less in-the-moment scene-writing now, much more free[style] narrative — a blend of narrative summary with snippets of inner monologue and direct or indirect dialogue. The boundaries are not always clear-cut.

 

[Homer Potvin]

I do much less in-the-moment scene-writing now, much more free[style] narrative — a blend of narrative summary with snippets of inner monologue and direct or indirect dialogue. The boundaries are not always clear-cut.

Which is very effective as something that words can do while other mediums cannot. There's an arc to writing where you spend a lot of time learning how to do this, that, and the other thing. And then another arc where you learn how to make this, that, and the other thing all look the same and blend together without differentiation.

 

[Tallyfire]

It comes with experience, I guess. Style is often described as the sum total of your decisions... all the zillions of tiny choices you make all the way down to the word level. After awhile, you know see what works and what doesn't and end up naturally making the same types of choices without really thinking about it.

Yeah, so more trial and error tinkering. I find it’s also a case of, “oh wait, you can do that?” with regards to structuring narrative, but reading widely is really helping with that.

I think the trick is to know what needs description and what doesn't.

This is definitely a big topic for me right now. Sometimes I’m amazed at what authors leave out.

I do much less in-the-moment scene-writing now, much more free[style] narrative — a blend of narrative summary with snippets of inner monologue and direct or indirect dialogue. The boundaries are not always clear-cut.

I'm reading a book in this style right now. It's really chaotic and interesting. How do you write in that style? Do you do any planning or do it in free-flow and then edit around later?

Also, thank you for putting that link in your signature. It helped me realise most of what I like falls under the literary category.

 

[Also]

I'm reading a book in this style right now. It's really chaotic and interesting. How do you write in that style? Do you do any planning or do it in free-flow and then edit around later?

Mine is not chaotic or very non-linear, it simple isn't based on acting most parts out. The only non-linearity is that the first-person narrator is writing forty years later and sometimes interjects present-tense recollections or modern-time perspectives or comparisons into past-tense storytelling.

To readers who've read plenty of pre-millennial non-mass-market writing, my style just looks "normal."

 

[defaux]

How do you differentiate between (1) “this is just not my style, and I should find another way to express this,” and (2) “this is a weakness in my writing that I need to work on”?

I want to preface my comment by saying, I think it's perfectly OK to pick your niche and say this is what I do and do it well.

I personally have been on a journey the last 6 months, and still continuing, whereby I am trying to identify all of the things I can't do (yet) and choosing to define them as weaknesses. I pick something, a style, genre, POV, or specific technique, and then try to write it. Sometimes it's terrible and hard, and takes several attempts to get something I feel expresses an understanding of the thing. But the point is to prove, mainly to myself, that I can do it.

Maybe I look at the results and think, that's done, but it's still rubbish, or I don't like that style. Or maybe it actually turns out half-decent and I have another quill in my box I can develop further. The point is, what I am suggesting, don't write something off just because you can't do it yet.

Action, and comedy, are among the topics I have yet to tackle.

the trick is to know what needs description and what doesn't

Sometimes I’m amazed at what authors leave out.

My approach is often to only describe physically enough to solidify the setting and events, then spend the words on how it affects the characters, what do they see, hear, or feel as caused by what's happening. Sometimes to describe what is happening only through reaction to it, and let that imply the event. But this style likely depends on perspective, I tend towards very close internality. YMMV.

Omniscience is also still on my working list.

 

[Tallyfire]

I personally have been on a journey the last 6 months, and still continuing, whereby I am trying to identify all of the things I can't do (yet) and choosing to define them as weaknesses. I pick something, a style, genre, POV, or specific technique, and then try to write it. Sometimes it's terrible and hard, and takes several attempts to get something I feel expresses an understanding of the thing. But the point is to prove, mainly to myself, that I can do it.

I like this idea. I've been trying it too, but not in a very organised way. I've just found writing styles I like and thought, "I've never tried that before. Why not..." but I could also make a list of walls I've run up against and look at other ways to deal with them.

Omniscience is also still on my working list.

I'm trying this now. It's difficult, but I'm liking the effect when it does work. The main problem is that I'm struggling to find other works that use a similar micro-to-macro-to-micro POV to study as examples. Le Guin kind of does it in The Dispossessed and St. John Mandel kind of does it in Station Eleven, but the true omniscient voice turns up so infrequently that it's difficult to find again... often it's just that one sentence that zooms out and makes you go, "wow."

 

[Homer Potvin]

I like this idea. I've been trying it too, but not in a very organised way. I've just found writing styles I like and thought, "I've never tried that before. Why not..." but I could also make a list of walls I've run up against and look at other ways to deal with them.


I'm trying this now. It's difficult, but I'm liking the effect when it does work. The main problem is that I'm struggling to find other works that use a similar micro-to-macro-to-micro POV to study as examples. Le Guin kind of does it in The Dispossessed and St. John Mandel kind of does it in Station Eleven, but the true omniscient voice turns up so infrequently that it's difficult to find again... often it's just that one sentence that zooms out and makes you go, "wow."

Look to the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's all over the place. Not sure what you mean by the micro to macro thing, though.

 

[Tallyfire]

Look to the 19th and early 20th centuries. It's all over the place. Not sure what you mean by the micro to macro thing, though.

Good tip; I’ll look into it. By micro to macro I mean the focus in the POV being very close to the characters then zooming right out. As an example, there’s a scene early in Station Eleven that closely follows a lively conversation at a bar. The chapter ends with this:

Spoiler

“Of all of them there at the bar that night, the bartender was the one who survived the longest. He died three weeks later on the road out of the city.”

 

[Homer Potvin]

Good tip; I’ll look into it. By micro to macro I mean the focus in the POV being very close to the characters then zooming right out. As an example, there’s a scene early in Station Eleven that closely follows a lively conversation at a bar. The chapter ends with this:

Spoiler

“Of all of them there at the bar that night, the bartender was the one who survived the longest. He died three weeks later on the road out of the city.”

Just to clarify, by omniscient you're referring to the head hopping, all knowing, eye of God taking the POV where it wants when it wants without obstruction, yes? The micro macro is just a narrative distance spectrum, which is a hallmark of omni but doesn't define it absolutely.

 

[Tallyfire]

Just to clarify, by omniscient you're referring to the head hopping, all knowing, eye of God taking the POV where it wants when it wants without obstruction, yes? The micro macro is just a narrative distance spectrum, which is a hallmark of omni but doesn't define it absolutely.

Yes, that’s what I’m meaning. That’s why I said Station Eleven only kind of uses it because most of it is in close 3rd with the occasional leap to an omni view.