Style vs. Non-style Elements of Writing

[Louanne Learning]

I admit that I have never read James Joyce's Finnegan's Wake, but I have heard it is notoriously difficult to read, with little narrative clarity.

A clear example of style over substance. So, I went to Goodreads, and the first two most-liked reviews were 5-star ratings, and then the third-most liked review was a 1-star rating:

I take no shame in admitting that I cannot read this book. I was defeated after three paragraphs:

"What clashes here of wills gen wonts, oystrygods gaggin fishy-gods! Brékkek Kékkek Kékkek Kékkek! Kóax Kóax Kóax! Ualu Ualu Ualu! Quaouauh! Where the Baddelaries partisans are still out to mathmaster Malachus Micgranes and the Verdons cata-pelting the camibalistics out of the Whoyteboyce of Hoodie Head. Assiegates and boomeringstroms. Sod’s brood, be me fear! Sanglorians, save! Arms apeal with larms, appalling. Killykill-killy: a toll, a toll. What chance cuddleys, what cashels aired and ventilated! What bidimetoloves sinduced by what tegotetab-solvers!"

I can’t even begin to decipher that nor do I have the patience or will to do so. I see what Joyce is doing; he is fucking around with words and having a blast, but I don’t want any part of it. Is this modernism gone too far?

 

[Louanne Learning]

Let me ask you this - given the above, how much of poetry is style, and how much of it is substance?

Interesting question! Thank you for asking it. We do have to sometimes sit longer with poetry to get its meaning.

Oh wow, I don't have a ready answer, but let me ponder this.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

An idea presented without style is as limited in value as style without substance.

Seems to work on TikTok.

The prosecution rests.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I don't honestly see how you can have one without the other? You're not going to write a children's book with Shakespearean language. If you know who your audience will be, the style is implicit, is it not?

I think my question is what do you put your emphasis on? is it just about creating mood and vibe, or telling a story?

 

[Trish]

I think my question is what do you put your emphasis on? is it just about creating mood and vibe, or telling a story?

I wish I had an answer for you, but I can't do one without the other. They are entirely entwined and serve each other. Changing the style changes the story every bit as much as changing the content, substance, etc. I'm not being obtuse, I genuinely don't understand the question, or how it even IS a question. How is it all not equal?

 

[Louanne Learning]

Do you think there's an absolute (or even functional) answer to that?

Different writers have given different emphases on either style or meaning. I guess I'm just reflecting on my own experiences with writing. My style is rather plain, unembellished, and clarity is my goal. I want to use my words only as a conduit to deeper meaning. I'm not saying that is the better way - only the way I write, and in most cases the reading I most respond to.

 

[Homer Potvin]

I think my question is what do you put your emphasis on? is it just about creating mood and vibe, or telling a story?

I'm all about the style but not until there's something there to style.

 

[Homer Potvin]

I'd add too that words are the least efficient way to convey any though/feeling/whatever. The whole picture speaks a thousand words thing. They are ineffective symbols by nature, so the only reason to use them is in a stylistic manner that makes them appealing. Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[Rigor Mortis]

I think my question is what do you put your emphasis on? is it just about creating mood and vibe, or telling a story?

Can you create a story worth reading without mood and vibe?

My style is rather plain, unembellished

Another thing I'd disagree with you about.

This could bring us to the questions about what constitutes a story. On this subject, some writers work for some readers, others for others. I've not read Finnegan's Wake and gave up in fury at Ulysses. When I find something I enjoy reading, it's often not because I'm interested in what's going to happen next. Very often, I'm afraid, I really don't care. I am more interested in what's happening now. I want to know why that character got up from his chair and went outside. I don't care what he does, dismantles that doomsday device or defeats the alien invasion or detects the murderer, I still want to know why he gets up off his chair and goes to the door. There's a book in that! The advice is to move it on, but I'm happy to stay put until we know what's happening here and now. That's a particular taste in respect of content. I also want to read something where the author uses language like the sculptor with the lump of wood, turning it into something startling and awesome. Otherwise, without that quality, we might as well let chatty gpt or whatever construct the story in the most efficient manner.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I'd add too that words are the least efficient way to convey any though/feeling/whatever. The whole picture speaks a thousand words thing. They are ineffective symbols by nature, so the only reason to use them is in a stylistic manner that makes them appealing. Otherwise, what's the point?

And what stylistic manner makes them appealing?

 

[Louanne Learning]

Can you create a story worth reading without mood and vibe?

But a story can't stand on mood and vibe alone.

I also want to read something where the author uses language like the sculptor with the lump of wood, turning it into something startling and awesome.

Yes! me too! Lol, you bring to mind Fanny Hill: Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (1749) - the use of the language absolutely captivated me!

 

[Homer Potvin]

Regarding style, guitar players deal with this all the time. The best way I've heard it described, courtesy of Joe Satriani, is that style is the sum total of your decisions. For example, there are classic blues tunes covered by Eric Clapton, BB King, Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Albert King, et al where every note is technically the same but the emphasis and approach to the notes are wildly different. You can tell within 5 seconds who is playing by there decisions. Not exactly the same thing, but damn close.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

But a story can't stand on mood and vibe alone.

I'd argue that's not a universal thing. What one reader views as mood and vibe alone, thereby lacking substance, can be deeply resonant for another.
Not to hark on it, and I may have mentioned it before, there's a play "Not I" performed by Billie Whitelaw, written by Samuel Beckett and available to watch, about 15 minutes, on youtube. I showed it to one of the young staff in the office (the one who's read 1984!) and he, as I, found it extremely disturbing. The words and their delivery are impossible to comprehend. There's no logical coherency. The production features an entirely darkened background with only the actor's mouth visible to the audience. It's not a play about psychological or emotional distress. It's a play that presents psychological or emotional distress, unrefined and raw, an inward scream as I think Whitelaw described it. There's no progression from this thing to that, no character arc and no discernible issue of conflict The words, as written, are absorbed into the mood and vibe. It's not entertainment, it's uncomfortable viewing, but it is a story and it is art by an exceptional pair of artists.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Let me ask you this - given the above, how much of poetry is style, and how much of it is substance?

Well, clearly style is what makes poetry poetry. But I went a-googling, for poets who put "substance over style" and came up with William Blake and Emily Dickenson. Poets who put "style over substance" were Sylvia Plath and e. e. cummings. You can read their poetry at the links, and after having a look, I think I see what what the distinction is.

It's all left me with the impression that some readers are going to be more engaged by one or the other.

 

[Louanne Learning]

It's a play that presents psychological or emotional distress, unrefined and raw, an inward scream as I think Whitelaw described it.

But then it is not mood and vibe alone?

I didn't mean to imply that substance over style meant a complete character or narrative arc. Clearly, "Not I' had a lot of substance, and it's my guess that that substance came before the creation of how to express it.

Style without substance risks becoming hollow, and clever for its own sake.

 

[Naomasa298]

Well, clearly style is what makes poetry poetry. But I went a-googling, for poets who put "substance over style" and came up with William Blake and Emily Dickenson. Poets who put "style over substance" were Sylvia Plath and e. e. cummings. You can read their poetry at the links, and after having a look, I think I see what what the distinction is.

It's all left me with the impression that some readers are going to be more engaged by one or the other.

Traditionally, epic poems like the Poetic Edda or Homer (no, not him but the one who wrote the Iliad and Odyssey) put substance over style because the primary purpose of those poems is to relate the stories, even though they followed a recognised poetic form.

 

[Naomasa298]

Style without substance risks becoming hollow, and clever for its own sake.

I can't really think of any works that fall into this definition - or, in fact, the opposite, all substance, no style. Every voice, no matter whether it's elegant or unrefined, is its own style. That's why you can't really divide writing into those two elements.

 

[Rigor Mortis]

But then it is not mood and vibe alone?

And others would disagree and call his work pretentiously stylistic and lacking substance. I disagree with that appraisal, but it is out there.

Style without substance risks becoming hollow, and clever for its own sake.

Agreed. And substance without style is like reading a shopping list. The argument I make is that both must co-exist for either to be a worthwhile demand on the time to read. They're not exclusive nor contradictory and, ultimately, draining style from writing is, at best, a stylistic choice and, at worst, evidence of incapacity.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I can't really think of any works that fall into this definition - or, in fact, the opposite, all substance, no style. Every voice, no matter whether it's elegant or unrefined, is its own style. That's why you can't really divide writing into those two elements.

I have to confess, often when I post, I'm thinking of the new writers who are reading these threads, and giving them something to think about.

 

[Naomasa298]

I have to confess, often when I post, I'm thinking of the new writers who are reading these threads, and giving them something to think about.

I would put it a slightly more simplistic way - think about WHAT you write, and HOW you write it.