Style vs. Non-style Elements of Writing

[Louanne Learning]

draining style from writing

I don't think I ever suggested this? Let me see if I can better explain myself ... Oh, wait a minute! I just saw Nao's post!

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

Bingo! But I would slightly change it - think about what you write, then how you write it.

 

[Naomasa298]

Bingo! But I would slightly change it - think about what you write, then how you write it.

I'm afraid I would have to disagree. Most workshop level, and basic level advice, concentrates on the how - "show, don't tell", "develop your own voice" and so on. We often say that every idea has already been written, it's the execution that is what makes it a good piece of writing, and execution is really about the how, not the what. Once you've gotten over that, and have internalised your voice, then you can concentrate mainly on the what, because the how becomes automatic.

 

[Louanne Learning]

We often say that every idea has already been written

Ooh, I can't say I agree with this, though ...

 

[Naomasa298]

Ooh, I can't say I agree with this, though ...

It's true, but only in very, very broad terms.

 

[JLT]

They are inseparable. Substance is the "what," style is the "how."

I guess you could say that substance is the simple transfer of information:

"The fog comes in"

But style completes the picture:

"The fog comes in on little cat feet"

But even the first sentence is a form of style, in the same way that a pup tent is a form of architecture. The simplicity of the structure is part of the style.

This discussion reminds me of Woolcott Gibbs's advice to fellow New Yorker editors: "Try to preserve an author's stye if he is an author and has a style." It's the basis of a wonderful story by Benjamin Dryer, which can be found on page 120 of his Dreyer's English.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I guess you could say that substance is the simple transfer of information:

"The fog comes in"

I think substance is more about the underlying meaning - the message, or the subtext

 

[Trish]

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.

Personally, I'm not sure this is something that should be especially pondered by new writers. The style goes with the story. As I said in my previous post, you aren't going to write a children's book in Shakespearean language if you actually want it to be read by the target audience.

Voice-that develops over time as the writer becomes more confident and can change story to story.

If you ask a new writer to think about the story itself and the style in which they're writing it as two separate identities, on top of POV, continuity, what readers might think, and all the other things they're told are so important I fear we're just pushing them closer to paralysis while staring at the blank page. Maybe not a popular opinion, but the one I hold regardless.

 

[Also]

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 . . .

And there you've stated one of the most important distinctions between core readers of popular and literary fiction. Pop fiction is always foremost and usually exclusively about what happens next and how it all comes out in the end. In some genres (speculative, scifi, horror), incidental details may be additional selling points, but without a story that ratchets to conclusion, you lose the reader.

In literary fiction, story is usually pretext and framework for other elements.

We had a discussion on the old board of what makes fiction "literary" today, which I further developed into a full-article discussion here: What Is Literary Fiction?

it can be an eye-opener for people who think "literary" means highbrow, esoteric, or snooty — when in publishing today, it actually means ignoring the fetters of conventionality and mass appeal.

The article is a foundational document for the critique group I started around that time for literary authors in my city. It helps prospective members recognize whether their values and writing are a good fit with our membership's, and occasionally serves as a guide for us to whether certain types of suggestions are constructive versus conventionalizing.

 

[Naomasa298]

If I were to prioritise what to learn for new writers, I would say:
1. Style - this is *how* to tell a story.
2. Structure - this is how to plot a story.
3. If you're still struggling at this point with technical aspects, improve this next.
4. Then, and only then, concentrate on what your story is about.

Why in that order? Because the first two will teach you how to tell any story you want to. Step 1 will also teach you most of step 3 - that is in there just as a refinement.

Style includes both voice and genre, because these two are often tightly bound. You can't tell a serious horror story in the style of (early) Terry Pratchett. Well, you might be able to but it would be hard work. If that's your aim though, go for it!

 

[Homer Potvin]

If I were to prioritise what to learn for new writers, I would say:

1. Write words
2. Write words
3. Write words

 

[Trish]

1. Write words
2. Write words
3. Write words

Yes. This is me. If I think about any of the stuff that's been mentioned, it's entirely subconscious. I just write the damned story as it comes to me

 

[Louanne Learning]

The style goes with the story. As I said in my previous post, you aren't going to write a children's book in Shakespearean language if you actually want it to be read by the target audience.

I'm not sure I understand you. You think there is only one type of style for each type of story?

If you ask a new writer to think about the story itself and the style in which they're writing it as two separate identities, on top of POV, continuity, what readers might think, and all the other things they're told are so important I fear we're just pushing them closer to paralysis while staring at the blank page. Maybe not a popular opinion, but the one I hold regardless.

Well, it is a fact that style and substance are two different things. (See definitions in the OP)

But - I think you may be underestimating new writers. Usually, they are eager to learn as much as they can about all aspects of writing. I don’t think a discussion about style and substance on a writer’s forum will daunt them, but give them some food for thought about their own approach to writing. They can take from the thread what resonates with them.

I wouldn’t have minded a discussion like this when I first began to write.

 

[Louanne Learning]

Style - this is *how* to tell a story.

Not exactly. It includes word choice, sentence structure, how to use the language.

4. Then, and only then, concentrate on what your story is about.

I respectfully disagree. For me at least, the starting point is what I want to say.

Your order may work for you, but it's just not going to be the approach or experience of every writer.

 

[Louanne Learning]

I think there may be differences in our understandings of style. I'm not referring to broad categories of style, for example, horror, or romance, etc, but something unique to each and every writer - how they use the language.

 

[Trish]

I'm not sure I understand you. You think there is only one type of style for each type of story?

No? I'm saying style is influenced by the story you're writing. If you're writing for children, you'll use age appropriate structure and words. If you're writing for adults, you'll do the same. If it's first person POV, those things will also be influenced by the character. If you're writing historical fiction, those things are influenced by the era. There is never only ONE way to do it, but the main things are going to be influenced by the story if you want it to make sense and not yank someone right out of it.

Well, it is a fact that style and substance are two different things. (See definitions in the OP)

I didn't say they weren't. I said that writers in general, especially new ones, get bogged down by all the 'rules' and specificity when the most important part of writing is just getting words on the page.

I think there may be differences in our understandings of style. I'm not referring to broad categories of style, for example, horror, or romance, etc, but something unique to each and every writer - how they use the language.

I call this 'voice' and it is not the same as style. Style is technical, voice is the flair.

 

[Naomasa298]

I think there may be differences in our understandings of style. I'm not referring to broad categories of style, for example, horror, or romance, etc, but something unique to each and every writer - how they use the language.

They're largely the same thing. Each writer has their own take on the style used for a genre, but the way language is used to create effect is still a blend of both personal style and genre style.

Your order may work for you, but it's just not going to be the approach or experience of every writer.

Since we're talking about new writers here, I've seen an awful lot of failures in workshops precisely because they haven't prioritised those things. Almost all crit and workshop advice concentrates on how, not on what. Conversely, crit from editors tends to concentrates on what, because a mastery of how is a given (and if you don't have a level of competence with that, an editor is probably not even going to make it past the first few sentences of the story).

 

[Louanne Learning]

No? I'm saying style is influenced by the story you're writing. If you're writing for children, you'll use age appropriate structure and words. If you're writing for adults, you'll do the same. If it's first person POV, those things will also be influenced by the character. If you're writing historical fiction, those things are influenced by the era. There is never only ONE way to do it, but the main things are going to be influenced by the story if you want it to make sense and not yank someone right out of it.

We do have different understandings of style, as far as I had meant it in this thread.

Well, it is a fact that style and substance are two different things.

I didn't say they weren't

If you ask a new writer to think about the story itself and the style in which they're writing it as two separate identities

I said that writers in general, especially new ones, get bogged down by all the 'rules'

Understanding style and substance has nothing to do with rules.

I call this 'voice' and it is not the same as style. Style is technical, voice is the flair.

Voice comes out of style.

 

[Louanne Learning]

They're largely the same thing. Each writer has their own take on the style used for a genre, but the way language is used to create effect is still a blend of both personal style and genre style.

No, they are not. For the purpose of this thread, I am not referring to genre style.

all crit and workshop advice concentrates on how, not on what.

it's easier to comment on?

crit from editors tends to concentrates on what,

So we're well advised to put the priority on this

 

[Trish]

We do have different understandings of style, as far as I had meant it in this thread.

I think that's pretty clear, though I'm not the only one interpreting it differently than you intended it for the purposes of this thread.

Well, it is a fact that style and substance are two different things.

I didn't say they weren't

If you ask a new writer to think about the story itself and the style in which they're writing it as two separate identities

The rest of what I wrote, which you didn't quote, showed clearly (IMO) that I was speaking of overwhelming writers. I said asking them to think about them as two separate identities *on top of* everything else I named leads to paralysis. My point was that it's unnecessary to think about them that hard, particularly for new writers. If I worded it poorly I'll accept that, but quoting me to myself isn't the gotcha you seem to think it is, particularly when you leave out relevant info. For what it's worth I explained what I meant in the partial quote of mine you quoted of "I didn't say they weren't".

Understanding style and substance has nothing to do with rules.

Here again, you're quoting me without quoting all of it. I said rules *and specificities*. I did not say style and substance were rules. Once again, my point was overwhelming new writers with overthinking and overanalyzing leads to paralysis, when the most important part is getting words on the page.

Voice comes out of style.

What I said was -
"I call this 'voice' and it is not the same as style. Style is technical, voice is the flair."

Your response is saying what? I didn't say they aren't related in any way, I said they are two different things and that I think what you call "style" I call "voice". I even defined my opinion of their difference.

I'm truly not interested in having a conversation with someone who uses partial quotes as an argument when the full quote explained what I meant. Have a good night, Louanne.

 

[murff]

Style is determined by a piece of writing’s structural elements, like word choice, sentence structure, and tone and rhythm.

Non-style elements include its content, substance, and meaning.

According to the ancients, the meaning, substance and content should come first.

As Cato said, “Grasp the subject, the words will follow.” (Rem tene, verba sequentur.) Words come after, not before.

Aristotle initiated the tradition of making language “so transparent a medium that it disappears and interposes no obstacle or screen between the reader and the things it points to.” (Fish, How to Read a Sentence, page 39)

Should it be style over non-style elements, or non-style elements over style? Which one should be favoured? What value does style have?

In the world of poetry, content and form are considered inseperable. I once attended a lecture by the former Poet Laureat of Canada, George Bowering, who published something like 120 books in his life. He talked about "serving the form" and how it can liberate the imagiation. This might be hard to imagine if you have not experienced it yourself. But I am here to testify that it works, and it's kind of spooky.

When you decide to write in a certain poetic form, like sonnet, villenelle, pantoum, sestina, or any of the miriad forms available across cultures, something happens, or it can happen, that sets you free of your own ego. You start to go to unexpected places in order to sarisfy the poetic form, and truely surprizing things can happen. Mind you, I generally write in freeverse, which means that you are meant to create the form, as you write, to suit the content. But the other way can work too and some of the best poems I've written were when I decided to focus on a specific form. It can also be quite challenging but if you keep it up you can internalize the form and it becomes a template for meaning.