What is your writing style and how will it progress writing?

[Ramirez]

I love sci-fi and fantasy books. They were the reason I got into reading and writing as a young child and I will forever embrace them. Yet, when I browse bookshelves of new releases, I too often find that the genres aren't changing much and for the most part, they're static and dry. Not to say that there aren't many great novels being put out, just that it seems a lot of authors don't give a damn about their style and what it's doing to progress the genres and writing in general.

I'm going to school for writing and painting, so I'm constantly building up my style. Still, I've found there are a few areas I like to break down when writing.

First off, I'm so tired of the formal narrative so commonly used in sci-fi and fantasy. I like a more loose, spontaneous, sarcastic narrative, like that of Kurt Vonnegut or Douglas Adams. I love how Vonnegut would start passages with "Listen:", to catch the reader's attention, to make them feel as if they are actually being addressed by the narrator. I love how Douglas Adams can break off into tangents, stating one thing and then backtracking to correct himself in a stream of consciousness sort of way. This is similar to how I narrate my stories, and I find it's a whole lot more fun to read and write and gives everything a bit of comic relief.

Next, I try to make everything as short and concise as possible. I make it clear to the reader what I'm trying to say, without having to add ridiculously long words unless they are the most concise and clear way of stating what I wish to address. The dialogue I use is short and concise, based off of the way people talk in the modern age. This isn't because I'm trying to depict the dialect of those on Earth, in fact none of my books ever take place on Earth. It's more or less because I wish to connect to the reader and be true to myself. I write the dialogue the way that I talk, the way my friends talk, the way the people who speak my language talk, making nothing formal unless the character is by nature formal.

In plotting, I never give any character the upper hand. How many times have you read a fantasy or sci-fi novel where the main characters are victorious? How many times have you read the same where the characters all die in the end? I prefer the latter, as it's unexpected and tragic. I've never been one for happy endings, though. I make my characters suffer, I make them die, I make them make mistakes. My characters are more often than not terrible people. You would never want to meet them in real life, they would either rob you, kill you, manipulate you, or humiliate you. They are by no means heroes and I never intend to write about heroes, it's too bland and predictable.

So anyways, I'd like to hear the writing styles of others and how you feel it will progress sci-fi, fantasy, and writing in general. What do you feel needs to be done to progress? What do you feel is being done that is keeping the genres stale? What do you do yourself that is unique and original?

 

[thehindmost]

You couldn't have hit my philosophy more on the head.

 

[ShellyS]

As a reader, I have no preference for writing style and I read in a wide variety of genres. I do tend to read everything by favorite authors, but I read science fiction, the occasional urban fantasy, historical suspense, mysteries and suspense, literary fiction, and some non-fiction.

As a writer, I do a minimum of backstory, character bios (not very detailed), and setting. Then I write. The plot develops as I write (I don't outline) and the characters get fleshed out in the writing. I add notes to the bios as I discover things about the characters.

My style is, uh, my style, I guess. I have no idea what it is exactly. I do tend to write third person, multiple viewpoints, what's been referred to as tight third in that you get only what the pov character can know.

I guess I write science fiction suspense. I don't give thought to my progress. When I tried to actively "improve," I ended up confusing myself and making things worse. I now work under the "practice makes perfect" axiom; the more I do something, the better I (hopefully) get.

Unique and/or original? Beats me. I'm not sure it's possible to be that given all the written works out there. I try to give things my own perspective. I've got stories to tell, and I tell them.

 

[Window Bar]

So anyways, I'd like to hear the writing styles of others and how you feel it will progress sci-fi, fantasy, and writing in general. What do you feel needs to be done to progress? What do you feel is being done that is keeping the genres stale? What do you do yourself that is unique and original?

One of my closest friends finished a literature degree at Yale back in the early seventies. His thesis proposed that science fiction be classified as literature, which in those days (and now, I'd suspect) it was not.

The major bars to SF being taken seriously were much as you described them: shallow characters, predictable endings, stilted dialogue, a deeper interest in gee-whiz techno marvels than in the human spirit. May we sum it up as "poor writing?" And no, that doesn't mean that every single SF book was poorly done, but so many of them--even the award winners--were little more than comic books without pictures.

Way to go, Ramirez. Your goals are worthy enough. I, too, would hope to bring humor, wisdom, truth, and poetry to every work I write. On the other hand, my daily task is to immerse myself in my characters, in whatever Truth I've stumbled upon in my life, and to try to make it readable. If my mind is fixed too closely upon the traditional weaknesses of literature's poor stepchild, I'll just get depressed.

 

[Lucanus]

I'm Mr. Sarcasm. My core characters are all constantly taking shots at each other like that. I also write in a spontaneous informal way. My dialogue is very modern despite a historical Roman setting. I loved the BBC treatment of Robin Hood in that regard. (First 2 seasons at least. The 3rd is awful IMO.) The only thing the two of us wouldn't jive is the all bad guys angle. Joe Abercrombie sort of does that too and while I enjoy his writing his characters get a little old after a while. I see people as being a little more nuanced than that with the bad guys usually thinking they're good or at least that the ends justify the means. Call me old fashioned in this one respect but I do prefer a traditional hero's journey. The hero can be pretty shady and have bad qualities or have done bad things but I like growth.

 

[N. E. White]

You know, I'd like to branch out and write more spontaneous, but when I do that - nobody gets it or likes it. I figured I need to learn more about how to write normal (whatever that is) before I can seriously try something else.

As a reader, I like to read just about anything and I think it is great that others go out on a limb. Keep at it!

(Enough cliches for ya all? )

 

[ElinIsabel]

I think about style...LOL my style is the total opposite of yours though, Ramirez. But I think variety keeps any art strong. I enjoy reading a lot of different styles.

I write in a pretty formal story telling style (The current opening line of my WIP begins "Once there was a..." . Although I'm light on the adjectives and adverbs I do use a lot of sentence variety including many long, complex/compound sentence and some big words when their precision is important. I think my writing style walks a tightrope between "FairyTale" and "Realism" and that is part of the tension in the story.

I also get a lot of my rhythm and illusions from the cadence of formal liturgy and scripture; I grew up a High Church Lutheran/Episcopalian and studied religion in my undergrad, and my WIP's themes and plot come from an inversion and rethinking of the Judeo-Christian mythology mixed in with fairy tales and folklore. So the language reflects that.

Technically, I have a happy ending. My man and woman are a traditional hero and a heroine who both make heroic journeys. But it is not a matter of overpowering enemies or having any advantages that makes them heroic, but perseverence and making difficult choices at pivotal moments that only those characters would make. They are definately good (but flawed) people. I've got to disagree with you on the point of goodness being bland and predictable, OP. For me, I find really evil people bland and predictable. Powerful heros who "win" by superior muscle and better swords and abilities, yeah, that is boring, too. But I think truly heroic people can be shockingly unique in their moral courage, their ability to conquer their faults and their shadow, and their perseverence when facing bleak realities and despair.

I disagree with Tolstoy about happy / unhappy families, too.

The end is definately a Eucatastrophe. There is a marraige. . Pretty much everyone else dies, though. I guess the ending would be better termed "bittersweet".

I don't know if I would call it "unique"; I think it is a unique synthesis of a lot of traditional tropes and thems. I definately draw from and write with respect to the tradition of fantasy writers like Crowley, Dunsany, Tolkien, and LeGuin (my big 4 influences, though I'm not half as good as any!). So in that sense, I wouldn't say it is something groundbreakingly new. If anything it is probably a throwback to very old stuff and styles.

 

[mickyg]

As far as narrative goes, I think it's important to push the boundaries as long as you are still maintaining a consistent and easy to read style. Almost any type of narrative can be written well, so it's up to the individual to understand and admit their strengths and weaknesses.

Just out of curiosity, does anyone have an opinion of the writing style of Cormac Mccarthy? Could The Road have been written in a more traditional style and still retained the atmosphere and intent?

 

[ElinIsabel]

I think The Road was almost flawless.

That is a great example of a book where the less traditional style was perfect for the book. I think it would have suffered as a more trad narrative.

 

[N.S. Barrett]

There's a lot to comment on here:

1) Narrative Style/Viewpoint
I tend to think that these are tools in a writer's belt. I like character perception to creep in, the unreliable narrator to show it's teeth, I sometimes even use a cheeky first person viewpoint. But I keep coming back to third-person limited. The physical themes and content I write about hold mental immersion at a premium over emotional relatability. And most of fantasy and sci-fi has these same sorts of themes by virtue of being an alternate setting. It's tempting to feel that I'm not doing it original enough, but good writing has an originality all it's own, and in the long-form, my writing is at it's best in third person limited.

2) Word Use
I'm a big believer that the use vocabulary of most people is fairly shallow, but at the same time, a whole lot of words that they don't use they still recognize very fluidly. A good writer's use vocabulary needs to rougly correspond with the average person's recognition vocabulary to get the most vivid prose possible. A writing professor of mine once said that each word has a "dollar value", some are 5 cents, others 20 dollars. You want to make each concept as cheap for the reader to "purchase" as possible. I sort of agree, but with 2 caveats: First, each sentence also has it's own "packaging cost". One sentence with some lesser known words beats 3 sentences with 5 letter words any day, at least provided the sort sentences aren't delivered for dramatic effect. Second, it's easy to forget that concepts are merely expressed by words. They're not the words themselves. This means that the concept contained in a word like "extemporaneous" is different from the concept contained in the simpler series of words "off the top of my head". One's a cultural idiom, the other's not, and because of this the meaning is slightly different. The same thing goes for just about any two synonyms in English. Picking the right word, no matter how recognizable it is, is at a premium in art. In technical writing, not so much, but definitely in art.

As a corrolary to this, I find that a huge stumbling block in the Fantasy and Sci-Fi genres is when authors, at least those with little understanding of culture, try to invent their own cultural idioms. When it's done well and sparingly, it can be immersive. When it's done badly, it's ridiculous. As in, not only did you "overcharge" me for that concept, you just threw me out of the narrative entirely. That bad. And what they all argue that they need to avoid is using phrases that wouldn't be used in an "alternative world". What they don't understand, apparently, is that using English at all wouldn't happen in an alternative world. It's just pointless to try to use a language in a way that's not natural to you.

3) Plotting
I love nothing more than when both sides of a conflict have good reason for thinking that they're in the right. What might be an urn containing your ancestor's ashes might seem to another like a magical component used in a hostile spell. Both sides are right, and both are wrong at the same time. The plot doesn't have to twist, but flat, cliche opposition is one of the major historical downfalls of these genres. I don't have to have characters who kill for fun, are unlikeable, or any of that. I just want to write something realistic.

4) Theme
I think that Fantasy is in a funk right now of dark, gritty theme. Everyone seems to want to discuss pain, suffering, abuse of power and other unmentionables. This can be good when it shows something intriguing about our nature in a fair, balanced light, but too often it's just pandering. I mean, if I pick up a book and one of the main characters tortures people, has no aspirations of ever changing professions and actually sees the complexities of his task as giving him insight into human nature that no one else has, I'll put the book down. But someone who endures pain religiously because they think it will be for their greater good can be done well. The rule I live by is that if I can do something maturely, even-handedly and vividly, I'll do it. If I can't, I won't.

5) Making the Genre Better
I think more writers should be serious about learning the craft. We all do art for our own reasons, but writing is not like painting. Our medium won't do the work for us. Words are imprecise. We have to set our emotions and passions aside at times and just be technical with what we're doing. I find that something about the alternative fiction genres makes people think that they can write their heart, edit it for spelling and grammar and send it off. Structure? What's structure? But Fantasy can have just as crisp of a pace as a Dan Brown Novel, as powerful of an emotion as Faulkner, and the unspoken symbolism of Moby Dick. Authors just need to learn what makes these works tick, jackhammer it into their brains and write quality.

 

[Aether Monkey]

Nevermind. It must be the cough medicine.

 

[AndyLavigne]

I'm stunned KatG hasn't posted here yet. I just have this feeling she'd have a lot to say about Ramierz's assertions.

 

[Ramirez]

What does everyone think about semi-colons?

"Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college." - Kurt Vonnegut

I agree with this statement. Commas give a pause, and if the author has a good enough voice you can really hear it. I feel that colons push the movement forward at a fast rate, jumping your mind from the words before to the words after the colon. Yet, semicolons seem to just give the writer an excuse to prolong a sentence.

 

[ShellyS]

What does everyone think about semi-colons?

"Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college." - Kurt Vonnegut

I agree with this statement. Commas give a pause, and if the author has a good enough voice you can really hear it. I feel that colons push the movement forward at a fast rate, jumping your mind from the words before to the words after the colon. Yet, semicolons seem to just give the writer an excuse to prolong a sentence.

While it's a funny statement, I disagree with it. Semi-colons are used to separate independent clauses. Commas separate dependent clauses. I have often misread sentences because the wrong punctuation has been used and have had to go back and reread the sentence a few times to tease out what the writer most likely intended.

Punctuation, along with providing pauses, aids clarity.

 

[hippokrene]

...it seems a lot of authors don't give a damn about their style and what it's doing to progress the genres and writing in general.

That would be me.

like a more loose, spontaneous, sarcastic narrative, like that of Kurt Vonnegut or Douglas Adams.

I hate Kurt Vonnegut, specifically Galapagos.

"Here is a lesson in creative writing. First rule: Do not use semicolons. They are transvestite hermaphrodites representing absolutely nothing. All they do is show you've been to college." - Kurt Vonnegut

I don't like em dashes because em dashes are gypsies; they corrupt your menfolk, curse your cattle, and are werewolves!

 

[Ramirez]

Hipppokrene, are you saying that you prefer to write void of style? Why is it that you feel style isn't necessary?

Hate is a strong word, one of my art teachers would always tell us never to hate something because it will only make us look like fools when we realize we enjoy it later in life.

And it appears to me that you've missed the point of Vonnegut's statement. He isn't randomly persecuting semi-colons. He has a valid argument about the grammatical style of many authors.

 

[ElinIsabel]

I have to disagree with K.V. there; I like semi-colons. Semi-colons are good for showing relationships between complete thoughts and ideas, and help vary the rhythm in prose. I use them pretty often and tend to like reading prose that uses them (along with all the other tools of punctuation).

I can see where they would be misused though. A long sentence needs to have a reason to be long and not be a string of sort of related thoughts.

Hate is a strong word, one of my art teachers would always tell us never to hate something because it will only make us look like fools when we realize we enjoy it later in life.

This would be me. :::FOOL:::

There is an almost 100% that if I make a public declaration of distaste for something that I will end up liking it immensely with foot-in-mouth. The degree of venom in my denounciation = degree of eventual affection.

 

[The Lord of all Things Inane]

I have absolutely no style in my writing, or preference of style in what I read.
As long as a book is good, I will read it. If I do not enjoy it, I will put it down, and move on.

 

[hippokrene]

Hipppokrene, are you saying that you prefer to write void of style? Why is it that you feel style isn't necessary?

No, I'm saying I... "don't give a damn about [my] style and what it's doing to progress the genres and writing in general."

Hate is a strong word, one of my art teachers would always tell us never to hate something because it will only make us look like fools when we realize we enjoy it later in life.

Not expressing one's thoughts or feelings because others might find you foolish sounds like a crappy way to live one's life. I hope these weren't writing teachers. A good writing teacher ought to encourage you to make a fool out of yourself on the page as often as possible and then edit it to a glossy shine.

And it appears to me that you've missed the point of Vonnegut's statement. He isn't randomly persecuting semi-colons. He has a valid argument about the grammatical style of many authors.

I wish I were Vonnegut. It must be nice to come up with a witty saying and have others repeat it as though it were a serious argument.

Yes, some writers use too many semicolons. Some use too many commas. Some don't use punctuation when they ought to. Some writers have writing mannerisms that Vonnegut didn't like and, as I'm sure we can all agree, this was a grave and serious offence at the time.

However, the man is now dead, so new writers need no longer fear upsetting his refined tastes with their supercilious punctuation.

I have absolutely no style in my writing, or preference of style in what I read.

All writing has style. Especially as defined in the original post where 'writing style' includes all elements of one's writing such as character, plot structure, and conflict, as well as sentence length, diction, rhythm and other compositional matters.

 

[Ramirez]

No, I'm saying I... "don't give a damn about [my] style and what it's doing to progress the genres and writing in general."



Not expressing one's thoughts or feelings because others might find you foolish sounds like a crappy way to live one's life. I hope these weren't writing teachers. A good writing teacher ought to encourage you to make a fool out of yourself on the page as often as possible and then edit it to a glossy shine.



I wish I were Vonnegut. It must be nice to come up with a witty saying and have others repeat it as though it were a serious argument.

Yes, some writers use too many semicolons. Some use too many commas. Some don't use punctuation when they ought to. Some writers have writing mannerisms that Vonnegut didn't like and, as I'm sure we can all agree, this was a grave and serious offence at the time.

However, the man is now dead, so new writers need no longer fear upsetting his refined tastes with their supercilious punctuation.



All writing has style. Especially as defined in the original post where 'writing style' includes all elements of one's writing such as character, plot structure, and conflict, as well as sentence length, diction, rhythm and other compositional matters.

No it was my studio teacher who told us that, and I believe you interpreted the meaning of the phrase wrong. It isn't about expressing one's thoughts or feelings, it's about thinking before you speak. It's meant for people who would say "I really hate the Beatles!" and then five years down the road they realize they actually really love the Beatles.

And I hardly think fear is what makes Vonnegut's point valid. It's a good point to begin with and makes a lot of sense.