My Style

[Nate Hunter]

I recently picked up Strunk & White's Elements of Style, the small book that can be of greater help in all professional writing than any other. This book shows it's value in that in spite of being decades old, none of it's content is any less valid today in the start of the twenty-first century than it was in the early half of the twentieth century. You may notice I have quoted this book since getting it, namely in response to Dreamer Girl.

And the thing that this book ultimately emphasizes, is that style is never improper but where it is properly improper. Namely, in a narrative, it is acceptable to report lines of dialogue, or internal monologue, exactly as they were said or thought, as you recall them, or in the fashion due the character speaking. I find that the ultimate rule Strunk laid down decades ago is one which allows me to easily classify the point at which a story, fanfiction or otherwise, moves from good towards bad, and to me that is Rule Seventeen:

OMIT NEEDLESS WORDS.

Vigorous writing in concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all sentences short, or avoid all detial and treat subjects only in outlines, but that every word tell.

This, to me, is the ultimate point of style. Certainly personal style may allow for a selection of unnecessary words, but this single rule emphasizes that vigorous, strong, compelling writing is direct, brief, and clear by using as few words as possible. And so, in a compelling piece of writing, be it fiction or non-fiction, prose or poetry, a journal or a letter, you should avoid the temptation to be overly flowery, fluffy, dark, or whatever other mood may strike into you the inspiration to overdescribe persons, places and things, whether concrete or abstract.

Even before reading this book, I was learning the importance of Rule Seventeen as I picked up the small hobby of writing drabbles. In order to be concise, and to tell as much as possible within exactly 100 words, I learned to look a my work and see where a word, or group of words, was unnecessary.

So here is where discussion comes into this thread. . .

What do you feel to be the most significant element of style in writing? This may be concerning fiction or nonfiction, sexual or nonsexual stories, and anything inbetween those extremes.

[Herr Mullen]

Narrative persona. The way the narrator is used can say so much about an author. Milne would point jokes at language from the perspective of a toddler, Pratchett discribes the greater picture of the univerce with science and storytelling theories, Rowling will report from a third person perspective within the head of her main character. Conan Doyle talked about what Watson could see, and filled in what he'd missed with dialogue from Holmes at a later stage. The very way in which you tell things to the reader is a defining point in style. In fact, it's what style is. Nate uses less words, whilst I actually like to use slightly more than nessesary to prevent people becoming entirely engrossed and falling into my world of words. The things I suggest in narrative are completely absurd, but none of it falls through to the characters I'm writing about, except on occasion, when I decide the lines between the univerce and the narrative need to blur.

The level of discription the narrator decides to go into can say so much about the story, or the character you're looking at the world from. Barry Hines (Kesteral for a Knave) invested a lot of time explaining the fields and woods in his story, and Billy's interaction with them, using colourful and bright metaphor, and simmile, but neglected to use any poetic devices when writing long and boring passages about the neighbourhood in which Billy lived, and didn't describe school at all. These aspects of his narrative persona reflected the interests and sentiments of Billy, giving the reader an empathy with the protagonist. His subtle use of heat duriing Billy's exploits can also stir feelings within the reader, as he always mentions the warmth when Billy's content, or safe, but focuses on the cold when he's in a negative state.

So, you see, I am a firm believer in the use of narration as a voice sounding from a character, or from the setting, or even from the author, as opposed to an impersonal report of actions and setting, where the characters are depended upon entirely for their input. ""I'm sad," said TK, at Patamon's revalation." That could be so much more interesting with a narrator with a personality:

"Takeru felt the pressing, dull knife of depression pierce his hopeful heart, slowly sliding into his mucles as the fact began to sink in: Patamon was definately in love with Demidevimon."

Give me a writer, and I will show you a poet.

[Wisemon]

Give me a writer, and I will show you a poet.

Some novelists are anti-poets. Jane Austen is a good example of this, and no offense to other British writers here , but she's part of the reason why so many British novels have been so poorly written for quite some time now. All of those frilly books are just horrible. At the same time, war books with nothing but descriptions of armor, vehicles, and landscapes are equally painful to read. Stories need to have depth in plots, themes, metaphors, symbols, allusions, and foreshadowing. A good story uses elements of poetry, including euphonic techniques, if need be.

There's a reason why poets were held in higher regard than novelists in the old days. It takes a lot more skill to write a poem than a novel. It's harder to choose the most important words.

I'm a poet first. All writers should aspire to be poets first, but the majority do not. The majority of poets nowadays aren't even poets, but that's a rant for another time.

[Herr Mullen]

Give me a writer, and I will show you a poet.

Some novelists are anti-poets. Jane Austen is a good example of this, and no offense to other British writers here ...

None taken: you should read Pratchett. I think you'd like Small Gods, or Guards! Guards!

[circeus]

None taken: you should read Pratchett. I think you'd like Small Gods, or Guards! Guards!

Pratchett is no writer.

Pratchett is God.

[Marine]

I believe setting is an important theme into any story, whether its mystery, war, romance, or other genre. Setting builds the foundation of where your story takes place, it makes the scenes more credible and reliable, it's literally the stage of your story. Sometimes this powerful element is overlooked, and often times neglected by the most stubborn writers.

Setting builds tone. It constructs the mood throughout the scene or the story overall. Take for instance 'The fall of the House of Usher'. It prevets a vivid mood that splays throughout the tale of that bleak November morning.


Another thing I find delightful is simplicity. A good example would be mysteries, horror, science-fiction, and fantasy. These genre's have distinct plots that are easy to keep track: The detective must solve the case; The hero unmasks the serial killer; defending worlds from unspeakable deviants; the hero slays a dragon. Sometimes the simple efforts in a story are appreciated.

War stories have imagery, metaphors, allusions, definitive foreshadowing, and symbolism--all genre's do--especially horror and mysteries. What I like about them that differs from a poet's story is the sheer simplicity of it.

Stories do need literary devices, but in moderation.

Writers should aspire to become writers, not poets. They need to learn simplicity-- the basic functions of writing, then when and if the time comes they want to develop better skills, move onto elements of poetry.

And the only reason some poets were considered higher than writers in 'the old days', it was the fact that writers got paid for every word they wrote (Mark Twain is a good example, and Tolstoy), which usually transcribed into lack luster books.

Stories with poetic depth drown the reader and are painfully hard to read without nodding off. Sometimes they're too busy to find the meaning behind the words than finishing the tacky ending.

[Nate Hunter]

I feel that part of being a writer should be that one is also a poet in some degree, whether they write about war, death, blood, gore, sex, love, hate, friendship, happiness, industrialism, science, non-fiction or anything else they may write. The balance beween author and poet needs to be in using poetic devices and artistic license only where necessary, which comes back to Mr. Strunk's Rule #17 -- Omit unnecessary words.

The absence of artistic words and expressions will make a story feel dull, technical, and mechanical. Though such writing can be proper within the context of an essay or technical manual, a narrative must engage the reader by being vigorous. This type of writing carries power in its brevity and sharpness, but does not deny the use of literary tools, be they poetic, artistic, emotional or otherwise. It merely denies their overuse.

Mullen, your example is a good point to make. In the english language there's no excuse to be so dull as your first version, nor so extrvagant as the second.

"This is sad," Takeru moaned as he felt the chill of depression, for he could no longer deny the truth: Patamon was in love with DemiDevimon."

Our words are clear and crisp delivering the message without being overly poetic. "dull knife of depression piercing his hopeful heart" can easily be reduce to a simpler tone of depression, or another contrast. The use of the negative in denial (he could no longer) makes an effective statement, and the use of absolute and concise words can increase the impact even while using less of them.

Do your additional 6 words (your passage is 32 words, while mine is 26) truly increase empathy for the reader, or simply attempt to use a device to try and increase it?

And now, on to you Wisemon. While it is true some novelist are anti-poetic, I do not agree with your thesis entirely. Poets were once held in higher regard for their ability to say more with less, but we no longer live in that day, and our young people are finding that they agree with the American belief that "more is better" and thus with the logcal conclusion from that: "less is worse."

As such we do not hold poets in esteem who do not spout of many words or long streams of incoherent thought, and these are the new poets. These are the "stream of consciousness" poets the two of us detest so much, because they do not embrace our minimalist attitude of "more with less", but the mainstream the "more is better", and so they let their thoughts or emotions ramble on the paper or through a voice recorder, or to anyone who will care to listen to them.

The same problem afflicts every author who is not poetic, and yet who attempt to use poetic and artistic devices within their stories. THey subconsciously accept that "more is better" and thus attempt to put as many words into their story as they can. This leads to the often long-winded prose we find in bad fanfiction, and which seems especially popular when describing a Mary Sue or a character on whom the author has a crush. We attempt to tell them that they are using too many words to express their thoughts, but they shoot us down with arguments such as "short is boring" or "you're just trying to be mean." The more intellectual among them may even attempt to call us elitists, trying to define what is good or bad writing, but we are simply looking at the long established rule while they ignore them.

When it comes to writing, more in less should be the ideal I feel we should all strive for, without abandoning poetic and artistic tools. But we need not be poets first, simply poets as well.

Marine, I disagree that poetic elements are secondary to narrative. All writing elements are, or should be, equal to the writer of narrative, be those elements poetic or otherwise. Even the essayist should have knowledge of poetic devices, as they can help to present his case when used appropriately and moderately. Poets are writers first and foremost, they are but a specialized type of writer, like the speech writer or essayist, who deal not with narrative or prose, but must still know the elements of being a writer overall.

[Herr Mullen]

Mullen, your example is a good point to make. In the english language there's no excuse to be so dull as your first version, nor so extrvagant as the second.

"This is sad," Takeru moaned as he felt the chill of depression, for he could no longer deny the truth: Patamon was in love with DemiDevimon."

Our words are clear and crisp delivering the message without being overly poetic. "dull knife of depression piercing his hopeful heart" can easily be reduce to a simpler tone of depression, or another contrast. The use of the negative in denial (he could no longer) makes an effective statement, and the use of absolute and concise words can increase the impact even while using less of them.

Do your additional 6 words (your passage is 32 words, while mine is 26) truly increase empathy for the reader, or simply attempt to use a device to try and increase it?

My point from that example is not that "mataphors are awesome!", but that the use of poetic devices can contribute to my ideas of narrative persona. I could use any number of devices instead of metaphor, but that's what I used in that example. I could use retoric:

""What?" gasped Takeru. How could this be? What had posessed Patamon to make sure a choice?"

Or, I could use a different perspective.

"I watched from aside my one and only, as my partner's face began to crack: first his eyes, then his mouth, and then his fist bawled, and the tears began to seap."

My personal favorate is to directly question the reader.

"Have you ever felt so betrayed, so angry with a friend, that it took a steelforce will to hold back your arm from pummeling them with all your might? That's what Takeru felt, as his clenched his hand and jaw, trying to quell his rolling tears."

So, indeed, it is possible to overexpress oneself into becoming obsolete, however the narrator's vocabulary, perspective, and devices are the things that make the impression on the reader: Nate Hunter uses the British spellings of words to create an atmosphere of class within his works. That's what I mean by a persona.

Have you ever been around someone so energetic, it's hard to to fall into their playful (and slightly embaressing) games? Or a guy who's so self absorbed, and quiet, who folds his arms, and looks down a lot, in whose comapany you can't help but feel a tiny bit fustrated?

The narrator is an individual. He will have the power to change your mood simply through his outlook on the situation.

Stories with poetic depth drown the reader and are painfully hard to read without nodding off. Sometimes they're too busy to find the meaning behind the words than finishing the tacky ending.

That sounds more like a reader's preference than an author's. I myself never read that way. I enjoy the book's plot and character, first, and if I read it a second time, I look closer at the text itself, searching for foreshadowing.

I myself am not a poet. I just write like one.

[Wisemon]

I do not agree with your thesis entirely. Poets were once held in higher regard for their ability to say more with less, but we no longer live in that day,

I don't see any point of disagreement here. I've been to enough poetry readings to know that the "craft" has mutated into an abomination.

So, indeed, it is possible to overexpress oneself into becoming obsolete, however the narrator's vocabulary, perspective, and devices are the things that make the impression on the reader: Nate Hunter uses the British spellings of words to create an atmosphere of class within his works.

And I use words like "hey," "yeah," "yep," "ain't," "gonna," "dude," and "fuckable" in my dialogue for an atmosphere of informality. I kind of need it to contrast with my overly formal narrator, and I love character hook words. I guess that's two more keys to my style: character catchphrases and a narrative voice that's distinct from the dialogue.

[Herr Mullen]

And I use words like "hey," "yeah," "yep," "ain't," "gonna," "dude," and "fuckable" in my dialogue for an atmosphere of informality.

Yeah, buddy.

I'm rather bad at that kind of thing, I've only just started doing it, and I can't write in American slang, so I have to use what I can write with. Thus, "Fob him off," and other such gems. I'm getting better, though.