Writing style : What's the mystery?

# 2, at least, is utter nonsense. There are -- and have been -- any number of writers in English for whom English was a second language. Joseph Conrad, born Polish, comes to mind immediately. Author of Satanic Verses, Salman Rushdie, too. There are many others. Command of the language is what's important, not whether it's one's first, second or third language.

As to writing style -- I think that what your friend is talking about when she says "style" is really a matter of one's "voice." We each have unique ways of expressing ourselves and this uniqueness should be cultivated rather than suppressed. What your are saying in rebuttal is quite a different matter. Of course you're not going to use the same vocabulary in writing a story aimed at a largely young audience as you will for a, let's say, experienced audience. A story about a football match will need different words than a story about a complex science project. But that's not so much a matter of "style" as it is a matter of adapting the appropriate vocabulary. You don't speak to a child in the same tone that you use in speaking to a wise elder.

Yes, she was indeed talking about "sticking to your voice". Will you be able to differentiate between writing style and voice? I may then ponder over this once again.

And what is Sum ergo cogito?

Vladmir Nabokov is another great who comes to mind who was able to write in a language that was not his mother tongue...

I very much agree about "voice." I think Rushdie is a good example there -- he has written in a variety of genres (children, adults, fiction, essays) but he is always indubitably him.

The importance of style or voice varies according to what you are trying to write, too, I think. It's much more important in literature than in more informational types of writing. In fact, in some kind of writing, such as journalism, a distinctive voice is undesirable -- the information should be the thing.

For #3, I'd say, read authors you admire, write a whole lot, then read some more, then write some more, and on and on. If it's available, some sort of writing group could be good for feedback. (We are not always the best judges of our own writing -- I majored in English with an emphasis on creative writing and participated in plenty of writing workshops where the parts of my writing I had glided over were lauded, and the parts I labored over were sniffed at. Hmph.)

Cogito ergo sum is Latin. It is a saying by philospher Rene Descartes which translates "I think therefore I am". Perhaps whoever told you Sum ergo cogito meant "I am therefore I think", but I think the Latin syntax is wrong.

Being consistent to your voice may mean what "person" you write in. Are you writing from your own point of view, as a participant observer, or as a narrator? Your writing should stay with that view throughout (although rules are for breaking).

A great many works of literature were not written in English, and anyone who says otherwise is extremely short-sighted. The Bible wasn't in English. What about The Iliad, Don Quixote, The Three Musketeers, War and Peace, etc.

Yes, that was exactly what I had to confirm. I am a freelance journalist and I actually enjoy the process of trying out different styles to suit the target markets.


For my part, I think, I am consistent with what you refer to as voice.


Ok,When I adapt my writing style according to the market's guidelines, I am actually employing a different approach to express myself. If I go by MA's referral of voice, it would mean I am tampering with my voice. Gah, confusion again….

So, what actually is voice?

Are you guys wondering why in the world am I making an such an issue out of this?
Well, I guess, I am just cultivating my voice (its bad to suppress it, aint it?!)

Just that I am starting out and want to assure I don't commit the usual mistakes. I hail from a family of doctors and lawyers (My decision to quit medical school for writing has already agitated everyone around) and there's no one to mentor me.

#3. How can I improve my writing style.

By writing. Write letters. Post on A2K. Pen scholarly works. Explain the ways of the world slowly and clearly to teenagers.

Write.

Noddy..
I am myself a teenager. Well......I am still not eligible to do that, I guess.
I am learning from you and others here.

admitting to your youth is not a bad thing.....as long as you are seeking wisdom and knowledge, you are on the right track.

I am not an expert, nor am I claiming any PhD's to back up my opinions....

but......from what I have heard, read and learned about successful writers who endure the critics as well as the fans......a good writer who can endure the storms of success and failure is the one who finds their "voice" in their writing and has the ability to stick with that voice across all genres of writing. It took many short stories, novel attempts, and jumbled notes to find my unique voice in my writing. Now, it seems I cannot escape that powerful energy I find when writing anything.....from complex directed at the deep thinker....to the mind of a teen-ager (four of which I watched into adulthood.....who....think I am off my rocker)

dont let life chase you away from the "creative zone"

me agapi kai filia

Hey Spidey!

You were asking about writing style and remarked about a friend who is a big-shot writer advising you to find your style (which I think people have correctly identified as your "voice") and to stick with it. This framing of the question I believe to be a case of trying to reconcile opposing perspectives. Both "voice" and "audience analysis," to which you referred, are important. So are other things.

No communicator would reach as many people without analyzing the audience and speaking a lingo, offering facts and examples, anecdotes, etc., and structuring a message or interaction that is likely to make sense to the specific "receiver/s." We adapt our speaking "voices" all the time, unconsciously, to better communicate with our peers, our parents, our bosses, employees, etc. That works. As you pointed out, depending on who you intend to reach, you will adapt your style accordingly. If your friend does not "get" that, I suggest your friend is paying more attention to "expression."

Expression or "voice" appeals greatly to audiences and it also allows us to feel comfortable and to speak internally harmoniously. Yet, making a comparison to actors and their "voice," Ronald Regan's "voice" was pretty much the same--he acted like Renald Regan, no matter what movie he was in. So did Jimmy Stewart, I think. But look at actors such as Dustin Hoffman, who play diverse roles. Where is their "voice"? It may be there inside them as a sort of centeredness, but certainly not in a way of expressing themselves that remains the same no matter what they do.

Moreover, if we actually want to move a message, voice is not enough to reach a predictable majority or targeted segment or the myriad audiences and audience members we may have to address. Scientific reports can and probably should be written clearly but quite un-voicedly (if that were a term), since we would not want the manner of expression to detract from the message itself or the analysis.

I had a way with words and learned somewhere along the line to "express." Artists in the US and similar cultures tend to "express" and to not worry about who they are speaking to. This may sell and build an audience in fiction, but in communication, audience is nigh-everything. Thus, if you have a message to move or a story to tell, the writing or "expression" becomes less important than engaging the reader.

I think if you analyzed _The DaVinci Code_ you would find ways (possibly structural or topical) that the author engaged the reader. "Voice" is only one way. It took me a while to realize that voice is a relatively small but significant part of the message. Content in my book is a great deal more, as is structure or device.

I have sold my writing for years--for whatever that's worth. And people seem to like the way I use words. So I have "voice." If I set out to backrub an audience I have an advantage. Still, if I have a real message to move, I have to organize and give examples, and give information befitting the audience's level of understanding or interest--or experience--and all kinds of things that a way with words or a "voice" doesn't address.

Multiple factors. It's not either voice or not--OR--either voice or expression or audience. All work together.

Sal

Re: Writing style : What's the mystery?

Sally? is Sally Mander your pen name? I would be interested in knowing what all you have been successful at in publishing. Your writing style, use of language, and ability to express yourself is astounding! Your wisdom about writing and adjusting our personal abilities (obsessions) with writing seems well experienced as well. Even though I have had the obsession for most of my life, life has only recently given me the opportunity to indulge in the obsession. Time is not on my side, however. I have no time to "pay dues" as they say.

I would like to learn more about what you have accomplished if you have the inclination and time.

email: [email protected]

thank you
Herema

Herema, I responded to your yahoo address, so if you don't get the reply let me know.

For anyone else, basically I'm a former journalist and have taught writing (post-secondary and old/young people) for 15 years. I just write and write, often to get money. Not a big author--just a seeker/dreamer who writes as freely and probably as often as birdies chirp--but more thoughtfully and self-reflectively I guess.

Sal

Thanks Sal,

gotcher book....er...email. Loved it.

Now that you mention it, I wonder if birdies chirp with thoughtfulness or reflection on their feathers...hmmm. Now that is a mystery <--trying to stay on topic as much as possible.

Speaking of writing mystery, sometimes my own books are a great mystery to me while writing them. They are as if they have already been written and I must discover what they are all about and how the characters got to be who they are and where they are going. It seems much the same as a stone carver looking at a chunk of marble the size of a small car and invisioning the man or horse within. All that it needs is chipping away the part that does not belong.

cheerios

Another comment for Spidey
Spider, you were asking about ways to improve your writing style.

I suggest you find some books by Margaret Millar and analyze her prose.



The source, http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/mmillar.htm lists and summarizes her books.

<<<reading>>>

Don't assume that I am not around. Reading and swallowing every word said here. Literally. Special thanks to Herema and Sally.

What marks a great writer from a good one?



Sure, there must be something.




This question sprang up as I was going through one of the members' post on our writers' group. She was wailing over the modest payments the editors dish out in return for her quality work. Now, I had known this writer for quite some time now. I just held on, stared out into oblivion and thought, "Not all of them will make it. No, they never will." And then I felt myself engulfed deep into this thought. She is good with words, as is evident from her posts and samples, and she does work hard. Why, then, is she not able to move out of the mob, climb on to the higher rung of the ladder? Is it because she is not very perceptive, or may be, not imaginative and just lacks ideas? Or she is falls back in the area of knowledge? Or worse still, it is something innate and some people aren't just born with it - is it, actually?

I don't want to know the reason behind this particular writer's mediocre success. I have just used her case to give my curiosity an expression. A lot many of you are writers yourself, published and experienced. Perhaps, you've also chewed on this over the past. Well, then, so what do you think might be the case? Simply put, what marks a great writer from a good one?

P.S. Successful in included in my definition of great. (Who's heard of an unsuccessful but great author? May be, they do exist but I don't care about them.)

Hm. I think there are plenty of wealthy crap writers. Life isn't fair, m'dear. And the U.S. doesn't support artists as I'm told other countries do--not since the WPA writers project anyway (I think that was what it was called).

I'm not sure what your friend wrote, but if she wrote, for example, a nice full-page feature for a daily newspaper she probably got paid about $50-$70. That "sucks." But people who write scholarly books also get pennies per copy sold. Nobody much cares about the turn of phrase, beyond overall "clarity" and substance. If it's written well it would presumably sell more copies in a trade edition.

I don't know what else to say. If someone is good at what they do and their own satisfaction could be a reward (plus whatever money DOES come in), why bother with laments?

Sal

Spidergal, that is a good question and one I have pondered, too.

It seems that in today's world of everyone competing for the same turf you wish to stand on, that no matter how good your writing is written, your song is sung, or your paint is applied to the canvas, someone else can do it better, faster, and get results.

Money makes for a poor marker for success much the same as years makes a poor marker for living. In a conversation with my oldest son about what we would do if I ever became "successfully" published (inferring wealth and fame), I finally said, "you know something? It will probably never happen, but that is not why I write. I would write my books even if they never become great. I love writing, period."

So, to give a little twist in perspective to your question about what marks a great writer from a good one.......passion! Or....a good gimick that will get kids to nag mom to buy that book for them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this is an interesting topic

ciao

Financial success is hardly a hallmark of greatness. There have been any number of terrible writers who, in their time, made lots of money. Why? Because they were able to appeal to the lowest human denominator, to satisfy the public's demand for whatever was in style at the given moment. And their books are all but forgotten a year or two after their demise. And there have been writers who struggled to make ends meet all their lives and whose greatness and genius was recognized only after they had passed on. They were simply far ahead of the tastes of their time. Case in point: Herman Melville, author of Moby Dick, today recognized as one of the seminal American novelists, was all but unknown during his lifetime. When he died, most papers carried a two paragraph obituary which mentioned that he had written a novel about whaling.

The authors who were both successful and are still recognized as having made a genuine contribution to literature can be easily counted on the fingers of both hands and you'll probably have a couple of fingers left over. Mark Twain comes to mind. Hemingway. I think I can fairly safely predict that 50 years hence nobody will remember who James Michener was, let alone the likes of Dee Brown or Mario Puzzo.