# An â€˜old styleâ€™ writing voice.



## Incanus (Apr 5, 2016)

For me, one of the great attractions of fantasy is a writing style that leans toward an ‘older’ language feel.  Good earthy, medieval sensibilities mixed with a generous dose of the colorful and fantastic.  I think this can be done lightly–while aimed at a modern reading audience, it contains merely tinges and wisps of an older style.  What I’m NOT talking about here is using “thee, thou, thine,” or anything of that sort.

Roughly, I would guess that about one-third of genre readers would dislike the style to some degree, one-third would appreciate the style to some degree, and the remainder could take it or leave it.  Is that reasonable, or am I way off?

Here is a fairly typical sample of a descriptive passage, from a short story I wrote a couple of years ago, and edited last year:



> He turned all the way around.  A fort loomed just behind him–a rough motte-and-bailey castle, its earthworks piled high.  Columns of smoke rose up from various points within its circumference.  There was a lowered drawbridge of stout timbers only several dozen paces away, but the scorched and blackened hulks of the gatehouses on either side still burned.  Gouts of flame working on the remains cast a lurid light on the roof of smoke above.
> 
> Against the backdrop of the corpse-laden field, movement drew his attention.  Several figures in tattered cloaks moved about the corpses.  One stood and turned its head from side to side, evidently ensuring its safety.  It hastened a few steps and stooped again, hovering over another dead body.



There doesn’t seem to be anything overtly ‘old’ about it other than a few specific nouns, but neither is it modern sounding to my ear.

Does anyone have any thoughts about this type of style?  Or, am I even describing my own style accurately?


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 5, 2016)

Count me for one that loves the old voice style. A lot of what I read is heavy on exposition, dialogue only when it matters, and tons of time spent on description and setting. 

Gabriel Garcia Marquez 
Kurt Vonnegut 
Earnest Hemmingway 
Margaret Attwood 

Are my favourite authors and write nothing like the trade fantasy I see on the shelves now.

I like your style.


----------



## skip.knox (Apr 5, 2016)

It did not read old to me. Then again, I *am* old, so ....


----------



## FifthView (Apr 6, 2016)

It didn't read particularly "old" to me either, unless you mean to refer to prevailing styles.  What passes for fantasy fiction these days often takes a bare-minimum approach with exposition, a too-heavy focus on extremely tight POV, and sometimes uses a modern idiomatic approach to language.

I don't know.  I just took a quick look at today's Amazon fantasy best-sellers list, opened the preview for James Maxwell's _Golden Age_, which is in the #1 position, and found the usual current approach.  After three short paragraphs describing the arrival of a storm, we are quickly and firmly placed in "Chloe's" POV, and it is tight, lasting for the remainder of the preview.  It is almost as if absolutely none of the exterior world would exist if not for the existence of Chloe; pretty much every bit of exposition and description serve merely to give form to Chloe's personhood.  And the language is not particularly thrilling, but bare-minimum with a few odd, pseudo-old-timey words thrown in for good measure.

Don't get me wrong.  The prose in that preview of _Golden Age_ is clean enough, the opening of that story is mildly interesting enough to keep my attention for that short duration although I would never describe the language and situation as _thrilling_.  And I don't want to suggest that Maxwell's approach, which is a common approach these days, is invalid or especially pedestrian, etc.

I'm just trying to focus down on what might be your point.  If I look at the example you gave, I get a very real sense that the scene exists for its own sake–_there_ it _is_–and not merely as gateway into some character's experience/mind/etc., or some foil for characterization.  Is this what you mean?


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 6, 2016)

Wow, you're being generous to Golden Age from my first splat impression.

I only bothered with the first chapter, but smokes. The events are interesting enough, dramatic at least, but the writing is... weak. Technically correct, clean, but good grief. I wouldn't call the language bare minimum, it's peppered with a whole lot of unnecessary words with a shotgun pattern of hideous adverbs where the writer gets lazy or is in a hurry, taking up space that could have been used for better storytelling. 

I would break down the bigger issue being writing more so than simply being stuck tight into POV. The author could use some help, and their editor didn't do them any favors... or maybe they did and it was originally far worse. 



FifthView said:


> It didn't read particularly "old" to me either, unless you mean to refer to prevailing styles.  What passes for fantasy fiction these days often takes a bare-minimum approach with exposition, a too-heavy focus on extremely tight POV, and sometimes uses a modern idiomatic approach to language.
> 
> I don't know.  I just took a quick look at today's Amazon fantasy best-sellers list, opened the preview for James Maxwell's _Golden Age_, which is in the #1 position, and found the usual current approach.  After three short paragraphs describing the arrival of a storm, we are quickly and firmly placed in "Chloe's" POV, and it is tight, lasting for the remainder of the preview.  It is almost as if absolutely none of the exterior world would exist if not for the existence of Chloe; pretty much every bit of exposition and description serve merely to give form to Chloe's personhood.  And the language is not particularly thrilling, but bare-minimum with a few odd, pseudo-old-timey words thrown in for good measure.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mythopoet (Apr 6, 2016)

I am also one who likes a more "old fashioned" approach to prose, though not to the point of being too archaic. 

The style of George MacDonald and William Morris, for instance, are bordering on being annoyingly archaic. In Morris' case it sounds effected and in MacDonald's case it sometimes makes the story sound pretentious. (Obviously in MacDonald's day this wouldn't be the case, but in this day, it just doesn't work.) The style of Eddison (The Worm Ouroboros) works well to craft a unique atmosphere that matches the scope of his story, but is also archaic to the point where most readers would find it difficult to navigate. Even for me (and I love reading old classics) it made for much slower going than I am used to. Prose similar to these authors I would caution against as being _too_ old fashioned. You would lose too many readers. 

Authors whose "old fashioned" prose I really admire include Tolkien (a master of creating atmosphere through the tone of his prose), Lord Dunsany (a master of otherworldly, numinous prose), Lovecraft (a master of rich descriptions), and Jack Vance (a master of incorporating archaic language into readable prose and worldbuilding by simply employing certain word choices). All of these writers have a very distinct style and voice and it's delightful to read. Just the language in their works is enough to transport you to another world. 

Incanus, to be honest, I don't think your example is a good example. It strikes me as rather generic fantasy writing. 

Of course, it is exceedingly hard to actually write with a distinctive "old world" style of writing. It doesn't come naturally,  because it's just not the way people communicate. Almost all writers tend to automatically fall into "serious writer voice", a very generic approach to storytelling, because that is just the way everyone is taught to write from school days onward. You have to work hard to rid yourself of the influences of education and the real world and dive deep into the core of your being to carve out a distinctive voice for yourself. Most people can't do it. (I certainly have not been able to as yet.) But don't stop trying! The world of fantasy literature _desperately_ needs more of those kinds of voices.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 6, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Wow, you're being generous to Golden Age from my first splat impression.
> 
> I only bothered with the first chapter, but smokes. The events are interesting enough, dramatic at least, but the writing is... weak. Technically correct, clean, but good grief. I wouldn't call the language bare minimum, it's peppered with a whole lot of unnecessary words with a shotgun pattern of hideous adverbs where the writer gets lazy or is in a hurry, taking up space that could have been used for better storytelling.
> 
> I would break down the bigger issue being writing more so than simply being stuck tight into POV. The author could use some help, and their editor didn't do them any favors... or maybe they did and it was originally far worse.



Maybe I should have said "bare" rather than "bare minimum."

My focus was more on a certain approach that affects voice in a way that seems common these days, and that's one reason I focused on POV.  I do agree that writing distinguishes between an immersive tight POV and...well, what _Golden Age_ does.  Simply comparing it to GRRM's approach would show up important differences.

Trying to isolate various features in "voice" can be tricky, especially with indistinct labels like 'old style' writing voice.  I've never given the subject much thought, at least not for detail, until this thread and seeing Icanus' example, and then comparing it to a lot of what I see whenever I make the foolhardy decision to give some indie author/book a try on Amazon.

One feature I'd focus on concerns POV vs exposition.  So to Icanus, I might suggest at least one edit for the provided example:



> He turned all the way around. A fort loomed just behind him—a rough motte-and-bailey castle, its earthworks piled high. Columns of smoke rose up from various points within its circumference. There was a lowered drawbridge of stout timbers only several dozen paces away, but the scorched and blackened hulks of the gatehouses on either side still burned. Gouts of flame working on the remains cast a lurid light on the roof of smoke above.
> 
> Against the backdrop of the corpse-laden field, movement drew his attention. everal figures in tattered cloaks moved about the corpses. One stood and turned its head from side to side, evidently ensuring its safety. It hastened a few steps and stooped again, hovering over another dead body.




This, just to highlight a difference between the voice of the one and the voice of _Golden Age_ and similar tight POV approaches.

Once we've established the fact that a POV character is witnessing a scene/view, we don't need to constantly use _*callbacks*_ to the POV character.  I'm not even sure that's the correct term to use here, but I'm throwing it out there.  

In some tight POV approaches, we are constantly being told that "Character [saw, felt, thought, remembered...etc.]" in reference to any bit about the world described in exposition.  Whether the character is named or referenced via pronoun, or there is a possessive pronoun modifying another item ("Her father always spat curses when he saw such shoddy work."), nothing of the exterior world has much meaning except through the lens of that character.  As I wrote above, it's almost as if the exterior world does not exist and would not exist except for the fact that the character is in it.

So I'd use the analogy/metaphor of what has been said of love: 

_Love does not consist in gazing at each other, but in looking outward together in the same direction._ 

—Antoine de Saint-Exupery​
The type of exposition that doesn't require so much callback can leave me feeling as if I'm blending with the POV character; we are becoming one, looking out at the same world together.  I can immerse myself in that experience of seeing the world and experiencing it as that POV character.

But the type that constantly references the POV character splits my attention between the exterior world and that character and can even leave me feeling as if the exterior world isn't particularly significant, or doesn't exist, but for that character.  It is almost as if that character carries around a mirror and always has one eye on that mirror, viewing herself, while the other eye sees whatever else is in that world.  In fact, I wonder if this type of approach can break the tight POV experience by simply being too tight.

Now, there's nothing wrong with either approach, necessarily.  Each has its place and can accomplish wonderful things—if backed by great writing.  But I've wondered if this is at least in part what Icanus meant to reference by "old style" writing voice.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 6, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Wow, you're being generous to Golden Age from my first splat impression.
> 
> I only bothered with the first chapter, but smokes. The events are interesting enough, dramatic at least, but the writing is... weak. Technically correct, clean, but good grief. I wouldn't call the language bare minimum, it's peppered with a whole lot of unnecessary words with a shotgun pattern of hideous adverbs where the writer gets lazy or is in a hurry, taking up space that could have been used for better storytelling.
> 
> I would break down the bigger issue being writing more so than simply being stuck tight into POV. The author could use some help, and their editor didn't do them any favors... or maybe they did and it was originally far worse.


Right...because talking crap about a fellow author who's obviously worked hard to not only finish a novel (we all know how hard that is) and clearly doing something right with his audience by that novel being a best seller is a constructive way of learning. How about hey, maybe his story is really good? It's not all about prose. And that's where so many writers get stuck. They work on perfecting their prose when the most important thing is story and character (thus why the pov is tight, to allow readers to connect to character right away). Good grief.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 6, 2016)

Somebody else likes it that's great, he's got an audience and does well. Congrats. I am speaking of prose because that's all I can speak of, I'm not going to read the whole story... his writing would get in the way of my enjoying whatever he had to say, it already did in chapter 1 during what is meant to be a dramatic scene. If not for curiosity I wouldn't have made it to the end of chapter 1. If you want to think criticism is talking crap, that's fine. I could dance around not liking the writing style, but I chose straight forward and to the point of my opinion. I could have been more nuanced and offered up caveats like I've done here, but typically it's a waste of time. If the writer's prose works for their audience, that's dandy, should go without saying. The prose in this case will keep me from ever finding the story, which is no big deal because I am just one person anyhow.

Did you read the chapter? Did you love it? Or does it not matter because they worked hard and have found an audience and Amazon success?

Personally, I would say the first chapter at least, is a good learning example of how not to do many things, while at the same time it's an example of success (at least as far as Amazon sales go) despite it's flaws. 

I have no specific issue with tight to character, I think it works well, but the chapter 1 referenced demonstrates a perhaps effective, but overwrought, technique. I think he would have achieved more with less.

And adverbs are lazy, most often. And adverb -ly, adverb -ly? Ouch. YA fiction they are more forgivable, I suppose. And this book could easily have a YA TA, in which case it's fine. I will never read it, and the author will do just fine without me.



Chesterama said:


> Right...because talking crap about a fellow author who's obviously worked hard to not only finish a novel (we all know how hard that is) and clearly doing something right with his audience by that novel being a best seller is a constructive way of learning. How about hey, maybe his story is really good? It's not all about prose. And that's where so many writers get stuck. They work on perfecting their prose when the most important thing is story and character (thus why the pov is tight, to allow readers to connect to character right away). Good grief.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 6, 2016)

Part of the issue is defining "old style" I think, LOL. Pretty vague terms. I think people are all over the place with it.


----------



## Laurence (Apr 6, 2016)

Your passage doesn't read as old to me, just descriptive and void of slang. 

It's harder to portray in a descriptive passage though. I'd be interested to read what your example of old school dialect would be though!


----------



## Chessie (Apr 6, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Personally, I would say the first chapter at least, is a good learning example of how not to do many things, while at the same time it's an example of success (at least as far as Amazon sales go) despite it's flaws.
> 
> I have no specific issue with tight to character, I think it works well, but the chapter 1 referenced demonstrates a perhaps effective, but overwrought, technique. I think he would have achieved more with less.
> 
> And adverbs are lazy, most often. And adverb -ly, adverb -ly? Ouch. YA fiction they are more forgivable, I suppose. And this book could easily have a YA TA, in which case it's fine. I will never read it, and the author will do just fine without me.


Well, you would totally hate my writing then because I -ly like it's going out of style. And besides, who are you? The rules police? You have every right to like/dislike someone's writing style but my point is that it's not all about prose. Story trumps all of that. So judging a book by merely reading the first few paragraphs of the opening chapter makes your points invalid and uninformed. I'm not trying to be mean, but it really irritates me that I see this crap on these forums so much. Prose takes last place when it comes to telling a good story. Adverbs and every other kind of word in whatever language we're writing in are tools for storytellers to use. Prose without adverbs and other tools lacks flavor and individuality. Look, my second point is that being a best seller is not as easy as you seem to think it is. An author can't just slap a book on Amazon and watch the dough come in. It doesn't work like that. And maybe I'm getting hotheaded over this but I think it's super disrespectful to bash someone's hard work after a paragraph. It's simply not cool. I'm out of this thread.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 6, 2016)

Please, everyone, keep in mind that we all have developed our own styles & rule sets that are specific to us alone. 

It's fine to disagree, but remain civil & open-minded to other methods.

A quick gander through any bookstore in the world will tell you there's more than one way to skin this cat.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 6, 2016)

You may be correct that I wouldn't like your writing, but I won't stop reading because of -ly. There are (many) more reasons than that in the first chapter of this work, and even if I don't like your writing, that doesn't mean scads of people won't like your writing. I don't expect you or any other particular person to like my writing or say nice things if you don't mean them, say nasty things, I'll learn more from that. If it turns out I don't like your writing, that should not hurt your feelings, as I've said, I'm one person, and as you said, who am I? Story may trump all for you, but if the story isn't being conveyed in a manner I find effective, then prose defeats story. Story must be reinforced by prose for me. If you want to use -ly all over, that's your choice and many have been successful using -ly excessively, that won't keep me from commenting on the first chapter, not the first first paragraphs, thanks. Nor will -ly keep me from reading a book all by themselves.

The argument against -ly adverbs is a good one, not that you or anyone should get rid of all them, there is also a good argument for the selective use of adverbs. The key word there being selective. And of course, in dialogue, all bets and -ly trimming are out the window.

Easy to hit #1? I never even implied such a thing. 

Sad you've left the thread, it's an interesting debate if you leave emotion out.



Chesterama said:


> Well, you would totally hate my writing then because I -ly like it's going out of style. And besides, who are you? The rules police? You have every right to like/dislike someone's writing style but my point is that it's not all about prose. Story trumps all of that. So judging a book by merely reading the first few paragraphs of the opening chapter makes your points invalid and uninformed. I'm not trying to be mean, but it really irritates me that I see this crap on these forums so much. Prose takes last place when it comes to telling a good story. Adverbs and every other kind of word in whatever language we're writing in are tools for storytellers to use. Prose without adverbs and other tools lacks flavor and individuality. Look, my second point is that being a best seller is not as easy as you seem to think it is. An author can't just slap a book on Amazon and watch the dough come in. It doesn't work like that. And maybe I'm getting hotheaded over this but I think it's super disrespectful to bash someone's hard work after a paragraph. It's simply not cool. I'm out of this thread.


----------



## Incanus (Apr 6, 2016)

OK.  I’m thinking I probably shouldn’t have provided the sample as it sort of took the focus off of what I was addressing.  And it isn’t even a good example of what I was talking about anyway–it was all I could come up with in a few minutes of looking over my old story.  Yeah, it seems like it’s just missing some modern idioms and phrasing, rather than being explicitly ‘old’ sounding (however that might be defined).



FifthView said:


> It didn't read particularly "old" to me either, unless you mean to refer to prevailing styles.  What passes for fantasy fiction these days often takes a bare-minimum approach with exposition, a too-heavy focus on extremely tight POV, and sometimes uses a modern idiomatic approach to language.



This is largely what I was getting at.  When I look at a lot of the newer novels, the prose/voice/style sounds much more like the day-to-day language I hear from my co-workers and friends and whatnot.  Or in other words, it’s a bit mundane and modern sounding to me.  I suppose the style would fit with the urban fantasy sub-genre, but that’s not something I’m writing.



FifthView said:


> I'm just trying to focus down on what might be your point.  If I look at the example you gave, I get a very real sense that the scene exists for its own sake–_there_ it _is_–and not merely as gateway into some character's experience/mind/etc., or some foil for characterization.  Is this what you mean?



This observation about the passage makes me pretty happy.  I deliberately, consciously set out to achieve this effect pretty much all the time, and I’m glad to see that someone noticed it.  Though it wasn’t the main point, if newer writing doesn’t do this very often, then that would be one more reason why my writing might sound a tad ‘old’ (or at least not new).

I’m a great fan of every author Mythopoet brings up.  Being able to write like any one of them is the stuff of dreams.  It’s unlikely I’ll ever get that good, but I can still try to lean in that direction.

My goal is to try to create a feel like those authors just mentioned (as well as other favorites), but using more modern POV, pacing, and all around sensibilities.


----------



## Velka (Apr 6, 2016)

I personally adore 'old style' prose. I'm a sucker for purple prose and rolling descriptions though. I find that quite a bit of modern literature is written in a very immediate style. Perhaps  it's a symptom of 21rst century life: 140 character max and encapsulate your life into a status update or tl;dr.

Take for instance this charming passage from Pride and Prejudice (yes, yes, I know it's not fantasy, but it's beautiful):



> They gradually ascended for half a mile, and then found themselves at the top of a considerable eminence, where the wood ceased, and the eye was instantly caught by Pemberley House, situated on the opposite side of a valley, into which the road with some abruptness wound. It was a large, handsome, stone building, standing well on rising ground, and backed by a ridge of high woody hills;–and in front, a stream of some natural importance was swelled into greater, but without any artificial appearance. Its banks were neither formal, nor falsely adorned. Elizabeth was delighted. She had never seen a place where nature had done more, or where natural beauty had been so little counteracted by an awkward taste. They were all of them warm in her admiration; and at that moment she felt that to be mistress of Pemberley might be something!



So many words, it's almost poetic in it's description. It does so much more than create setting though, it effortlessly creates a metaphor for Darcy's character.

Proust's Swann's Way is another wonderful example of 'old style' prose. I especially like this bit:



> Dr. Cottard was never quite certain of the tone in which he ought to reply to any observation, or whether the speaker was jesting or in earnest. And so in any event he would embellish all his facial expressions with the offer of a conditional, a provisional smile whose expectant subtlety would exonerate him from the charge of being a simpleton, if the remark addressed to him should turn out to have been facetious. But as he must also be prepared to face the alternative, he never dared to allow this smile a definite expression on his features, and you would see there a perpetually flickering uncertainty, in which you might decipher the question that he never dared to ask: “Do you really mean that?” He was no more confident of the manner in which he ought to conduct himself in the street, or indeed in life generally, than he was in a drawing-room; and he might be seen greeting passers-by, carriages, and anything that occurred with a malicious smile which absolved his subsequent behaviour of all impropriety, since it proved, if it should turn out unsuited to the occasion, that he was well aware of that, and that if he had assumed a smile, the jest was a secret of his own.



It takes more work to enjoy and really understand the nuances of this style (I wouldn't recommend Proust as a beach-read), but I personally enjoy it when a writer expects the reader to put some effort into their work.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 7, 2016)

My first comment on this subject got eaten by the internet, so I can't find it, but I basically said I like the style and I write in a similar style, and I think that's just splendid.

Here's my next comment:

Oh man, me too. I really like those two examples, Velka. The thing is this, though: For me, I like the underlying message of both those pieces (and truly, you enlightened me that the first was about Darcy, because I wouldn't have guessed that, not having read the book (which is funny, because I have an almost identical situation in one of my books). Perhaps it was more apparent in the novel because of what led up to it? Anyways, very interesting). The underlying message, or the "read between the lines" is what I read for, and what I write for. And honestly, when your dialogue is clipped and your descriptions brief, it's really hard to set a lot of that up. In fact, the tendency to move away from a narrator voice and solely rely on a character and her immediate observations is one reason why I don't like many manuscripts I read. 

So often writers want to do: 





> "Elizabeth's eyes scanned the rolling countryside. (blech!) Hills of green, separated by a road with meandering curves (doesn't say much, does it?). And Pembley House stood the focal point, despite the beauty in its natural backdrop including wooded hills upon a high ridge, and a stream that completed the picture (could you be more noncommittal?). It was natural and beautiful. Left alone. The house had sturdy stone walls and a slate roof. (static descriptions) A formidable structure, but handsome. (not feeling the character, just taking notes on what she sees? Or is the scene causing her some sort of feelings that we could guess based on the words selected to convey the setting? HA!) And it occurred to Elizabeth, as she took in the view, that being lady here might mean more than she ever thought possible". (I added that last one in for a real kick in the teeth, because I read it all the time and it really doesn't mean anything).



Given a choice between the two...I think you know where I'd lean. Expression, vision, emotion, subtlety. I make my readers work for it a little, too, and there's nothing wrong with it. But it won't be for all people, I suppose.


----------



## Incanus (Apr 7, 2016)

Velka said:


> I personally adore 'old style' prose. I'm a sucker for purple prose and rolling descriptions though. I find that quite a bit of modern literature is written in a very immediate style. Perhaps  it's a symptom of 21rst century life: 140 character max and encapsulate your life into a status update or tl;dr.



It sounds to me that our taste in prose style is more similar than not.  I have nothing to add or subtract from this quote.  I think I tend to write more on the 'immediacy' side, but mostly because it's easier to pull off, and I'm just not that awesome (yet!).

I think it's impressive that you're tackling Proust.  It's something I'd like to get to some day.  Have you made it further than Swann's Way?


----------



## Velka (Apr 7, 2016)

@Caged Maiden

You really should give Austen a go if you haven't read any of her work, especially Pride and Prejudice. Her work masterfully operates at two levels. You can read it for what it appears to be, and enjoy a fun novel about romance, society, manners, etc., but you can also look deeper into it all and find a trove of subtle insight and commentary about romance, society, manners, etc.

@Incanus

I'm a third of the way through Volume Two: In the Shadow of Young Girls in Flower. 

I tried to read Swann's Way years ago and barely got past the first 50 pages which was basically about the narrator trying to sleep. YAWN. Or so I thought!

Now though it's like I'm reading an entirely different book. The language is rolling and rich; it's like viewing a masterpiece painting created with words. There's so much more going on under the intimidating surface: nuances of insight, description, irony, memory, creating art, and philosophy. You have to work hard for it though, and now that I'm getting into volume two I'm seeing that so much of Swann's Way, in which (on the surface) it appears that nothing really happens, really has an underlying current that is so subtle, yet intentional.

It's post-modernist in it's own way, with tangential memories and a timeline that is in flux, but at the same time the language and style is classical. 

For me, character is king, and Proust has such an amazing way of presenting the emotions, motivations, biases, and inner lives of characters. Really, it's astounding. His ability to put those intangible qualities into words through action and dialogue has lead to pages of notes in my "I should be doing this in my writing" notebook.

It can be a hard slog, and there's times where I'm getting tired of digging through his prose, but then I come across a line, or paragraph, or scene that is so beautifully crafted that it keeps me going.

It's definitely not for everyone, but I recommend giving it a try. It's free on Project Gutenberg!


----------



## FifthView (Apr 8, 2016)

Incanus said:


> This is largely what I was getting at.  When I look at a lot of the newer novels, the prose/voice/style sounds much more like the day-to-day language I hear from my co-workers and friends and whatnot.  Or in other words, it’s a bit mundane and modern sounding to me.  I suppose the style would fit with the urban fantasy sub-genre, but that’s not something I’m writing.




A fort loomed
Gouts of flame 
a lurid light
the roof of smoke
corpse-laden

These are things I'd probably never hear in my day-to-day life.  People simply don't describe things in this way.  I'm not certain that this could be described as "old style;" it might be better described as "literary style" vs the everyday, mundane style.

A good experiment would be to rewrite the passage in the way someone from our everyday lives might describe things.

He turned all the way around. A fort was behind him, a castle with dirt piled around it.  Smoke was coming from inside the castle.  There was an open drawbridge and fire burned in the two towers beside it. Flames lit up the sky.​
I don't know; that's just a very quick mock-up, and perhaps different people would notice different things, elide different things.  Maybe one person would just say, "There was a burning fort behind him" and leave it there.



> This observation about the passage makes me pretty happy.  I deliberately, consciously set out to achieve this effect pretty much all the time, and I’m glad to see that someone noticed it.  Though it wasn’t the main point, if newer writing doesn’t do this very often, then that would be one more reason why my writing might sound a tad ‘old’ (or at least not new).



I do very much like your approach, so I'd say soldier on.  I particularly like the fact that there is so much motion, actual or implied, in the scene you drew.  I think this adds to the feeling that this is a scene that exists for its own sake.  It is "alive."  It would be there even if the POV character never was.

Caged Maiden also said something that caught my attention, relating to all of the above. 



Caged Maiden said:


> And honestly, when your dialogue is clipped and your descriptions brief, it's really hard to set a lot of that up. In fact, the tendency to move away from a narrator voice and solely rely on a character and her immediate observations is one reason why I don't like many manuscripts I read.



I would hazard a guess and say that although you, Icanus, may write in a literary style, much of your everyday communication doesn't follow the same path.  Not just you, but me, and everyone. (But maybe you do speak in a literary style, which would be very cool to experience first-hand!)

So this tight character voice + immediate observations that is prevalent in a lot of current manuscripts may approach the "authentic" everyday style of communication.

But I would suggest that such communication is not the only way to develop a tight POV.  In fact...Even if I might not use the word "lurid" or "gouts" in my everyday speech, I might still _experience_ the image in those ways.  The flame's effect on the smoke above might indeed be lurid–I might feel precisely that–even if I would not think that word at the time or even use that word to explain my experience afterward. An author who wants to deliver an authentic experience for a third-party (the reader), might use sleight-of-hand, then, in his exposition, in order to deliver what the character herself never could.


----------



## TAGallant (Apr 8, 2016)

I grew up on the King James Bible (which of course doesn't date back to 1611, but to its last revisions in the early 1800s, but even then I'm sure not all the more archaic forms were revised out). While I too avoid "thee" and "thou" and such like, my experience helps some of the "old world flavor" come quite naturally to me, when I want it to. Some subtle shifts can go a long way (like swapping out "will" in favor of "shall," for instance.) I think the important thing is to be aware of details and not bludgeon the reader with it.

Caveat: I'm probably still finding my voice a bit, since I've really only written one book in this general style.


----------



## Incanus (Apr 8, 2016)

Mr. Fifthview, you are speaking my language here, all the way.  What an excellent post.  Thank you for your thoughts and observations on this.  I'd say you're 'on to me'.

I think you successfully translated the passage into everyday language.  Or, in other words, it now reads flat, generic, and static.  Writing in that manner, I could probably increase my output tenfold.  But I don't care to write like that, nor would I be very excited to read it.

And no, I certainly don't speak like that in my day-to-day conversations, though I might sneak in the occasional ten cent word.  It takes me a long time to write things out in my more 'literary' voice, so there's no way I could just 'wing' something like it.  Indeed, I don't even write forum posts or emails like I write fiction.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 8, 2016)

Hmm, I do on occasion speak that way, probably why I get funny looks. Then again, I also find myself editing out "that" in my everyday speech where it's just filler, heh heh. What's really bad is when I start talking like a character, writing a western screenplay once I found myself speaking differently on numerous occasions, throw in a little drawl, say yes sir, yes ma'am, or better, yes'm,  more than normal... not to mention telling someone they had a wax cat's chance in hell with a particular girl. heh heh.



Incanus said:


> Mr. Fifthview, you are speaking my language here, all the way.  What an excellent post.  Thank you for your thoughts and observations on this.  I'd say you're 'on to me'.
> 
> I think you successfully translated the passage into everyday language.  Or, in other words, it now reads flat, generic, and static.  Writing in that manner, I could probably increase my output tenfold.  But I don't care to write like that, nor would I be very excited to read it.
> 
> And no, I certainly don't speak like that in my day-to-day conversations, though I might sneak in the occasional ten cent word.  It takes me a long time to write things out in my more 'literary' voice, so there's no way I could just 'wing' something like it.  Indeed, I don't even write forum posts or emails like I write fiction.


----------



## Reilith (Apr 10, 2016)

Reading the original post with the example paragraph, I'd say it sounds wonderful. I like that style of writing, as long as it doesn't get too complicated that you need an Oxford dictionary or the likes. I prefer it, although it might come hard for me at times, as I am already tackling writing in English as my second language. But I do prefer the style rather than the modern feel some books give off. Modern can also sound good, if it's written well, but often it takes away from the feel of the book.


----------



## Chwedleuwre (Apr 10, 2016)

Today "old style" seems to mean correct grammar and word usage. But don't get me started on the poor quality of writing going on now. Sigh 

 In my writing of dialogue with settings in the medieval, fictitious Celtic world, I avoid contractions and try not to use modern terms. For example, a Celtic man of that time period wouldn't go to the restroom. He would visit the garderobe or take a short walk into the woods.... That sort of thing. But I do take liberties at times in order to make my story clear and readable.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 10, 2016)

This morning, I was thumbing through Sanderson's first Mistborn book and stumbled across a line that used "save" in the sense of "except for," and I thought...Hmmm, I'd never use that in my everyday speech*—but unfortunately, I don't automatically think of using it in my writing either!

I can't find that example now, but I have The Way of Kings on my Kindle, so I can do a search:

_She considered this as she idly walked up to a pillar, using her freehand to feel the polished stone. Like much of Roshar—save for certain coastal regions—Kharbranth was built on raw, unbroken stone._

_The hallway hushed, save for a child's sniffles._

_...the Calling of a farmer was a noble one, one of the highest save for the Calling of a soldier._

There are many more examples from the book.

*Edit: Upon further introspection, I suppose I do occasionally use the full phrase "save for the fact that..." Although I do wonder if this is merely a matter of dialect.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 10, 2016)

I think I use "save, save for" every now and again, but for whatever reason, under rare circumstance. I will say things like "save for his sister" but in most cases where I could use it I don't... I don't seem to use it outside of references to people or entities, rather than things... I would say "Tommy took all his toys to the beach except for his scoop." while I'd be more apt to say "Tommy's dad brought the entire family on vacation, save for sister Jenny, who studied for semester finals." The latter probably isn't one I'd say, maybe 25/75 but far more likely than with inanimate objects.

No idea why.



FifthView said:


> This morning, I was thumbing through Sanderson's first Mistborn book and stumbled across a line that used "save" in the sense of "except for," and I thought...Hmmm, I'd never use that in my everyday speech*–but unfortunately, I don't automatically think of using it in my writing either!
> 
> I can't find that example now, but I have The Way of Kings on my Kindle, so I can do a search:
> 
> ...


----------



## Gryphos (Apr 10, 2016)

Personally, I ain't a huge fan of old-style prose or an older language feel. But I feel as though it's a mistake to equate modern prose to boring prose. As much as I don't like the formal nature of old-style prose, I also dislike the blandness of the 'serious writer voice'.

I would consider my writing very modern. I don't go out of my way to make my dialogue old-fashioned (though I obviously avoid outright anachronistic phrases) and neither do I my prose. I actually quite like the idea of a story reading like it's being told to you in everyday language, but again, I would stress that this doesn't necessarily have to mean boring language. In fact, it can mean using incredibly colourful language and phrases you'd never get away with by restricting yourself to old-style formality.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 10, 2016)

Well, old-style certainly doesn't necessarily mean formal, either.  "Save" is old, but most modern readers will understand it... ok, that might be giving modern education a pass, but anyhow... where I think you get into more issue is with going heavy old-style. If you use the word brimstone, which I do, plenty of people know what that is, but some won't, but it's a good flavor word. On the other hand, if you use caducity and a pile of words like that, which an awful lot of people are going to be looking up (unless you put it into context, which is a good tactic) you will irritate some folks.

Your caducity will end your empire, old man, when your mind is gone I will compass your generals and marry your daughters to cottiers, to learn them some manners. -- could be a tad overboard, but could be worse too, LOL.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 10, 2016)

For some reason when I read "compass your generals" my mind read "compass your genitals." 

Too much rum? Or just brain overload.

Ps, for my pirate story I'm writing I found a 17th century insult dictionary, so my pirates talk to each other like this all the time.


----------



## Incanus (Apr 10, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Too much rum? Or just brain overload.



Oh, so _that's_ why the rum's always gone--


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 10, 2016)

I was trying to find a way to work that in there! I'm glad you did it for me  

Yeah, I love a glass in the evening.... Especially before sitting down to work on a pirate story. Just feels like I'm method acting.

Though tonight I'm taking a little break to do a magical realism short about Michealangelo and the Pope... So I guess it should be Chianti...


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 10, 2016)

Oooh, awesome book! Not to be a gobermouch, but what's it called? heh heh.



Heliotrope said:


> For some reason when I read "compass your generals" my mind read "compass your genitals."
> 
> Too much rum? Or just brain overload.
> 
> Ps, for my pirate story I'm writing I found a 17th century insult dictionary, so my pirates talk to each other like this all the time.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 11, 2016)

Incanus said:


> I think you successfully translated the passage into everyday language.  Or, in other words, it now reads flat, generic, and static.  Writing in that manner, I could probably increase my output tenfold.  But I don't care to write like that, nor would I be very excited to read it.


Incanus, I don't want to be rude and accusatory because I respect the individuality of everyone on these forums to create/write as they wish. However, the subtext here indicates that those writers who have massive output don't take pride or care in crafting their sentences, or that flat, generic language means it was written fast. It could've been written slow by an inexperienced writer and honestly, "good" prose is so subjective. 

It pains me to say this, but the majority of Americans read at an 8th grade level. This is statistical fact in case that you don't believe me. Also, like half of Americans read one book a year. I think it's wonderful that you take pride in how you craft your prose, but that comes secondary to story. Throwing in a word that readers need to look up in a dictionary every now and then is important because it helps educate people, but you must remember that people read mostly for enjoyment.

I don't like reading flat, generic prose either. I also don't like reading uppity prose where writers try to sound smart and flowery and then leave out the story. But I'll gobble up stories that are well written and not so well written either. What I'd like for you to consider is that there are many writers out there who have different outputs. Some write only a few hundred words per week while others entire novels. It doesn't mean that the novels written fast have crappy prose. It more than likely means the writer is experienced enough to be aware of not only their voice, but also the proper words to use in conveying their story to readers. 

Just because someone writes fast doesn't mean it isn't work the same way it is for you. On average, I write fast. It's also taken me over a year of training myself through discipline and word sprints to have massive outputs when I'm healthy (right now I'm not so things are a bit different). But I still think through what I'm about to write. I'm still methodical in the way I place words and dialogue and character actions. I'm still immersed in creativity. I'd like for you to think about that. Just because someone's prose is different than yours doesn't mean it wasn't intentionally written that way for whatever reason. Maybe it's the author's creative voice. Maybe it's the story needing to be written that way. Who knows. But passing such judgments on others will hinder your learning in a field where learning from one another is imperative.


----------



## Incanus (Apr 11, 2016)

Hi Chesterama.

I largely agree with you here.  Sometimes, in being an advocate for the things I love and think about, I create an unintentional ‘subtext’.  Or at least one that is not on the mark.  In the comment you quoted, I was speaking specifically about the ‘translation’ that Fifthview carried out on my sample passage.  I didn’t mean for the sentiment to be applied to all modern writing, or to any particular kind of writing.

Absolutely I believe that a wide variety of writings should be available to any and all readers.  I can’t promise to love it all, but I will advocate for its existence, simply because I believe most tastes should be catered to, whatever I may personally think.

Also, I don’t equate speed with quality.  For instance, my best writing friend is both faster and better than me, hands down.  Though I have my strengths, I look up to her and appreciate that she gives me her time and lends me her ear.

I am fully aware that some who see my writing will come away with the impression that I’m employing ‘uppity prose’ in an effort to ‘sound smart and flowery’.  I have little control over this impression–it is simply who I am and how I write, take it or leave it.  (And getting back to ‘subtext’ for a moment, do you believe that all ‘smart and flowery’ prose automatically ‘leaves out story’?  In general, it has been my intention to make the words serve the tale, and not the other way around.)

Anyway, I think what I admire above all is what I might call ‘polished prose’.  Whether flowery, over-clever, or more stripped-down, I think it is craft and evidence of hard work I respond to more than anything else, prose-wise.  But again, that’s just me.

So, does that clarify my position, or only make it worse?

(Postscript–at the risk of undermining what I have said in this post, I’d like to share a passage from a book I happen to have with me:  Clark Ashton Smith, a critical guide to the man and his work.  “_Smith was aware of the peculiarities of his style, but held that it was better in literature ‘to err on the side of over-flamboyance or exuberance than to prune everything down to a drab, dead, and flat level.  The former vice is at least on the side of growth; the latter represses or even tends to extirpate all growth.’  And the use of arcane vocabulary, he believed, produced ‘effects of language and rhythm which couldnot possibly be achieved by vocabulary restricted to what is known as basic English.’ _”)


----------



## FifthView (Apr 11, 2016)

FifthView said:


> He turned all the way around. A fort was behind him, a castle with dirt piled around it.  Smoke was coming from inside the castle.  There was an open drawbridge and fire burned in the two towers beside it. Flames lit up the sky.​



I'd just point out that the "translation" I gave was meant as an experiment in creating the type of description of a scene someone in my everyday life might give—_not_ as an example of a paragraph we might find in books currently being published.

I think it's debatable whether that paragraph would be fit for any book on its way to publication.  Too much "was."  Two uses of "around" very close together.  Two uses of "it" close together, with different antecedents.  "Flames lit up the sky" is a hackneyed phrase, far overused.

To wit: Even writing that uses the sort of modern, everyday language can be written poorly or written well, and writing well in that style requires more effort than merely slapping words down on a page.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 11, 2016)

_it now reads flat, generic, and static. Writing in that manner, I could probably increase my output tenfold_
Hey Incanus, I will do my best to explain my pov but forgive me if something isn't clear, as I'm on a heavy dose of narcotics because of a surgery lol so here goes. Writing generic or base prose (whatever that means) is an indication that the person writing it is lazy or having an easy go at writing their book. Another is that when writers work fast, they're not carefully crafting their words because it would take them longer to finish their story if they wrote with more intention. You're entitled to your opinion and hey, I could be totally mistaken also about what you mean. However, when you posted your excerpt and mentioned how, if that part had been written in a simpler way you would be able to write faster, and then also posted the quote above to back up your point, basically tells me that writing quality prose is important to you. Well, it's important to all of us. And some of us choose to write simpler prose to reach larger audiences. 

And yes, I'll totally read flowery prose if the story is good. I love Victor Hugo, Margaret Mitchell, Edgar Allen Poe. And Nathaniel Hawthorne who wrote The Scarlett Letter has probably been the heaviest prose book that I've read in my life. Loved it. Purple prose isn't my favorite because it's personal preference, but I wouldn't say that it's better writing than let's say...Agatha Christie who writes more basic prose. That's all I'm saying lol because the drugs have caught up to me. <3


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 11, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> It pains me to say this, but the majority of Americans read at an 8th grade level. This is statistical fact in case that you don't believe me. Also, like half of Americans read one book a year. I think it's wonderful that you take pride in how you craft your prose, but that comes secondary to story. Throwing in a word that readers need to look up in a dictionary every now and then is important because it helps educate people, but you must remember that people read mostly for enjoyment.



Danger Will Robinson, Danger!

Statistical and fact are two dangerous words to put together.

One: never underestimate your reader... even if we assume statistics put out by advocacy groups can be trusted (never trust anything just because: Science!) let's consider the fact they claim 14% don't have reading skills enough to function... eliminate them from your target pool. How does that skew your audience? You can probably eliminate a whole pile of people above that reading level also, they aren't bothering to read novels for the most part. So again, skew the reading level of your target audience level up again. But fiction simply isn't conducive to high grade level testing, and low grade level testing in fiction writing does not mean easy to understand. Fallacy.

And you really need to define story for how you are using it, particularly when speaking in such definitive terms as "story trumps all" and prose is "secondary to story." Story can not be the end all, because if the writing is bad enough 99.99% of the time no will ever read the story... we keep the .01% exception for freakish works like 50 Shades... mind numbing. In fact, one can easily take the position that every story has been told, at a fundamental level, so what differentiates your version of the story? Your writing, especially considering all the words have been used too. It's you, the writer, not the story, not the words, you are the be all end all of whether your work flourishes. No pressure.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 12, 2016)

Des, we disagree on virtually everything you just said but it's cool. I don't need to define story given that it's pretty obvious what that means. Also, I don't write novels thinking that my readers are low on the intelligence pole or anything. I mentioned that point because most readers read for enjoyment regardless of the level of prose. Heck, there's a writer in one group I belong to who is an Amazon best seller in sci fi and he only started writing this year. His prose (even he admits) needs massive maturing. He doesn't use an editor. But he's a good storyteller. That's one of the point I'm making. Sorry that I can't continue this conversation right now like I'm seriously on some strong stuff so give me a week and I'll get back to you on this. 

Wait, we agree on your last sentence. Absolutely. ANd lol I read the first 3 chapters of 50 Shades and found her writing to be clear and just fine. But I'm not into erotica so...out that book went.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 12, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> And you really need to define story for how you are using it, particularly when speaking in such definitive terms as "story trumps all" and prose is "secondary to story." Story can not be the end all, because if the writing is bad enough 99.99% of the time no will ever read the story... we keep the .01% exception for freakish works like 50 Shades... mind numbing. In fact, one can easily take the position that every story has been told, at a fundamental level, so what differentiates your version of the story? Your writing, especially considering all the words have been used too. It's you, the writer, not the story, not the words, you are the be all end all of whether your work flourishes. No pressure.



I largely agree with this.

How can the story exist without the prose?  The story is _in_ the prose; or, the prose _becomes_ the story.

I think there might be some confusion about what constitutes adequate or interesting prose.  Where one person will prefer a more densely packed descriptive style, with literary flourishes, another person might actually prefer an easier read, less density.  In either case, enjoyment of the story can be enhanced or can suffer–depending upon the matchmaking.

Earlier in the thread, I mentioned a novel that was appearing in a #1 position on Amazon, as an example of what appears to be a very common approach to writing nowadays.  Although I didn't find anything in the preview to be thrilling, I was hesitant to make a strongly negative criticism of the book, because a) I was addressing a general style of writing, or voice, and b) I don't think that a blanket statement can be made about that style/voice.

Although I prefer something more like Icanus' example, I sometimes enjoy an easier read, or at least a read that is less dense.  This is particularly true when reading something like light comedy–or even laugh out loud, gut-bursting, OTT farce or satire.

The thought I've been having since this issue was raised is this:  That less dense, more modern, straightforward style does not strike me as being universally bad, even for my own tastes, but the spare nature of it tends to cause other factors to weigh more heavily upon the enjoyment factor or immersion factor for me.

For instance, whether the tight POV MC is male or female can make a strong difference.  Whether the MC is gay or straight, a young wizard's apprentice, a young noblewoman facing the prospects of an unwanted arranged marriage, a grizzled veteran of war or an aging street thief having difficulty performing his tasks–these can make a big difference for me.  Also, a bizarre magical system or ecology, etc., can grip my attention, even if the prose is comparatively basic.

These factors play a role in my enjoyment of the more descriptive literary approaches, also.  But I think that they take on greater importance when the prose itself isn't particularly compelling.  So it's hit or miss for me sometimes whenever I download some indie book on a lark–usually a miss.  But perhaps someone else will find the MC particularly compelling, and maybe that will be enough for them.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 12, 2016)

Ok, clearly I believe that prose is important otherwise I wouldn't be on this writing forum, write daily to try and improve, read on a regular basis, and learn all I can about the craft from numerous writers, etc. I don't believe it's fair to insinuate that I don't think prose is important from the perspective I'm offering.

Story= pacing, character relationships and development, clarity of story delivered by prose that makes sense to the reader and gives him/her an idea in their head of what they're reading, strong openings, strong endings, twists to keep them turning the page, plot that is tied to the characters and their desires, plot that is deep and thematic, etc. All of these things are more important than taking out or reducing the adverbs, exclamation marks, or whatever. There doesn't need to be a literary approach to prose in order to make the story part good. That's my point and we can disagree on that which is totally cool, too.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 12, 2016)

See, I would just include the prose in with the "story". I see the story as the whole, or as plot only, depending on context. And of course adverbs and !'s aren't going to make or break a story seen in its whole, that's silly. Adverb use is also worse in different situations than others. My biggest problem with adverbs is more often than not they are one of four things: Pointless, redundant, weakener, and/or they were spots the author could have just done better. I was a long time adverb defender... then at some point I realized what I could be doing instead. 

From samples of your writing I've seen you aren't as adverb crazy as you paint yourself, LOL. Small sample, so that could be off.



Chesterama said:


> Ok, clearly I believe that prose is important otherwise I wouldn't be on this writing forum, write daily to try and improve, read on a regular basis, and learn all I can about the craft from numerous writers, etc. I don't believe it's fair to insinuate that I don't think prose is important from the perspective I'm offering.
> 
> Story= pacing, character relationships and development, clarity of story delivered by prose that makes sense to the reader and gives him/her an idea in their head of what they're reading, strong openings, strong endings, twists to keep them turning the page, plot that is tied to the characters and their desires, plot that is deep and thematic, etc. All of these things are more important than taking out or reducing the adverbs, exclamation marks, or whatever. There doesn't need to be a literary approach to prose in order to make the story part good. That's my point and we can disagree on that which is totally cool, too.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 12, 2016)

Hm. I would still say that prose and story are different but codependent on one another. Story will be more difficult to follow or understand if the prose is struggling. So I agree with you there. And thanks, lol. I do love adverbs in the right places but it's not something I think about too often as I write, otherwise I'll get stuck.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 12, 2016)

First draft I don't sweat them, but I instinctively writ around most these days. I use them as markers for (insert something here if you can think of something better" LOL. 

Main thing is, if I separate prose from the whole, I will also separate story as plot. Lots of codependent parts. With the "whole" story if it works it works. 



Chesterama said:


> Hm. I would still say that prose and story are different but codependent on one another. Story will be more difficult to follow or understand if the prose is struggling. So I agree with you there. And thanks, lol. I do love adverbs in the right places but it's not something I think about too often as I write, otherwise I'll get stuck.


----------



## Miskatonic (Apr 13, 2016)

I don't mind "modern" prose, but I can't stand modern slang, especially in dialogue.


----------



## Incanus (Apr 13, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> I don't mind "modern" prose, but I can't stand modern slang, especially in dialogue.



Which has the additional effect of 'dating' a given work.  How do books rife with 60's slang read today?  I prefer attempting something that might fall in the 'timeless' category, if at all possible.  (I love the story about the people in 1976-77 telling George Lucas he should be using a disco sound track for the first Star Wars movie. (!?!))


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 13, 2016)

Yeah one of my favorites for soundtrack choices is Ladyhawke... Ouch. But then again, back in the 1970-80's nobody really thought about how we'd be watching those movies 30-40 years later in our homes thinking... holy heck! What is that music? Although honestly, Ladyhawke bugged me right off the bat, no offense to Mannheim Steamroller.


----------



## Incanus (Apr 13, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Yeah one of my favorites for soundtrack choices is Ladyhawke... Ouch. But then again, back in the 1970-80's nobody really thought about how we'd be watching those movies 30-40 years later in our homes thinking... holy heck! What is that music? Although honestly, Ladyhawke bugged me right off the bat, no offense to Mannheim Steamroller.



Agreed.  It's funny because I just tried watching that very movie about a month ago and had to turn it off for that very reason.  The music was horribly inappropriate and jarring, and LOUD.

(Just curious demesnedenoir, your screen name means something like 'dark domain', right?)


----------



## Jim Aikin (Apr 13, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> And besides, who are you? The rules police? You have every right to like/dislike someone's writing style but my point is that it's not all about prose. Story trumps all of that. So judging a book by merely reading the first few paragraphs of the opening chapter makes your points invalid and uninformed. I'm not trying to be mean, but it really irritates me that I see this crap on these forums so much. Prose takes last place when it comes to telling a good story.


I have to jump in here. I think Chesterama is being defensive. A writer's prose style can tell us (even within a few paragraphs) a great deal about the author's _thinking _style (or ability). Dismissing prose style as irrelevant is just wrong.

It's true that there are no rules. You can write in whatever style you happen to enjoy. But having done so, you must expect that readers will react in ways that you may not appreciate. Among other things, your ability to handle prose will tell readers about your ability to think clearly and communicate effectively. The rules of good writing are not rules -- they're guidelines. But they exist for important reasons! They should be ignored only when one has a clear need to do so. Failure to learn them is an indication of laziness or inexperience, and neither laziness nor inexperience is something one wants to encounter in a writer.

With respect to the original poster's question -- as others have commented, that passage did not read old-style at all. One of the hallmarks of old-style writing (not the only one) is long, long sentences. If you want to write in that style you should read a bunch of 19th century novels. You'll see what I'm talking about. These sentences were directly influenced by Latin, because in the 19th century many (or most) writers studied Latin. These days, I would say studying Latin would be irrelevant -- but long sentences can and will give your prose a lovely old-fashioned flavor.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 13, 2016)

Uh...I never said that prose should be dismissed as important in any way. Did you read my other posts where I mentioned that?


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 13, 2016)

Oddly enough I've never read a prose that I "couldn't stand"… I mean, I like the old stuff like I said, but someone made a post about modern slang, and I was reminded of a really funny book I read recently (YA) called 
Return to Exile (The Hunter Chronicles Book 1) by E.J. Patten:

_Phineas T. Pimiscule was not what you'd call an "attractive" man. He wasn't "desirable" or "appealing". He didn't like "things" or do "stuff" or "wash" himself. He was not the kind of guy to "put" "quotation" "marks" around "words" or to say things in an unassuming or assuming way. 

He was the kind of guy who wore a monocle. _

lol! So funny and engaging! So I'm not so quick to judge.


----------



## Jim Aikin (Apr 13, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Uh...I never said that prose should be dismissed as important in any way. Did you read my other posts where I mentioned that?


No -- sorry about that. I didn't read the entire thread, I just jumped in.


----------

