Steal, steal, and then steal some more

[Nameback]

One thing every writer should do--and especially genre writers--is steal prolifically. Flagrantly. Proudly.

Now, of course most of your probably already know this, but I want to talk about where to steal from, and why that matters. Since I've been working on my first novel, I've been reading a great deal of epic fantasy novels in order to get a better feel for the genre--as much as I've enjoyed fantasy games and movies over the years, my reading habits have mostly trended literary or non-fiction. Therefore this fantasy binge led to many useful insights and plenty of useful theft, especially in terms of world complexity, archetypes, and genre conventions (the ones I find worth adhering to, anyway).

But there's another reason to steal, and one for which genre fiction is a poor victim: style!

Growing up, I had an English professor for a mother, so my taste in books was naturally literary. It was just the way I was raised. If I wanted fantasy, I'd read the Iliad. As I've grown older, I've lost some of my interest in literary fiction, especially of the contemporary variety, because I like grand plots and epic adventures, and The Corrections-style suburban ennui doesn't really cut it for me. But there's one thing I still love about literary fiction, and that's the prose. We can argue all day about the merits of literature versus genre--and for me anyway, I'll take genre at this point in my life. But one thing any reasonable writer should be able to admit is that the quality of prose tends to be tremendously better in literary works. Think about as style versus substance, if that's a more amenable perspective.

Why is this important? Well, it can change the way you write everything. For instance, there's a lot of talk on this board (and among fantasy-readers generally) about "infodump" and related concepts. We all bemoan the tendencies of people like GRRM to spend twelve pages at a go describing every morsel of food and stitch of fabric in a scene. And so, in my reading of genre fiction, I became averse to this sort of over-description. But in that process of learning what not to do by reading the genre, I forgot what I could do, if I elevated my prose. Here's what I mean:

Mama passed the dog's dish to Grandma, and Winne received her food at the old lady's feet from the old lady's hands. These hands and feet were small; she wore a shriveled sort of lisle on her legs and her slippers were gray--ah, the gray of that felt, the gray despotic to souls--with pink ribbons. Mama, however, had large feet, and around the house she wore men's shoes, usually without strings, and a dusting or mobcap like someone's fanciful cotton effigy of the form of the brain. She was meek and long, round-eyed like Georgie--gentle green round eyes and a gentle freshness of color in her long face. Her hands were work-reddened and she had very few of her teeth left--to heed the knocks as they come--and she and Simon wore the same ravelly coat-sweaters.

This is from Saul Bellow's The Adventures of Augie March, my favorite novel. It happens to have an epic scope and grand adventure, even if it is set in 20th century America. The quote is from a section some two pages long (with about one paragraph break in the whole thing) that's nothing but description and scene-setting. But it's beautiful. It's heartbreaking.

ah, the gray of that felt, the gray despotic to souls
she had very few of her teeth left--to heed the knocks as they come

Sentences like these thrill the reader with emotion, and draw you into the world and the characters. This is not useless description. And yet, it to some extent fits the criteria of an "infodump," especially as it continues for a good long while afterwards. What Saul Bellow reminded me of was that with voice and elegance, description ceases to be a chore for the reader and becomes a delight. Even physical characterization becomes a way to describe the characters and world in emotional, meaningful terms. It can create atmosphere and establish themes.

We can eschew the sterile, pragmatic, literal descriptions that sometimes plague our genre by cutting out such description entirely--or we can rise above, and elevate it to something masterful. This is what literary theft helps a writer to do.

Now, Saul Bellow was one of the greatest masters of English prose in history--and I am not. But that's OK. I can learn from him, and from others that I love. I can pick up tips and tricks and emulate them in my own way, and in genre fiction which places emphasis on originality of plot--not prose--that is wholly acceptable. So steal, friends! Steal from Dostoevsky, Dickens, Chabon and Bellow! Steal from Homer and the Bard and Chaucer, if that gives you a thrill. But steal, and steal well.

Who do you steal from?

 

[Jabrosky]

If I had to choose specific authors to name as my influences, I would pick either Robert E. Howard (creator of Conan the Barbarian) or Charles R. Saunders (Imaro and Dossouye). I like their subject matter and how they combine rich descriptions with action, though I can't say I emulate either writer's prose style very well.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Without being told it's there, I would not be able to recognize what you say you see in that paragraph. I can picture a few descriptive elements at a time, but given that many at once, I can't hold them all in my head, and I begin to forget some as I hold others, like water slopping over the edge of a bucket. It may be great writing, but it's definitely not for me.

On-topic, I tend to think of every story as a proposition--if a philosopher asks, "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?" a storyteller answers "Once upon a time, there was a woodchuck who could chuck wood. This is how much wood he chucked." The stories I reference elements from are therefore the stories I either want to build on, arguing logical extensions of their propositions, or argue with, repudiating their propositions*. As for style, I'm largely self-taught in that regard--I have tricks I use, and other writers use them, but in most cases I came upon them without noticing that another writer did them.

* To give an example, my current story began as a repudiation of a story called "The Ambassador's Son". I've gradually added elements of everything from "Splatterhouse" to John Barnes's "Candle", with various degrees of positivity and negativity. It's now discussing a topic I've never seen broached in fiction before--"How can two people with the same ideology interpret it in completely different ways?"

 

[Ophiucha]

I think the vast majority of my projects start out from me having like six things on my mind at the same time and them all melting together into a hideous heap of trash that I'm compelled to spend years rounding out into a nice little story. Like, the original reason my current project is set in a fantasy!America? Because I was playing Assassin's Creed III when I first conceived of it, and then started playing Bioshock Infinite while I started working on the details a few weeks ago. I mean, I've committed to it to the extent of taking an impromptu trip to Washington DC for inspiration, but the little things I read and watch and play and do in life are the basis for like 60% of what is in my stories. So I think, on an unconscious level, I have probably stolen a little something from everything, from the authors who have shaped parts of my personality to the really awful C- and Z-movies they show on the SyFy network that I watch in the background while I do my coursework. My current project is pretty obviously influenced by Les Miserables, with an Enjolras at the front of a revolution and a (hair/nail salon!)Cafe Musain as their place to meet and plot. So I couldn't pinpoint each and every influence without just directing you to my goodreads account. But I suppose I can talk about a few of my favourite authors (who pretty much in turn are also the authors who have influenced me the most).

Stylistically, I think my three primary 'influences' are Catherynne M. Valente, China Mieville, and Cormac McCarthy. One of these things is not like the other, I know. Valente and Mieville are masters of purple prose, and when it comes to my descriptions and analogies, I take a lot from those two. But I also appreciate meaningful silences and unobtrusive dialogue, and I think McCarthy has had a heavy influence on my ability to use a full range of prose in my work. I don't quite go as far as removing the quotation marks, but I've definitely taken a lot of cues from him in terms of how to handle dialogue. Thomas Hardy is probably my main influence when it comes to giving each character a nuanced voice and in terms of writing dialogue in general. Valente and Vladimir Nabokov (another odd duo) are my primary thematic and presentation-al(?) influences, and I won't deny that my adoration of the unreliable narrator is just plucked straight from Lolita. Mieville also gets serious points in there because he is the reason I love thrusting the readers into a world without preamble or a great deal of explanation. Louissa May Alcott, Little Women, has had a profound effect on how I deal with character development and characterization in general. Very influential, and I think I've taken little bits and bobs of characterization straight from Jo March.

 

[Rob P]

There is nothing wrong with using great prose if it can be achieved. There is nothing wrong with using such language to inspire and enrich someone's experience of a story. Throw too much of this wonderful colour at people not experienced in mixing paints on their palette of creative thought and we all risk failing at the most important aspect of being a writer. Keeping the reader turning the page.

I'm not advocating any dumbing down but there is a reason why literary works are generally in a genre of their own. Because of the prose used.

When people invest time, money and emotions into a piece of work, not all of us want to read Homer. That said, raising one's style upwards in a bid to improve our capabilities can only be a good thing but we must always remember that our story needs to be told. As writers we control the potential exposure to our work by what we write and how we write it.

In the end, such decisions are ours alone to include or discard.

 

[Steerpike]

Saul Bellow was certainly a great writer. Nobel Prize in Literature. At least one Pulitzer. Three or Four National Book Awards. Worth reading if you want a broad view of fiction, which I think is good to have if you're going to be a writer. Not everyone will like him. Nabokov, who was a much better writer, didn't care for him. But Nabokov criticized a lot.

I have a lot of writers I love and consider influences. I don't want to write a pastiche of any of them, though.

 

[Mindfire]

snip

You make good points, but I'd like to point out by way of counterexample that the kind of style you're advocating doesn't work for everyone. I stopped reading that quotation halfway through because I found it annoyingly repetitive.

 

[Abbas-Al-Morim]

A lot of people I know would argue that the use of prosaic language will make your work bombastic, repetitive and pretentious. I agree with them to some point. If you describe someone's eyes like "the purest orbs of blue" or "emeralds with a glowing sheen as bright as a sunrise" you've lost me. The sample in your post wasn't my cup of tea at all. It breaks the atmosphere of the story. Real people don't speak like that (so by extent, your characters don't either) and if the author (even if that author isn't addressing me personally) does use it, it makes the story less immersive. I don't advocate cutting all prose from your fiction, but I don't agree that adding prose adds emotion. Perhaps I'm only speaking for a minority now - or perhaps you are and your mother has corrupted p) your views on the subject.

 

[Steerpike]

Sometimes people forget that fiction writing is also an art. If you want lean and relatively bland writing to try to pull your reader along rapidly, that's one approach to telling a story, but you can also approach fiction as an art form and do all kinds of interesting things in it. The fact that some readers are stuck in a very rigid, and in my view closed-minded, viewpoint of what fiction can or should do shouldn't enter into it at all. If that's the kind of writing you are undertaking, the first thing to do when reviewing critiques or comments from other people is to identify those who don't 'get it' so you can avoid wasting your time on their comments. If a critiquer can't understand what the writer is trying to accomplish and critique accordingly, it's not worth their time or yours to have them review your work. It does more harm than good.

 

[Shockley]

I like to think I don't steal, but I'm certainly influenced by Howard, Lovecraft, Tolkien and Dunsany.

As for really fluid, purple descriptions, my gut instinct is to stack the front of the book with that kind of stuff then just let the characters take over.

 

[Nameback]

A lot of people I know would argue that the use of prosaic language will make your work bombastic, repetitive and pretentious. I agree with them to some point. If you describe someone's eyes like "the purest orbs of blue" or "emeralds with a glowing sheen as bright as a sunrise" you've lost me. The sample in your post wasn't my cup of tea at all. It breaks the atmosphere of the story. Real people don't speak like that (so by extent, your characters don't either) and if the author (even if that author isn't addressing me personally) does use it, it makes the story less immersive. I don't advocate cutting all prose from your fiction, but I don't agree that adding prose adds emotion. Perhaps I'm only speaking for a minority now - or perhaps you are and your mother has corrupted p) your views on the subject.

See the difference between those examples you list and the ones I posted from Augie March is that the ones you listed are cliches.

My whole point with this OP was to suggest that elaborate description is not, in and of itself, the enemy. That you can, if you like that sort of thing, write it well, and justify its existence. And this sort of horizon-broadening is the benefit of reading literary fiction.

Obviously there are literary figures who write in the near opposite style--Hemingway obviously springs to mind. Personally, I've always liked somewhat more florid writing, assuming that it's done with originality and grace. I was never really bothered by the obviously paid-by-the-word style of Dickens, for example. I kind of dig that stuff.

My point is that whatever your personal style and preference, you will learn something and expand what you think is possible if you try to emulate the masters. Pick a great novelist that you like, and learn from them. It's worth it to break out of the genre box when reading, because it expands what you're capable of writing.

 

[Steerpike]

My point is that whatever your personal style and preference, you will learn something and expand what you think is possible if you try to emulate the masters. Pick a great novelist that you like, and learn from them. It's worth it to break out of the genre box when reading, because it expands what you're capable of writing.

Yes. The point is, any of a variety of styles, from the most lean to the most verbose, can be done effectively and result in an excellent novel. Shutting oneself off to various possibilities makes no sense. And I also agree that reading outside of the fantasy genre is imperative if you really want to develop as a writer.

 

[skip.knox]

Funny you should mention that particular work, @Nameback. Bellow's prose is chewy and the story was exotic enough to keep me through what you have to admit was some heavy going. But by the end of the book I felt terribly cheated because after all that great writing, *nothing happened*. The characters go their various ways almost unchanged by their crazy adventures. It was like listening to a complicated symphony that simply stopped in the middle somewhere.

One of the things I like about fantasy stories, even the ones that are threadbare or shopworn, is that they all value story. Their characters *always* go somewhere, even if the journey is yet another farmboy discovering he's really a wizard fated to save the world. I'll take that journey every time over the well-told tale that goes nowhere.

 

[Firekeeper]

I myself can get too wordy at times. I don't know how many of you are familiar with the English band Cradle of Filth, but their singer was a huge inspiration for me picking up a pen in the first place. My work tends to reflect his style quite a bit, very theatrical and Gothic.

I often receive advice to clip some of the words and simplify it, but to me that would diminish the feel I'm going for. Though I do understand it may hinder me if i ever get published and want a larger audience. So I guess the key is finding a balance

 

[BWFoster78]

Sometimes people forget that fiction writing is also an art. If you want lean and relatively bland writing to try to pull your reader along rapidly, that's one approach to telling a story, but you can also approach fiction as an art form and do all kinds of interesting things in it. The fact that some readers are stuck in a very rigid, and in my view closed-minded, viewpoint of what fiction can or should do shouldn't enter into it at all. If that's the kind of writing you are undertaking, the first thing to do when reviewing critiques or comments from other people is to identify those who don't 'get it' so you can avoid wasting your time on their comments. If a critiquer can't understand what the writer is trying to accomplish and critique accordingly, it's not worth their time or yours to have them review your work. It does more harm than good.

That's why I think it's such a good idea to have a clear goal in mind for your writing. That way, you can ask, "did I achieve...?"

 

[Abbas-Al-Morim]

I'm not saying we can't learn from literary works and the techniques employed by their author's. On the contrary, I believe you can learn from anything and anybody - provided you're open to it. I'd even go as far as to say that you can learn something about writing from a toddler who hasn't learned his letters yet. Life is an experience of learning that only stops when we've passed away. Journey over destination is a term that pops to mind.

My post was directed against your title. While I know you didn't use the verb "to steal" literally, the title still made it seem as if you encourage people to take to a more literary writing style. Yes, you can always learn from literary works even if you are writing fantasy fiction. No, that doesn't mean you have to change your writing style by implementing prosaic techniques. Each author (or artist) has his own style. Some people will read literary fiction and it will help them develop their descriptive writing by learning how to add prosaic elements. Others will read the same work but it won't influence their descriptive writing (and my point is that it doesn't have to) but perhaps it will learn them about something else. Most fantasy author's won't have much influence from Shakespeare in their writing but there's a very big chance they'll make use of his archtypes. I hope I've managed to clarify my point a little. I can be a bit confusing at times.

 

[Nameback]

I'm not saying we can't learn from literary works and the techniques employed by their author's. On the contrary, I believe you can learn from anything and anybody - provided you're open to it. I'd even go as far as to say that you can learn something about writing from a toddler who hasn't learned his letters yet. Life is an experience of learning that only stops when we've passed away. Journey over destination is a term that pops to mind.

My post was directed against your title. While I know you didn't use the verb "to steal" literally, the title still made it seem as if you encourage people to take to a more literary writing style. Yes, you can always learn from literary works even if you are writing fantasy fiction. No, that doesn't mean you have to change your writing style by implementing prosaic techniques. Each author (or artist) has his own style. Some people will read literary fiction and it will help them develop their descriptive writing by learning how to add prosaic elements. Others will read the same work but it won't influence their descriptive writing (and my point is that it doesn't have to) but perhaps it will learn them about something else. Most fantasy author's won't have much influence from Shakespeare in their writing but there's a very big chance they'll make use of his archtypes. I hope I've managed to clarify my point a little. I can be a bit confusing at times.

I think no fantasy writer would be remiss in trying to emulate the style of their favorite literary authors. I think they would get better results from that than by emulating the style of their favorite genre authors.

The quality of prose, regardless of the style, is almost uniformly superior in literary works than in genre fiction -- which makes sense, because the way literature has evolved in the West, quality of prose has, arguably, taken precedence over story/plot. Characterization is another area that tends to be richer in literary works than in genre works, but that is much less uniform and more of an averages thing.

But my point is that there's no reason you can't write a fantasy story with literary prose (whatever style of literary prose you prefer). And that, in fact, fantasy writers should aspire to the best prose possible, and not get too caught up in the genre's tendencies. Most of all, though, don't limit yourself because you see something executed poorly in the genre, because you may see the very same thing executed wonderfully in literature.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I think no fantasy writer would be remiss in trying to emulate the style of their favorite literary authors. I think they would get better results from that than by emulating the style of their favorite genre authors.

The quality of prose, regardless of the style, is almost uniformly superior in literary works than in genre fiction -- which makes sense, because the way literature has evolved in the West, quality of prose has, arguably, taken precedence over story/plot. Characterization is another area that tends to be richer in literary works than in genre works, but that is much less uniform and more of an averages thing.

But my point is that there's no reason you can't write a fantasy story with literary prose (whatever style of literary prose you prefer). And that, in fact, fantasy writers should aspire to the best prose possible, and not get too caught up in the genre's tendencies. Most of all, though, don't limit yourself because you see something executed poorly in the genre, because you may see the very same thing executed wonderfully in literature.

I think you're missing something big here. Many fantasy writers do write a sentence here or there that's identical in nature to the paragraph you posted, using a single telling detail to reveal great insight into a character or a situation. They just use them sparingly and give the reader time to digest them, rather than slamming down several pages of them at once. I personally greatly prefer this approach--ideas, like food, are easily choked on if you swallow too many at once--and while you may argue for the other, I don't think you can reasonably argue that it's objectively "better".

Edit: For what it's worth, there's some literary fiction that I think does well at portioning out its ideas. In particular, To Kill a Mockingbird puts a lot of insight into what at first seem like digressions, but generally limits itself to one insight per tangent.

 

[Jabrosky]

Sometimes people forget that fiction writing is also an art. If you want lean and relatively bland writing to try to pull your reader along rapidly, that's one approach to telling a story, but you can also approach fiction as an art form and do all kinds of interesting things in it. The fact that some readers are stuck in a very rigid, and in my view closed-minded, viewpoint of what fiction can or should do shouldn't enter into it at all. If that's the kind of writing you are undertaking, the first thing to do when reviewing critiques or comments from other people is to identify those who don't 'get it' so you can avoid wasting your time on their comments. If a critiquer can't understand what the writer is trying to accomplish and critique accordingly, it's not worth their time or yours to have them review your work. It does more harm than good.

I like your metaphor of fiction as an art form, because that how I've always viewed it. I'm a highly visual person by nature, so I take a lot of joy in creating imagery with words. If it weren't for the current literary bias towards lean and fast-paced prose, I would indulge a lot more in description than I do now.

 

[BWFoster78]

I think no fantasy writer would be remiss in trying to emulate the style of their favorite literary authors. I think they would get better results from that than by emulating the style of their favorite genre authors.

I am trying to think of a paragraph that has been written in the Mythic Scribes forums with which I disagree more. I'm having a hard time coming up with anything.

The quality of prose, regardless of the style, is almost uniformly superior in literary works than in genre fiction -- which makes sense, because the way literature has evolved in the West, quality of prose has, arguably, taken precedence over story/plot.

Oh wait, I found it.

I hate, hate, hate, hate (assume I continue with the "hates" for long enough that it approaches infinity) literary fiction. Period.

I do not want to write it. I do not want to read it. I do not want to emulate it.

If you think literary fiction is far superior to what genre writers create, I don't have a problem with that. It's a subjective thing.

Where you see masterful prose, however, I fall asleep.