• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

An ‘old style’ writing voice.

TAGallant

Scribe
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

Auror
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

Myth Weaver
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.

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

Sage
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

Dreamer
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

Demesnedenoir

Myth Weaver
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.

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.
 

Gryphos

Auror
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

Myth Weaver
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

Staff
Article Team
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.
 

Heliotrope

Staff
Article Team
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...
 
Last edited:

Demesnedenoir

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

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.
 
C

Chessie

Guest
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

Auror
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.’ ”)
 
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.
 
Last edited:
C

Chessie

Guest
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

Myth Weaver
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.
 
C

Chessie

Guest
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
 
Top