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

An ‘old style’ writing voice.

Incanus

Auror
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

Staff
Article Team
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.
 
Last edited:
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

Myth Weaver
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.

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?
 

Mythopoet

Auror
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
C

Chessie

Guest
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

Myth Weaver
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.

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.
 

Laurence

Inkling
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!
 
C

Chessie

Guest
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

Staff
Moderator
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

Myth Weaver
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.

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

Auror
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).

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.

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

Sage
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

Staff
Article Team
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

Auror
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?
 
Last edited:

Velka

Sage
@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!
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
Top