How important is for a writer to have his own style?

[Kyriakos]

There are many seemingly conflicting views on this issue in the literary world. Pessoa, for example, supported that "the great poet writes as he feels", that is the great poet is able to express his own emotions well, and his work consists of a good presentation of those emotions. Baudelaire claims in a letter to Flaubert that "what is most important is to not look like your neighbor", meaning that a writer should first and foremost be different than the next writer.
On the other side stand quotes such as that by Kafka, and Lovecraft. Kafka seems to have been "ressurecting" his emotions by reading other writers, and many times comments that he is "lost" in his work, or is "like a sheep in the night and in the mountain, or like another sheep following that sheep". An d although this sentiment goes well beyond his literary character, it appears to present a reality of that as well.
Lovecraft at one time claimed that "there are my Poe pieces, and there are my Dunsany pieces, but alas, where are my Lovecraft pieces?". So he too was of the view that he had not found his own voice, and was (to put it in Borges' aphorism about Lovecraft) "an unwilling mimesis of Poe".

Since i also happen to be a published writer, i have pondered this issue a lot. At times it seems that my style is not really there, being mostly an amalgam of De Maupassant's, Kafka's, Borges' and of some others. I can write a complete story, but am unsure as to whether another writer could not have produced almost an identical one.

So in this thread i would like to ask you what you think of the issue of being "original" or rather "uniquely expressive", and individual as a writer

 

[dusters]

Very, very important.

You find what has been written, absorb it and then produce something of your own. The skill lies in what you can fit together, how you arrange the puzzle.

 

[Zelig]

Not at all. There are far too many writers for any one writer's style to have any unique qualities of significance.

 

[Verarde]

I think it's very important. Cookie-cutter writing drives me nuts. I love when you can pick up a book and say, "Ah, now I know this style!" and comfortably dive into it.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think it's very important. Cookie-cutter writing drives me nuts. I love when you can pick up a book and say, "Ah, now I know this style!" and comfortably dive into it.

Yeah, it is nice to do that, but in a market as competitive (and in the case of Greece, limited) as this one i think one stands very few chances of making a name out of being very original. If anything the first few works should be both interesting and read like an anonymous version of famed literature of the past, if they are to be picked up.

I had this comment told to me in so many words by one of my publishers: "your text is printable" meaning, it is something similar to other texts he takes the risk to print.

I always am of the view that my thematology is unique, or at least a lot more individual, than my prose style, the latter being a classical style, influenced by a few very known authors and their translators...

 

[Cutlass]

I don't think you can help but be influenced by some and similar to some. But I think you do need to find your own voice as best as possible and then go with that.

 

[Kyriakos]

"Every writer creates his influences", to paraphrase (but not alter its meaning) a quote by Borges. It seems to signify that inevitably if one becomes known (something i am not) people are bound to see similarities with older writers. Sometimes people see their own similarities, or even double influences, for example my first ever published story has been termed as similar to both Poe's and Dostoevsky's style, by the same person...

Ultimately those writers did not have unique styles either. Some (such as Dostoevsky) arguably did not even have a good style, let alone an individual one (sometimes individuality can be harmful too). Sometimes one can express even the same ideas, with different words, and still become known, as Cavafy put it in some poem: "(they are) Saying the same things again, without much strife, as we the old words uttered with a different way".

I still think that the themes are more important, and can indeed be a place where one not onlya ffords to, but is urged to be unique or at least individual. I see many works published here that deal with the economic crisis; although obviously most of them are of low quality, some should be better, and they would not have this theme if not for a mimesis of one's reflection of what is going on. Although one can have his own themes without being obviously concurrent with what is happening

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You need to find the style that you are comfortable with, as long as it doesn't come across as a plagiarism or parody of another author's work. That said, you also need to make sure that you don't fall into the trap of being utterly predictable.

It's also important to try things outside your comfort zone, too. Personal example: I write science fiction. But try as I might, I can't seem to do serious science fiction. It tends to turn out to be satire. However, there have been times when I deliberately stepped out of my comfort zone to do something serious.

And guess what? I discovered I really can write the serious stuff. It's harder, to be sure, but it's doable.

Same for poetry. I'm accustomed to writing structured stuff. But I tried free verse, and holy [whatever], I can do it!

But to try different styles, you need to read different styles. Sometimes I've even forced my way through bad writing, in order to understand what NOT to do. (Kevin J. Anderson, I want those hours of my life back that I've spent wading through your nuDune crap)

 

[Kyriakos]

Most of my worry is that if i write without synthesizing other people's styles (something which blends into the story and is not obvious) the story will either expand exponentially due to my own way of thinking, or it will become difficult to find focus points as easily as when i am reproducing such points of other authors.

That said it is a bit like a code. Most people won't be able to pick up anything of the sort. But it still is there...

I am a bit reminded of Tanizaki, the celebrated Japanese author, who started by writing pieces which were influenced by western writers, but then moved on to his own particular style. The later pieces though are both massive, and typically japanese, which makes them a bit inaccessible. Granted that i am not from a cultural background as alien to the rest of Europe as Tanizaki was, but still i would prefer to be able to be read by foreign readers too, if that time comes...

 

[Kozmos]

All writers are influenced by previous writers, so their styles are usually mish-mash of the people they favour.

 

[eduhum]

I think that writing sales are as different as inevitable. Every person has its own character and its own way to see things in life, right?

 

[Kozmos]

(Kevin J. Anderson, I want those hours of my life back that I've spent wading through your nuDune crap)

I share your pain, even though it was a different series of books. His own namely.

 

[Kyriakos]

I think that writing sales are as different as inevitable. Every person has its own character and its own way to see things in life, right?

I agree that every person is unique, but the hard thing is to be aware of that uniqueness. Which is why it seems most writers who are beginners tend to think they have little to express, because they do not know themselves that well already and therefore are prone to think other writers have already written all they could have wanted to write about.

 

[downtown]

It's important to have a GOOD and authentic voice. It doesn't necessarily have to be original.

 

[Antilogic]

Please don't go all E. E. Cummings on us (intentionally did not capitalize or punctuate like he did). Unique styles are not necessarily good or even intelligible.

(I'm largely agreeing with what has already been posted by a few here--your influences will shine through a little, and that's not a problem.)

 

[Valka D'Ur]

As long as your influences are good, that is. Writing like the aforementioned Kevin J. Anderson is not a good influence.

I've discovered that my serious writing is more than slightly influenced by Margaret Atwood. I consider that to be good, given that I've actually read very little of her work (two novels and a book of essays).

Paying attention to style is crucial if you write fanfic and do a crossover. It isn't easy combining styles and "voices" that make a harmonious whole and are simultaneously true to each element.

And before you sneer and say, "Well, it's just fanfic," let me remind you that some of these crossover-style stories have been professionally published. Some of them worked; some didn't.

 

[Hygro]

This is a false dichotomy. Everyone will have their own voice no matter what. If you read others' work and play with their intonation, it will merge with your own to make your own intonation. If you ignore them, then the lack of that will affect you as well. Your own style is a product of who you are, and if you want to read other writers, that's who you are.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

...if you want to read other writers, that's who you are.

Are you saying that anybody can become a successful writer without reading anything that other people have written?

That's certainly contrary to everything I've ever seen or heard.

 

[Hygro]

Are you saying that anybody can become a successful writer without reading anything that other people have written?

That's certainly contrary to everything I've ever seen or heard.

When did I say anything at all about success?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You could take "success" as being "good" even if you never sell anything or even want to sell anything. I am fully aware that many writers do so for fun or for the challenge, and aren't interested in being published.

However, the OP has been consistent over his time here in a wish to be a published writer, so that's the spirit in which I gave my previous reply.