How important is for a writer to have his own style?
- Thread starter Kyriakos
- Start date
Mango Elephant
Deity
Being an effective writer has to do with two main qualities; being able to effectively communicate and being able interest your readers. The author of Sometimes a Great Notion is a brilliant writer. I know this because I read another work of his (One Flew Over a ****oo's Nest). He's very original in both of his books, but in SaGN he can't communicate at all because (I feel) he lets go of all convention and just writes to suit himself, which renders his originality useless because no one can read it. Being able to interest your readers does have deep roots in originality, however. In The Catcher in the Rye the story was undeniably bland and boring by itself but didn't seem that way because of the unique style in which it was conveyed. The best writer should have a unique style that communicates effectively; too much of either will render a work either boring or unreadable, but always like SaGN, an unreadable disaster.
So it is important.
So it is important.
I think that after some level writers tend to seem similar in terms of the language they use. Themes also sometimes are common (self-examination, alienation from the world etc). What changes drammatically though is how they form the structure of their stories.
Some have a persistent style, others seem to change considerably from book to book, or even story to story. As in painting i am of the view that having a literary style which stands out as yours is a positive thing.
Maybe though in the long run it is even better to have a style which at the same time impresses itself as common and distinctive, and is elusive as to its complete description.
Some have a persistent style, others seem to change considerably from book to book, or even story to story. As in painting i am of the view that having a literary style which stands out as yours is a positive thing.
Maybe though in the long run it is even better to have a style which at the same time impresses itself as common and distinctive, and is elusive as to its complete description.
Hygro
soundcloud.com/hygro/
There's generally a common energy though. I think of it with me and music. I've done musically very differently over the years. Different workflows, different choice of instruments, completely different genres, song structures, beats, purposes. No matter how esoteric or poppy, dark or happy, simple or complex, when I look back on my body of work, there's an energetic thread tying it together. I suspect writers are the same.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
To answer the OP, I think having your own style as a writer is too important to express in words. Every plot, character type and pinch element has been tried in almost every thinkable combination, so only style will allow you to stand out from the rest.
To a degree i accept this, however it seems to me to be a bit like claiming:
Every equation has been tried before, only different styles in equations will make you stand out.
True to some extent, but the main point in an equation (and maybe also in writing) is not the form of it, but the variables it links together.
By which i mean that in literature there are countless variations of variables to be linked. So i am of the view that not even 1/10 raised in some vast power, has been written yet
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
To a degree i accept this, however it seems to me to be a bit like claiming:
Every equation has been tried before, only different styles in equations will make you stand out.
True to some extent, but the main point in an equation (and maybe also in writing) is not the form of it, but the variables it links together.
By which i mean that in literature there are countless variations of variables to be linked. So i am of the view that not even 1/10 raised in some vast power, has been written yet
Literature isn't an exact science, so the comparison isn't entirely valid. Exact sciences do not make any distinction between the manner equations are presented, as long the result is valid.
Usually that which is seen as less exact, has a bigger scope though
Microscopes are great for seing a microcosm, but if you want to look at what the human eye catches you still use the normal mirror. In literature you have more even than just philosophy, itself the mother of all science; you have the sum of all human thought.
Microscopes are great for seing a microcosm, but if you want to look at what the human eye catches you still use the normal mirror. In literature you have more even than just philosophy, itself the mother of all science; you have the sum of all human thought.
Similar threads
