writing with teeth

[lolmac]

I was out surfing last night (haha, on the web), and wandered past an LJ comm focused on discussions of grammar and style for writers. Yeah, they're very rare, I know. I'm not going to specify which one it was, because I was almost instantly turned off the comm by an earnest post promoting Elmore Leonard’s advice for writers.

My guess is that the

Comments

[idlewild_]

The thing that changed my relationship to my prose was an article several years ago in the New York Times Review of Books about the proliferation of the Style-Free Style in the late 20th Century. It discussed the problem of finding one's voice when voice was being dictated by the notion that varying from Style-Free was wrong.

I took that as permission to stop trying to cram my voice into a jello-mold and get on with it. Although, I will almost always have to revise a hefty chunk of my sentences because they're complex for no reason at all. But I mostly do that to give my critical readers something to run the blue pencil through. ;)

I heartily endorse your snarky rant.

[sidlj]

I'm pretty certain I picked up one of Mr. Leonard's books in the library once. I don't think it ever made it to the checkout counter.

That was fascinating about Strunk and White! And how a book can become so deeply entrenched in the system that the teachers using it never question it.

[lolmac]

I've heard the work in question called Stunk, or Shrunk, or Skunk, and Blight. I actually don't recall having made much use of it, although I hauled the thing around for years. But then, my writing was pretty much beyond help at that point.

ETA: And it has occurred to me that Leonard's books are pretty close to the Y-chromosome equivalent of Harlequin romances. However, I doubt that a Harlequin novelist would have the overweening arrogance to try to tell people how they should write.

[lothithil]

Does anyone have a copy of Stunk and Wipe that I can borrow?
One of the legs on my table is too short, and I need something to shore it up.

:D

[campylobacter]

I was going to offer up mine, but after just now finding it and reading the snarky marginalia I wrote in it 12-13 years ago, it's become a sentimental object.

Or perhaps just mental. ;D

[lolmac]

ROFL! Do feel free to share any choice items.

Speaking of sharing, I hope you've had a chance to wallow in the sequel to Thothmes' Cat!Daniel crack, you unrepentent enabler, you.

[campylobacter]

Oh yaz, I'm getting to Cat!Daniel crack -- STOKE-SIES that you've posted it to LJ so I don't have to log into The Pit to leave feedback.

Oh S&B (bolding mine):18. Use figures of speech sparingly.
The simile is a common device and a useful one, but similes coming in rapid fire, one right on top of another, are more distracting than illuminating. The reader needs time to catch his breath; he can't be expected to compare everything with something else, and no relief in sight.
When you use metaphor, do not mix it up. That is, don't start by calling something a swordfish and end by calling it an hourglass.
QED: My notes:

...don't start by calling something a swordfish a gun fight and end by calling it an hourglass a marathon.

[thothmes]

I too sent my son off to college high school with Strunk and White. It was what his writing needed. Now that he has absorbed it, and no longer writes academic papers that read just the way he speaks, he can move on to a more advanced and nuanced approach

[campylobacter]

if Elmore Leonard had written The Lord of the Rings

When short, white B. Baggins announced that he'd be hosting a swanky birthday shindig, all the citizens of Hobbbiton gossiped about it. Hell, the little bastard was old -- one-hundred-and-eleven years old -- and it was rumored that he (Bilbo) had an orgy with a group of even shorter, whiter guys sixty years earlier.

gifted practitioners can also be stylistic chameleons
Agreed; when reading about characters making planetfall, I want a couple prosy, adjective-filled sentences describing what makes the world unique/beautiful/wondrous.

When reading about a fist-fight, I want clean, short sentences that convey action efficiently.

When reading about characters sharing a special moment, I want to know about every clench of the jaw, restrained sigh, averted gaze, and wistful smile.

[lolmac]

When reading about a fist-fight, I want clean, short sentences that convey action efficiently.

Here's a somewhat variant thought on that.

You see, I ended up writing a lot of action sequences (that's what I call them, anyway; not action scenes, but sequences). This continues to startle me, as do many things about this whole writing business; I keep getting told that Action is Hard. (Also, Dialogue Is Hard. And, apparently, Plot Is Hard. And Characters.)

Anyway.

I was given, more or less as a shining orb of Truth, the information that Long Complex Sentences Are Bad. Especially in action scenes. And that I must work very very hard to overcome my dreadful tendency thereunto.

I re-read my work with this admonition in mind, and I did keep it in mind as I proceeded. But I kept running into a peculiar thing. That bit about action sequences. At the time, I was just writing MacGyver, and when he gets busy, more than one thing is happening. Events are set up to move in related sets. Short, choppy sentences were not the best way

[campylobacter]

Yes, BUT... you would've agreed with my beta-reader's edits when I attempted my first fight scene. Too many words, too much self-conscious effort in sentence structure variety, non-sequential motion descriptions because of clauses within clauses.

The resulting subject-verb, subject-verb staccato for 300 words worked much better and helped the pacing. Because sh!t was going down fast and jamming zats, P-90s and MP7s down with MY LITERCHURE LET ME SHOW U IT hurt the story.

And yes, I do agree that a varied balance of style assists the clarity & rhythm of the story. I think we both corroborated each other's points.

[jackwabbit]

Interesting stuff, this is.

I confess to not having read a single work on writing when I started writing. I have now read a grand total of ONE book on writing. (Stephen King's "On Writing," which I mostly enjoyed, but never held aloft as any type of Bible.) I suppose you can say I've read two if you count Wil Wheaton's "Just a Geek," which might qualify in some circles.

Honestly, I just don't worry about stuff like this. I just... write.

That said, yes, many young writers could certainly benefit from learning the basics of grammar, etc. Once that is done, well...as far as I'm concerned, there are no hard and fast rules. Guidelines, yes. But rules? No.

I have to get back to work now, but I most certainly will have to check out your links later.

Thanks!

[lolmac]

As far as I'm concerned, Wheaton absolutely qualifies.

I haven't read King yet, although one pro I knew a good many years ago told me that he (the pro) had finally written something good enough to be publishable after re-reading King's novels carefully and 'figuring out what he was doing right'. That was before King had actually written "On Writing", of course.

For my part, I think the best books on writing that anyone can read are -- any and all well-written books.

[jackwabbit]

Well, it was Wheaton who told me to read King, so...yeah