Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/25476
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I think the crux of it is that _anything_ you do that breaks convention will make your writing more difficult to read. That isn't to say you shouldn't do it, by the way (several of my favourite books take _serious_ liberties with style and formatting), but it must be worth the effort. If a reader would be able to get everything they could possibly get from your writing, for less effort, if you used conventional formatting, they'll be (understandably) frustrated if you don't.

If not - if your choice adds something, and the effort is worth the reader's while - your only difficulty is convincing them to put the effort in in the first place. Once they do, they'll be glad they did.

As with all such things, though, it's ultimately a matter of taste. There are people who think anything "conventional" is bland and unadventurous, and wouldn't be seen dead reading mainstream fiction (or using the phrase "wouldn't be seen dead"). There are also people who think anything "unconventional" is a pointless attempt to seem clever, and that mainstream fiction is mainstream because it's _just better_.

For what it's worth, I think both of these positions are ridiculous, but that's beside the point.

Original score: 2