How much does style contribute to the overall value of a novel?
I've recently got a crushing critique. The critic pointed out I was obviously unfamiliar with the basic tools of the trade and that my style was non-existent. She insisted that "everybody can invent a story", but that the art of a novel lies in the way it uses words -- i.e. in the linguistic style of the author. Good style, she decalred, is the product of tireless iterations. If a text is to become a work of art, every word is on purpose, and no description can be more accurate.
Personally, I strongly disagree with this notion. (Not least because I am aware of so terribly few authors whose style lives up to the "every phrase is perfect"-standard. I am aware of the concept, of course, but have only very rarely seen it actually implemented.)
My question, specifically for those of you who have published their work or are involved in the publishing industry, is: How right is my critic? How important is style? How much does it contribute to the overall value of a novel, apart from hooking the reader to the story in the first place and making his or her reading experience more comfortable? If you ranked the elements of a novel -- plot, characters, scene design, style, and everything I have forgotten here --, where does style come in(*)?
I'm desperate for more varied input than the opinion of that one critic. I hope it will help me to process her input and turn it into something constructive.
(*) I would expect such a ranking to be naturally subjective. For example, for me it's "characters > scene design and style > plot", although the distinction between the latter two is quite blurry for me. I can forgive a style that does not resonate with me 100%, and I'm willing to accept slightly flawed plots, but characters need to be up to my standard for a book to wow me.
In my experience how much I enjoy a book is usually not too dependent on how much I like the style. This however is not …
7y ago
Consider style, plot and characters the three pillars on which your book is going to stand. All three should get a passi …
7y ago
"Everybody can invent a story" -- No. In his classic book Story, Robert McKee reports just the opposite: There are a gre …
7y ago
Caveat: I am not published. I hope you do not abandon your style. You have a unique voice, and there will certainly be …
7y ago
Well, is it dry? Have you passed your story through other test readers? They might provide you with the same - or diffe …
7y ago
I wouldn't worry much about style, I strongly disagree with your critic. I wouldn't say there is a "most important comp …
7y ago
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/32902. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
6 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
"Everybody can invent a story" -- No. In his classic book Story, Robert McKee reports just the opposite: There are a great many people who can write beautiful prose. There are very few who can tell a captivating story.
My years of critique groups and writing classes bear this out. Most of the manuscripts I have read over the years displayed decent prose. Some of it was quite beautiful. Hardly any of them told a good story.
The best seller list confirms it too. There is much on that list that has prose that is pedestrian, often quite awkward and stilted. Those books sell because they tell compelling stories.
How important is style? It is certainly a grand ornament to a story if you can tell it in a splendid style. But a good story will get by just fine with ordinary prose competence. Style without story, on the other hand, can quickly get out of hand and become painfully purple. In particular, an author trying to produce emotion through style rather than through story is likely to produce something particularly painful to the ear and eye.
However, one of the drawbacks of critique groups is that it is very easy for a group to end up with several stylists and no storytellers -- not even anyone who can recognize genuine story faults. At that point the critique becomes all about style, and no one is getting any nearer publication.
Style is the sizzle, story the steak. Anyone who does not understand that is not helping your writing career.
0 comment threads
Well, is it dry?
Have you passed your story through other test readers? They might provide you with the same - or different perspectives. Perhaps your narrative IS dry, unimaginative, boring and difficult to read. Perhaps the editor just did not like your manuscript... Get other perspectives. Only 1 critic is not a good barometer... but 2 or more...
There are a lot of possibilities, feel free to ask her some of the points where you could improve the writing or telling of the story. What you provided really does not tell me WHAT is wrong, just that she wants you to craft better wording.
If writing in a genre, use language that matches that genre. If character is important, make sure your characters are fascinating. Just because you value characters, scenes have a place and should not be merely neglected.
So it brings me back to :
So, how dry is it?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/32905. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Caveat: I am not published.
I hope you do not abandon your style. You have a unique voice, and there will certainly be people who try to convince you to write your story their way. No. Write your own story.
Now, that said, the phrase she said that I agree wholeheartedly with, is "Good style is the product of tireless iterations."
How many iterations did yours go through?
I initially expected 12 drafts on my project. Now I expect closer to 40. The first and second and fourth drafts were ... readable, but not polished (even at 4th draft stage). It took that long for me to realize that certain characters, for example, did not have identifiable motivations. As each draft continues to noticeably improve, new problems come to light. At the moment the problem is that one character does not stay firmly 'the same age' in how she reads to the reader. This was not obvious early on - because there were other bigger problems.
Because of my own process, I expect many drafts. Others get by with far fewer. So this will be up to you to decide, (and you may not need many) .. but it could well be that you simply need more iterations. And if you do more iterations, guess what - it is still 'your' style.
(Incidentally, as more and more people tell me something I need to change about my project, the more I realize that my writing is engaging to them. So much so they want to take it elsewhere. FWIW - it may be that you are engaging her. Don't be crushed.)
Also - on the subject of characters, these also can benefit from iterations and have multiple facets to themselves - motivations, personality quirks, growth, relational qualities, and so on.
Also, also - I just received a beta reader comments. I know I need to wait a good long while to open it. They are often crushing. I need to be in the right space. You are not alone.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/32909. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Consider style, plot and characters the three pillars on which your book is going to stand. All three should get a passing grade, a failure in one will ruin an otherwise promising book.
If you think that your critic is giving you an "F" for the style, and you believe that she may be right, that should be a serious concern. No matter how good your plot and characters can be, if your writing is poor, this definitely needs to be addressed.
If, on the other hand, your style is Ok (just may need some improvement), can you compensate any shortcomings there with strengths in different areas? I would say yes, and there are many examples, particularly among young authors, who deliver very successful books without showing much skill in literary style. Serious, demanding readers might look down on such authors, but you have to think about your target audience. Do you want your book to win acclaim among the most critical readers, or it's Ok to meet a less ambitious goal?
Polishing your style will take years, and you can write many good books while getting there.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/32913. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
In my experience how much I enjoy a book is usually not too dependent on how much I like the style. This however is not to say that style cannot have a great impact on a piece of writing but simply that it usually does not make or break a story.
Style is usually relevant only in extremes, if your style is noticeably entertaining or noticeably poor than it will definitely have an effect but a style that does not lean too far either way will usually have little influence. A unique style will definitely aid you but it shouldn't be a main focus of yours. If you practice your craft and continue writing, a style will often come more naturally but if you try to force it you can fall into the trap of trying to imitate others and never finding your own style. Style comes with a-lot of time. It develops from finding a unique part of yourself and your experiences that can come through in your writing to create a more enjoyable experience.
Another thing to consider is that the question of style is highly subjective and the answer to this question will inevitably change from person to person. Some people find a decisive style exceptionally important while others see it as secondary to developing a good story. Even after working on a style for a very long time some people will still dislike it. Your critic could be one of these people and there's really nothing wrong with that.
If you are looking to improve your style I think that this post gives a good general overview of where to start.
https://writersedit.com/fiction-writing/develop-unique-writing-style/
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/33201. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I wouldn't worry much about style, I strongly disagree with your critic.
I wouldn't say there is a "most important component" because there are a few elements that must be there no matter what. The most important thing is sustaining reader interest, and there are a few ways to do that, typically used in combination. They can be interested in the protagonist(s), the setting, the struggle to achieve some goal (meaning the plot), and the ongoing mystery of what the protagonist(s) discover next or suffer next, bringing them closer to or further from their goal. Whether their guesses are right or wrong, and ultimately revealing the puzzle, piece by piece, of what they (the protags) must solve.
The reader has to want to see what the character(s) do next (plot), the reader has to want to see the next place the characters will get (setting), the reader has to want to see what the next clue is (some mystery or uncertainty).
IMO you are definitely wrong by a mile to put "plot" last, the plot is the story and the reason characters are doing anything at all. "Style" is not really necessary at all, and authors like JK Rowling make $millions with barely serviceable writing: Because she has likeable characters in plots that sustain suspense for her young-adult readers (and many old adult readers too).
The novel should be a suspenseful struggle for the protagonist to achieve something against some kind of opposition (a villain, the environment, society, the uncaring or corrupt police, the mafia, oppression, themselves). The ups and downs of that struggle are the plot.
Unless somebody has made a $million from their work (and I have not), I would question whether they are an authority on "what is art" and what it takes and how it is produced. You don't need "style", you need "story", and that means interesting characters with an interesting struggle that it seems will defeat their very best efforts; so the reader keeps turning pages to see how that defeat is avoided.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads