Friday 1 February 2013

Writing In Style

The concept of different writing 'styles' is a strange one. It's so far removed from the original purpose of writing - basic communication - that it seems illogical. Henry David Thoreau said that style "is not worth scraping and polishing, and gilding, unless it will write his thoughts the better for it. It is something for use, and not to look at".

However, style is also what makes fiction interesting and unique. A writer's influences, life events and personality all contribute to it, but there also seems to be a kind of 'Chinese whispers' effect. I used to love Roald Dahl's writing style as a child, but now I wouldn't actually be able to describe it. Because it has been years since I read his work, it has changed in my subconscious into something new - a part of my own style.


Writing evolves with the breaking of conventions and exploring of new techniques, and Emily Dickinson is a particularly good example of this. Her unusual, idiosyncratic use of punctuation and structure was unorthodox at the time she was writing, with writers like Longfellow and Lowell being popular for comparatively regular poetic styles. Many now consider her work ahead of its time - a precursor to modernist poetry.


Cheever's style was less radical, although still distinct in its own way. His style, poetic and lyrical without resorting to over-description or purple language, was both written in the New Yorker style, and also formed its future, being held up later as a textbook example of it. In this hundred-year anniversary article on Cheever, his particular style of writing is picked apart and examined, with some interesting conclusions.




2 comments:

  1. Yes, one of the great joys of a degree that requires literary analysis in any form can also be its drawback; close reading brings new meaning and, possibly, inspiration but can also rob you of the spontaneous pleasure of reading something for no other purpose than to read it for its own sake. You have to find a balance; read once for pleasure and then again for study perhaps? In some (hopefully rare) cases, reading it all would be a move in the right direction... :0)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I relate that, of course, to your observation that you do not recall what it was that you enjoyed about reading Roald Dahl. That is, when we read when we are very young we are rarely expected to analyse what we have read in any great detail, hence our fond memories of reading as children - it was all about taking pleasure in the story, rather than in our knowledge of the writer's style etc.

    ReplyDelete