Experimentation in Writing (Writing Topic)

[Lucifer_Carroll]

What's your opinion on experimentation in writing? Both from a reading and writing standpoint?

Do you stick to a standard style and format for all of your works or do you constantly strive to write in new ways, styles, and techniques?

When reading, how much do you tolerate experimentation in your author's? Do you want your writers to stay true to a certain style you love, do you like it when they try something radically different from their other works, do you tolerate "experimental" writing like Kathy Acker wherein even the form itself is heavily broken and surrealistic?

Where do you draw the lines as writer and reader? When it is no longer enjoyable, when it resembles work, or when it now longer holds the essence of the writer in question (even when that writer is you)?

Also why do these lines exist especially in your own work? What exactly keeps you under those brackets?

I'm quite curious. I consider myself a bit experimental. I constantly toy with new techniques, styles, and genres. My poetry has broken a few walls of taste, form, and what not. I tolerate experimentation in my writers quite well and enjoy it when they try a new form so long as they don't lose their essence.

However, I don't quite appreciate Kathy Acker all that much and I notice in my work, a natural pull to making some sort of sense, even if it is a twisted sense. I was wondering where everyone else's relation to experimentation was.

 

[wishfulthinking]

What's your opinion on experimentation in writing? Both from a reading and writing standpoint?

I'm all for it. I love change.

Do you stick to a standard style and format for all of your works or do you constantly strive to write in new ways, styles, and techniques?

Pretty much. I guess I'm still trying to find my style or perhaps voice, so not much variation on that front, I just keep nutting away at what I've got to use. When I have on lit, I did it under a different handle, and was greatly surprised to discover it on the favourites list today [waaaay down the bottom, but still there]. Hopefully this will give me the confidence to be more adventurous, but mostly in trying new genres rather than new techniques.

When reading, how much do you tolerate experimentation in your author's? Do you want your writers to stay true to a certain style you love, do you like it when they try something radically different from their other works, do you tolerate "experimental" writing like Kathy Acker wherein even the form itself is heavily broken and surrealistic?

I guess I have 2 measures when reading a book - enjoyed it, or didn't. I don't read enough of the same books by certain authors to get stuck in their groove, and get upset when they try something new. However, I have read a few of Laurell Hamilton's Anita Blake series, and the last 3 pissed me off because they were all about sex [ok, know this sounds weird coming from a pron writer ] Sex scene here or there, great. But to develop characters through the development of sex seems wrong, you couldn't separate the two. To have a third of a book when they don't get out of bed when it is a series about vampire killing - just wrong. whinge over!

Where do you draw the lines as writer and reader? When it is no longer enjoyable, when it resembles work, or when it now longer holds the essence of the writer in question (even when that writer is you)?

Do you mean, when do I call it a day? as a writer, writing is hard work. to quote someone else "i hate writing. i love having written." I haven't binned anything I've written, they are all here on lit.

As a reader - when reading a new sentence becomes painful.

Also why do these lines exist especially in your own work? What exactly keeps you under those brackets?

Not sure what you are asking.

I'm quite curious. I consider myself a bit experimental. I constantly toy with new techniques, styles, and genres. My poetry has broken a few walls of taste, form, and what not. I tolerate experimentation in my writers quite well and enjoy it when they try a new form so long as they don't lose their essence.

Envious. Nothing I have written could ever be described as breaking anything. Nor will anything I write will probably be described as breaking any boundaries, but this doesn't upset me. Each to their own ambition.

However, I don't quite appreciate Kathy Acker all that much and I notice in my work, a natural pull to making some sort of sense, even if it is a twisted sense. I was wondering where everyone else's relation to experimentation was.

Call me ignorant, but I've never heard of Kathy Acker. But if what you are saying is that you recognise what you don't like in another book/author, and avoid that in your own writing, I agree. And vice versa for when you find an experimental style of technique you like.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I don't like writing that's "precious", that's self-consciously different or radical, that smacks of "How clever I am! Aren't I clever?"

I don't like writing that takes a lot of effort. You should get more out of a book than you have to put in

I prefer writing that achieves its effects invisibly, what I call a "transparent" style, one that doesn't call attention to itself.

I don't like to feel manipulated in any art, whether it's music (self-conscious and engineered hooks in songs), film (ET ruined me. I felt Spielberg yanking my chain this way and that, and once you notice how you're being yanked, it's hard to enjoy), visual art ("shock" art), or writing (romance fiction is terrinbly manipulative).

But I do experiment. I experiment with imagery especially, and I keep what seems to work and usually abandon what doesn't. I've experimented a lot with religious imagery in sex stories and I'm not done with that yet. I bring in a lot of nature imagery as well.

I've been screwing around lately with what I call "nontext" poetry (for "no context", speaking of being cute and precious ) , in which there's no adjacent words that would normally be next to each other. No "My heart" or "love is" but in which feelings are still expressed. It's kind of fun. If I ever write anything worth reading, I might post it.

 

[impressive]

I just write. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about why or how. I write what moves me. If I want to know more about a character, I'll profile him/her. Otherwise, I just assume that if it works for me, it'll likely work for someone else.

That being said, not every piece is as moving as others. Some are just fluff. Some are just fun. Some are just stroke. And some (my favorites) are stirring and emotional and hot.

 

[rgraham666]

My criteria for both reading and writing are simple: Was it a good story?

Was it interesting to read? If yes, it was a good story.

Did it make me think? If yes, it was a good story.

Did I find the characters interesting? If yes, it was a good story.

Etc. so on and so forth and more of the same.

"All writing styles are equally valid, except the boring." - Voltaire

 

[TheEarl]

I tend to write how I write. Although I do try to improve, I know that if I try and be 'precious' (as Dr_M so brilliantly put it), it'll turn out to be crap. I write how the words flow.

As for reading experimental stuff, that's mostly gut instinct. If it's really hard work for no reward, then it just won't get finished. Reading's easy and if someone's making it hard to show how clever they are, then I have no time for them.

The Earl

 

[Boota]

At this point everything I write is experimental. I'm new enough at this that I'm still dicking around with things to see what works and what doesn't. I am accepting of quite a bit from other writers, but if it gets like Dr. M said and I have to work to read it, I will likely quit on it.

 

[Guest]

I don't like writing that's "precious", that's self-consciously different or radical, that smacks of "How clever I am! Aren't I clever?"

I don't like writing that takes a lot of effort. You should get more out of a book than you have to put in

I prefer writing that achieves its effects invisibly, what I call a "transparent" style, one that doesn't call attention to itself.

I don't like to feel manipulated in any art, whether it's music (self-conscious and engineered hooks in songs), film (ET ruined me. I felt Spielberg yanking my chain this way and that, and once you notice how you're being yanked, it's hard to enjoy), visual art ("shock" art), or writing (romance fiction is terrinbly manipulative).

But I do experiment. I experiment with imagery especially, and I keep what seems to work and usually abandon what doesn't. I've experimented a lot with religious imagery in sex stories and I'm not done with that yet. I bring in a lot of nature imagery as well.

I've been screwing around lately with what I call "nontext" poetry (for "no context", speaking of being cute and precious ) , in which there's no adjacent words that would normally be next to each other. No "My heart" or "love is" but in which feelings are still expressed. It's kind of fun. If I ever write anything worth reading, I might post it.

Doc, this is one of the reasons why you were voted "Most Influencial Writer" here, for last year. I always love what you have to say and almost always find myself nodding in agreement with it. I particularly like what you said here about "precious" writing. Couldn't agree more!

 

[Softouch911]

Like Boota, everytime out of the box is a new adventure for me, though I've been doing it for longer than most of the posters on Lit. have been alive.

And yes, I experiment, but not for the sake of just trying to be weird or different. (Those things are accidents of heredity and environment in my case.)

When I write a story or a poem, I use traditions and formulae to somewhere shortly after it begins with a character, an image, a situation, an observation. For me I'll find it a home in a genre, a tradition, a format that I know.

But if it stays in that arena, comfortably predictable according to the "rules" of the formula, I know it will suck when I'm done. I like it when my stories and poems break break rules; that "experiment" is usually the thing that makes them successful.

Hey, it's "creative" writing ... since when does that mean predictable? Just last week I posted a story in "Group Sex" ("Outrage & Lust") that violates important rules readers in that area expect you to follow if they will give you their attention. The story is one of my favorites and I'm more than pleased with the way it came out; but it's getting bombed -- nearly 3000 views in two days, and only 5 votes! Hey, you live with the consequences!

The other choices available are to stay within the formulas ... and die of boredom. Or to go to genre where creativity and experimentation are encouraged ... and die of loneliness.

 

[Extreme Bohunk]

I try to give the reader an interesting story that's hot.
Due to my lack of 'formal' writing skills, I concentrate on a simpler
approach, largely because I have to.

My first few stories were submitted for fun, but now I
try to challenge myself to come up with better writing.
When I see the level of knowledge & dedication some of
the authors have, I feel obliged to raise the bar for myself.
I thank a lot of you for that.

Oh, btw:
the new story I'm working on is called 'Precious'.
Seeing that word mentioned several times in this thread
makes me nervous. Is there something I should know?

 

[Belegon]

I'm still too busy trying to find a style, let alone be worried about whether or not I should try to stretch myself out of it...

I don't mind when others do it. I may or may not appreciate the results, but it certainly CAN be valid. But I don't believe in doing it just to be different if you can't get your ideas across.

My goal in writing is often to provoke emotion. If the words and sentence structure are getting in the way of that instead of assisting it, I lose my interest very quickly.

 

[KarenAM]

I love to experiment. While there's nothing wrong with traditional storytelling, the only way I'm going to improve as a writer is to test the boundaries of what I can do.