Some questions regarding story criticisms

[Graymouse]

So I've been wandering around the board a fair amount this week, soaking up quite a bit of the good writing advice from a number of respected Lit personalities, and much of it has been very useful. In particular, I've gleaned a lot of relevant suggestions from Whispersecret's "500 word Critique" thread. However, one thing that has been mentioned repeatedly there and elsewhere as a means of imrpoving a piece of writing is to remove (as much as possible) all use of "to be" verb phrasing--"was," "is," "had been," etc. Generally I agree with this strategy; certainly it makes for a livelier pace. However, it can be argued that the use of words like "was" and "had been" is, in itself, a form of stylistic expression designed for a particular effect and not, rather, simply a lack of refinement or skill. Obviously this is not always the case; consideration should certainly be given to the plot of the specific story and the pacing of a particular scene. Nonetheless, it seems unresonable to me to deride a piece of writing based solely on this simplified sentence structure and, for lack of a better descriptor, sparseness. In arguing that this can be a legitimate style, I'm thinking in particular of someone like Ernest Hemingway. Consider the following:

The hills across the valley of the Ebro were long and white. On this side there was no shade and no trees and the station was between two lines of rails in the sun. Close against the side of the station there was the warm shadow of the building and a curtain, made of strings of bamboo beads, hung across the open door into the bar, to keep out flies. The American and the girl with him sat at a table in the shade, outside the building. It was very hot and the express from Barcelona would come in forty minutes. It stopped at this junction for two minutes and went to Madrid.

--"Hills Like White Elephants"

Clearly, lots of "wases." Of course, the textual simplicity and its resultant effect on pace are intentional in this case; given the setting and the plot of this story this style contributes quite a bit. But that's my point. I also have a second point.

It's been suggested repeatedly in critical feedback here that authors would do well to par down their sentences--to break them up for ease of reading. Most of the time this makes sense in the context in which I've seen it mentioned. If a sentence runs on for no particular reason and, in doing so, it clashes with the style otherwise established by a piece, clearly it should be reworked. However, I am again reminded of well-respected authors for whom lengthy, complex sentences are a stylistic tool wielded for a particular effect. Look at Faulkner, for example:

Father said it's like death: only a state in which the others are left and I said, But to believe it doesn't matter and he said, That's what's so sad about anything: not only virginity and I said, Why couldn't it have been me and not her who is unvirgin and he said, That's why that's sad too; nothing is even worth the changing of it, and Shreve said if he's got better sense than to chase after the little dirty sluts and I said Did you ever have a sister? Did you? Did you?

--"The Sound and the Fury"

Granted, this is first person so there's a greater degree of flexibility, but the point is the same. Sometimes deliberately going against the direction of what is "traditionally" correct can be very effective.

So my question is this--how much do you thik this applies to the things we write here at Literotica? Is there any place for experimentalism or nontraditional styling considering that A) many people read erotica for reasons other than its literary merit , and B) the vast majority of us, being amateur hacks, are in nowhere near the league of Hemingway and Faulkner?

Granted, I'm no expert at any of this. It's entirely possible that I'm full of shit. Still, I'm interested in the opinions of those who write and critique stories here. And incidentally, sorry this is so long.

 

[kristydoll]

I am one who comments on long sentence use. I think it's because "short sentences" has been drilled into my head repeatedly but a respected author I know. I think long sentences do serve a point at times though. It is when one long sentence encompasses two or more thoughts that I think it is better served using 2 or more sentences.

I also think that this is a good forum for using unconventional styles of writing. The feedback one can get here gives some indication of how it was received. It is important to keep your own style when writing, instead of just conforming to "how it should be done". But, there is something very valuable of knowing the proper basics.

Personally, I enjoy writing "web-based" stories for the reason that I feel I am able to do with the story what I want. Most of the time though, I do write to "guidelines" set by the publishing companies I am interested in. But on a whole, I love reading here. The "stories" tend to be an added bonus to seeing the different styles.

 

[kristydoll]

I'm not a virgin anymore!!!

 

[Whispersecret]

Graymouse, great points, all. You're absolutely right. A piece of writing should not be nailed just because of a preponderance of wases. (I've never been a fan of Hemingway, but he's clearly a great writer.)

Maybe I've gotten caught up in another crusade. Sometimes it seems like my brain can only see certain mistakes like red flags. After reading King's On Writing I went on an adverb campaign, uprooting the little devils like weeds. Perhaps I've been going overboard with the was thing.

However, keep in mind that the majority of writers here are amateurs who may never have analyzed the wherefores of good writing technique. My hope is that as time passes, people like you will have read the previous critiques, and applied some of what they've learned to their own 500 words. But I digress.

As for sentence length, I believe you should have short, medium, and long sentences. There should be a flow and rhythm to writing, and too many of one type of sentence can ruin a story. It's all a matter of style, as you said.

So my question is this--how much do you thik this applies to the things we write here at Literotica? Is there any place for experimentalism or nontraditional styling considering that A) many people read erotica for reasons other than its literary merit , and B) the vast majority of us, being amateur hacks, are in nowhere near the league of Hemingway and Faulkner?

I think this is certainly a place for experimentation, however, don't be surprised if the response is not glowing. The readership here is varied, but I'd say the majority are here for stroke stories. Certainly there is a growing number of readers who crave more complex plots, deeper characters, more nuance and style. It's just difficult for them to find what they want among the dozens of stories that are posted each day. I think Killermuffin suggested that perhaps the site could be divided into a stroke section and a more literary section, but I don't see that happening. Someone would have to judge which was which, and I think the administrators have plenty on their plates already.

I see no reason why you shouldn't strive to achieve the erotic equivalent of Faulkner or Hemingway's work. Hacks can dream, can't they?

 

[Weird Harold]

...Sometimes deliberately going against the direction of what is "traditionally" correct can be very effective.

So my question is this--how much do you thik this applies to the things we write here at Literotica? Is there any place for experimentalism or nontraditional styling ...

I think that for most authors here at Lit, experimentation should be kept to a minimum until they've learnd to write in more "traditional" style(s).

Emphasizing short sentences, eliminating passive voice (my own pet peeve), minimizing "wases," "ands," "thens" and "buts," and all of the other "traditional" ways to improve your writing won't eliminate all of the "flaws." All most novice authors will gain by concentrating on the traditional "flaws" is to reduce them to manageable levels.

Once authors gain some experience and understanding of just how those flaws work against a story's readability and/or work on a reader's subconscious, then they can start to introduce "deliberate flaws" to manipulate the reader.

Experimentation and developing a "personal style" needs to proceed from a base of sound writing principles. There is no need to repeat failed experiments performed by thousands of other novices in the past.

A point to consider about Hemingway, Faulkner, and other well known "non-conformist" writers:

These men wrote for an audience that in most cases no longer exists and in styles that are now considered "old-fashioned." Further, they were all great story-tellers more than they were "great authors" -- A great story can overcome a lot of minor stylistic flaws.

Whisper secret said, "(I've never been a fan of Hemingway, but he's clearly a great writer.)" I have to agree for the most part, except I would say, "He WAS a great author." How many other people have you heard express sentiments similar to WS?

J.R.R Tolkien is reknowned as a "great author" and the founder of the modern fantasy genre. The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings[/i] trilogy are indeed great stories, but I personally can't stand Tolkien's rambling descriptions of everything the characters encounter. For me, (and several other people I know,) his long flowery descriptions detract from the essential story, making his work a very difficult read. Tolkien is just one more of the "great story-tellers" mis-identified as "great authors."

I think most of the writing advice intended for novice writers is aimed at allowing the story to come to the fore and keep the technical details of writing the story from "hiding" the story from the readers.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Re: Re: Some questions regarding story criticisms

I think that for most authors here at Lit, experimentation should be kept to a minimum until they've learnd to write in more "traditional" style(s).

* * *

Experimentation and developing a "personal style" needs to proceed from a base of sound writing principles. There is no need to repeat failed experiments performed by thousands of other novices in the past.

I agree with you, Harold. Authors should know how to write correctly before they start making "mistakes" on purpose in order to get special effects.

 

[Graymouse]

You know, I actually agree completely that it's important to master the basics first. Probably there's nothing more painful to read than the experimental stylings of some overly ambitious amateur. Clearly, a solid foundation in the hows and whys of grammar and traditional story structure is where anyone should start, and probably remain, for some time.

Here's the thing, though. Okay, actually a couple of things--first, the truth is I really, genuinely like the writing styles of Hemingway, Faulkner, O'Connor, etc. Very different from one another but all, if I am understanding you correctly, WH, falling into that category that you would describe as both dated and, to a certain degree, stylistically flawed. I hope I'm not misinterpreting. So jeez, am I an old-fashioned weirdo or what? All right, obviously it comes down to personal taste at some point but I'm not sure I can accept the view that these authors were successful on the basis of their storytelling in *spite* of their style. For me, their individual writing styles is part of what makes me like them. But maybe that's just me.

Anyway, this is starting to stray away from any real practical application in terms of writing here at Lit. God knows none of us is a Faulkner, so focusing on those guys at any length doesn't seem worth it. The thing all this leaves me wondering, though, is this--how does a person know if he or she is ready to competently attempt a story using elements of nontraditional style or structure? That is, given that this person has a firm background in the basics and such structure/styling exists for a meaningful purpose and not just for the hell of it. The short answer, obviously, is that you find out by doing it and gauging the reaction, realizing, of course, that you stand to alienate from the start those readers interested in simple stroke material. That much is a foregone conclusion; the only valid opinion in terms of evaluating how successful such an attempt might be would be that of those readers who are interested in the more literary pieces.

So I guess what I'm saying is that it's people like yourselves whose opinions concern me--do you have an interest in stories that employ alternative styling if done well and with purpose?

I'm not that skillful myself, so this is not to say that I'm planning to deliberately create such a story. I'm interested only because I sometimes have a tendency, I think, to sparsely use sentences that would not be viewed as technically correct--run-ons, fragments, etc.--for a particular effect in a certain scene, for example. It makes sense in my head but I never know if my reasoning for doing so is conveyed clearly and the tool produces the desired effect or if people just think I have spontaneous bursts of idiocy--which also happens, although I try hard to disguise them .

Finally, I just wanted to say thanks to all of you for responding to my questions--now that I'm supposedly a science person, this is as close to English class as I get to get. I very much appreciate having a forum to discuss the half-cooked thoughts bouncing around in my head.

 

[Whispersecret]

OH! Fragments and run-ons? Used sparsely? Graymouse, have at it. Seriously. (<--note fragment)

I thought you might be talking about something like what's being discussed on another thread, switching between both first and third person viewpoints in the same story. Or a story in which there is no capitalization. Something really off the wall.

Judging from your very well-written posts, I'd venture to say that you would have no problem correctly gauging where fragments would work and where they wouldn't. Modern fiction writers often employ fragments for emphasis.

 

[Weird Harold]

Here's the thing, though. Okay, actually a couple of things--first, the truth is I really, genuinely like the writing styles of Hemingway, Faulkner, O'Connor, etc. Very different from one another but all, if I am understanding you correctly, WH, falling into that category that you would describe as both dated and, to a certain degree, stylistically flawed. I hope I'm not misinterpreting. So jeez, am I an old-fashioned weirdo or what? All right, obviously it comes down to personal taste at some point but I'm not sure I can accept the view that these authors were successful on the basis of their storytelling in *spite* of their style. For me, their individual writing styles is part of what makes me like them. But maybe that's just me.
...
I'm interested only because I sometimes have a tendency, I think, to sparsely use sentences that would not be viewed as technically correct--run-ons, fragments, etc.--for a particular effect in a certain scene, for example. It makes sense in my head but I never know if my reasoning for doing so is conveyed clearly and the tool produces the desired effect or if people just think I have spontaneous bursts of idiocy--which also happens, although I try hard to disguise them .

I don't think you're a weirdo for liking Hemmingway and Faulkner. I can't think of anything of Faulkner's that I like, but Of Mice and Men is a very compelling read by Hemmingway -- primarily because it's a compelling story that "fits" his writing style.

Hemmingway's style wouldn't work for Faulkner's story's and Vice Versa. Their styles fit the stories they tell, so the style is part of the story. The stories and style are drawn from their time and environment, and are of necessity somewhat dated. Those stories would be much different stylistically if written today. (DCL had an interesting thread on th problems of older screenwriters on the general board that sort of fits my viewpoint on old writers.)

Story-telling (writing) is all about making the story work. Part of making a storywork, is "writing the way you speak." That old and musty bit of advice doesn't mean "include all the grammatical mistakes you make in your normal conversations," but "stay within the limits of your normal vocabulary and don't be afraid to use contractions."

Especially inside dialaogue, fragments and run-ons are a normal part of speech and should be used where they are natural to the character's speech patterns.

In the narrative of your story, as long as your story is readable, an occassional fragement or run-on sentence is not going to hurt your story and may enhance the story -- where they become a problem is when you don't realize that you're using them and fill your story with them.

If you can read your story "aloud" without sounding stilted or running out of breath -- it's probably a well-written story.

 

[karmadog]

Of Mice and Men[/i] is a very compelling read by Hemmingway

You still don't care for Hemingway, Harold. That's by Steinbeck.

 

[Weird Harold]

You still don't care for Hemingway, Harold. That's by Steinbeck.

I must have meant "a compelling read FOR Hemmingway.

 

[Uther_Pendragon]

We should all remember that rules have reasons. Now, "keep
your sentences short" is a rule which should often be broken.
(Someday, read Rudyard Kipling's *The Man Who Was*. The
first sentence is a killer.)
Still and all, keep the rules unless you have a good
reason to break them.
I once wrote a story in one (400 word) sentence in the
present tense and second person POV. ("Life Sentence," not
on Lit.) But many stories can be improved by breaking up
long sentences. (A few others could be improved by joining
together some of the short sentences. Descriptions of
action can often be improved by replacing "He began to
comb his fingers through her hair" with "He combed his
fingers through her hair." Nine out of ten passive
sentences can be improved by replacing them with the
active form.
Trouble starts, however, with the taking of these rules to
the extreme. The question is: "What purpose does this
form serve?"

 

[Madame Manga]

We should all remember that rules have reasons. Now, "keep
your sentences short" is a rule which should often be broken.
[snip] Nine out of ten passive
sentences can be improved by replacing them with the
active form.
Trouble starts, however, with the taking of these rules to
the extreme. The question is: "What purpose does this
form serve?"

Oh, yeah. Good summation. An editor should read a story as a story first, and only then start to pick at the components. If non-standard syntax works in context, leave it alone. "Correcting" the apparent errors can sometimes suck all the life out of a piece. There are analogies in art--a lot of famous masterpieces, when you look closely, have anatomical errors or mistakes in perspective. Hypercritical, legalistic editing (such as the kind you might get from an English teacher without a sense of humor) can completely miss the creative point.

This of course only applies to a writer who knows what she is doing in the first place, whether by experience or intuition.

MM