What terms about writing do you find helpful?

[SimonDoom]

Any idea how these authors get away with using a lot of words? Are there varieties of styles that use a lot of words?

It works when:

1. The words serve the author's purpose, and
2. The author is skilled with words.

I like Elizabeth George a lot. She's a skilled writer. She knows how to use words. And she uses them to get into the details of how her characters think and feel and experience things. She uses words to build suspense and mood.

Henry James is an author I enjoy a lot, but his writing style violates every principle. He's incredibly wordy and he often tells rather than shows. But the method serves the purpose. His stories aren't about external action. The focus is on how his characters experience things internally, so he goes into great depth to describe their experience.

 

[AG31]

Is the word "discursive" as applied to writing style meaningful to any of you? Might it be an official technical term? I came up with it (I think...maybe I read about it) to describe several authors I admire who tend to use a lot of words. Elizabeth George, Ruth Rendell and P.D. James.

Any idea how these authors get away with using a lot of words? Are there varieties of styles that use a lot of words?

Just an aside: Apologies to @StillStunned, but this makes me think of another gripe I have about AI in our lives. I've already lamented just a little bit the decreased frequency of contact with my daughter, now that I've discovered how efficiently ChatGPT can tell me how to do something on my phone, or how to get advice about cleaning up my disk on Windows. Now I also find myself feeling a little guilty for asking questions here that I could easily get answered by AI. But I want conversation! I want to know how other people think.

 

[CalBishForNow]

I definitely disagree with this. While there are no universal principles regarding "good writing," I think simplicity is a good general guideline. More often than not, simple is better than the alternative. If "The room was red" is the most direct and economical way to say something in a particular context, then it's probably the right way.

I thought I was smart to avoid getting hung up on those specific examples, but at this point I'll go with the flow..."The room is red" is a sentence I'd never write as straightforward description because it's so weird to have all of a room any one color, especially that color.

Like, the walls? The rug? The ceiling? The floor paneling? The furniture? The decor? They're all red? Not pink or light orange or salmon, they're all stop sign red? Either we're in an eccentric billionaire's house and he's screwing with someone with red/green color-blindness, or there's something supernatural going on. If that was the message I actually wanted to convey, I'd dwell on the details and list and describe every thing that had been custom-made in that same hue. If on the other hand I wanted to say that the room had a strongly unified theme, I'd describe what that theme was and the slight variations on it necessary to conform to what humans can actually make and buy from retail stores. (E.g. if it was a Valentine's Day thing, there would be several different shades of red and pink and some of them would have white or silver trim and some would have heart designs.) If I wanted to say that the walls were painted red, or alternately dripping red like blood, I'd just say that. If we're talking about a normal room in a not-very-action-packed scene, "The room is red" seems like bad writing because it raises more questions than it answers.

On the other hand, writing "he saw that the room is red" feels less likely to be bad writing because it's getting filtered through a character's perceptions. It's much easier to imagine ways that could be good writing. Maybe he's drunk or in a rush just because he was stuck in traffic and therefore is not capable of noticing anything more than that.

 

[AG31]

It works when:

1. The words serve the author's purpose,

This is a better way to phrase it than "to move the story along," which is a very common way to talk about this.

 

[AG31]

"The room is red" is a sentence I'd never write as straightforward description because it's so weird to have all of a room any one color, especially that color.

Like, the walls? The rug? The ceiling? The floor paneling? The furniture? The decor? They're all red? Not pink or light orange or salmon, they're all stop sign red?

I didn't respond to my own challenge to write a good, immersive passage using "The room is red," because I'm not imaginative. But this did keep floating through my head. "The room was red. The sunset was red. Her dress and eyes were red." I'm not claiming that this is good writing. But if I share it maybe it will leave my brain.

 

[SimonDoom]

This isn't a quibble with Hemmingway, of course, but with the critics who apply the labels. Which brings me back to my point that I don't thonk most writers consciously think about terms as they are writing.

You're probably right about that, whether you're talking about mainstream writers or writers here at Literotica.

I try to be a fairly self-conscious writer, so I might focus on labels more than some. If I'm writing a story in third person free indirect style, then I try to focus hard on what I'm doing and to be consistent with that style. Inconsistency is grating to me as a reader, so I try to avoid it as a writer. So the label is like a post-it note. A helpful reminder to keep my story on the rails.

 

[AG31]

Is there a term for this, other than "snappy narration?" This all comes from pages 10 and 11 in Smoke on the Water by Loren Estleman.

I waited three minutes then speared a cigarette through my lips and tried to point it at the ceiling.

It worked. The carefully tailored woman on the receiving end of the mirror appeared around a trick corner carrying a sheaf of papers and puckered her forehead at my acrobatics. I was impressed she managed it at all. The forehead was a perfect half-sphere, as round and smooth as the mirror, and pumped full of more poinson than a pack of Camels. Her hair was frosted and arranged into three neat leftward-leaning triangles across the polished brow like toast points.

*****
"First door on the left." Whatever tonal inflection she might have had didn't make it out the opening in her stiff face.
****
A row of framed seaside prints ushered me down a short hall past a copying machine with a view of the bulbous mirror in the lobby.
***
My little Hispanic conceit died on the threshold. The man rattling a laptop was poure towhead, Ken out of Tab Hunter, with skin like strawberry milk.

Sea-green eyes looked up at me without annoyance; at the Waterford Group, a little thing like barging in without knocking went with the theme.
***
A minute later the frosted receptionist walked in.


There's more on the remaining half page.

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

I've heard this too. But what intrigues me is that it isn't really because all the Spanish dialogue is rendered into English - thus the narrator is making a subjective decision to translate. If it was truly objective the dialogue with the waitress would be left in Spanish and it would be up to the reader to understand or not.

This isn't a quibble with Hemmingway, of course, but with the critics who apply the labels. Which brings me back to my point that I don't thonk most writers consciously think about terms as they are writing.

I suppose the exceptions are poets. I mean, nobody 'accidentally' writes a sonnet or sentina. Those are conscious decisions, and you can't do it (or at least I can't) without knowing terms like repetand, metre, volta, etc.

I'm not sure even poets are an exception here. I write sonnets. I learned the rules of iambic pentameter, remember what it's called because it's a line in "10 Things I Hate About You" (otherwise, I'd just remember the rules) and go on my merry way. I learned the term volta here on lit (may have been from you, actually. Thank you for that - it is not sarcasm when I say I love sonnets because I love rules <3), but you definitely can write a sonnet without it.

I think this may in fact strengthen your argument, though. I think most writers aren't thinking of these terms when writing and wonder the extent to which it is necessary to be one of the "greats." (A group to which I don't belong, so I wouldn't be able to tell you). Now, of course, you also have me curious if I should do a vocabulary lesson to see if it makes me a better poet, but that will be *after* I write about Wendy's...I mean Penny's.

 

[THBGato]

I try to be a fairly self-conscious writer, so I might focus on labels more than some. If I'm writing a story in third person free indirect style, then I try to focus hard on what I'm doing and to be consistent with that style. Inconsistency is grating to me as a reader, so I try to avoid it as a writer. So the label is like a post-it note. A helpful reminder to keep my story on the rails.

Are you familiar with Oulipo? It might appeal to you...

 

[SamanthaBehgs]

Are you familiar with Oulipo? It might appeal to you...

I was not - I will need to take a look at it once I finish those three stories and sonnet on my list. This looks like fun!

 

[Britva415]

Is the word "discursive" as applied to writing style meaningful to any of you?

It either means that the topic wanders, seemingly aimlessly, or else, that the topic and the "discourse" on it are focused on reason, logic and evidence rather than on feelings or emotion or intuition.

Either of those things can be done in various styles, so, if "discursive" itself is a style, it would have to be the first. The second isn't a style, it's more of a goal or a purpose.

"Using lots of words" isn't what I ever would have called a discursive style.

 

[AG31]

It either means that the topic wanders, seemingly aimlessly, or else, that the topic and the "discourse" on it are focused on reason, logic and evidence rather than on feelings or emotion or intuition.

Either of those things can be done in various styles, so, if "discursive" itself is a style, it would have to be the first. The second isn't a style, it's more of a goal or a purpose.

"Using lots of words" isn't what I ever would have called a discursive style.

Do you have a term that covers "using lots of words?" Like George, Rendell and James?

 

[Britva415]

Wordy, verbose, detailed, dense

Possibly evocative or impressionistic

Maybe just purple or overwritten

 

[SimonDoom]

It either means that the topic wanders, seemingly aimlessly, or else, that the topic and the "discourse" on it are focused on reason, logic and evidence rather than on feelings or emotion or intuition.

Either of those things can be done in various styles, so, if "discursive" itself is a style, it would have to be the first. The second isn't a style, it's more of a goal or a purpose.

"Using lots of words" isn't what I ever would have called a discursive style.

I agree with those definitions.

I would describe Moby Dick as a discursive novel because of the long and repeated digressions on the craft of whaling that do not seem strictly necessary to the advancement of the plot.

 

[AG31]

I agree with those definitions.

I would describe Moby Dick as a discursive novel because of the long and repeated digressions on the craft of whaling that do not seem strictly necessary to the advancement of the plot.

I like Elizabeth George a lot. She's a skilled writer. She knows how to use words. And she uses them to get into the details of how her characters think and feel and experience things. She uses words to build suspense and mood.

You sound inconsistent. The second quote was in response to my observation that George was discursive.

 

[SimonDoom]

You sound inconsistent. The second quote was in response to my observation that George was discursive.

I think Britva's use of the term makes sense to me. A lot of worse doesn't necessarily mean discursive. George is wordy, and I like her, but I probably wouldn't use the term "discursive" to describe her writing if we abide by Britva's two definitions.

 

[ElectricBlue]

now that I've discovered how efficiently ChatGPT can tell me how to do something on my phone, or how to get advice about cleaning up my disk on Windows. Now I also find myself feeling a little guilty for asking questions here that I could easily get answered by AI. But I want conversation! I want to know how other people think.

The danger you've now got is that you won't necessarily know when ChatGPT gives you a rubbish answer. Despite what people say about the rarity of hallucinations, I've often seen the Google summary at the top of a page simply wrong.

 

[iwatchus]

The danger you've now got is that you won't necessarily know when ChatGPT gives you a rubbish answer. Despite what people say about the rarity of hallucinations, I've often seen the Google summary at the top of a page simply wrong.

Last year (or maybe early this year) a media professor had his entire class do requests for answers from their favorite AI, getting back approximately 30 roughly one page answers. They verified each bit of the answer. 100% of the answers had at least one hallucination. Given enough rope, they will hallucinate.

 

[AG31]

I think Britva's use of the term makes sense to me. A lot of worse doesn't necessarily mean discursive. George is wordy, and I like her, but I probably wouldn't use the term "discursive" to describe her writing if we abide by Britva's two definitions.

Do you have a word to describe her writing? I think your description of it is spot on.

 

[AG31]

The danger you've now got is that you won't necessarily know when ChatGPT gives you a rubbish answer. Despite what people say about the rarity of hallucinations, I've often seen the Google summary at the top of a page simply wrong.

the kinds of questions I ask are very easily checked in the real world. If the show isn't on Netflix, like it said, then I tell it so and it corrects.

 

[MillieDynamite]

When Dashell Hammett was asked why the Continental Opp, the fat man, took all six shots to hit someone, he replied, "They pay me by the word."

 

[YmaOHyd]

Do you have a word to describe her writing? I think your description of it is spot on.

The Times describes it as "exasperating," which I don't think is what you're looking for.

 

[ElectricBlue]

the kinds of questions I ask are very easily checked in the real world. If the show isn't on Netflix, like it said, then I tell it so and it corrects.

You do see the irony in that statement? Seems to me that your "information" gathering process now takes twice as much work, because you intrinsically know the first pass might be wrong. Why don't you eliminate that chance of error by not asking the guessing machine to "answer" in the first place?

 

[AG31]

You do see the irony in that statement? Seems to me that your "information" gathering process now takes twice as much work, because you intrinsically know the first pass might be wrong. Why don't you eliminate that chance of error by not asking the guessing machine to "answer" in the first place?

Because mostly it's right, and it takes way less time to get the answer from ChatGPT than it does to step through the various web sites. They don't all present the info in obvious ways. I don't check the answer. I just assume it's right, and when, on rare occasions it's wrong, no problem. Saves lots and lots of time.