Basically, it’s trying to listen too much to external directives and not enough to internal ones.

Thanks so much for explaining. I’m wondering now if maybe the reason this happens more with commercial fiction is because it relies more on the external validation of sales, and therefore these writers feel that they need to pitch their voices to the marketplace?

It sounds like some writers need to have more confidence in their natural voices and protect those voices’ individuality.

That means-shockingly!-that not everyone will like the work.

LOL! It’s ironic that the motivation for eradicating uniqueness is to be liked by everyone, because there I’ve yet to hear of an author whom every reader likes, and also because several of the authors I’ve quoted above are loved by readers.

Sounds to me a little like the kids who try too hard to fit in at junior high by blending in and following the trends, and are rarely as popular as the kids with the confidence to display their individuality.

When I teach voice, my only goal is to cut away all the shoulds and musts and you can’t do thats and let writers play and explore their own passions and rhythms.

I think you’re doing an important service to readers and I hope lots of writers take your class.

I feel fiercely that great stylists are born, not made, but can be killed by the homogenizing pressures that sometimes plague commercial fition.

Can you elaborate more on how this happens?

I’m traveling (teaching a voice class this weekend, as it happens) so I’m popping in from a hotel. The homogenizing pressures are not an organized conspiracy, of course, just a lot of elements bearing down on aspiring (and sometimes already published) writers to iron out the quirks that make their voices unique. Critique groups have already been mentioned. Trying to follow too many edicts from the writing conference circuit. Basically, it’s trying to listen too much to external directives and not enough to internal ones. (And believe me, I am not saying writers don’t need editors–we do, we do, we do.)

While writers do need to understand mechanics and good construction, they also need to honor their own uniqueness and hone it to the highest possible level. That means–shockingly!–that not everyone will like the work. I think of the first time I read Stephanie Plum–not a voice that was going to work in category romance or in any number of other realms, but it’s so breezy and funny and earthy that there’s no denying the appeal.

When I teach voice, my only goal is to cut away all the shoulds and musts and you can’t do thats and let writers play and explore their own passions and rhythms. We all speak differently, hear differently, perceive differently. One is a poet, another a rubbery shark, another a fey little thing with airy robes. Each will appeal to a different sort of reader. Luckily, there are lots and lots of readers. I just want each style to be as strong as possible within its own context.

Laura, when I posted that I thought it might sound exactly the way you thought it did. I should have looked closer at it and tried to fix it. Of course reading my quote in your post made me realize I could have added “too “or “because” after “I loved both”. Oops.

Janine, I meant exactly what you meant but just didn’t clarify it. Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply you felt that way about the genre and it’s style. I just wanted to reply to one of your original questions as to why fewer authors write with that particular lyricism. Now that I look back it wasn’t even a question in your post but somewhere in the comments that I was refering to anyway.

Oh well, I guess I need to buff up my proof reading skills.

The original post was about why writers, maybe romance or genre writers in particular, don’t use style as a tool in most of their writing.

I don’t think that’s what I was trying to say. Everyone who writes uses style of some kind. I was asking why the more lyrical style of writing is so much more difficult to find in this genre, why there are so many more books written in a kind of nuts-and-bolts voice. I have enjoyed books written in a wide variety of styles, but I love those lyrical romances and I would love to read more of them.

Oh dear, maybe I wasn’t clear. When I said that I prefer the King James Version I wasnt’ saying I prefer the Bible quotation to the Stephen King quotation. They’re different in some ways, similar in others and I like both. What I was meaning was that where style and language are concerned I prefer the King James Version of the Bible to other versions of the Bible.

When Jane brought up the use of adverbs earlier I thought of On Writing! King definitely discourages it too

That was when I thought of On Writing too and what he said about structure. He says a lot of interesting stuff in that book. I have to admit to liking a lot of his work. He’s got a humble style and a dry sense of humour that is just so dry, and humourous. Nobody else does Tyrana-Sorbet-Wrecks.

there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Not surprising really, as Stephen King’s describing the literary act of creation. And I love the King James Version. It sounds powerful and, appropriately enough, majestic.

I love both, they’re powerful and lyrical in their own way. Even though one was much more wordy and descriptive they’re the same. In terms of style, how it flows more beautifully then a grocery list.

Some of it is word choice and some of it is rhythmn. To me description is not the same as lyrical language. I think a lot of people equate style with description because descriptive words tend to be prettier sounding than others. There is great style in dialogue and narrative. The original post was about why writers, maybe romance or genre writers in particular, don’t use style as a tool in most of their writing. I’ll add maybe it’s because using style without description is something very difficult to do? How do you find the balance between word choice and rhythmn in dialogue and narrative without sacrificing the story. I’m not really a writer and am in the camp that believes great literary stylists are usually born and rarely made. Style is something that may have to be learned seperate from story and today a lot is sacrificed for the sake of getting the story out there as quickly and cleanly as possible. Well, maybe not always cleanly. I guess I figure style is something a little different from strait storytelling and is rarely picked up anymore. Like iambic pentameter.

On a sidenote a favorite song (Jambi) from a favorite band (TOOL) has an intro sung in iambic pentameter. It’s beautiful and I couldn’t figure out exactly why at first. Was it the lyrics themselves, the sound of his voice (I have a crush on his voice), the odd time signature in the music (13/4) or a combination. I really think the rhythmn had a major effect, it just felt different. Better.

Now when someone looks around the room, which is sumptiously oppulent, and contrasts it to their attire, which is plain and plebian, it explains why they feel so out of place. Or the reverse, a girl or guy in evening dress who is in a shack or hovel, or perhaps a no-tell Motel, then descriptive writing of the surroundings and attire is valuable in setting the scene and the mood. Likewise when the heroine suddenly notices the man who was so well blended into the background, so appropriately dressed that he disappeared into it, and why that is importatant to the story. Then I can appreciate it and enjoy it. Otherwise it’s just verbiage and I can get by without it.

Over on Baens Bar, Toni’s Table conference I believe, we’ve been discussing cliche’s and how they can be used and mis-used. For me it’s very much the same thing with descriptive writing. When it’s used well and appropriately it adds to the reading experience, when it’s just thrown in to fill space or to show off it distracts from and spoils the story for me.

I don’t get into it much but I believe there’s some discussion of this in Baen’s Universe Facts conference where they’ve been holding some informal writers workshops. I’d pay more attention but I don’t consider myself a writer, and I spend more time in other conferences. Still from what I did get in passing looked very interesting and quite informative.

there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Not surprising really, as Stephen King’s describing the literary act of creation. And I love the King James Version. It sounds powerful and, appropriately enough, majestic.[/quote]

The Bible is a wonderful example of the lyrical.

Art is art and rhythmn can make something good sound/look/feel amazing. Quicken and breathe, style stirs it to life.

Beautifully said, Skyerae.

I think you selected the text, then clicked the “code” button.

Part of this, too, can be attributed to critique groups critiquing the life out of new authors’ manuscripts. My agent even mentioned RWA’s contribution to this problem in this Publisher’s Weekly article where she says, “The group has tended to homogenize a lot of writers," says agent Karen Solem of Spencerhill Associates. “A lot of times the group dynamic takes a lot of freshness and individual voice and creativity out of the projects."

That’s really too bad.

That’s the danger with any situation where the writer is being critiqued… There are things can be learned and improved upon, and things that should be left untouched, and it’s often very hard to tell them apart. Good teachers / critiquers can, but a lot of people cannot, and new writers need to stick to their guns about things they feel are right in their work.

I wonder if the critique process for commercial fiction is very different than the critique process for literary fiction?

Sara Howe posted an interesting hypothesis that maybe a writer’s work is the average of the five authors she/he reads most of. In which case, the advice that writers should read within genre to keep up would likely perpetuate this sameness, no?

Interesting hypothesis… But are writers advised to read only within the genre? Or to keep up with the genre and read outside of it as well?

I wish I’d seen this discussion sooner!

It’s never too late to join in.

I feel fiercely that great stylists are born, not made, but can be killed by the homogenizing pressures that sometimes plague commercial fition.

Can you elaborate more on how this happens?

It does drive me crazy that so many people think good wordcraft = boring. I’ve been teaching voice the past few years to try to address the pressures to homogenize (which nobody really wants-not editors, not readers, not critics-now that’s boring!). Not to turn everyone into a lyrical sort of writer (though I do like them) but to help each writer find her own distinctive style.

Can you tell us a little bit on how you teach voice? (Especially since you also suggest that great stylists are born, rather than made).