War of the Writing Styles: Bare minimalism vs. Rich texture

This discussion sort of began in the Thesaurus thread, click here to see what's been mentioned so far.

Basically, the question is posed to all readers and writers:

Which writing style do you prefer? Short and blunt, or long and decriptive?

I'll cast my vote for short and blunt.

As I've mentioned in the Thesaurus thread, I find this style of writing to be much stronger in conveying emotion and action. Even though I appreciate the more flowery styles for their cunning use of adjectives, I feel that storylines and feelings (and a point) are washed away by too many words.

Now, I have a feeling most of you will prefer the latter style, since there's a proliferation of that style here on the boards. But, you never know!

So what do you, fan fiction community members, think?

 

Blunt.

To elaborate slightly, I don't think that adding words necessarily adds anything to the story. That's why I don't read stories that lift lines of dialogue directly from SW books and insert the characters' feelings. A good writer will have everything he needs to say within the dialogue ? he doesn't need anyone else coming around to add to the scene he's already worked out.

I don't like passive sentences - I tend to try to avoid them in my own work. Though I don't think that passive sentences detract from the overall quality of a piece of literature, they do come as a block between the reader and the author. They just don't allow any of the writer's voice to seep through into the story.

I'm not a particularly gifted descriptionist (is that a word? because it should be) and so I try to keep my descriptions concise. My characters don't carry on lengthy internal monologues; they don't see their world in vivid colors, similes, and metaphors; when they smile, they do so without elaboration; when they move, they do so efficiently. Most of my stories depend in great part on dialogue, and I like it that way.

And I'm a staunch supporter of the word "said." 'Nuf said. Great topic, GuerreStellari. I can't wait to see what other people think.

 

I go for rich texture. If bare minimalism (blunt) is appropriate to the writer's style, then that's what they should use. I much prefer some description in my characters and my locations. Helps me visualize the scenes and storyline better. It doesn't mean that bare writing is bad, not in any way. I read a lot of what I consider bare minimalist style stories and like them a lot. But I do prefer the richness of language in all its myriad forms.

And sometimes blunt stories seem almost unwritten. Don't get me wrong. I've written blunt stories but I don't consider them my best work by any means.

As always, balance is best.

 

It depends on the story. I read both, personally. There are times for rich description and times when things could be better said bluntly. I like reading stories where the setting is somewhat a character, and how the characters interact with it. I love reading vignettes that go deeply into emotions. Emotions are what make up a story, and they need to be fleshed out.

On the other hand, I've written things that are short and blunt, so I'd be a hypocrite if I said I didn't really like them or appreciate them. There are characters who NEED to be short and blunt, because it makes them who they are. Sometimes emotions can be better described in a simple sentence or two than a paragraph that just repeats and repeats the same general idea.

If it flows, it flows, but I think there is ultimately a bare minimum who have to go. You can't leave it at a sentence. You can't leave people with a half finished picture. You have to have decription. It makes the difference because a writer and a seasoned writer. Beginners have simple struture and leave things open when you have to give the reader a general direction in which to train their thoughts, and you need some description of that.

-Krystal

 

Xaara, can you explain what a passive sentence is? Or give an example?

Oh, and I usually like writing styles that depend more on dialogue between characters and character interaction. They can have that and description and it's a fast read. They can also have less description and tell most of their story through dialogue, but what matters most to me is if it flows well and fast. I don't like long posts that really make me work to read because there's so much detail. I like to escape from work after the day is done, and reading can be work for me with my weak eyes.

Jae Angel

 

I'll butt in and reply to the last question. An example of a passive sentence is:

"He had been seen by the enemy."

"He was filled with strong emotions which seemed to rip out his heart."

Active sentences, on the other hand:

"The enemy saw him."

"Strong emotions filled him and seemed to rip out his heart."

Usually, you can identify passive vs. active sentences by seeing if a form of the verb "to be" is present. Active sentences are considered better writing. At least, according to my 10th grade English prof.

 

Extremizm is BAD. Too bare and it's boring. There's not enough to sustain interest. Too much and you get Clancified, which is boring, because you wind up with information overload.

I like a good middle ground. I don't mind trends to one side or the other, so long as it's only a trend and not a headlong crash into one wall or the other. But that's just my opinion.

 

A passive sentence was written by me right now. Its subject is the recipient of the action, not the actor.


For my style, it tends to the short, which is why drabbles fit me so well.

 

I like to be efficient. I write a lot of action scenes, and any superfluous description is not only out of place (I mean, does your character/narrator, while flying over the ground in a fighter at several hundred KPH, really have time to notice all the 57 different shades of green in the forest below?) but distracting from the important things going on, and slows down the pacing when you want it to be quick.

As for characters, I don't really think it's good to describe every single facet of their appearance, down to the color of their socks, either. I think it's best to give a quick, overall description with maybe a few distinguishing features. I like to leave a bit of the visualization up to my readers, really.

As to what characters perceive, I think it works best to think of how a real person would actually see things in the mind's eye. I mean, honestly, if your character meets someone with green eyes, beautiful as they may be, are they really saying in their mind "irridescent topaz?" Probably not.

I said it on the other thread and I'll say it here - to me it's more important to have your writing flow, to have a certain internal consistency within a scene stylistically, whether you choose to embellish or not.

Any thoughts?

-Tim

 

Jae Angel This is a good point I don't like long posts that really make me work to read because there's so much detail.

It really depends on what the author wants you to do. I like my readers to read my posts carefully because I want them to think about what is going on - not zoom past it like it's fast food. I want it to be a banquet.

Not that there's anything wrong with blunt writing but it really does depend on what the author wants you to perceive and what the reader gets out of it.

As Vergere said in Traitor "Everything I tell you is a lie." A deceptive sentence and blunt. It was only with the later rich detail that I finally realized what she was truly saying.

 

OK, since part of this was me, I'll throw me own thoughts into the mix.

It all depends on what I'm looking for, and that's the real truth of it.

I like stories that flow, are captivating and make you feel and think. Description has it's place. You don't want to describe a scarry monster that is about to jump out at the main char for five paragraphs before the initial shock of it's appearence, but once it steps into the light a first glance description might give readers a general idea of what they are 'looking' at.

Like I mentioned on the other thread I think of my writing as an art form. If I were asked by someone to describe my favourite painting, I wouldn't say simply:

It's a person on a landscape done mostly in green with some blue and other colours.

That could be any painting. Any story where "he said, she said" can be written. Style is much to be desired. It's what gives it its distinction.

I'm not saying that simplicity counts for nothing. Sometimes, I'm not in the mood for all the fluff'n'stuff. But that is rarer than not. I've read through a few fandoms now and many here. I've come to appreciate those who can write a story and give you enough so that you don't feel completely lost yet are not too wordy that you end up skipping paragraghs without loosing any of the story.

I once tried to read 'The Three Musketeers' By Alexander Dumas, which I know is a classic, but I never finished it. Why? Because he went on for pages about the costume Porthos wanted. Including the liniage of the tailor and every minute detail of what clothe and such was used. That was incredibly boring and held no real prevelance for the story itself.

Yes, over embellishment can be distracting and down right annoying but I find it just as hard some times to read stories that give you nothing but the facts. Of course poignancy is best. Who cares about the 57 variations of green in the heat of a battle that could decide the course of fate? We want to see action. So that is what should be focused on first and foremost.

Like I said, I'm much more of a visual person. I want to see the movie playing out in my mind when I read. I don't need too much, I do have an imagination, but I do want to know position, maybe interesting pieces around the area, movement and I love getting inside the character's minds. As an author I know there may be a relevant picture hanging on the wall that will be crucial later but my readers don't. Some how I have to convey to them that the key may be a picture, but I don't want to be obvious. What's the point of a mystery when you know everything up front. But in the same token, you'll get frustrated if you have no clues to use in order to figure it out yourself. Part of the game is solving the puzzle before the character.

I guess to put it simply: I like description.

 

I like my readers to read my posts carefully because I want them to think about what is going on - not zoom past it like it's fast food. I want it to be a banquet.

Wonderful...description there, diane.

I'm far more partial to the 'rich texture'. Sometimes, the bare style can leave things lacking. Of course, there are wonderful stories written in all sorts of fashions.

 

I think that if you're trying to describe a fight without bringing in people's emotions then elaboate is better, while when trying to show how someone feels about the battle their emotions adn such it's better to have little. Or so I think.

 

Actually, I refer to the pace and style of a piece when I speak of being able to read something fast. Some stories, like most of those written by Michner or Dickens, read so slowly that it's almost impossible to keep my attention. Sure, there's tons of great detail in there and they're both great authors, but I just don't think their language and pace appeals to me as much as some contemporary authors.

I mentioned in another thread that I really enjoyed Richard Preston's The Hot Zone. I've never heard such horrifying description or read such a sensational piece of work, but the language used was VERY modern and easy to read through. It sort of read with the ease of watching a feature film. Now remember that you're talking about a genre of fanfic based on one of the most exciting films of the past thirty years. Why shouldn't a reader want to read fanfic that has that same, fast-moving pace and natural ease?

Then again, I tend to enjoy the pilot stories, AUs, and I'm a humor writer. I'm not a big fan of "teh drama". Like Tim, I like action and I don't want to drag the pace of a piece down in the middle of exciting events because every detail of the surroundings needs to be described. Description of the actions in a fight scene are all that is necessary, and the scene can be set before the fight begins.

Hope that helps flesh out my stance a little better. For the record, I absolutely loved Traitor and idolize Stover for his writing ability. His style just spoke to me and I was able to digest everything while reading the book at a much faster pace than I read most books. I think pace has nothing to do with the reader, since I always read for content, but it has to do with the author and their style. My example above proves this, because Stover is definitely not one to skimp on the detail.

Jae Angel

 

When Mr. Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton.

Bilbo was very rich and very peculiar, and had been the wonder of the Shire for sixty years, ever since his remarkable disappearance and unexpected return. The riches he had brought back from his travels had now become a local legend, and it was popularly believed, whatever the old folk might say, that the Hill at Bag End was full of tunnels stuffed with treasure. And if that was not enough for fame, there was also his prolonged vigor to marvel at. Time wore on, but it seemed to have little effect on Mr. Baggins. At ninety he was much the same as fifty. At ninety-nine they began to call him well-preserved; but unchanged would have been nearer the mark. The were some that shook there heads and thoughts that this was too much of a good thing; it seemed unfair that anyone should possess (apparently) perpetual youth as well as (reputedly) inexhaustible wealth.

?It will have to be paid for,? they said. ?It isn?t natural, and trouble will come of it!?

---

?We should start back,? Gared urged as the woods began to grow dark around them. ?The wildlings are dead.?

?Do the dead frighten you?? Ser Waymar Royce asked with just the hint of a smile.

Gared did not rise to the bait. He was an old man, past fifty, and he had seen the lordlings come and go. ?Dead is dead,? he said. ?We have no business with the dead.?

?Are they dead?? Royce asked softly. ?What proof have we??

?Will saw them,? Gared said. ?If he says they are dead, that?s proof enough for me.?

Will had known they would drag him into the quarrel sooner or later. He wished it had been later rather than sooner. ?My mother told me that dead men sing no songs,? he put in.

?My wet nurse said the same thing, Will,? Royce replied. ?Never believe anything you hear at a woman?s tit. There are things to be learned even from the dead.? His voice echoed, too loud in the twilight forest.

?We have a long ride before us,? Gared pointed out. ?Eight days, maybe nine. And night is falling.?

Ser Waymar Royce glanced at the sky with disinterest. ?It does that every day about this time. Are you unmanned by the dark, Gared??
[/blockquote]

Those two quotes use almost the exact same number of words. In both cases, it?s from the very beginning of their respective novels. The first quote there is obviously of The Fellowship of the Ring, the second is from A Game of Thrones by George R.R. Martin from his A Song of Ice and Fire saga. The differences are numerous and obvious, but there are similarities as well. Martin?s writing shows strong influence from modernism and post-modernism, while Tolkien dwells with the Victorian or Neo-Victorian sphere.

The first quote is a fine example of rich and textured prose. If the word that most suitable happened to be a few syllables long, that was all right. The language itself becomes part of the story, meant to read something like poetry.

There is a ?death of the author? in the second quote. Martin doesn?t speak from an omnipresent point of view like Tolkien does, but rather limiting his words to what the individual characters are seeing and feeling and saying. It?s dialog that introduces the situation, and it?s terse dialog. The sentences are short and to the point, each line establishing its point and then ending. Generally, very simple language is used, though there are some exceptions: unmanned, twilight, quarrel, all of which are used sparingly.

Both use repetition to get their points across. Tolkien repeating how rich and well-preserved Bilbo is, Martin mentioning that it?s getting dark in three straight sentences in three different ways. Both foreshadow the central problem of the series: ?It will have to be paid for!? is the key line at the beginning of the Lord of the Rings, while in A Song of Ice and Fire the main threat will in all likelihood turn out to be undead.

So, which is better?

 

Style isn't just as simple as one thing is good and another is bad. There aren't even two things, not by a long shot. Here's how I see overall writing style:

*It can reflect the POV you are showing or your main character or theme. Example: The Age of Innocence by Edith Wharton is really overly descriptive because it's criticizing a materialistic society.

*It can contrast with what's being said. Example: Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe does have a simplistic style to give it a translated feel, but the events it desribes are monumental. They are treated like blunt facts, though.


Of course there's more to it that that. Much, much, more. But really it just depends on each individual story and author.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

I wondered if someone was going to take off with this. I personally think that the style should serve the story and/or the character. And that there are many things you need to take into account when you choose the style. Although, for most writers it is probably really an instinctive choice.

An example of what I mean about serving the character: If the point of view is following a very visual person such as an artist then more detailed description of what he or she sees is appropriate. If the point of view is following an emotional person in the middle of a decade of therapy then more internal examination of his or her own emotions and perhaps even analysis of the emotions of those around him or her would be appropriate. If the point of view is following a busy cop trying to solve a kidnapping nothing extraneous to the evidence she or he finds and the actions she or he takes to find the victim and the perpetrator should get much "screen time".

Style serving the story is harder for me to explain what I mean successfully I think. If you want the reader to be hanging on and feeling breathless than you want one kind of style. If you want the reader to be thinking about every detail then you want a different style. "Cosy" mystery vs police proceedural or something.

A year or so ago I tried to bring up the idea of writing in a particular style to create a particular effect in a discussion pointed at the writing of action scenes (here if anyone is interested). I was trying to produce a discussion on how you could create different feelings in the reader depending on how you wrote the scene. I suspect I didn't explain it well enough. Or I am deluded. Or both. And the example scene I tried to write only got about a days work for each version. I suspect more time spent there might be profitable someday.

I do write in different styles, or with different levels of detail if you will, depending on what I am writing. I have some very flowery (practically purple) prose and some fairly spare prose. Neither of which example is currently on the board, yet. And the choice of which way to write was dictated by the subject matter or material in question I think. The nearly purple prose I am not going to be happy with until I have pared it a bit more. I am not sure it is a conscious decision on my part in most cases but I was, in at least the spare prose case, aware of the need for and aiming to achieve, a relatively spare style.

I will challenge myself to make sure to write something in as bare and minimalist a way as I can. Ala Hemingway - I'm not sure it was necessarily his style that I found off putting by the way and will have to read him again to see if I can really nail the style. I will probably have to force it since that is not my usual style. Which is precisely why it would be a good exercise, of course.

I think my usual style is somewhat middle of the road rather than really richly textured but I could easily be underestimating my verbiage. I do know I sometimes have to edit myself rather severely. And on occasion I have really let myself go and ended up in a maze of nested parenthetical asides. Fun to write sometimes but hard on the reader probably.

I mean, honestly, if your character meets someone with green eyes, beautiful as they may be, are they really saying in their mind "irridescent topaz?" Probably not. Well, if they are besotted and have an opportunity to stare at those eyes and ponder it for a while, maybe. But only as one of a list of several possiblities. And certainly, if they are doing that, they will lose track of the conversation and will say "Sure." when they should have said "Do I look that stupid to you?" and find themselves committed to ferrying two rebel spies and a droid around for the next three days.

Because he went on for pages about the costume Porthos wanted. Including the liniage of the tailor and every minute detail of what clothe and such was used. That was incredibly boring and held no

 

Minimalism.

 

It's been a while since I inspired a thread. I'm all aflutter.


Writing style can be extremely tricky. Too much detail and the story gets bogged down. Too little and there's almost no description.

To me, it seems that action writing is served better by a more minimalist approach. Imagine how tedious a lightsaber duel would be if every minute detail was elaborated upon.


Romance (or anything meant to convey an emotion) benefits from richer prose.


It's important to remember who is "telling" the story when considering writing style. I hate to use Anne Rice as an example, given her stance on fanfiction, but I've read her vampire chronicles and several of them are 'written' by different vampires. In particular, Interview With The Vampire is told by Louis, who is roughly 200 years old and is of French descent. The storytelling is quite ornate and descriptive.

Another of her books, Blood and Gold is 'written' by Marius, a 2000 year old Roman vampire. In this story the writing is much simpler and direct and lacks all of the flowery descriptions.


Now IMO first book in my example is far superior to the second, but that's probably more due to characters and plot. Blood and Gold was a very easy read because everything in it advanced the plot. There was no extraneous material to bog down the reader and I probably read it in half the time.

 

im kinda in the middel, especially when u are writing in a time that no one is familiar with, like 250 years after the njo, you must take the time and write the perspectives on what has happened, btu i also believe in bieng vague sometimes to keep the reader in suspense

 

Very nice discussion we have here!

As for characters, I don't really think it's good to describe every single facet of their appearance, down to the color of their socks, either. I think it's best to give a quick, overall description with maybe a few distinguishing features. I like to leave a bit of the visualization up to my readers, really.

I totally agree. Everyone should have the chance to intrepretate(sp?) things as they will. If you go down and describe people to their bare bones, it gets boring real quick. A good talent to have is saying something that may have been said before and making it sound as if it hadn't. Descriptions get boring real quick if they are long and dry. Things need to be rich and flowery.

Bottom line: if it goes, it goes. It depends on the story.

-Krystal

 

When reading books I dont mind if an author writes with rich text or not. I try to read from different points of views. When reading Tolkien I try to take note of new words, descriptions, symbolism with light and darkness. Sure they're a great storyline involved, but its not very fast paced. (But still excellent)

When reading books by Bernard Cornwell, it's totally different, because it's not fantasy but stories with a historical background.

So I enjoy reading both descriptions with bare minimum and rich texture.

My writings contain rich text only when it comes to battle scenes,(I try to get all the detail of the lighsaber moves) but I try to write other parts (rooms, places and planet descriptions) with more then "bare minimum."

 

What an interesting topic!

First of all, of course, we have to remember that we are talking about fan fiction. At least I think we are. And fan fiction, as I have learned while writing and sharing it, is a world all its own. In fan fiction, unlike any other literary endeavor, all stories begin and play themselves out in the same universe. This universe already has been conveyed to everyone who plays in it via the powerful visual and auditory medium of film. We all saw the films, and we all saw the same scenes and heard the same sounds and the same dialogue. On top of that, that universe has been expanded through books, comics, games, and I don?t know what else. It?s a huge playground, to be sure, with endless possibilities for further exploration by the creative imagination. But it does have its limits, rules, and a whole huge array of basic assumptions that are to some extent shared by everyone who writes or reads fan fiction stories.

The largest single common denominator in the SW universe is the OT. Everyone who reads or writes fan fiction knows who Luke Skywalker is, or Darth Vader. Or the Evil Emperor. Han Solo and Princess Leia. We know what they look like. We have consistent inner pictures of locations, like Tatooine or Yavin. We know what technology is available, and what different vehicles look like. We all have at least a fuzzy idea about a thing called the Force. You get the idea. So any fan fiction story that is written based on that common denominator doesn?t actually have to spend a lot of time describing those things ? they are quite reasonably assumed to form part of the reader?s knowledge base already.

Just how strongly that happens came home to me when I realized that I couldn?t share my fan fiction stories with my own sister, who loves the OT but has never seen the Prequels. Since I write about characters who are completely new to her, she won?t really be able to understand what I?m getting at, never mind how pithy or textured my descriptions are, because she doesn?t have that knowledge base. It?s the same with the EU. People like me who have never taken the time to explore that part of the GFFA can read a really wonderfully written fan fic story and simply not ?get it,? because we don?t know the characters ? the base of common knowledge that allows us to share the story isn?t there.

Imagine what our stories would look like if we had to explain EVERYTHING from scratch! We would all be writing like Dumas.

So we have this ready-made world. And we have lots of existing characters to pay with. And the thing we all have in common ? readers and writers alike ? is that we want more stories that take place in that amazing universe. So we write stories ? long ones and short ones. We write about existing characters and create new ones. We use existing technology and create more. We go to new places in the Galaxy ? new planets that have never been seen before, because we invented them. New races. New customs and rituals and opportunities for drama and conflict and humor and all the good things that stories give us.

But it?s still, ultimately, a world based on film. And a great many people who read fan fic want their stories to move like film. Fast. Plot-driven. Active. Exciting. And as several others have pointed out, action is best served by direct, vivid, and uncluttered language. Action likes directness and simplicity. It likes intercutting, like film. Action wants to move, and to make it move, you can?t linger on description or anything else too long.

Other readers and writers are attracted to other aspects of the SW universe. They encounter the characters and wonder what is behind their all-too-brief scenes in the films. They want to engage with the characters more ? to explore their inner thinking and feeling. And so another genre of fan fic ? I call it the ?introspective vignette,? which sometimes is expanded to longer pieces quite effectively, arises. It requires a very different approach. How do you express thoughts, feelings and moods? You generally have to us

 

Here, here!

...er...

Hear, hear?

I've never actually used that phrase, I've always just heard it. And now I wanted to use it in response to geo3's excellent little essay, in a sort of ironic self-deprecating "very minimalist" way. But alas, I've ruined the effect.

And, in fact, after re-reading some scenes from my current fic, I've realized I'm really not as bare as I thought. Hmmm. How troublesome.

 

I always figured that there was room for both styles of writing. It's merely a matter of picking and choosing which fits the story and the scne the best. I have seen authors who mixed both styles in order to gain massive emotional and dramatic effect.