At this stage, I just want to say thanks to everyone for your contributions. It's helped me shape my thoughts better on this subject. It seems to me that there are two basic imperatives for writers today: selling work and producing good writing/prose. Obviously, these don't have to be mutually exclusive, but they don't obviously run in parallel either. See, I have a lot of respect for that SF writer I mentioned earlier, who can write a short story in a few hours, in one draft, and sell it. And while I firmly believe that good writing should elevate the reader in some way, I'm also seeing that there's a lot to be learnt from the hard work and pragmatic approach of commercial writers. As said before--scary though the concept is--why not try to do both?

Terry

Rosy, I haven't actually seen anyone in this thread suggesting that all good prose is literary and vice versa (or maybe I missed it?). What I did see was that Azel equates literary prose with purple prose and with dishonesty, which I completely disagree with (sorry Azel).

I think what this thread really has highlighted is that a group of people who are interested in discussing what good prose is have come up with a very diverse set of examples, which have provoked very different reactions in each of us. I really do think good prose is a matter of taste, whereas bad prose may be something most of us can agree on.

Azel, I agree with JB that what is considered purple is usually very different to what is considered literary. Purple prose suggests to me that it's overwritten and over-embellished - possibly trying to be literary, but not necessarily by any means. Literary (though this is more contentious) suggests to me that it is finely crafted, perhaps clever, perhaps innovative, or maybe just beautiful. I really don't understand why you equate either of these styles with dishonesty; do you perhaps mean that you wouldn't naturally write that way, so it feels dishonest of you to try?

Deb

Sorry, Deb, you may well be right. Maybe it was just a feeling I got - along with Azel - that, as he put it:

It seems to me, many here are talking about literary prose, as opposed to good prose.

But I loved RJH's Maclaren-Ross example.

And I apologise if it was my own category-hating hang-ups which made me misread people's intent!

Rosy

Rosy, that's really well put, and I very much agree that good prose is not confined to any genre or form (as is the case with bad prose, too). However, I think one reason genre writers get a bit defensive is because there is, especially in this country, a literary establishment snobbery that dismisses anything not considered 'proper' writing, which usually means literary fiction.

I've been struggling with the subjective argument about what is good writing. I think it gets confused with taste. For example, a person's taste may prefer Pam Ayres to Shakespeare, but that doesn't mean they would think she was a better writer (unless they're nuts). And--on the working for it angle--most readers have to apply their brains and minds more to Shakespeare than Ayres. But while Ayres gets a quicker return for her readers (if she's your taste), I contend that if you work at Shakespeare, the return you get is more profound and stays with you for life, not just for as long as a mild chuckle lasts.

Aside from taste, perhaps good prose is not so much whether a reader reacts exactly to what the writer intended--i.e. because personal reactions are similar to personal taste. But maybe the way it works is that if a writer works hard at her prose, her intention and effort creates an atmosphere around the story which the reader will invest in more deeply--even if they're not conscious of doing it--than they would for prose which is only functional, even if it delivers the expected result.

Terry

Hi Rosy, I think it's easy to imagine such slights when an issue has become such a thorn as this one has on WW.

After reading many threads about it on WW I still don't feel I really understand what literary writing is. What I previously thought of as literary I have learned is actually 'bookseller's literary' (apparently quite different) or 'middlebrow', as someone described it. I like those two categories, but they don't seem to be true literary.

I love beautiful prose, but I don't want to read something arty-farty which is too clever to understand, and I neither want to write like that or feel that I'd be capable of doing so.

Deb

I can’t say it any better than she did, so I’ll stop here.

Thanks Azel.

Terry, on Ayres v Shakespeare – I don't think they're mutually exclusive. One evening I might cook cheesy chips, the next night I’ll do gratin dauphinoise. It’s the same basic ingredients, but different courses suit different moods. I'm not saying that one is better or worse than the other, or that I have better taste on the evening I choose one rather than the other - just that our tastes change from one day to the next – or at least mine do, and I'm assuming I'm not unique.

Dee

Dee, I didn't say Ayres and Shakespeare were mutually exclusive, or that one can't like both according to mood. I like Les Barker and Shakespeare, for instance. But this is to do with taste, not quality. Les Barker simply is not as good a writer as Shakespeare (although he is funnier)--in terms of technique, skill, word use and the sheer emotional range that his prose encompasses. So, in that respect, yes, Shakespeare is a better writer than Barker or Ayres, or just about anyone else. If Les wanted to be that good, he'd have a lot of work to do, if it was even possible. If you're implying that all writing is equally valid because it all depends on taste, then we might as well all give up now and just go for speed, shine and easy solutions. Come on--there's cheesy chips and then there's cheesy chips! (What are cheesy chips, by the way?)

Terry

Does that kind of work in the same way that some people love minis, and hate Ferraris, but technically, the Ferrari is the better car? Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here. It's difficult to know when art is so damned subjective.

JB

I always like the take on Shakespeare in Neil Gaiman's The Sandman where WS is just an ordinary hack and Marlowe is begging him not to try to write any more plays - and then Dream gives him a gift - not because he is a better writer but because he wants it more badly than anyone else - and of course there is an appalling price to pay...

all writing is equally valid because it all depends on taste, then we might as well all give up now and just go for speed, shine and easy solutions

If only it were that easy?

There's a Raymond Chandler novel that features a successful writer - historical romance - and he hates his own work and says something like - 'the first thing you'd notice when you stripped the clothes off the lovely marquise is that she needed a bath' and talks about the courtiers pissing in the corridors of Versailles and someone challenges him and say - so why don't you write it like that? And of course he can't but it's destroying him not to.

Sarah

Terry, you mention you like the sense of rhythm in the piece you originally quoted.I think - old fashioned as it may sound- studying orators such as Cicero has really helped me to be aware of both the rhythm of my writing and also the possibilities of language.

I'm not really about the place anymore but I really can't resist joining this thread to say - interesting though it is - I don't see any point at all in comparing Ayres to Shakespeare. It's just a pointless thing to do. It's like comparing a comedy song writer with a state of the nation dramatist - what on earth is the point and what exactly does it reveal.

Surely the point of a discussion like this isn't the unrevealing kind of "Top Ten Writing Prose Styles" like some kind of Channel 4 pundit programme but to wonder what it is that makes something work and what it is we can strive for in our own styles. If I were Pam Ayres, for example, it's not going to be very useful to me for someone to go "try and be a bit more like Shakespeare, love, is it?"

My tuppence worth: I like stuff that is not just trying to be something else but seems to have some character of its own. I don't mind overblown or frilly if it seems authentic to what the book is trying to do and the style is the author's own. I don't mind highly literary if that seems to fit with the message of the book and seems bound up with the expression of the book. I don't mind chatty and friendly if again that seem right for the book and if it has a certain character of it's own rather than "that is how this sort of book should be" sort of thing.

I want to feel the author has something to say and that is why they write the way they do, not that it is done for rules or to win prizes or just to fit with genre.



<Added>

Basically I am saying I disagree with the people who go: I like pared down or only plain sentences or only literary or any one style - totally divorced from what the work is saying. I have a particular interest in German Expressionism but I also like looking at Impressionism, Cubism, Pop Art, Renaissance art, Dutch landscape...I think an interest in painting or writing or any art form is about taking an interest in the wide variety of styles and seeing that style alone is not what makes something good but how that style fits with what's around and what it is trying to say and what the person who is exploring it is trying to do.

Not saying you are wrong, of course it is up to you. But I disagree with any argument that says style itself defines quality. Style is only one aspect and how it interacts with the world view of the writing is the thing, for me, and how authentic I feel (because I can never really know) it is.

I'm with you there, snowbell.
I see no difference between Shakespeare's Hamlet and Katie Price's Crystal, both have their niche markets. The prose of Crystal does not get in the way of the story so in that instance it is 'well written' - and you can say what you like about the storyline, that is purely a matter of taste.
'Bad' prose is obvious when you see it, and very rarely gets into print.

- NaomiM

Surely the point of a discussion like this isn't the unrevealing kind of "Top Ten Writing Prose Styles" like some kind of Channel 4 pundit programme but to wonder what it is that makes something work and what it is we can strive for in our own styles.

I agree with this, and with what you say about being able to adapt one's style to what a particular story requires. It's just that I don't believe it's possible to do that before working hard at, and achieving some proficiency with, the nuts and bolts of what makes good prose. What I've been resisting here is the argument that in the end it's all subjective. Having some control over prose, and being able therefore to adapt it to need, is not subjective. Conversely, someone who can only write with one style produces work that is largely subjective, and therefore subject to taste.

I don't think it's possible--and I'm saying this aimed at no one but myself--to develop excellence (in anything) without going through a deconstruction process of one's writing self. Which is usually painful in the short term but very rewarding and enlightening in the long term. Claiming that it's all subjective means this process will of course be avoided.

Terry

I see no difference between Shakespeare's Hamlet and Katie Price's Crystal, both have their niche markets. The prose of Crystal does not get in the way of the story so in that instance it is 'well written' - and you can say what you like about the storyline, that is purely a matter of taste.

I don't know how you can say Shakespeare is a 'niche market'--his work has been in print for hundreds of years and his plays are constantly performed all around the world. Also, I don't see the similarity between one writer whose prose 'does not get in the way of the story' and another's that has been studied closely by millions of people because there is a lot worth studying in it.

The point is, even if it's a matter of taste whether you like Shakespeare or Katie Price (or both), as a writer you should be looking for examples that will best help you improve your own prose.

'Bad' prose is obvious when you see it, and very rarely gets into print.

I disagree: there is a lot of bad prose in print.

Terry

The point is, even if it's a matter of taste whether you like Shakespeare or Katie Price (or both), as a writer you should be looking for examples that will best help you improve your own prose.

True, but most would-be-writers would do better to look at Katie Price's Crystal to improve their prose, than to Shakespeare.

And I stand by my comment about Shakespeare currently residing in a niche market; well two if you count white middle class-middle aged, along with school kids-undergrads. People outside of it's niche markets are few and far between and very rarely read it for fun.