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

So, should would-be-painters be studying Hallmark Greeting Cards rather than Rembrandt? The point is, what kind of writer do you want to be? I mean, do you really study Katie Price (or whoever actually writes her books) to improve your own writing?

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.

In a discussion about what's good prose, markets, niche or otherwise, are irrelevant. You might as well say Madonna is the greatest singer ever because she covers the biggest market. I'm also not sure if 'fun' is the criterion for determining good prose, either. If, for example, you want to be an animator, you'll study Toy Story, Shrek, etc--the fact they're fun is irrelevant; you'll study the technique and skills required to produce the work.

As I said before, this kind of argument smacks of sitting on one's comfort skills fence, not wanting to leap out into the big, wide, world of learning how to improve.

Look, at one end of the prose bar there's a writer who has one style of writing that fits one kind of market at one particular time in history. They may well make a lot of money doing this, but for the purposes of discussing what makes good prose, it's irrelevant. At the other end of the prose bar is the writer who's mastered the fundamentals and scope of prose so that he or she is able to write effectively and movingly in whatever style suits the story to hand. In terms of creativity, it's pretty obvious which kind of writer is best placed to receive and explore it.

If you want to be the first kind of writer, there isn't really much to say except find yourself a fashion niche and explore it while you can. If you want to be the second kind, then I don't think studying Katie Price is going to get you very far.

Terry

Well most of the classics would not be publishable today - the prose is just too 'old fashioned', which is why I suggest studying the likes of Crystal. (Unless, of course, you are writing historical fiction in which case a stiff dose of Dickens may suffice).

The reason why most 'classic literature' is still read is for the storyline rather than the prose - with the exception of the eminently quotable Shakespeare which is in a class of it's own (well, actually, rubbing shoulders with the King James Bible, but no-one is going to start writing another gospel - with the possible exception of the eminantly un-readable Will Self and his Book of Dave, but we'll ignore that if at all possible).

I may have misunderstood some of the points made in this thread, but I've got the feeling that Terry's saying we all, as writers, start out not being all that proficient at producing "good" prose (whatever that might mean) but through application and practice can improve the quality of our prose if we try hard enough.

I'm not sure this is true, however. Some people start off being able to write brilliant prose. They have become completely at home within written language at quite a young age and are capable of moulding language to their purposes in a highly proficient manner. Other people start off barely able to string a sentence together that's grammatically correct. Most are somewhere inbetween those two polarities. Truth is that when, as adults, we decide we want to write fiction we are not all starting out from the same place.

For me anyway, the kind of writing that strikes me as being "good" prose also strikes me as being a fairly natural way of writing for that particular writer. It has an individual voice. And I don't think all "good" prose is the result of relentless editing and improving - I think some people produce "good" prose at first draft stage.

I think everyone has their own journey in terms of developing their writing and where it leads you depends on the story you are trying to tell and what you are trying to achieve?

I think we are all shaped by our reading - I frequently read something new and exciting and think wow - that's where I need to be - and sometimes it feels like the peak is so high - yet however awed you are you still go back to your own work...

I agree you have to put the effort in and move out of your comfort zone - but equally some are always going to find it easier than others?

I don't suppose anyone ever stops striving though I suspect the most readable prose is where you sense the author is having fun and makes it all look so deceptively easy.

And I think you can 'overwork' a passage or story so it loses whatever spark or life it had and goes dead on you?

I also agree that to say 'I like this type of prose' - 'I don't like this type of prose' is reductive - most of us read eclectically? I like Alex Garland and Mervyn Peake for example - which isn't that strange

Sarah

Daisy, I wouldn't worry about not understanding this thread; I started it to open up a discussion about what is good prose, so it's bound to attract all kinds of different views. There isn't, I don't suppose, a definitive answer, but it's been interesting finding out where people are about it. Although, I confess I'm hoping that the advice to study Katie Price is just a wind-up.

You bring up something I don't think has been mentioned before: natural talent. I believe this does exist but I'm not sure anyone starts off by writing brilliant prose, at least not that's technically kosher. Which is why naturally gifted people often struggle harder when it comes to learning the nuts and bolts of what they do, in order they can make that talent finally count. This is what I meant about a deconstruction of self at some point: it's going to be harder for the naturally talented to do that, than for someone who didn't start out with so much ability but realised they needed to go through a lot of learning to get there.

I agree that good prose can be, for some writers, close to their natural voice. However, someone who tends to write in their own voice still needs to know how to make their prose work at a fundamental level; otherwise, it just comes over colloquial and subject to the reader just happening to like it. I often quote Kurt Vonnegut here--someone with a distinctive writing voice, but he knew very well how the dynamics of good prose work

Terry

Katie Price and Shakespeare in the same sentence??? Isn't that, like, against the law or something?

If it isn't, it should be.

I think what Terry's just said about natural talent is very true. I read so much that abides strictly to the 'rules' and it has 'university degree' written all over it. It doesn't matter what's being written because it's kind of flat and lacks spark. Then I read stuff that's all over the place, wild, but it keeps you glued to the page. I don't think the real deal can be synthesised, not really, as hard as people try.

JB

But the ability to write well is not a natural talent. It's very much a social construct and something we have to learn. It does, however, seem that some people find the learning a lot easier than others.

I read a survey somewhere not too long ago which looked at successful novelists' backgrounds to see what they might have in common. The only thing they all shared was they were avid readers from a very young age and, in particular, had been taken to a library regularly as children. So natural talent may well be the ability to absorb a lot of 'technical' writing skills from reading, in a sort of process of osmosis.

Although, I confess I'm hoping that the advice to study Katie Price is just a wind-up.

Only a little Terry,
The point I was making, was that if you are writing contemporary prose then you would do better to study a best seller - which, when all is said and done, Ms Price's Crystal is - rather than the classics. Yes, you can learn pace, plotting/structure and story telling from the classics, but for contemporary prose, keep it contemporary.

- NaomiM

<Added>

The other thing to try is take a paragraph out of a bestseller and try to make it better - pretty simple with a Dan Brown, well nigh impossible with a Kazuo Ishiguro...

I came across this earlier - it's from Hal Duncan's blog and is about evolution of 'style' - with links to other writers' remarks - like Jeff Vandermeer - that sparked the debate.

Just thought others might be interested?

http://notesfromthegeekshow.blogspot.com/2005/02/what-is-style.html

Sarah

Well getting the prose right - for you & your kind of reader - is the first step in a long road. Without that you don't stand a chance of even getting a foot in the publishing house door, however good your storyline.
However, 'what is right' is horses for courses, and saying Crystal is anyway inferior to Shakespeare is just literary snobbery.

saying Crystal is anyway inferior to Shakespeare is just literary snobbery.

'Inferior' is a strange word when all is so subjective, but if one is measuring these things, you can hardly propose that Katie Price's novel has had the same effect on the English language - indeed the English culture - as old Will. It's like comparing a cow pat to a diamond. You might prefer the cow pat, but the diamond naturally has more value. I don't think that's snobbery so much as inherent understanding.

I agree that writing as a skill is learnt. No one is born with the craft of writing well, but I do suspect that the imagination behind the craft, based on any set of circumstance - from experience to daydream to reading to pain and so on - can be natural and exceed the usual bounds of art. That certain quality can't be learnt, in my opinion, and it can't be taught. It just is.

JB

You might prefer the cow pat, but the diamond naturally has more value.

Unless you're a dung beetle

Good prose, for me, is satisfying without being intrusive. It enables the reader to tap in to the emotion and the atmosphere of the story, and experience the story in the way that the characters do. And, with good prose, the story lingers in the mind long after the book is closed.

I'm sitting here trying to compile a list of what I think is good or bad prose, and I can't, because it is only my personal opinion. I can't comment on Katie Price’s book because I haven’t read it – and expect I never will because I assume it’s not good prose – but someone must have thought it was good enough to publish.

(Terry, they're just chips with cheese melted over them – preferably a mature cheddar)

Dee

But the ability to write well is not a natural talent.

I'm sorry, daisy, but this is nonsense.

You might as well say that any man in the street could play football like David Beckham or play the cello like Jacqueline du Pre or write like Shakespeare if only he tried hard enough, no talent required.

Please.

Of course talent has to be trained in craft and effort has to be put in to access your talent, but to say that anyone can write well if only they practice, regardless of any natural talent or otherwise, which is what you seem to be saying, is nonsense.

You can practice like mad but if you have no talent to draw upon, you will write bilge.

But anyone who gives their time to writing is likely to have some talent for it, or they wouldn't feel moved to do it.

<Added>

And the likes of Katie Price get published and sell by the shedload because of who they are, not because they (or their ghost writers) have superior writing skills.

<Added>

Or, rather, who the weak-minded perceive them to be. Katie Price is a beautiful nonentity.

I've got the feeling that Terry's saying we all, as writers, start out not being all that proficient at producing "good" prose (whatever that might mean) but through application and practice can improve the quality of our prose if we try hard enough. I'm not sure this is true, however.

Daisy, I've just pulled the above from an earlier post of yours and now I'm confused about what you believe.

Talent without craft and practice is not enough, but together they can make great writers.

However, craft and practice without talent never will, I think. You may learn all there is to know about construction, pacing etc. and still write badly if you have no natural talent.

but to say that anyone can write well if only they practice, regardless of any natural talent or otherwise, which is what you seem to be saying, is nonsense.

This makes me ponder the question: What is talent?
For me, 'good prose' comes out of a combination of passion and commitment. Does passion + commitment equal talent? Is talent a natural facility, or a spark of passion? Or both?
I believe 'good prose' happens when the writer is expressing his or her own idiosyncrasy, (or truth, or passion) and has been committed enough to find words which most clearly express and communicate these qualities.
Susiex