Hi,
Following on from a number of threads recently, but triggered specifically by a review thread in IC as I tend towards the spare and one of our members tends towards the colourful, I am wondering about the writerly ideal.

To me, the difference is one of intent and I imagine a continuum with the extremes marked by:
- sensual writers for whom the sound of the words and the images they conjure is paramount
- pragmatic writers for whom the communication of specific ideas is paramount.

Needless to say, there is a fertile middle ground. There is also an appropriateness of style, for example, to rewrite Hemingway's For Whom The Bell Tolls in the purplitude of literary excess would be as wrong as to rewrite the war poems in plain English. ("We're all going to die; it will be degrading and painful. The end.") So... to a point, and not least because I enjoyed reading the fulsome imagery of the work I am thinking of so much, I can accept the argument for colourful prose.

However, when talking about novels, where an essential part of the whole is a meaningful storyline that stretches for the full length of the book, I believe there is the implication that the writing has to at least nod in the direction of the pragmatic, sparsity of clear writing and to obey basic rules of grammar to make it accessible.

So... Contradicting a critique I gave (interestingly, not from the writer I critiqued but from another reviewer) there was a strong message that rules of grammar should not be applied too rigidly. Specifically the other reviewer says, when talking about interesting prose:

There are no grammatical boundaries.

Well, perhaps.

For poetry, definitely (my grandfather's poetry is a case in point, though it is often criticised for its impenetrability).

For prose? Sometimes. One of the most powerful pieces I have ever read was a roughly five-hundred word sentence with no punctuation that I found whilst googling Evan Lavender-Smith.

For a full novel? It made me think; we all like to play with words and the way they are used, and I cannot deny my enjoyment in reading the more colourfully written prose. I frequently cite Kelman's How Late It Was, How Late as an absolutely fantastic read, despite it being written in a semi-illiterate dialectic idiom. However, to say there are no grammatical boundaries for a piece of writing as big as a novel feels like it is a step too far.

The reason for grammar is not solely to provide a safe outlet for pedants' innate need for gratification but also to establish a protocol by which meaning will be clearly understood by the majority of readers. Kelman's book could not have been understood had he not applied basic rules of grammar to help non-Scots people like me to make sense of it all.

At the end of reviewing a particularly colourful piece of writing a couple of weeks ago, I was aware that, although I had thoroughly enjoyed the experience, I hadn't a clue what, if anything, had happened. In a short story where you can reasonably be expected to cogitate, ruminate and reconsider, even to reread several times, then I see no problem with that.

But, for an entire novel?

I don't think I have attention deficit disorder, but I am simply unable to keep an entire novel's worth of prose in my head at any one time and rereading an entire novel can take (at the very least) a number of hours, probably longer when you factor in things like meal times, paying work, irritable spouses etc.

So, and without even implying (because it would be misrepresenting my thoughts) that colourful prose is wrong for a novel, is it wrong to suggest that there are boundaries for what you can get away with in a novel-length piece of writing when contrasted against a short piece of stand-alone prose?

G

You do have to be grammatically correct in prose, but that doesn't mean you have to lose the 'voice', and sometimes people confuse the two and think they can inject a distinctive 'voice' by ignoring the rules of grammar, but what they end up with is just plain difficult to read and comprehend.
As for purple v's spare prose, does it matter? So long as the writer is consistant through the whole novel then it boils down to how many readers the book is liable to appeal to. If the prose is so purple it's it's the UV range it's probably going to have a readership of one - the writer themselves. Maybe aim for something more in the lilac shades. Likewise something can be 'sparce' to the point of anorexic, and agin will probably only appeal to the writer, who should, perhaps, be thinking more of a little black number in a size 10 to make their work saleable.


- NaomiM

I think this debate often gets too hung up on grammar rules vs no rules. For me, grammar and punctuation should be invisible, whether spare or not. And for a writer to achieve invisibility he has to of course know exactly what he's doing; know the rules, even if he's not going to use them. Someone who doesn't know the rules and doesn't use them will invariably produce prose that's like being in a car with the accelerator stuck at 60 hurtling down a road of sleeping policemen.

But part of liking invisibility is personal taste: I guess some people like to see the technique. It's the same with music: I prefer the composer's and the musicians' technique to be invisible, because I just want to get the essence of the music. But I know quite a bit of music is written primarily to allow, say, a soloist to show what they can do.

Invisibility doesn't mean boring, or mundane. Like your dialect example, if the writing is authentic to its purpose, it won't jerk the reading eye; so, while it's unusual it's still invisible. I'm really proud of a short story I've got coming out called 'Getting Zoe Fixed'. It's written in the first person of a near-future dysfunctional guy who speaks in made-up slang but, I think, without sounding forced.

I'm not sure about your question on whether there's a difference between novel length fiction and short stories in this respect. One difference, perhaps, is that if you choose to use a non-conventional voice or grammar in a short story, it's more likely to be seen as close to the main point, while in a novel a reader might be more inclined to think it's just a technique towards a different end.

Terry

To play devil's advocate:

You do have to be grammatically correct in prose

One of your favourites, I believe, is Terry Pratchett? Yet, he has deliberately flouted a number of rules of grammar and punctuation in more than one of his books. (CF: Use of the exclamation mark in the opera one, use of capitals for DEATH, use of speech marks, again for DEATH.)

if the writing is authentic to its purpose, it won't jerk the reading eye

Yes, I think that is what I was getting at in my comments that sparked this thread.

The comments I made were because my "reading eye" had been tripped up so many times. I had expected the language to be in one format and, when it wasn't, I had to reread individual sentences to understand what was going on. To me, the things I pointed out were simple ambiguity where the addition of a single word might have clarified so much without changing the voice. However, that wasn't the case for the other reviewer who clearly "got it" first time around and so didn't see the need for my draconian law enforcement.

I think, if anything, that just highlights there is a difference between readers. To me, grammar is a way to extend the common ground and I believe that, with a bit of work, rules of grammar can be applied without affecting either style or voice. If so, then surely that has to be preferable?

G

When I work with a writer, I find I read his/her work with two focuses: one is looking for no blips and the smoothness of the writing, the other looks for technical errors. But I don't think the latter necessarily indicates the former, which is why when you're editing someone else's work I think you have to use these two views concurrently. If the smooth isn't there, then the technical errors are significant; but if it is present, the technical errors can change into deliberate technique, if that makes sense.

Terry

As the author of the two colourful pieces Gaius mentions I have to say that usually, when I am playing with grammar, it is to produce a specific effect. What Gaius has quite properly highlighted is that every now and then I go a little too far down that route and forget my readers, which is unforgivable.

Restraint in all things is not necessary, after all, the writing that I attempt is that which plays with language, manipulates it to hopefully produce new effects, and if restraint were your sole concern it would be impossible to achieve that. However I think, above all else, it is important to always remember that you are writing to be read, at least if you intend to write for publication, which I do. Therefore I take a good portion of the advice I have received on board quite seriously, and though I will not entirely re-write (or add clarity to) the less grammatical phrasings I will go through and modify those that are alienating the reader.

Grammar has its place. It's all very well to play with it, as I like to do, but you cannot ever forget that its function is to structure language. Without proper structuring language falls apart and if you love language, and I do, you don't wish to allow that to happen. I'm still learning that fine balancing act of play and structure and I'm well aware I have a long way to go. We are always in a state of pupil-ship and must never presume that we have learnt all there is to know.

Oh and I like prose both purple and spare thank you sir. It all has its place

If the smooth isn't there, then the technical errors are significant; but if it is present, the technical errors can change into deliberate technique, if that makes sense.

Yes. Perfect sense, like the differences between a Ceilidh and an orchestral performance.

when I am playing with grammar, it is to produce a specific effect

Which is usually very enjoyable to read.

it is important to always remember that you are writing to be read

Yes. One-hundred percent. Total agreement. Complete accord. Writing is a solitary pleasure measured in the enjoyment of others.

That's why I think I've made my recent novel quite so sparse - the ideas I am trying to communicate are big enough and complex enough that it would be incomprehensible if I compounded that complexity with literary excess. In essence, what I am saying in that novel is infinitely more important than how I say it.

In some of my shorter pieces, this for example, I am saying almost nothing and so can allow my writing to get a bit more experimental. So, how I say it is more important than what I am saying.

This, I think, ties into another discussion elsewhere about opera. People make a big deal about the many layered communication of complex ideas in the noble art of opera... which I sort of believed until I read some of the lyrics (which are trivial beyond belief). But I don't think that's enough of an answer. Some very important ideas are conveyed using the more arty techniques and some opera does have very meaningful story lines (Turandot, for example).

Again, it comes down to size.

The hyper-condensed meaning of ultra-short fiction and the better poetry punches above its wordcount in meaning. Possibly, because bite-sized chunks that fit in your consciousness in one go can aggregate other ideas. Whereas, when even a single chapter is long enough to have chunks slide out of consciousness before the end, it seems as if you either need to have formal breaks (like in US training manuals, "You've been working for XX minutes. Why not stop and have a cup of coffee?") to think about it or else that many, many of the layers will simply be lost unless you keep it simple.

Hmm.

G

Interesting discussion, and I think agree that the sheer length of a novel means that the reader needs any individual page to be a bit easier to get a handle on, than if that page was the whole story (literally and figuratively). I only discovered how to read Joyce and Woolf, for example, when I stopped trying to make sense of it in the obvious way, and just kept reading - hearing, if you like.

Poetry plays much faster and looser with all the basic rules of grammar/punctuation/meaning because (these days) it's short, and you can assume that the reader is open to it: the sense-making that's on offer in a poem may be as much a logic of allusion and implication and reference, of sound and rhythm, as linear thought or story. But the reader may need to read it several times, and backwards and forwards, with their ears and body, to experience all the different things going on in a poem. You can't really write a novel assuming that the reader is going to do that...

On opera, I don't think you can judge by the librettos (librette?), any more than you can judge a film by its script on the page: it's only one element, and the other elements - specifically the music, is as intimately connected in all sorts of ways (reinforcement, contradiction, subtext, foreshadowing, reflecting, backstory...) with it as, say, the camerwork is with the dialogue in a film. Indeed, there's a school of music-critical thought which says that great poems in some ways make less fruitful texts for great composers to set, than slightly-less-good poems, which have less going on inside themselves, and are therefore more bendable to the composers will. But then music criticism always assumes the composer, not the poet, is the paramount artist.

Emma

Indeed, there's a school of music-critical thought which says that great poems in some ways make less fruitful texts for great composers to set, than slightly-less-good poems, which have less going on inside themselves, and are therefore more bendable to the composers will.

I'm starting to think that's because the listener might notice!

I think my core objection to the trivial parts of opera is not that they are singing about nothing in particular, but they seem to do so in a one-size fits all kind of a way...

EG:
Q: How should I sing about my lover losing her head?
A: With all your heart, as if it is the most terrible and dramatic event in history.

Q: How should I sing about my lover losing her shoe?
A: With all your heart, as if it is the most terrible and dramatic event in history.

Q: How should I sing about my tea being too cold?
A: With all your heart, as if it is the most terrible and dramatic event in history.

It just seems that, sometimes (for example, in la Boheme where the bloody woman is dying) it might be acceptable, even desirable, to try to express something a bit more subtley.

I know it _can_ be done - I've _heard_ it being done. Just... not very often. And that can't be good from either a musical or a storical point of view.

G

Carmina Burana:

Q: How should I sing about having a beer?
A: With all your heart, as if it is the most terrible and dramatic event in history.

I like my prose to be readable without making me feel stupid.. admittedly not an easy task as I get older.

The only real 'bad' example I can think of won an award, but I have yet to manage reading it - Feersum Endjinn by Iain M. Banks.

Of course, the current younger generation would likely complain about the remainder of the book. I'm not sure it qualifies completely for the discussion, but it sprang to mind.