Re: [bookclub] Prose style in 'Losing Your Grip'

[edromia@my-deja.com]

In article <38a048cf.30414794@newsserver.epix.net>,
  emayer00@epix.net (Eric Mayer) wrote:
> On Tue, 08 Feb 2000 18:24:51 GMT, edromia@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >of writing is an understanding of the guidelines, and part is also a
> >keen intuition of when and where and how to most effectively depart
> >from them. The latter can't be taught, but it can be illustrated, and
> >discussed. And even critiqued.
> >
>
> Sure, but it is just a matter of opinion, not rules or even
> guidelines. Unfortunately, critics with strong opinions often mistake
> them for rules.
>
> Learning rules is useless. Rules, after all, are supposed to be
> followed. That's the definition of the word.  What can be taught are
> techniques, ways to manipulate words that others have found successful
> and that you may or may not find useful in your own work.

I think you're getting hung up on semantics, here. "Techniques,"
interestingly, was the word I almost used in my last post, but I went
with "guidelines" instead. Perhaps I shouldn't have.

Obviously, the techniques you use will be dictated by your own personal
goals in writing; by contrast the techniques that sell stories will
largely be dictated by the expectations of the publisher, your
audience, and the conventions of the genre you're writing in. You'd
probably want to strike a balance somewhere in between the two, I'd
imagine, although precisely where would again be a matter of your
personal preferences. But you are still making this judgement based on
your understanding of these techniques and conventions, and on your
intuition of how to depart from those techniques to the greatest effect.

These techniques can be taught and studied, and their effective use and
misuse can be evaluated -- not on any absolute scale, obviously, but
certainly in a way that can provide useful feedback to the author.

Techniques can also be learned on one's own, through trial and error
and lots and lots of reading. This fact does not render the previous
paragraph false, however.

>
> You avoid shoddy material by using words that clearly express what you
> mean. The strength of the material lies in its clarity, not its
> polishing.

In your original post you said (or implied) that individual words don't
count, and that good writing is not done on the level of the
prepositional phrase. Now this statement seems to be imply that that's
not what you meant. Can you clarify?

> It is a long jump from learning from the efforts of others to "rules"
> and "guidelines." In fact writers always learn from the "efforts" of
> others, but they do not learn from "rules" and "guidelines"
> promulgated by others - especially since the others who promulgate
> rules and guidelines are rarely writers.

A good critique (or at least, what *I* consider to be a good critique)
asks: what were you trying to accomplish? did the techniques you used
accomplish it effectively? and why or why not? To interpret that
as "Here are some rules; if you don't follow them, your writing is
poor," is to misunderstand the purpose of the critique (or, perhaps,
you just have a poor critic on your hands).

The main point I was trying to respond to was the contention
that "polish" and a careful attention to word choice is an unnecessary
component of the writing process. From this:

> Too often beginning writers are thinking about polishing their words
> (the "artistic" part) before they think about making them clear.

...I wonder if you thought by "polish" I meant excess or fancy
verbiage; this couldn't be farther from the truth. By "polish" I mean
careful and precise choice of words, the craft of creating well-made
sentences -- so that you can *most effectively convey* the larger
issues such as plot, theme, characterization, and so forth -- attention
to detail on both the large and small scales, essentially. Perhaps this
is what you meant by "clarity"; in which case, my apologies for arguing
at cross-purposes.

-M.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.