How much of your writing content is improvised for the sake of rhythm?

I was assuming the OP meant what detail you include in a particular sentence, ie what do you attach to one sentence and not another. Probably my misreading.

Kallithrix said:

Ah... yes, quite. My bad, putting words in your mouth there. Chalk it up to not being quite all there pre-coffee on first day back at work for 8 days, methinks

My apologies.

Click to expand...

This time of year is cruel to us all

If I think too hard, my writing comes out stilted and strained. It's when I'm so focused that I'm not thinking about what I'm writing that I get good sentence variation/rhythm. Sure, there are some minor problems later, but at least I have a lot of diamonds to polish up instead of a string of gleaming cubic zirconia.

I'll be honest and say I don't really follow the thread question.

Rhythm is for rappers.

Writers of novels should aim for clarity and flow.

I honestly don't think nearly that much when I'm writing. I've been writing long enough that generally the sentences come out with a good variance of length, and if they don't for some reason, they can always be split apart or combined when I line edit later.

I don't pay much attention to rhythm when I read either. I visualize what I'm reading (and writing) so as long as the words don't get tangled up and confuse me, I don't notice them. To me, the definition of good writing is that it disappears completely and I only notice the story.

I used to write solely for rhythm, but found I was rarely actually saying anything. It was pretty though.

I'm not sure how to answer this. I wante every sentence I write to have good rhythm and flow. No exceptions. I can't think of a case where this stopped me from saying whatever I wanted to say with that sentence.

Kallithrix said:

Maybe my opinion is influenced by the fact that I think that's a load of bullshit, and in general I denounce literary fiction as a bunch of pretentious wank.

Click to expand...

Kallithrix said:

IMO, the only difference between literary fiction and plain ole mainstream fiction is the author trying too hard to be writerly

Click to expand...

Kallithrix, I write literary fiction and find your comments offensive and ill-informed.

It's fine for you to dislike literary fiction.

It's not fine for you to be abusive about it, or to sneer at the writers who work in this genre.

kuwisdelu said:

And I respect your opinion, but I can't help but find it disrespectful to those of us who wrote literary fiction, and have rather different goals than "trying too hard to be writerly."

Click to expand...

I agree.

I wouldn't mind betting that the room mods will turn up here sooner or later; but meanwhile, let's try to remember AW's one rule of "respect your fellow writer", shall we?

Jamesaritchie said:

I'm not sure how to answer this. I wante every sentence I write to have good rhythm and flow. No exceptions. I can't think of a case where this stopped me from saying whatever I wanted to say with that sentence.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

I don't see why we have to separate clear writing from writing which has good rhythm and flow. Good writing should have all of these attributes and tell a good story too.

I don't see why people think that literary fiction is flowery and meaningless: some of the most sparse, meaningful books I've read have been literary fiction.

Question said:

FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY I WANT THE READER TO KNOW THAT THERE IS A BOY MOVING TOWARD A HOUSE. LET'S ALSO ASSUME THAT (IN CONTEXT) THE SENTENCE ISN'T LONG ENOUGH. I DON'T SEE HOW TO DRAW OUT THE IDEA, AND THE SENTENCES ON EITHER SIDE ARE TOO FAR AWAY (CONCEPTUALLY) TO MELD THEM WITH THE CURRENT SENTENCE. IT WOULD BE JARRING TO THE READER. IN THIS CASE, I MIGHT GIVE THE BOY A LIMP OR STRANGE CLOTHES OR SOME OTHER TRAIT I DIDN'T PLAN FOR TO BULK UP THE SENTENCE, AS THERE ISN'T ANYTHING ELSE RELEVANT I CAN THINK TO ADD TO FLESH IT OUT.

Click to expand...

When first getting words down, I don't even think about rhythm. It tends to happen automatically. When I go back over what I've written (which is often immediately after just having written it), then I sometimes shift clauses and balance sentences, making some longer and some shorter. But even then, it's a lot of instinctive shuffling. And I never add anything to a sentence to "bulk" it up.

Therefore...I'm not sure I understand your example of the sentence about the boy moving toward the house not being long enough. The only way a sentence is not long enough is if you have so many short ones in a row that it's beginning to sound choppy.

I suppose it depends on your audience, doesn't it? (And if the audience is YOU, then it depends on your own preference, I would think.) But I don't think good writing, with meter and cadence, should be foreign to genre fiction.

Here's something I like (from Hank Ryan's The Other Woman)--and only the second graph:

A body by the river. This time, the Charles, down by the old dock. Her legs, black tights striped with mud, leather boots, one zipper down, splayed on the fallen leaves and slimy underbrush on the bank. Her head, chestnut hair floating like a punk Ophelia, bobbing and grotesque in the tangled weeds.

It's a murder mystery, but that sort of writing paints a vivid and disturbing picture. All sentence fragments (seemingly) designed to evoke harshness and finality. To me, it really works, and it sounds good.