-
Basic Writing questions is not a crit forum. All crits belong in Share Your Work
Advice on "pretty prose" and how important is it?
- Thread starter EvilPenguin
- Start date
Two important things to keep in mind:
1. Story trumps everything.
2. Learning to revise is perhaps more useful even than learning to write.
Writing allows for unlimited do-overs.
Read everything. Read widely. Think about what you read, think about how the words and sentences work, and what they tell you about the characters and the story.
And revise.
Well, how do you define story? I mean, everyone has a cool story to tell, don't they? It's about engaging the reader and pulling them into your story, no? It seems like it would have to be one heck of a never-told-before story to overcome not being written well.
A story is told in the telling. A heck of a story incorporates excellent telling. Which comes before "pretty prose" - whatever "pretty" means.
Okay, that's what I was getting at. We're distinguishing the telling of the story vs. "pretty prose" as potentially different things, which makes sense to me.
Yeah, but I think AW Admin was making that very point. Story isn't just plot, and writing includes revising and reading is good. And if "pretty prose" means good, considered wordage, then pretty prose is also important.
The thing with beautiful prose is it doesn't exist in isolation, at least not in my limited experience. Authors who have great prose are usually good at the other bits of writing too. Maybe not great, maybe not as good as the Dan Browns of this world, but by its nature good prose is well structured, and I think that ties into understanding structure in a broader sense, too. I dont think you can write beautiful prose and produce only a word salad novel. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe those just never get published.
Side point; I enjoy Lovecraft a lot but I find his prose waffly, vague, and overwrought in places. I read him for his ideas mostly. I appreciate this is subjective.
Side point; I enjoy Lovecraft a lot but I find his prose waffly, vague, and overwrought in places. I read him for his ideas mostly. I appreciate this is subjective.
Sorry, written while tired.
Some writers excel at story telling, and Dan brown is or was considered to be good at writing hooky, well constructed novels. Even if the prose is straightforward.
Some writers excel at story telling, and Dan brown is or was considered to be good at writing hooky, well constructed novels. Even if the prose is straightforward.
No, not at all. "Written well" is somewhat subjective, but only somewhat. People do not rave about the prose or style of Nora Roberts | J. D. Robb; she writes well, yes, and she totally gets story, but her prose is really just there to tell the story. Most reader's read Roberts to find out "what happens next."
On the other extreme, people rarely read Joyce's Ulysses out of a desire to find out "what happens next"; but readers do love how Joyce writes. There's not a whole lot of narrative lust driving Ulysses; it's one day in the life of a fairly ordinary man.
Look at a few paragraphs of books from ten or so writers. Their prose is different from each other; some is workmanlike; it gets the job done. Some perfectly captures the voice of a character(s). Some make you stop and re-read just because of the melody.
I'm in the same situation as OP. What I'm trying for is "transparent prose", something the reader never notices. I don't want to use rare words that will make them get their dictionaries out, or phrase sentences in a unusual way that will make readers read the sentence twice.
That said, you have to use more than simple sentences. If you use only simple sentences, it will make your writing seem robotic, like if someone speaking in a monotone voice, so you have to vary your sentence structure up. Most of your sentences will be simple but you'll need to add compound, complex, etc, sentences. And do all of this while maintaining your goal transparent prose.
Once you're able to do that, you can strive for "beautiful prose", writing that readers will recognize as beautiful. This, while still practicing your "transparent prose".
At least that's how I see things now. And I write genre fiction where I think readers mostly want genre fiction for the story and not my fancy writing shenanigans.
The late Elmore Leonard was a genius at this. He said he got the style from trying to copy Hemingway. For me, Elmore Leonard books are a pleasure to read, because you're getting pure story.
That said, you have to use more than simple sentences. If you use only simple sentences, it will make your writing seem robotic, like if someone speaking in a monotone voice, so you have to vary your sentence structure up. Most of your sentences will be simple but you'll need to add compound, complex, etc, sentences. And do all of this while maintaining your goal transparent prose.
Once you're able to do that, you can strive for "beautiful prose", writing that readers will recognize as beautiful. This, while still practicing your "transparent prose".
At least that's how I see things now. And I write genre fiction where I think readers mostly want genre fiction for the story and not my fancy writing shenanigans.
The late Elmore Leonard was a genius at this. He said he got the style from trying to copy Hemingway. For me, Elmore Leonard books are a pleasure to read, because you're getting pure story.
Last edited:
I think we also need to consider how the style of the prose supports the story. Character-driven stories are often (not always) more literary in style and require prose that has a more melodic tone. Whereas plot-driven novels often (not always) require a more straight-forward style that gets the story on the page without the words getting in the way.
These styles are fluid and cross-pollinate, because there are as many ways to tell a story as there are stories to tell. But most (not all) successful novels rely on the prose being written well, regardless of style, if that makes sense. As a writer, we need to know our craft and pay attention to the words, sentences, paragraphs, and so on. At the editing and final draft stage, none of it should be accidental.
These styles are fluid and cross-pollinate, because there are as many ways to tell a story as there are stories to tell. But most (not all) successful novels rely on the prose being written well, regardless of style, if that makes sense. As a writer, we need to know our craft and pay attention to the words, sentences, paragraphs, and so on. At the editing and final draft stage, none of it should be accidental.
Last edited:
I'm so glad that you mentioned transparent prose! I remember one of the Writing Excuses episodes where Brandon Sanderson talks about his prose being transparent. I just finished reading the 2nd Mistborn novel, and I can definitely see what he means by it. He doesn't use the fanciest of words to convey something, and he doesn't shy away from repeated phrases (One page had "He smiled" repeated on it three times.) Yet, he still manages to write really compelling stories.
I feel like my writing style is pretty similar to Sanderson's, just at a more juvenile stage right now. I want to tell really interesting fantasy stories, with believable worlds and a wide range of characters. I don't want to write literary novels or poetry.... I can see where reading those can definitely improve ones writing, and I understand that I still need to work on my showing vs. telling, but I don't want to be ashamed of writing transparent prose. And I guess if Sanderson can be as successful as he is at it, then I shouldn't worry so much!
Agreed. I actually have the B&N leather bound compendium of Lovecraft's stories, and while I really do enjoy them for the stories/ideas themselves, I struggle to read them because of his prose.
These are all really great points, and definitely make me feel better. The books I typically enjoy reading are the ones that "get the job done" with the prose, but I can never put down because I want to know what happens next. After reading through a lot of the discussions in this post, I realize that this type of writing mostly has to do with structure, and not necessarily the words themselves. Yes, these authors still have a great understanding of word-craft and are able to avoid boring phrases/bland sentences, but they wouldn't be considered "lyrical" or "melodious" words.
I guess it all just depends on the type of novel, the story being told, and the author writing it.
Agree with everything and it's all helpful. Maybe it works better to say storytelling trumps everything?
True. But. When an author repeats* a common phrase like "he smiled" three times on one page, or fifteen times in one chapter, or 500 times in one book**...that's the opposite of transparency. That's lazy writing calling attention to itself. Which is not something to be emulated, compelling story or no.
*There is a such a thing as rhetorical repetition, in which words or phrases are repeated deliberately, for emphasis and/or poetic effect. For example, the opening of A Tale of Two Cities.
**Not saying that Sanderson goes that far, but I have encountered authors who did. One in particular was enamored of "he said quietly," and it infested the prose like a bad case of chiggers. Another constantly mentioned raised eyebrows, to the point where one reviewer on Goodreads suggested that if someone were using that to play a drinking game, they'd be comatose by the end of the first chapter. I thought that went a bit too far, but by the end of the book you'd have to scrape them off the floor for sure.
I think we all have different thresholds. I love a lot of Sanderson's story ideas, and he has such cool worldbuilding, but if I'm allowed to be honest I struggle to finish his bigger novels because I'm constantly stumbling over clunky constructions. Or wading through negative space; so much negative space. Weirdly, I much prefer his earlier novels (Elantris felt much smoother to me.)
For some more subjective data joy, someone who I think of as having transparent, straightforward, very "readable" prose is Neil Gaiman. I don't feel like he adds a lot of flourishes, but it's an effortless and engaging read. I never feel like I'm tripping over sentences. NB: It still takes a lot of work to have "smooth" and undistracting prose. He's very accomplished at what he does and I like his writing a lot.
For some more subjective data joy, someone who I think of as having transparent, straightforward, very "readable" prose is Neil Gaiman. I don't feel like he adds a lot of flourishes, but it's an effortless and engaging read. I never feel like I'm tripping over sentences. NB: It still takes a lot of work to have "smooth" and undistracting prose. He's very accomplished at what he does and I like his writing a lot.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 14,760
- Reaction score
- 24,839
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Website
- elizabethbonesteel.com
Indeed yes. And on the side of "story trumps everything..." I started reading a series that was (and is) consistently on the NYT bestseller list. The ongoing story itself is fascinating and well-constructed, and built in a vivid world. The writing is bland at best, and clunky at worst - but it's good enough to get the plot across, and that's good enough for a critical mass of readers.
It seems to me that several responders are saying much the same thing: any text which calls attention to itself tends to hurt our readers immersion in the story, hurts their ability to experience the story as if they are there in the setting along with the characters. It focuses their attention on the words and how they are put together in sentences, paragraphs, scenes.
That is true even if the words/etc. are wonderfully beautiful and/or witty and/or profound.
Somewhat the same situation exists in the art world. At first glance we may look at a painting and see what is THROUGH the painting, see the meadowland drenched in a setting sun and imagine we are IN the painting. Then perhaps at a second glance we re-focus our attention on the paint strokes, the texture of different swatches, the placing of elements into the thirds of the canvas: top-left, top-middle, top-right, middle-left, ....
That is true even if the words/etc. are wonderfully beautiful and/or witty and/or profound.
Somewhat the same situation exists in the art world. At first glance we may look at a painting and see what is THROUGH the painting, see the meadowland drenched in a setting sun and imagine we are IN the painting. Then perhaps at a second glance we re-focus our attention on the paint strokes, the texture of different swatches, the placing of elements into the thirds of the canvas: top-left, top-middle, top-right, middle-left, ....
This kind of textual transparency is a common goal for writers today. But it's a mistake to assume it's something that appeals to all readers. There are many readers out there -- readers who may be your audience -- who actively dislike "transparent prose" for its blandness, its tendency to lean on clichés, stock phrases, and other forms of verbal shorthand, and for its lack of attention to the details of diction, rhythm, and nuance. For them, this kind of prose does not get out of the way but does in fact call attention to its own clumsiness and creates an obstacle to their engaging with the story and the characters. For these readers "pretty prose" is not an extra frill added to dress up the story, it's an essential part of the writer's craft and the fiction experience.
And no, these readers who considered well-crafted sophisticated prose style important are not all confined to the "literary" ghetto. Many of them are dedicated genre readers as well.
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,308
- Reaction score
- 295
True. For me the one writer that really makes me feel horribly inadequate is William Gibson in science fiction. Before him, I always thought SF could really only be about the ideas, like Clarke, Asimov and other classics in the genre. Then I read the Burning Chrome short stories, and the Cyberspace trilogy and the level of language on display there--FOR AN SF NOVEL!!--completely blew me away. I have been trying, and spectacularly failing on a regular basis since then, to try and bring that level of poetic language fluency to my own writing. But I tend to fall hard on the "functional, not especially noteworthy" side of the writing scale.
*raises hand*
Language for me is an important as the story. I try to read broadly and I've been reading a few "transparent prose" novels recently and I agree they came across bland (for me). I like books where the prose challenges me, where I keep thinking about it long after I've finished the book, where the words chosen say something.
For me transparent prose, stock phrases and all mentioned above are the things that will take me out of the story instead of immersing me.
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 23,132
- Reaction score
- 10,903
- Location
- Where faults collide
- Website
- doggedlywriting.blogspot.com
Prose needn't be pretty, but it needs to be clear, readable and engaging.
If you think you are using too many "he did this" kinds of sentences, you may be having trouble with expressing the consequences of what he did, and (assuming the doer is the pov character), what he thinks and feels about the situation he is in.
For example:
Sue stopped halfway up the ladder. She shouldn't have looked down, but the ladder hadn't seemed as tall when she started climbing. From her current perspective, the rest of the troop waiting at the base of the tower looked like toy soldiers. A raven croaked from somewhere nearby. She squeezed her eyes shut, planted her left foot, and forced one of her white-knuckled hands to let go and reach for the next rung, and the next, and the next. Finally, she reached to top and lay on the floor of the tower, breathing hard. Why had she volunteered to do this? Never again.
A good way to figure out how to do something is to carefully read books by some of your favorite authors who are writing in the same narrative viewpoint as you are. How do they avoid over telling and excess repetition of sentence structure?
If you think you are using too many "he did this" kinds of sentences, you may be having trouble with expressing the consequences of what he did, and (assuming the doer is the pov character), what he thinks and feels about the situation he is in.
For example:
Sue stopped halfway up the ladder. She shouldn't have looked down, but the ladder hadn't seemed as tall when she started climbing. From her current perspective, the rest of the troop waiting at the base of the tower looked like toy soldiers. A raven croaked from somewhere nearby. She squeezed her eyes shut, planted her left foot, and forced one of her white-knuckled hands to let go and reach for the next rung, and the next, and the next. Finally, she reached to top and lay on the floor of the tower, breathing hard. Why had she volunteered to do this? Never again.
A good way to figure out how to do something is to carefully read books by some of your favorite authors who are writing in the same narrative viewpoint as you are. How do they avoid over telling and excess repetition of sentence structure?
Last edited: