Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy discussion
General SF&F Chat
>
Plain or Fancy?
date
newest »
newest »
I am definitely in the plain camp. I want the story to move along rather than being overloaded with unnecessary verbal clutter (like this sentence!)
I read for the story, so plain language is best for me. I don't mind occasional forays into word play or flowers to illustrate a point, though. I detest novels written all in a fancy or odd style. I hate stream-of-consciousness or lack of punctuation. I'm not sure if they qualify as 'fancy', but they do as a PITA.
In general I prefer plain language, I don't want to be thinking more about a phrase or sentence structure than what is actually going on in the story.That said, I think there are times when certain writing styles can actually add to the type of story being told.
Examples -
I recently reread The Bitterbynde trilogy by Cecilia Dart-Thornton (first book The Ill-Made Mute). It's set in a land chock full of Celtic legends and myths, boggarts and waterhorses, swan maidens and house gnomes. The book has tons of very wordy descriptions and side stories, some poetry and songs - just a ton of words. This book is very much "telling" a story and making it a long story - one that might take all winter as you sat by the fire every night listening to Grandmother as she knits. I love these books because the style really adds to the overall feeling of having stepped into a different world - one where you can take the time for beauty and wonder and melancholy and humor. But I don't read it for "the story" - I read it for the feeling that I might be in the land of Faerie, where time moves differently and immortals have forever to play with language. (These books are very nice in audio).
Then there's Bridge of Birds: A Novel of an Ancient China That Never Was by Barry Hughart which is totally different in style but the same in invoking an overall aura - this one of manic humor full of farce and melodrama and absurdity, with a two page description of the cooking of a meal, elaborate crazy backstories, legends and myths and dreams. I adore this book, it makes me laugh out loud with it's sometimes slapstick, sometimes very dry, sly, wink wink nudge nudge, sometimes dripping with sarcasm and irony and Master Li just poking holes in everything and using everyone's weaknesses against them. The exaggerations here drive home just how ridiculous people can be, especially when they take themselves too seriously.
And finally I'll point to To Say Nothing of the Dog by Connie Willis who really manages to make you believe her characters are actual Victorians, though extreme examples - maybe caricatures - but still they feel like real people, and the whole pace of the novel - the language, the dialogue, the descriptions - all add to your immersion and you go along with the absurdities of the plot because the whole style of it is seamless and very subtle as a device. But there is an obvious "style" to it if you step back and look for it.
So, if it's done well, IF it adds to the story without distracting from it, then I'm all for trying out some stylized language.
I guess I would go with fancy. The best sci-fi for me is challenging and not necessarily straightforward and easy to digest. An example of stuff I've read recently and liked would be stuff like Ancillary Justice and Embassytown. I'm not sure if those are necessarily fancier in terms of writing style (Embassytown definitely is) or if the stories are just conceptually fancier. I don't read too much classic sci-fi because it does tend to be more pulpy and less complex. I do like John Scalzi though, and I'd put him more in the "plain" writing category... although he definitely has a distinctive style.
Fancy, but not for its own sake. I want writing for writing's sake, or stylistic writing, but it has to be in service of the atmosphere or world. My fantasy revelation when young was M. John Harrison withViriconium: In Viriconium/Viriconium Nights, which I believe was known/notorious for its ornate style. That went towards the atmospherics, and those books were about mood. Plain, I put up with because I have to.
If I had to choose I'd probably pick fancy, when it's written elegantly, fluidly and with sophistication. When it's flamboyant/bombastic––I can't handle that. I don't really mind plain, I just don't read a lot of it. I prefer there to be a degree of "high style" involved because I love reading that. It's like poetry to me when the author can use/shape words to a beautiful, non-pretentous stylized rhythm and composition.
"....a beautiful, non-pretentious stylized rhythm and composition".I like that. :}
E.D. wrote: ""....a beautiful, non-pretentious stylized rhythm and composition".I like that. :}"
Me too. Expresses what I mean myself.
"Plain" can mean a workmanlike prose, or it can mean a clear, smooth, gliding prose that carries you from sentence to sentence as smoothly as a swan floating down the river.I like the clear smooth plain, and the fancy, but I read workmanlike prose if other attractions exist.
I love it when an author shows off their writings skills (like Oscar Wilde), plays with the language, or has a poetic style that matches the stories (like Ray Bradbury).A nice style is not essential for me to like the book but it's a big plus if the author wants me to really love it. I don't mind "plain", unadorned style, but I have quickly dropped a book because the average sentence length was probably between 3 and 4 words and I found that really tiring, and another because there was a lot of slang and the style was "urban" (also tiring).
Ya kin take yer fancy words an' blow 'em outta da airlock.
Take away China Miéville's Thesaurus and he'll be revealed as an empty gasbag.
A good author has the ineffable ability to string together straightforward sentences into an entertaining narrative. The rest try to cover up their inability to tell a story by dazzling us with the opacity of their language.
(I drag my knuckles along ground on way to the bookstore. Happily. :)
Take away China Miéville's Thesaurus and he'll be revealed as an empty gasbag.
A good author has the ineffable ability to string together straightforward sentences into an entertaining narrative. The rest try to cover up their inability to tell a story by dazzling us with the opacity of their language.
(I drag my knuckles along ground on way to the bookstore. Happily. :)
G33z3r wrote: "A good author has the ineffable ability to string together straightforward sentences into an entertaining narrative..."Agreed absolutely - subject to the usual caveat that every reader has slightly different preferences from every other reader. Individual tastes always override any attempt to simplify the question of 'what makes a good book'. I suppose the resulting complexity is part of life's rich tapestry . . .
And there is an entire spectrum -- from TITUS GROAN to Ernest Hemingway. What is fancy to you may be bare-bones to me.
Have my enjoyment of the Silverberg group read (Downward to the Earth) is that he pays attention to how words go together. Musicality I call it. When there's music, words imprint themselves better on the brain.
Mika wrote: "... Flowery writing can get irritating more easily if the author isn't really good at it, but done well it can be fantastic."
Agreed - but the real tragedy is the author who thinks he is good at it . . . but isn't!
Aside from that, I must also agree with Alan's comment (above) " ... every reader has slightly different preferences from every other reader. Individual tastes always override ..."
Agreed - but the real tragedy is the author who thinks he is good at it . . . but isn't!
Aside from that, I must also agree with Alan's comment (above) " ... every reader has slightly different preferences from every other reader. Individual tastes always override ..."
G33z3r wrote: "Ya kin take yer fancy words an' blow 'em outta da airlock.
Take away China Miéville's Thesaurus and he'll be revealed as an empty gasbag.
A good author has the ineffable ability to string togethe..."
Them's fightin' words, G33z3r! Yes, he uses some big words occasionally, but his writing is plenty solid without them and his stories are original and conceptually dazzling. And if I find my limited vocabulary expanded by a dozen words or so after reading a book, that's an additional point in the authors favor.
Brenda mentioned Hemingway, who I am reading (listening to, actually) now. It's the audiobook version of The Old Man and the Sea. I'll get crushed for saying this I'm sure, but it's a little too on the "bare bones" side for me (although I do find Donald Sutherland's voice soothing). I'm getting a lot more enjoyment out of the ebook that I'm currently reading, the very "fancy" The Imago Sequence and Other Stories by Laird Barron.
Take away China Miéville's Thesaurus and he'll be revealed as an empty gasbag.
A good author has the ineffable ability to string togethe..."
Them's fightin' words, G33z3r! Yes, he uses some big words occasionally, but his writing is plenty solid without them and his stories are original and conceptually dazzling. And if I find my limited vocabulary expanded by a dozen words or so after reading a book, that's an additional point in the authors favor.
Brenda mentioned Hemingway, who I am reading (listening to, actually) now. It's the audiobook version of The Old Man and the Sea. I'll get crushed for saying this I'm sure, but it's a little too on the "bare bones" side for me (although I do find Donald Sutherland's voice soothing). I'm getting a lot more enjoyment out of the ebook that I'm currently reading, the very "fancy" The Imago Sequence and Other Stories by Laird Barron.
I'm a big fan of audio books & Donald Sutherland. Thanks, Andy. I'll look for that version. Readers can make all the difference in the presentation of a book. An audio production of "Ender's Game" was fantastic, as was a straight reading of "Treason", also by OSC. A recent book was well read, except for the way the reader did some of the sound effects. They were awful. A good reader can make me appreciate fancy language, though. They can make it roll far better than it reads.
skool 'em, G33, skool ' em good!! I'll proudly drag knuckles to the bookstore alongside ya.
:D
:D
I'll chime in with my own two cents - I've read enough to think that it really doesn't matter which style is used, so long as the story is told well. From E.E. "Doc" Smith's Lensemen through Webber's Honor Harington make fair reading for me. Though, I will admit the flowery styles tend to go better with fantasy settings than sci-fi (tech babble excepted). My issues is when someone starts on the puns, and gets a little too deep in them. It doesn't matter which genre it's in, I tend to set the book aside for a "later" that never seems to arrive.
K. wrote: "My issues is when someone starts on the puns..."
Can someone verify this quote? "A pun is the lowest form of wit". I think it comes from Asimov.
(and with a few - a very few - exceptions, I agree with him)
Can someone verify this quote? "A pun is the lowest form of wit". I think it comes from Asimov.
(and with a few - a very few - exceptions, I agree with him)
Mary wrote: "“lowest and most groveling kind of wit.” John Dryden"Generally, I agree, but not always. Like anything else, it depends on how they're handled. I liked the first few Xanth books & they were pure, fun puns. Zelazny always puts a pun in his novels. They're an unexpected surprise in all the serious text & tickle me, when I find them. Like in Lord of Light when Sam goes to great lengths to trick the Lords of Karma. He uses an old enemy, the Shan of Irubek(?) in place of himself & finds out that they've given him an epileptic brain when the 'fit hits the shan'.
A few puns now and again are fine, but when the puns get thick, like in the Xanth series, that's when I loose interest. In fact, I have the entire series, but I have yet start on it, because I know what is coming. definitely have to be in the right frame of mind to work through them.
My humble opinion is plain writing is usually better than fancy. I get suspicious of really fancy writing that draws attention to itself. It makes me wonder what the author is trying to hide with a fancier writing style (ie. a thin plot, a weak character, a poorly developed scene, an incoherent theme). This could be that I've read to many books that have a fancy writing style, but were just poorly developed otherwise. I'm certain not all books with a fancy writing styles are this way.Supposedly a fancy writing style is to add depth and sophistication to a book, but I find that most fancy writing styles are more about class solidarity than adding to the discourse.
I prefer a plain writing style where the author is confident in saying what he/she means to say.
Jim wrote: " an epileptic brain when the 'fit hits the shan'. ..."
Oh, Gods, I haven't read Lord of Light for many years, and I had missed (or maybe just forgotten) that one!
Oh, Gods, I haven't read Lord of Light for many years, and I had missed (or maybe just forgotten) that one!
K. wrote: "A few puns now and again are fine, but when the puns get thick, like in the Xanth series, that's when I loose interest. In fact, I have the entire series, but I have yet start on it, because I kno..."when the narration starts to pun, it breaks suspension of disbelief, often.
K. wrote: "A few puns now and again are fine, but when the puns get thick, like in the Xanth series, that's when I loose interest. In fact, I have the entire series, but I have yet start on it, because I kno..."Just read the first 3. They're the best & run through one story arc well. After that, my sense of humor tripped out & it was pretty much the same old thing.
I missed it, Lionel. A friend had to point it out to me. I wound up rereading the entire book. I always find more to appreciate in his writing.
Jim wrote: "Just read the first 3. They're the best & fun through one story arc well. After than, my sense of humor tripped out & it was pretty much the same old thing."I actually did pretty well wading through them when I was still actively reading Anthony's work. It was the "living in a cottage cheese" and the "boot rear" that kicked me out of the stories, and I think part of what's kept me from trying to dive back in. And, I usually LIKE his work - as a light read.
Mary wrote: "when the narration starts to pun, it breaks suspension of disbelief, often."
Completely agree with you on that one. I could handle the earlier works, and from time to time I think back on "Nightmare" but, when the puns got tongue twisting, I gave up. I have some big idea about wading through my list of books and actually reading them to review. I'll see how long that idea lasts... I might make it, or it might turn to ash.
I do think that there are far more writing styles out there than two, particularly as Spooky defined them. For me first and foremost a book has to be well written or it will annoy me and I will throw it to one side - now that does not mean how it is styled but how well it realises that style.SF is really bad for writers trying in the first few pages of a novel to show that they can "write" by throwing a few badly chosen similes, metaphors and the like in there before reverting to humorlessly simple "He Said, She Said" prose soon after.
Titus Groan wouldnt have worked with simple, lean prose whereas I am not sure Mcarthy's The Road with ornate prose wouldnt have worked as well for people.
Metaphors are particularly dangerous for writers of fantastic fiction. Never using a metaphor where it might be taken literally is a wise rule. The problem is that while mundane writers have the safeguard of some literal meanings being out of bounds, fantastic writers could just about always mean it literally.I was noticing that Patricia A. McKillip, with her glorious jewel-like prose -- goes heavily for similes.
Plain for me - I enjoy a smooth ride, of course, but not at the expense that I'm looking at the words like: WTF? Why did they use "rune"? Why not just "letter"?Christopher Paolini comes to mind (or at least the first book of the Inheritance series, Eragon). Actually, I think that whole using rune vs letter was an actual thing in that book...
I like clever uses for words, but not at the expense of showing off your vocabulary.
Er, because runes were heavily used for magic? A connotation that "letter" hasn't got?
Mary wrote: "Er, because runes were heavily used for magic? A connotation that "letter" hasn't got?"Maybe. But I remember the context being them reading something basic. Not magic-like in the least. Wish I could remember the details of it better...
Two separate things seem to be commingled here. We have:1. Jargon. This is vocabulary specific to the work, your mithril or jaunteing or Necklin rods. Almost all readers give the author a pass on strange names (Bilbo, Spock, Count Vronsky etc.) but you can't load up the work with too much other specific jargon, or it becomes weapons porn or fashion porn or whatever, and readers complain.
2. Prose style. This sometimes is tied to a specific work, but very often is part and parcel of the author's voice. All works by Charles Dickens sound Dickensian, from the beginning to the end of his career. This is worth developing, because your voice is your own. I read some advice from a writing prof over on Facebook today: Write so that you become a genre. Like Kafkaesque -- that's what to shoot for.
One notes that Kafkaesque is a reference to the subject matter. The importance of the writing is the way his prose conveyed the nightmarish quality of the setting and plot.
Forgot to add:3. The voice of the character/narrator. This is like Dr. Watson in the Sherlock Holmes stories. When Doyle wrote a Holmes mystery he would put on Dr. Watson's voice, like a hat. He would take it off again when he was writing historical thrillers set in medieval England. This does not have to be a first-person work, however. A great example might be Lord Peter Wimsey. Some character voices are wonderfully distinct and you could spend the rest of your life listening to them.
Earlier this year, Claire Armitstead in the Guardian newspaper posed the question whether genre fiction sentences can equal those found in literary writers such as Joyce or Beckett. Science fiction writers like Gibson, Banks and M. John Harrison were mentioned as possible genre sources for great sentences.I have thought quite a lot about this since then and I think that genre fiction did not show its best side in the ensuing debate. But then, Ms Armitstead only put the question to a bunch of Guardian readers (joke), whereas I am lucky enough to be able to call on the collective mind of the SFF community!
So let's show what our genres can offer and then go back to planet Guardian with the genuinely greatest sentences in SFF.
I will start off with a brief selection from Theodore Sturgeon's novel "More Than Human", because I have just re-read it and noted candidate sentences along the way. I think these are examples of simple language creating beautiful imagery and often embodying deep insights:
1. A drawstring could not have pulled the fat man's mouth so round and tight and from it his lower lip bloomed like strawberry jam from a squeezed sandwich.
2. The sap falls and the bear sleeps and the birds fly south, not because they are all members of th same thing, but only because they are all solitary things hurt by the same thing.
3. Wrong as a squirrel with feathers or a wolf with wooden teeth; not injustice, not unfairness - just a wrongness that, under the sky, could not exist ... the idea that such as he could belong to anything.
4. The corn stretched skyward with such intensity in its lines that it seemed to be threatening its roots.
5. The open mouth was filled with carrot chips and gave her rather the appearance of a pot-bellied stove with the door open.
6. So it was that Lone came to know himself; and like the handful of people who have done so before him he found, at this pinnacle, the rugged foot of a mountain.
7. The blood was beginning to move in my hands and feet and they felt like four point-down porcupines.
8.He was as uncaring as a cat is of the bursting of a tulip bud.
9. You were the reason for the colors on a bantam rooster, you were a part of the thing that shakes the forest when the bull moose challenges; you were shining armor and a dipping pennant and my lady's girlde on your brow, you were, you were ... I was seventeen, damn it, Barrows, whatever else I was.
10. And here, too, was the guide, the beacon, for such times as humanity might be in danger; here was the Guardian of Whom all humans knew - not an exterior force nor an awesome Watcher in the sky; but a laughing thing with a human heart and a reverence for its human origins, smelling of sweat and new-turned earth rather than suffused with the pale odor of sanctity.
The sentence cult of the literati is not perhaps something we want to import into genre fiction. Lovely sentences can be lovely, but fundamentally, the purpose of a story sentence is to induce the reader to read the next sentence.
Yes, you have to use them the way you use a cherry on top of a sundae. The point of the sundae is the ice cream and the hot fudge. The cherry is simply an adornment. If it were a dish of cherries (with hot fudge and ice cream) it might be nice but it would not be a sundae.
And you want to put the cherry on top.That is to say, a sentence that makes them stop where you want them to stop. Of course, that's more easily done with a stunning revelation than with a marvel of prose.
Which is to say you are a plotster rather than a style maven. I too would far prefer a hairpin plot twist.
It's not just that I like it better. It's that, difficult though it is, it's easier to have the Evil Overlord declare at the end of the chapter, "I've already captured the knight you sent to do the deed while you distracted me," than to write such a stylistic beauty that we will stop and admire without any substance behind it.
If the purpose of "fancy" is to admire the writing first and the story second, then color me plain. To me, the purpose of writing is to tell the story. Sometimes, done well, "fancy" writing enhances the story but ultimately, fancy or plain, the goal of writing is to let the story shine.
Just my 2 cents worth :)
Ian-- completely agree. So long as the writing serves the story, all is well.
Sci-fi and Heroic Fantasy
Books mentioned in this topic
Eragon (other topics)Lord of Light (other topics)
Lord of Light (other topics)
The Old Man and the Sea (other topics)
The Imago Sequence (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Christopher Paolini (other topics)Patricia A. McKillip (other topics)
John Dryden (other topics)
John Dryden (other topics)
M. John Harrison (other topics)
More...
By plain style, I mean old-fashioned, straight-forward storytelling. The plot unfolds clearly. The language is plain (well, as plain as SF gets...we do love our tec-babble). To my mind this sort of writing ruled the day back in the Golden Age of the 1940s.
By fancy style I mean all that "pretty" writing, alot of style for the sake of style...lots of razzle-dazzle with the language. This sort of storytelling is as much about showing off the art of writing as it is about telling a story. This style popped up in SF in a big way back in the "New Wave" of the 1960s.
Me, I like a good story told simply, in the "plain" style...the occasional "fancy" story is OK, if it hits me just right.
Maybe I'm all wet, but I think this is why I love the old stuff. Seems to me there is a big difference between alot of the newer SF and the older stuff. I've been wondering why, and the "plain style/fancy style" seems to have a good bit to do with it.
Ideas and comments?