The Word Cloud

People have asked about style before, and more specifically how to develop your own style.

I’ve just got off the phone to my brother who was recommending a few books to read, and when describing each one the thing that he described as being the most different between the authors wasn’t the change in story or an enthralling read, but the style of how it was written.

I don’t think he realised what he was saying he was just breaking down the books to me to see which appealed. So my question is - is your style just as important as the story you are trying to tell?

I'd say yes, but only inasmuch as style expresses character - e.g. in 'The Maltese Falcon' the style and the character are synonomous. And the character is the story.

But if you're talking about a book with a very slender storyline and uninteresting characters that tries to sell itself solely in terms of a fluid, beautiful prose style, I'd say no. That said, I can already think of a few exceptions, so it can be done.

Shite....

'Style' is such a slippery term, and can mean the discussion ends up talking about superficial things, or at least sounding as if it is: 'stylish' writing is only one kind of good writing. I'd always rather think in terms of 'voice'.

Voice is the combination of what the novel says, and how it says it. At the most basic level of plot, there are very few, so what we're really talking about is the individual clothes you put on that plot, as it were, both in terms of character and action, and in the words which evoke that character and action.

As you say, Aonghus, in something like Hamnett, the novel is a perfect marriage of the two. (Actually, that's always what one's aiming for.) A voice is what the book trade is looking for, and they know it when they see it: the actual choice of words, the shape and rhythm of sentences is both fresh to the eye and ear, and fits with the character and the ideas, the world view, if you like, which underpins the whole conception of the novel. To that extent, you could argue, voice is about integrity and authenticity, which is an over-posh way of saying that all these elements are working together to the same end: then it seems all of a piece... (Which doesn't mean that it wouldn't be possible to, say, write a tragedy in breathless, OMG-sprinkled chick-litty tones, or a light comedy sodden with the brand-names of guns and mean and moody back-stories of abused childhoods. But it would be quite a trick to pull off)

Underpinning any voice that you evolve to suit the novel will be your own writerly DNA, and indeed you may not particularly try for a voice which is different from your own. Or you may: my first novel was written in the voices of a 30 year old male veteran of Waterloo in 1819, and a 15 year old girl in 1976 - I have been a 15 year old girl, though not at that date, and her background was very different from mine. So I was consciously trying to find voices which were not mine, but I bet if you put them both into a computer, it would find that the underlying nature of both was very similar to how I write if I'm not consciously trying to change my own 'native' writerly voice.

Which is a long-winded way of answering the question "is your style just as important as the story you are trying to tell?" thus:

Yes.

Certainly from the agent's point of view it is: voice is THE thing they're looking for. The book trade has absorbed the movie-business idea of 'high concept', not least because plot is easier to sell than a voice to executives: heaven forbid that they should actually have to read something, to decide whether to gamble on it or not... But there's no voice in a movie because there are no narrative words. So, as so often, importing an interesting idea from another medium has resulted in people losing sight of things which are unique, and therefore utterly crucial, in our medium

Voice rules, in other words.

Emma

Wow Emma, you are great! thats all I have to say.

Gels

Aw, thanks Gels!

Emma

Intriguing thread...in interviews, most agents echo Emma (voice rules); but the reality, I think, is quite different. At the York Festival of Writing, my one-to-one was with an agent who repeatedly clarified that voice, for him, was THE most important part. He hadn't read my work beforehand, so I sent it to him a month later. The response:

'After reading your work twice, I still like the voice, and it's that which first attracted me to your work. The rub is that this will be a difficult sell to publishers. You could try getting the press interested or some periodicals. Men's mags in particular could find that your sassy, humorous approach fits the bill. It is the strength of your writing voice which leads me to believe that you could make a contribution to the field of column or magazine journalism, especially if you could harness your voice across a wide range of topics. Hopefully, one day we'll see your words in print in one format or another. Good luck.'

Where, I thought, is the charming idealist who insisted voice was the deciding factor in choosing whether to represent a writer? I've found many agents are the same - 'The voice and writing are critical,' they declare, furiously dismissing 'trashy celeb memoirs' and 'atrociously-written, cliched, formulaic blockbusters'...but then they reject my work whilst admitting the writing/voice is excellent. I know they need to profit and, of course, I can't criticise that...I just wish they wouldn't lie by pretending their priority isn't money but discovering a 'vibrant new voice to share with the world'.

Sailor Jerry- isn't the simplest explanation for this that both Voice and Saleable plot (not necessary good plot) are absolutely essential.

"isn't the simplest explanation for this that both Voice and Saleable plot (not necessary good plot) are absolutely essential."

Yes, exactly, and I'd also add compeling and therefore saleable characters. Saying that voice is essential doesn't mean that plot, characters, dialogue, ideas, narrative drive or anything else can be less than top-notch. It's just that if most of those are cracking but - say - there are holes in the plot - it's fixable IF the agent/editor reckons the end result will be worth the time. But voice isn't, as it were, fixable, at least not by them. It's the thing which grabs the reader before they have anything invested in the slower burn of plot, character and ideas, and which will keep the potential buyer reading in the bookshop long enough for them to get embarrassed and buy the thing. But it's unteachable, at least as their working lives are structured: either you've got it, or you haven't.