Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Creation >

Writing Styles for The Strange

All Acting Regiment

22:10 / 28.09.05

When describing something bizarre, do you use orthodox or unorthodox methods?

Using a very regular, "perfect English" style can yeild great results simply by it's detatchment. On the other hand, frenzied semantic and syntactic rule-breaking can put across the bizareness of the situation brilliantly.

Obviously neither is better, and you could easily use both. But what are your views on this?

TeN

22:57 / 28.09.05

it depends what you're going for
I'm a big fan of the simple, "detatched" style and use it frequently (alot of my writing is sardonic and satirical). that being said, I love love love "frenzied semantic and syntactic rule-breaking" - both in describing bizzare and mundane things.

that gives me an idea for a writing excercise - try to write something in which mundane things are described in an extravegent style, while bizarre events are described mundanely, casually, and generally given little attention. (Murakami uses this technique alot, actually, now that I think of it)

Tim Tempest

00:45 / 29.09.05

For writing, I usually just get inspired and...well, go. I want to try out some new techniques, I think that this is a great topic, Legba Rex.

Loomis

07:51 / 29.09.05

It can also depends a lot on the style of the rest of the piece. If en entire novel is written in a fairly detached style and there is one scene where you go kerazy then there needs to be a pretty good reason why you have done so only in that scene and not in every other scene where something dramatic happens.

Then again, alternating back and forth every other page can be wearing on the reader as well. It's a very tricky balance. You need to be certain that you're messing with the rules because the scene requires it rather than doing so because you're unable to describe it in detached prose.

Regrettable Juvenilia

09:05 / 29.09.05

On the other hand, frenzied semantic and syntactic rule-breaking can put across the bizareness of the situation brilliantly.

The problem with this is that there are certain styles that were once unorthodox that are now very, very familiar to some readers. For example, if I encounter some kind of hole in time and space and

I

can't keep

everything

oh god

together

lights so bright

mummy

...well, you get the idea.

All Acting Regiment

09:11 / 29.09.05

And of course, you need to know the rules to start off with.

If you're writing as a character, would you tend towards orthodox or unorthodox? Which is more realistic in terms of the way that a character would actually talk?

Quantum

13:13 / 29.09.05

unorthodox, if you listen to the way people speak it's completely different to a, you know, textual approach, with loads more kinda pauses and rehashes of the same um *sentiment*, no, content, if you're trying to show something atypically expressed the form should reflect the content especially if it's in character or first person.

It usually comes out as hackneyed unfortunately, like bad Joyce or bad Feersum Enjin.

All Acting Regiment

14:39 / 29.09.05

On the other hand, you can't go completely off the rails and take complete artistic license with people's speech (assuming you're going for realism). Some people just don't know/use certain words/phrases/syntax.

Supposing you're writing a character and they see The Monster. Could be an alien, could be a werewolf, whatever, what they're seeing is something bizarre and unknown. What would they say? How can you express it?

autran

20:59 / 29.09.05

Answering that question probably tells you something important about the character.
Another one I've heard is: what would make this character march on Downing Street stroke call the president?

Withiel: DALI'S ROTTWEILER

19:54 / 30.09.05

I can't reallt speak for myself, as everything I write ends up quasi-poetic and no doubt horribly overwritten, but I found it very interesting that in Jonathon Strange and Mister Norrell, Susanna Clarke stops using the faux-Austen tone and switches to a more modern style whenever something occult is described that's not focalised through one of the human characters, and it's remarkably effective.

matthew.

03:30 / 01.10.05

It all depends on my narrator. With my metafictional novel, the narrator is extremely separate from the characters (AKA, me), so he has to be detached, but I created a subtle transition from omniscience to ignorance, so he stays emotioally detached, and therefore uses simple English (orthodox), but very unaware of the deeper significance of what he sees.

On the other hand, if my narrator is my protagonist, then I use a halfway to stream of consciousness where the narrator can still form coherant nice sentences, but retains the rhythm and cadence of average discourse. Therefore, unorthodox methods will suffice, as Petey Shaftoe gave an example of.

It's funny nobody has mentioned H. P. Lovecraft yet here. The man described the most bizarre things in the history of the universe, and yet used the most orthodox method possible. (Arguably, he was unorthodox because he used archaic jargon, but he used that for everything, including letter writing)

Add Your Reply