On Style

[coalescent]

In the sort of non-fiction (educational) writing I do at work, there is without question such a thing as Good Style. Clarity is vital; it's all about presenting information in a logical and easy-to-follow way. Structure is also important; key statements should be placed where they will have the greatest impact. I'm still learning, but those are the basic goals, and they mean that for a given piece of writing there often is a Right Way, or at the most several closely related Right Ways, to do it.

Fiction writing, obviously, isn't like that. Style in fiction writing serves many goals, and is usally about tone and mood as much as it is about story and character (and a dozen other things), so it becomes much harder to say whether something is well-written or badly written. The goalposts vary. All meeting abstracts (for example) have the same objective - but it's likely that each story will have its own objective. Style is the lens through which a story is viewed; it may be clear or cloudy or fractured for effect, as the writer pleases.

In a way, I suppose I'm saying that the writing I do for work can be assessed objectively, and that fiction has always to be assessed subjectively. There are nine-and-sixty types of Good Writing. Does it work for me?

And yet, and yet...some types of Good Writing are more equal than others. Some pieces of writing are subject to critical consensus, and if someone doesn't appreciate them well, it's just that their tastes are shallow and unrefined. This, inevitably, is where genre snobbery comes in: sf writing doesn't do the things that literary critics look for, so it's bad writing.

Does this ever get inverted? 'This sf novel does do the things that literary critics look for, so it must be good writing' - even if it doesn't do the sf well? immortalradical might claim that Light falls into this category (correct me if I'm wrong), and I've been feeling tempted to argue that Jon Courtenay Grimwood's Arabesk novels might be considered in the same way.

I finally got around to reading all three over the past couple of weeks, and it was a real struggle. I found the profusion of splice-commas, half-sentences and mid-section perspective shifts confusing, tedious and, to be honest, downright ugly...but everyone else in the whole world has praised Grimwood's writing for its pace and style. They've also praised it for being naturalised - rather than being novels about an alternate world, they're novels that seem to have come from an alternate world, so you don't get the 'outsider looking in' viewpoint so common in sf. Intellectually, I can recognise that as a huge achievement, but emotionally, I found that the stories he chose to tell didn't interest me. I wanted the Arabesks to engage with their world more than they did.

Ultimately, I'm having trouble deciding what I think of the series. It's a bit like one of those line-drawings of a cube: the ones you look at and see that they're coming out of the page, then blink and look again and see that no, they're going into the page. I can see one interpretation or the other, but never both at the same time.

This is a half-formed argument, so I'm sure I've left many points out. What do you all think? Is there good style, bad style? How important is it? What do others think of Grimwood's books? Am I just being a genre bumpkin who's unable to appreciate alternate story modes?

Comments

I think that their writing styles

[cleanskies.livejournal.com]

have had an effect on yours.

Re: I think that their writing styles

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

More than likely! I often find that happens for a few days after I finish a book (maybe longer, in some cases), until I've fully digested it...

Re: I think that their writing styles

[(Anonymous)]

I often find that happens [...] until I've fully digested it.

This is known as literary flatulence.

HTH. HAND.

-- Tom

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Does this ever get inverted? 'This sf novel does do the things that literary critics look for, so it must be good writing' - even if it doesn't do the sf well? immortalradical might claim that Light falls into this category (correct me if I'm wrong)

Hmm. That both is and isn't my position, I think. My problem with Light isn't really the SF at all. Some of it - such as the device by which every possible theory works - is actually pretty good. My real problem with the novel is that it falls into the trap of thinking that trends are worth reproducing for their own sake: graphic violence, unsympathetic characters, a laconic style, a general dreariness of outlook. This sort of uber-realism tries so hard to be gritty that it becomes as unrealistic as any romance novel - because not all people are gritty, and because there are points of redemption in our world.

So, yes ... I take issue with Light's slavish modishness, but not really because the SF isn't done very well. It's because I hate modishness. And I suspect that's where I come from when analysing a writer's style ... does it ring true to me? Does it fit the subject matter? Is it sincere? Is it too practiced? What I'm after is an authorial voice with some authority. What Light and a bunch of other works give me is a kind of plagiarised, trendy form.

[peake.livejournal.com]

The thing you have to remember about Light, in fact the thing you have to remember about most of what we consider good science fiction, is that it is in dialogue with the genre. You can, of course, read Light without having read any science fiction, but the more you know of sf the more you can appreciate the jokes that Harrison has inserted into the novel. This is not meant to be a realist novel (were it realist the events on the first couple of pages would have had a very different consequence), rather it is a novel that uses our sense of the real, that plays with what we imagine our contemporary context to be. This may not be the most innovative novel Harrison has written, but it is not modish and it is certainly not slavish. It is as elaborately and deeply thought a literary construction as you are likely to encounter, and achieves some stunning effects (by which I'm not speaking about wide screen special effects so much as the emotional and intellectual hit that comes with recognising the rightness of something.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

There is nothing particularly worthy about Harrison's jokes. If he wanted to have fun with references, perhaps he should have gone the Flaubert's Parrot rather than being pithy. When much of what Harrison does in Light is also present in as workmanlike a piece of contemporary fiction as Rumours of a Hurricane, I can't buy the notion that Harrison didn't sit down and think, "Now, how can I write Literary SF?" (The capital there is deliberate, of course.)

Light is too considered. All work of a high literary standard is considered, of course, but give me the laconic, literary genre dialogue of the easy and assured Breakfast of Champions over what is the often over-wrought Light any day.

I didn't hate Light. I was disappointed by it.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

give me the laconic, literary genre dialogue of the easy and assured Breakfast of Champions over what is the often over-wrought Light any day

Interesting. I mean, it's not like Vonnegut is coming from outside the genre, exactly, but he's certainly not embedded in it as deeply as Harrison (or at least Light specifically) is. A difference in perspective?

Still, you like Ted Chiang, so you're not a lost cause yet... :)

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Since Harrison hadn't done hard SF in years, I'm not sure there's we can say he's embedded in SF. But yes, Vonnegut cannot really be claimed by the genre at all. But what I like about Vonnegut is in a very strange way what I like about Chiang - they use genre tropes to talk about anything but genre tropes. Light can sometimes morph into a science fiction book about science fiction books.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Since Harrison hadn't done hard SF in years, I'm not sure there's we can say he's embedded in SF. But yes, Vonnegut cannot really be claimed by the genre at all.

Harrison is more a part of the genre (however equivocal is relationship) than Vonnegut has been, at least. And Light as a book is certainly embedded in SF.

But what I like about Vonnegut is in a very strange way what I like about Chiang - they use genre tropes to talk about anything but genre tropes.

Right. You're saying you like them because they're not in dialogue with the genre?

That may be true for Vonnegut, but it's emphatically not true for Chiang. Unless we go back a stage; what do you understand by 'being in dialogue with the genre'?

Light can sometimes morph into a science fiction book about science fiction books.

So...what's wrong with that, exactly? SF as a genre has reached the stage, surely, where it should be quite acceptable for authors to look back and try to make sense of it all. If it helps, you can think of Light as being like Futurama. But for books, not TV. And with more bleakness.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Right. You're saying you like them because they're not in dialogue with the genre?

No. Not at all. There's a difference between being in a fruitful dialogue and an unfruitful one. There's a difference between referencing, examining and transforming what has gone before (which is what I understand as a 'dialogue' with a genre) and building fancy new blocks in the same ghetto.

If it helps, you can think of Light as being like Futurama.

Well, exactly. Arid, uninteresting, and eager to please. :P

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

You don't like Futurama?

BURN THE HERETIC! BURN HIM!

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

...

*sigh*

[nuttyxander.livejournal.com]

Vonnegut cannot really be claimed by the genre at all.

Not really convinced by that, I'd say if you can't claim Vonnegut, then you can't claim Bester either, for the same reasons.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

To be honest, I just didn't want to take issue with everything Niall said. It felt cruel. :P To be more accurate, it's hard for SF to claim Vonnegut than it is for them to claim Harrison, and it's probably harder for them to claim 'ownership' of most of his key works ... rather, SF can claim to be a shareholder in them. I think Vonnegut could be said to be embedded in SF ... but in a far more productive way than Light (if not it's author) is.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

'Scuse me. I believe all I said was 'Interesting. I mean, it's not like Vonnegut is coming from outside the genre, exactly, but he's certainly not embedded in it as deeply as Harrison (or at least Light specifically) is.' :-p

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Yes, but we all know you're very sensitive. ;P

[mattia.livejournal.com]

y real problem with the novel is that it falls into the trap of thinking that trends are worth reproducing for their own sake: graphic violence, unsympathetic characters, a laconic style, a general dreariness of outlook. This sort of uber-realism tries so hard to be gritty that it becomes as unrealistic as any romance novel - because not all people are gritty, and because there are points of redemption in our world.

I think part of the point is the choice not to show that angle, because ultimately, it's fairly irellevant to the story. Additionally, the darkness/grittiness doesn't detract from, but rather, it adds to the big picture (this ignoring the fact I think there are bright points to be found throughout..)

I'm assuming, reading this, that you've never read any Stephen Donaldson (be it the Gap series for SF, or the Covenant trilogies for Fantasy). First of all, solely based on the above, avoid them. Second of all, he's a terrible writer who loves his cliche'd characters and overly meaning-laden names, does a poor man's Tolkien and a lousy horrible job of Space Opera.

Yes, it is that bad. I read 4 books of the Gap series trying to find something half-way decent. Failed. Gave up 80% of the way through 'Lord Foul's Bane' because of lousiness of it. And I've *never* not finished reading a book before. This just wansn't worth it. And yet, people seem to love it.

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Have never read any SD. Now never will. :P

[mattia.livejournal.com]

My work here is done.

If you want a short, concise, and telling example of why, just to see for yourself, read the first Gap book (The Real Story, or something like that). It's short, but easily the most sadistic, mysoginistic, nasty little work of fiction I've read, with little to no redeeming features.

[white_hart]

Hmmmm. I read Pashazade a couple of weeks ago and I think I feel much the same way as you do; although I have a suspicion I'll probably end up reading the others, I couldn't actually tell you whether I enjoyed it...

I found the profusion of splice-commas, half-sentences and mid-section perspective shifts confusing, tedious and, to be honest, downright ugly

I wasn't certain how much this was down to poor writing, and how much to abysmal (or possibly non-existant) copy-editing. I certainly found it distracting in the extreme, but it managed not to completely obscure the narrative voice for me, and I rather enjoyed the story-telling as long as I could ignore the punctuation.

As for whether or not it's good sf...I'd actually say not. It's a good thriller (as far as I can judge, because that's not a genre I read as a matter of course: the fact that I finished Pashazade suggests that it was good). And it happens to have an AU setting. But the critics are right: Grimwood doesn't make a big thing of that. In fact, there really doesn't seem to be an awful lot of point to having an AU setting, other than to let Grimwood make up the rules society, and his characters, operate in without having to refer to the tedious business of reality. I can't help feeling that good sf would make more of the differences between the world of the novel and the world of the reader (really good sf would do it almost imperceptibly).

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

I wasn't certain how much this was down to poor writing, and how much to abysmal (or possibly non-existant) copy-editing.

I think most of it is actually a deliberate stylistic choice, like the very limited use of adjectives; I'm told it's very Raymond Chandler-esque, although I haven't read any Chandler myself to say for sure.

I can't help feeling that good sf would make more of the differences between the world of the novel and the world of the reader (really good sf would do it almost imperceptibly).

Yes! I think that's my point exactly. But then I get worried and think, well, maybe if he's getting all this praise Grimwood is doing that, but just too subtly for me to pick up on. So I end up feeling all inadequate again. :)

[white_hart]

Of course, given the Literary Establishment's prejudice against genre fiction (and especially sf) it's always possible that Grimwood garners critical acclaim precisely because he writes novels that are published as sf but don't read like sf ;-)

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

That's entirely possible; but then, the praise is coming from within the genre as well. I get the strong sense that this idea of books from a world rather than about a world is one of the things China Mieville means when he starts talking about 'the New Weird'. And I'm still looking forward to The Year of Our War, which is meant to do a similar thing as a fantasy novel.

[peake.livejournal.com]

The aims of good writing, whatever form the writing might take (fiction, non-fiction, journalism, business reports) are always the same: to convey. What is to be conveyed - a fact, a mood, a scene, a perspective - will affect the mode of conveyance, but they do not negate the ultimate aim: to get something across to the reader. You can always judge whether something is well done by what you are left with after reading it.

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

That's a useful definition, but...doesn't it depend somewhat on being able to second-guess the author? It seems to me that to use it properly, you can't just analyse a book on its own terms and leave it at that - you have to be able to decide whether what you are left with is what the author meant to leave you with.

I'm not saying that's not a useful skill, mind...

On clarity

[immortalradical.livejournal.com]

Given what we're doing tomorrow, Mr. Harrison, this might be a good thing to read. Though it focuses on writing in the factual spheres, to be honest I think it's a great piece about any other kind of writing, too. And, given it was written in 1946, you'll notice that a lot of what it says - and some of the examples he uses to prove his points - are still way too prevalent today.

Re: On clarity

[coalescent.livejournal.com]

Yep - I've read that before. It's a very good essay.