Thanks for posting. It was interesting.
And while I agree in general, the article mixed essays with non-fiction with fiction, and all from different eras, as well as works intended for different audiences. I found this to be less helpful than was probably intended. So many of the classic writers were all about author intrusion and showing us how clever they were. An irritating tendency that spoils a lot of modern fiction as well. While I appreciate great literary sentences, they always kick me right out of the story. For me, literary fiction is about the ideas more so than the prose.
As for the every noun needs an adjective - in 2023, I think this is a newbie mistake. Usually, the adjectives are meaningless, only appearing because the writer thinks they need them, not because they serve a purpose. I see this when writers haven't worked out what they're trying to say, which is usually due to a lack of rewriting and editing.
I also think the subject ignores the 'show don't tell' approach. Classic literature often follows a very different style from many modern writers, combining lots of ideas and presenting them with a bit of a lecturing style. For example:
He sat down in the cold wet grass.
The more immersive approach would be to have previously established that it had recently rained and that it was also cold. Now, when the man sits, we already know that the grass is both wet and cold. This allows the reader to experience the story in real time as opposed to being lectured to after the fact. As it stands, the man is already on the grass before we know it's wet. With the show approach, the reader will be anticipating the coming wetness because we've all sat in wet grass before. It's usually pretty yucky. If we connect this with metaphor or characterization it will resonate even more. Narratively, we have to wonder if it matters if the man sits, stands or dances in the grass, regardless of its dampness. Why do his actions or his surroundings matter to the narrative or the reading experience?
The last thing the article ignores is the necessity of rhythm in prose. Sometime long sentences, even ones that take a minute to sink in, work because they're surrounded by a structure that enhances the momentum or suspense of the passage, such as setting off longer sentences with fragments.
All in all, of course we want to be clear, but fiction is also about emotion. We have to be careful not to let our desire for clarity dilute the emotion on the page. For example, we don't want our stories to read like non-fiction. Sorry, this makes sense in my head.
Anyway, just some thoughts.
Recent Posts
