Writer Sanctum
Writer's Haven => Writer's Workshop [Public] => Topic started by: Anarchist on January 26, 2023, 02:54:07 AM
-
Novelist Francine Prose wrote a great piece on clarity: "It’s Harder Than It Looks to Write Clearly (https://lithub.com/francine-prose-its-harder-than-it-looks-to-write-clearly/?single=true)."
As a reader, few things repel me as quickly as unclear writing. As a writer, few things concern me as much as clarity in my books.
Prose's essay is worth reading if you feel similarly.
-
Thank you. As a writer of children's books and nonfiction, clarity is essential. It's what I always strive for.
I like the tripartite litmus test: Is it good? Is it true? Is it beautiful?
-
John Wither from That Hideous Strength would disagree. He was a villain, though, so... ;)
-
John Wither from That Hideous Strength would disagree. He was a villain, though, so... ;)
CS Lewis 👍 Great book. But then pretty much everything fiction and non-fiction by Lewis is great imo
One of my top two fav authors (David Gemmell being the other)
-
Oddly, the way the piece is formatted makes it very difficult to read on my tablet so I haven't had the stamina to get through the whole thing. I think George Orwell is another possible example of someone who wrote very clearly.
-
Interesting essay, and timely for me as I just spent the previous two hours refining my own language in my current ms. Thanks. I shall not allow any of my characters to deem anything aloud.
-
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.
-
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.
Eh, people like writers who are out primarily to prove how clever they are. Rian Johnson, Aaron Sorkin, David E Kelly, and a ton of other soapboxers, remain popular. I can't stand them because everything they write feels like they're shouting LOOK HOW RIGHT/SMART I AM!!!! EVERYONE ELSE IS AN IDIOT! NO, I WOULD NEVER STOOP TO CONSIDERING THE REASON WHY THEY ARE IDIOTS! THEY'RE NOT WORTH CONSIDERING CAUSE THEY'RE SO DUMB.
But people like feeling as if they're on the side of the smugly self-righteous.
-
This is off-topic but surely I couldn't be the only person who shouted 'What?' when seeing the Glass Onion screenwriting Oscar nomination?
-
I don't see the point in clarity if the writing is so boring it doesn't get read.
I couldn't even read out the first paragraph of that.
I skimmed it, but nothing there got my attention.
-
Hmmm, 6500 words on the topic of Writing Clearly? Is the point irony, because it nails irony.
R.C.
-
Hmmm, 6500 words on the topic of Writing Clearly? Is the point irony, because it nails irony.
:icon_rofl:
-
I don't see the point in clarity if the writing is so boring it doesn't get read.
I couldn't even read out the first paragraph of that.
I skimmed it, but nothing there got my attention.
Hmmm, 6500 words on the topic of Writing Clearly? Is the point irony, because it nails irony.
R.C.
I actually stumbled on the first sentence.
"If we are hoping to communicate something—anything—nothing is more important than clarity."
The "something—anything—nothing" seems like it should be taken as one whole unit, but then the rest of the sentence didn't make sense to me. I had to read it a second time to figure it out.
If someone were reading it in a speech, then there would be a definite pause after "anything" because it would be confusing if there wasn't.
And I'm also used to "if then" statements because they show a clear relationship. "If this happens, then that happens."
How I would write it to make it more clear at least to me:
"If we are hoping to communicate something—anything, then nothing is more important than clarity."
-
Hmmm, 6500 words on the topic of Writing Clearly? Is the point irony, because it nails irony.
R.C.
:icon_rofl: Truth. I didn't finish...
-
I read the whole thing and I thought it made some interesting points about what I usually find to be indigestible literary writing.
That Woolf is deliberately veering from one opinion to another within the same phrases is seriously above my comprehension level. Call it sensitive writing or call it wishy-washy or call it crushingly, arcanely complex? Maybe I'm more on the Gertrude Stein end of things: a rose is a rose.
-
To write clearly you have to think clearly about your immediate subject. That's all. Simple and rigorous. The output can be sleek as Jane Austen or complex as Ivan Doig or as in-your-face as a newspaper's front page. But that's all.
-
This is off-topic but surely I couldn't be the only person who shouted 'What?' when seeing the Glass Onion screenwriting Oscar nomination?
Extremely off topic but I cannot resist the chance to express my hate of RJ... I hate him so much. My dad loves him and will not let the subject rest. Glass Onion isn't even a mystery (I argued this a lot with my non mystery watching husband. Yes, a mystery must start with a body! No, I don't say that just because it's how Law and Order does it. That's how most mysteries do it). And the social satire... the current level of "eat the rich" social satire is painfully unclever, but it still doesn't rise to that level.
We really need some better satirists out there. It's Succession and then a huge drop. To almost sorta bring this back (well, to writing at least), I think the reason the current "eat the rich" satire is so unclever is the smugness. It is not written with characters. It's written with stand-ins for Everything The Writer Hates.
Something like Succession is amazing because it pierces the characters with a completely fair sort of honesty (think of the season two? finale where Shiv talks a woman out of testifying by telling her that her life will be hell. Yes, Shiv is doing the wrong thing, but she's right. That woman's life will be hell & the other side doesn't care). And, of course, it has so much pathos. Even though the Roys are rich beyond my wildest dreams, I would not trade places with them for anything.
Or a show like Arrested Development, where the Bluths are rich and out of touch and it's hilarious... and Michael, who sees himself as a good guy, not like the other guys, is also oblivious and self centered. Wheras a lot of modern satire seems to remove the Michael sort of character and have the rich people evil for no reason, without an acknowledgement that everyone is selfish in their own way.
-
Not to get too analytical here, but I think a lot of modern writing sucks.
-
Well, you all managed to dissuade me from reading the article. The basics of clarity in writing have been determined by proper grammar, punctuation and the best use of active language since Day One. How you apply these is also varied according to your target readership.
Orwell's rules are almost set in stone. The rest is subjective. Ask James Joyce.