Beauty and writing
Posted by CM under Writing on Sun 22 Apr 2007
herry Thomas is a debut author whose book has me salivating. Ever since I read the excerpt posted on her website, I’ve been dying to know both what happens next and what came before. Her writing–or at least, what I’ve seen of it–is clear and evocative. It hits me right in the solar plexus.
She posted on her blog about beauty in writing. Part of this reminded me, shockingly, of something I’ve never quite been able to forget.
One of the most vivid memories I have is of Ekaterina Gordeeva & Sergei Grinkov’s 1988 skating program. I was 11 at the time, and the performance still blazes in my memory. It was so vivid that I remembered the names to this date–and I’m the girl who never remembers anyone’s name.
I adore beautiful things. I love beautiful prose. Janine mentioned people who write brilliantly, and I love every single one of those authors. I especially second the Julie Anne Long mention.
I sincerely doubt there are many authors who think, “well, today I shall pen some truly dreadful prose.” I also doubt there are many writers who even think, “well, my writing sucks but at least I get sold. Why mess with success?” I suspect that everyone thinks they are an excellent writer. The real problem, I think, is that the admonition to “write beautifully” is too often taken as an admonition to write painfully unnatural prose.
It would be impolitic of me to call out offending authors, but I think we’ve all read them. The truly abysmal writing that I see (not just in genre romance) may well result from people attempting to write beautifully and failing. These are the books where the author consistently uses “brilliant orbs” instead of “eyes” and where overblown description haunts every paragraph. These are the books where dull, lifeless description plods on interminably while you wait impatiently for the story to start again.
In both figure skating and prose, true beauty appears effortless to the observer. It’s only the amateurs who think that panting and blowing, showing the world how hard they’ve labored over a sentence, shows real beauty. This is not to say that artists don’t labor; the five-minute program we see is the culmination of years and years of practice and conditioning. To the observer, it seems as natural and unstudied as a bird’s flight.
In Legalese, I wrote what I thought was an absolutely brilliant, evocative sentence. “His perpetually sweaty palm trailed a streak of slime down her cheek, like a snail crossing a garden path.” Both my critique partners read it and commented something along these lines: “Ewww!” Which was precisely the reaction I was looking for. So why did I delete the line? Because they both commented on it. They didn’t say it, but the line pulled them out of the story. It made them pay attention to the writing. It panted and puffed, shouting for attention. And so away it went.









April 22nd, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Well, I don’t know that you needed to ax that particular sentence, although I know what you mean … it’s murdering the darlings.
But I also adore beautiful prose, and I don’t mind being stopped in my reading tracks to admire a brilliant sentence or rare metaphor. Reading Julie Anne Long is like that for me - I’m swept away by the story, but every few dozen pages, I just have to stop and marvel over a perfectly gorgeous image or phrase. And I love her books for both the compelling story and the aesthetic enjoyment of “beautiful prose.”
I guess I’m arguing that it’s okay for a sentence to call attention to itself every once in a while - so long as it’s positive attention, and not “luminous orbs”-induced snark.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:32 pm
Oh, I’m not trying to say that I don’t like beautiful prose, or that there isn’t a time and place for even the sentence so hauntingly beautiful that it stops you in your tracks. I think I specifically endorsed Janine’s list of people who write extremely well, but who do it in a way that comes off very naturally.
The first sentence of BATS is that way: “Years later, Anna would remember how big the moon had been that night, swollen and slung low like a pregnant woman on the brink of birth.”
Wow. But there’s a time and a place for those things. They work wonderfully in reflective places, when you want the reader to take a breath. They work badly when things are happening and you want the reader to stay immersed in the story. And the great writers write beautifully all the time, but they don’t hit you over the head with prose you can’t ignore in a pinch.
And that’s more what I was trying to say. I wasn’t trying to say: don’t write beautifully. I was trying to say: don’t be so bent on writing beautifully that you sound like crap.
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:55 am
Well, I’m not going to write beautifully any more than I am going to try to write humor. In both cases if it happens I’ll celebrate, but I’m going to go after the story first.
Alice
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:15 am
When I read the excerpt, it made me think of a set of articles of Karen Harbaugh’s site. I’ve never read Karen’s work, but her description of “voice” and how to recognize your own really brought the entire concept into clarity for me. Bottom line, you can polish your own voice, and your voice can and probably will change over the years, but you certainly can’t “be beautiful” if you’re sassy, clever, a dry whit, or scary as hell instead.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:18 am
You know, I’ve heard this theory that you’ve got this One True Voice inside of you (which may change as you change), and that all you can do is try to chip it out, like a fossil embedded in rock.
This seems to be embedded in the word: “Voice.” You think about your speaking voice, how recognizable it is, and how little you can do except train it with a voice teacher.
Well. When I was a kid, one of my neighbors was an older man who used to do voices for Disney. He would entertain us all doing Daffy Duck and Goofy, which sounded nothing like his “voice.” He had the most versatile larynx I’ve ever heard, and he’s certainly not alone. Compare Johnny Depp in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory to Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean. Same man, right? Totally different voice.
There are certainly some things you can’t do. But there are a great many more things that can be taught. And writing in a particular voice is one of those things. I don’t really believe that there is “one” voice for a person, which you just have to ferret out through painstaking writing. I think it would be a darned shame to foreclose options because you think you have no choice but to write your voice.
You can write sassy. You can write beauty. You can write scary as hell. You can write wit. There is only one reason to subscribe to a philosophy that says you can only do one of those things: because you’re scared, and because you want an excuse not to try.
Don’t tell yourself you can’t do something because it’s not “in your voice.” If you want it, do it. Anything else is just an excuse.
I don’t truck with philosophies that tell me I can’t. I can. And you can, too.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:54 am
I don’t think my natural writing voice has anything resembling beauty, but I do like to think that it comes across as fun, energetic, entertaining. I write fast-paced dialogue, larger-than-life characters, crazy situations. Every time I’ve tried to write something flowery/evocative/sensual, it comes out stilted and choppy. It’s not my strong suit. It’s also one of the reasons I took a break from writing historical and made the switch to contemporary. My CPs felt that while my historicals didn’t completely suck, the voice was definitely fast and modern (even though I wasn’t using anachronisms, etc) which took them out of the story, much like you pointed out with your snail line. (Unfortunately for me, if I cut out all the lines with my voice, that meant cutting out the whole story. *g) I still love to read Regencies (and stare at my shelves of research books with longing from time to time) but I think (for now, anyway) I should give contemporary a shot. Because my prose definitely isn’t beautiful. In fact, to paraphrase myself, when my heroine in TATTF first meets her lawyer (who happens to be a yeti), the first thing she notices is that his matted fur was thick with the stench of magical forest. (Beautiful? No. Appropriate for the character/time/place? Yes.) Lastly, I just noticed I have an addiction to parenthesis. I’m not sure what came over me. I’ll try to cut back. =)
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I’m at a bit of a crossroads myself, loving (or at least liking) my historical voice but wondering if I’m not better suited to contemporary. In fact, I thought the next thing I wrote would be a breezy bit of fluff but I began a dark historical with a semi-tortured heroine last week. Maybe I can write 2 books at the same time and stretch all those muscles (or go crazy trying).
April 23rd, 2007 at 7:20 pm
Hmm. Makes me not want to comment on my favorite parts for fear you’ll axe them!!
I’ll admit to having voice envy. How many times have I sighed, wishing my writing were more like yours or Tessa’s or one of the other fabulous writers I critique? Many, many sighs.
But, as we’ve discussed before, I don’t compare myself to Faulkner and get down, so why should I bemoan the fact that I don’t sound like someone else?
I like pretty prose. I think you know that. And, I think it can be constructed with deliberation. I’ll bet the first sentence of Bats was rewritten more than once. And what a great placement for a beautiful sentence. In the beginning, it draws you IN, not OUT.
April 24th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
Between this post and the newer post, you make me want to go through my manuscript with a fine-toothed comb!
April 25th, 2007 at 12:37 am
I’m going to say something that will make me very unpopular.
You should not only go through your manuscript with a fine-toothed comb, you should do it a number of times.
How many times? Until you stop finding things.
So far as I can tell, this takes somewhere between 30 and 112 drafts.