...flowery melodrama vs High Literature ftw??

[reenka]

Man. I just made a poll about this, and now it's come up in real life-- really awkwardly.
    To backtrack & for background, I'm trying to write a novella (novel??) in a month with my rl friend this January. We meet several times a week to write together, heheh, and so far it's been really effective at getting me to write (it's the writing-class effect). While I do finish a fanfic that's on my mind (eventually), with original fic it may take years for me to get to the end (or I'll just drop it 'cause I get bored). I dunno if anyone else experiences this phenomenon-- I guess I'm the same in original fic or fanfic, it's just that I get a lot more ideas for fanfic (or, I used to *sniff*), so even though I still quit on 80%, that still leaves a huge number of finished fics as far as I'm concerned. But anyway.

Yeah, so generally we don't discuss our stories much except to talk meta about the process a bit, though she (my friend) mentioned about how over-the-top everyone is in her fic and how she plans to fix that in the edits afterwards when I said I'm writing even though I'm pretty sure it sucks. And I'm like, 'yeah, though generally I don't think my work sucks'-- that's not why I have writer's block. Why do people assume that? (My mom's advice before I dropped my last creative writing class was 'writing even though you think it sucks'). I mean, I just have no inspiration-- why does that mean I have to think I suck? I know I don't suck :P When I do think I suck, it's because I do, and generally umm, it's not enough to stop me (good self-esteem, that would be me, yeaaaah.)

Somehow we got on the subject of melodramatic/cliched/flowery (bad?) writing, and that's when my friend started to get defensive. I said I sorta wished I could write in the 'popular' style, plot-wise-- that is, I sometimes get bitter & wish writing cliched romantic melodrama came easier to me, because it's certainly not hard, per se. I was trying to be understanding & saying that it's all good as long as you try to be good at what you do (in terms of genre/style), and she just kept repeating about how she doesn't aspire to "high literature" and how she didn't like Tolstoy. I mean. I couldn't get into 'War and Peace' either & I certainly don't tend to either write or read high literature, but what does this have to do with having standards & wanting to be Really Good at your craft? (Well, I know my friend is just personally v. either/or and hardline about her opinions, but still....)

    I was trying to be all mediating & compromising, and then she asked my opinion of writing like Mercedes Lackey, 'cause that's what she sees herself doing. And. Uh. I used to like her (when I was 14) and I said so, to which she replied she'd always liked 'young' writing, which she takes to mean clear-cut in theme & ornate in style. But style can be ornate without being repetitive & cliched & just PAINFUL TO CONTEMPLATE, like Mercedes Lackey certainly is :/ Her earlier work was intriguing, esp. to an overly romantic teenage girl who liked white horsies (SHUT UP), but now it's just embarrassing :/ :/ Why would anyone want to be like her -now-?

I dunno. Suddenly I'm doubting that over-the-top/flowery writing is necessarily bad (well, there's an audience for it, obviously, and apparently some writers who know they're like that & don't care). And yet. I dunno. I just think it's important to want to get better, to grow as a writer, and defensiveness about not writing 'high literature' has no place in someone (like my friend) who wants to write seriously & get published. How is it I'm more 'serious' than her in this sense even though I don't care about getting published? 'Serious' in quotes 'cause I know she's really serious about being a writer. I mean, this is especially relevant to me 'cause I wasn't just born writing non-ornately-- far from it; in fact, everything about me is naturally ornate (if not melodramatic); my HS writing teacher called my writing [too] 'ecstatic', and I've tried really hard to get past that. :/
    And then she said 'this is why I never show anyone my writing' -.-;; Ouch. *facepalm* I wonder if flowery-melodrama-writing people really are more sensitive and over-the-top themselves (I know my friend is ♥) hehe. (Though hey, I'm sensitive too, dammit... hmf.)

Comments

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

It's tricky. Because, for instance, Patricia McKillip is much more flowery than Mercedes Lackey, but I know which is the better writer. Ornate doesn't bother me: decorated does, if you know what I mean. If the story just has flowers on top that is pointless, and they are hiding the story, but if the story works best with lots of imagery, say, then that's the way to write it.

That said, I write very plainly and would never be able to write anything like McKillip if the lives of adorable puppies depended on it.

Of course, if anyone told me they wanted to write like Mercedes Lackey my first thought would be 'Are there 15 year old boys in love with horses in your fiction? ARE THERE? ANSWER ME!'

Basically, I'm sure you both have standards for your fiction, but they're different standards differently expressed? And all anyone can do is write the story they want to write the best way they can see to write it, and it really doesn't matter whether they see it as High Literature as not.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It's like that post I did about description. It's not "lots of description" that's good or bad it's how it's done.

Or maybe a better analogy is over-acting. People think over-acting is getting too into the part, but really it describes as situation where the audience feels you're portraying more emotion than you're actually feeling. It's kind of the same with flowering language. If the language is accurately describing the thing it's just description of a flowery thing. It's when you become aware of the language for its own sake and it doesn't fit what's being described that it's purple. Some people have voices that are more purple than others, but I'll bet you can still tell when they're getting self-indulgent or pushing it.

Also, just mentioning here I love furiosity's post about people who talk about "the muses" being defensive. Because wtf with the muses!

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

Over-acting is an excellent analogy! I mean, as mentioned above, I love McKillip, but she once spent three pages describing an orange. I had to flip back to remind myself what it was! And then I was all, It's just an orange. Leave the damn orange alone.

I agree! The muses drive me batshit. Anthony Trollope (I love him, I have a problem, I accept that) said in his Autobiography that, basically, if he expected good shoes delivered in a reasonable time from his shoemaker and said shoemaker was all 'my muses were not letting me make shoes this day' Trollope would have gone to a different shoemaker, and he thought writers - not that they were the same as shoemakers, but they should try to emulate that. Good writing, reasonable time doing it, no high-faluting excuses.

Of course, the man got up every morning at six to write, did so for four hours, and then worked a ten til six job where he invented letterboxes. I dread to thought of me, even if I am aware that my The Muses Do Not Speak to Me Today = I am A Lazy Good for Nothing.

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

I dread to think what he would have thought of me. (Who cannot even write complete sentences.)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Your Trollope love so endears you to me. Though I've only ever read BARCHESTER TOWERS. I think I can see his influence in your writing, and how often do you see that today?

Anthony Trollope (I love him, I have a problem, I accept that) said in his Autobiography that, basically, if he expected good shoes delivered in a reasonable time from his shoemaker and said shoemaker was all 'my muses were not letting me make shoes this day' Trollope would have gone to a different shoemaker, and he thought writers - not that they were the same as shoemakers, but they should try to emulate that.

You mentioned this already, but I read that and thought, yeah, but wasn't he like, INSANE in his ability to produce? I heard if his daily writing time was up mid-sentence he'd just stop and then pick up where he left off the next day in that sentence. If he finished a book with 10 minutes to go in his writing time, he just pulled out a new page and started a new book!!

[sarahtales.livejournal.com]

I just pictured Trollope's reaction to hearing he influenced a Veela!Harry fic, and laughed my head off. As well as feeling a warm, warm glow. Nobody has ever told me that before! I am so happy! (Read Framley Parsonage, Sister M. I think you'd like it.)

Trollope was a looper, it's true. And of course, they all wrote much differently in those days - what's that first draft of which you speak? We're handwriting this shit! Off to the editor it goes! (Mind you, I used to handwrite everything - until I had important exams one year and 400 pages to type. I did it in one week, but I did nothing else, and since then - oh precious, precious keyboard.)

Books went through a very different processing thing - I love fanfiction in a way because it's serialised like a lot of books back then. I remember one story (Lady Anna) of Trollope's got serialised and there were apparently hundreds of hysterical young women writing him scented letters saying 'let Anna get with the lord, omg, OTP!' And I really like that interaction, which is lost with books today unless you write a series. I think it really helps to engage the reader - which is probably why series are so popular these days.

I could not be more off the point. Sorry, Reena!

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

Well, hehe, you do know Patricia McKillip is my favorite fantasy writer, but I don't think she writes remotely like Mercedes Lackey-- like, even in the same stylistic universe. I think of that style as 'lyrical' ('imagist' in poetry), and it's pretty much my favorite style; I can sort of write like that (meaning, even back when I was 'ecstatic', I wasn't flowery, per se), but it's difficult for me to do it & not get carried away by language itself, so I haven't recently. Though I think 'clear & to-the-point' is still not my trademark. *coughs*

Do you really think she's ornate? When I read her, it seems to me that every word has its vivid, natural use, and her prose is like a well-tended garden-- whereas I think of 'ornate (http://www.answers.com/ornate&r=67)' as 'elaborate' or 'showy' and 'often excessively ornamented'. I wouldn't call Patricia McKillip remotely showy; I think of her writing as very subtle and smooth, like a river stone-- you know, if river stones were grey but also jade and dark red opal. I wouldn't call 'flowery' writing imagist, because I certainly don't picture 'chocolate' when I read 'chocolate-haired', y'know? Maybe that's just me.

Heheh yeah there's... hahaha very few good ways to respond to wanting to write like Mercedes Lackey :))

I know she has a standard, but she's very defensive so it's hard to know whether it's an anti-standard or 'this is -not- my standard' or whatever. I myself thought the High Literature issue was a red herring-- it's like she was arguing with someone who wasn't me, 'cause I certainly don't care about it & I did say that about writing it the best way possible for one's style. I just. Think. Flowery writing and Mercedes Lackey-style is... sort of like in the 'regurgitated pigeon poop' school of writing. -.- So yes, decorated. I can't think of a truly 'ornate' (but not decorated) writer I like... hm (this includes teenage!me, certainly). I think a lot of Victorian and pre-Victorian literature was pretty ornate, but not in a bad way. Was Shakespeare 'ornate'?? Hahah, I could be down with that :D