lettered | Singularity - writing style, etc

I was just in a fest that had a poll where you could guess who wrote what while people were still anonymous. I was surprised that so many had guesses about who wrote what, and it really got me thinking about style. Some people certainly have a singular voice--something that is always the same no matter what they are writing. Others have certain elements or character types or details that are always likely to show up, no matter how generic the voice. Still others will always write a certain story; no matter how original and unique the plot, they are always the same tone or style of mystery, etc.

Let us proceed with the following on the premise that being recognizable or not is not a mark of quality. I feel like there are many great writers who are recognizable, and many who are not. I just wrote "are hot." I . . . really like writing, guys. Singularity is wonderful, but so is the ability to adapt different styles or diverse elements.

Per usual, I have questions. You, like RadioShack, have answers.

You can answer them in comments or in your own journal, but if in your own journal it'd be lovely if you'd drop a link, so I know it's there and discussion can happen! I think this is such an interesting topic. As a note, these questions pertain to how you feel about your writing, not your readership. You may feel that not enough people read you to recognize you, which is a totally valid point, or maybe you would never write anonymously, but I'm talking about how you feel about the nature of your writing, not the reception of it, if that makes sense. Also, there are just as many questions for readers, so if you don't write or would rather not address the writing questions, there's more! And feel free to adapt the quesitons for fanart, or vidding--let's discuss, guys!

Do you feel your writing is recognizable? Why or why not?
What do you think gives you away?
Have you written a fic that you feel best exemplifies what makes you recognizable? What was it?
What's a fic you've written that you feel is unrecognizable?
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are recognizable?
What gives those writers away?
What's a fic that you would rec that you feel best exemplifies their recognizability?
What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are less recognizable?
What are some fics by those writers that you feel exemplifies difficulty in recognizing them?

For answering with ease!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

With the warning that I'm really bad at recognizing style.

Do you feel your writing is recognizable? Why or why not? I suspect not? I'm bad at recognizing writerly voice, myself, so I'm not sure what is people look at to recognize writing. I certainly have an style when writing certain type of stories (someone told me I skirt around a lot instead of saying things outright. I think they may be right?) . I mean, I use m-dashes a lot. I confuse may and might a lot. I... idk. I've plenty of those kinda of... mistakes or things I do unconsciously. But I'm not sure anyone would be able to recognize my writing just for that. They are things I'm particularly aware of because my betas point them out.

What do you think gives you away? Er, idk?

Have you written a fic that you feel best exemplifies what makes you recognizable? What was it? Again, I really don't know.

What's a fic you've written that you feel is unrecognizable? If only because of its rating & particular argument, my only 28 Days Later story. I was purposefully attempting to imitate a particular character's voice, too. I'm not sure either thing is enough to not make me recognizable if anyone does recognize my writing.

What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are recognizable? Uhm. This is hard! I'm so very bad at it, that I'm not sure I'm a good judge. But, say, Faulkner is a good bet, probably. After reading The Sound and the Fury with my sister, we spent days and days in which we only messaged each other in Forster style. /ETA: I'm not sure how I missed the 'fanfic' here, tbh!

What gives those writers away? Well, I suppose any stream of consciousness would make me think Faulkner (I think it was the first novel I read which was so extremely in that style), but at the moment of reading it I remember that the writing had a certain cadence that was very very recognizable. I couldn't tell you how, because I didn't analyse it then, just imitated it in those messages, but it was very noticeable.

What's a fic that you would rec that you feel best exemplifies their recognizability? Oh! I suddenly realized you meant fic. Uhm. You know, I can't think of anyone.

What are some fanfic writers you admire that you feel are less recognizable? Most of the people whose writing I admire! I only don't say 'all' because I'm not entirely sure none of them have recognizable writing.

What are some fics by those writers that you feel exemplifies difficulty in recognizing them? No clue. I mean, take Peradan/Anghraine. I think she varies phrase structure and pov and voice a lot, depending on the fandom. I think taking any of her SW fic, and comparing it to her JA fic, or her HP fic, would be a good example. (But then again, maybe her writing is recognizable for someone else? idk)

I'm not sure what people look at to recognize writing either, which is one reason I asked. I think people probably pick up on different things, which interests me. It also interests me that some people (over on LJ) have said they might recognize one writer for her mood or tone of voice, but another for the details that author always adds.

After reading The Sound and the Fury with my sister, we spent days and days in which we only messaged each other in Forster style.

. . . I imagine this is a typo, as Forster is pretty different than Faulkner. Though now that you say that, it's interesting, because I never thought of Forster as having a style, despite really like his stories. They seem to say similar things, though. Faulkner, on the other hand, is very recognizable--from what I understand, anyway. I've actually never read him, which I know is a shame.

The reason I asked about fanfic in particular is that I feel the field of published writing is much different. People get famous for being able to write particular things in particular ways. They almost always are recognizable. It seemed to me that fandom was a place where it was a lot more likely that a lot of people would like a certain author without there being anything singular about that author other than that they are skilled. Because I definitely think that it's possible to be a skillful chameleon, and just as valid as being skillfully one of a kind, but there's less room for the former in the published world.

Also, I'm interested in how characterizations play into it. Do we like fanfic authors who always write the character in a certain kind of way because that's how we interpret that character? I dunno.

Anyway, thanks for taking a shot at this.

In other news . . . I totally fell down on beta'ing. I'm so sorry. I think a bunch of things were happening and it just fell off the bottom of my to-do. Did you find someone new? If not, do you still need someone? I hate being flaky even though that appears to be my natural state; I don't want to leave you in the lurch. It was such a brilliant story!

Yes, I mean Faulkner! What an off confusion -- I don't think Forster has a recognizable writing voice, though he does have a style. I think Austen is the same?

I'm not sure the published world is that way -- I mean, many of the authors I love haven't, I think, such a recognizable writing voice. Meh, idk. Like, would you say Ursula K Le Guin has one? Or Kazuo Ichiguro? Or Borges? Or García Marquez? Austen herself? Gaskell? (Purposefully grabbing people from different places and times...)

I think it's probably the same as in ff, except that mimicry itself is probably more valued in fandom. Though most people don't even try for it in my experience.

On your other words: no problem! I mean, I'm flaky as hell myself and have been distracted with stuff. I think I sent you a chapter corrected last? (If not, I'll go see!) If you still want to beta, I would be most grateful, seriously.

^Ishiguro

That would teach me to proofread before posting and not after. Maybe.

Dunno about Ursula K Le Guin--that's a good one. But I'd definitely, definitely say that Borges and Garcia Marquez have one. I'd also say that Gaskell has one, but mostly because I don't think she's very good (and I'd say the same for Dafoe). I do think Austen has one, but I think it would be less recognizable than many others. DUnno about Ichiguro, as I haven't read him.

except that mimicry itself is probably more valued in fandom.

I think so too! I wonder if it has to do with wanting to mimic the canon?

If you still want to beta, I would be most grateful, seriously.

I still have it, I'd still like to; yay!

PS to below -- I'd say LeGuin's style is immediately recognisable in SF circles, primarily because it's both Americanized and literary. Literary-educated people tend not to write SF in the US, or at least strongly deny it's sf (cf Margaret Atwood) or Marj Piercy (sp?)

I like Defoe, but then, he tells good stories. Moll Flanders, yes? I think you can only tell style in the cultural/genre context. Like Wemyss and Tiger Silver -- totally like some other writers' style at turn of the century, but fresh and therefore welcome in Harry Potter verse.Not just the language, but the values. I mean the 19th century, of course.

I . . . don't like Moll Flanders. Defoe is compelling because he taps into a very human desire to be successful and GET ALL THE THINGS so that you can be safe/comfortable/loved, but, er. It turns me off.

And oh god yes, on the people denying sf when they're writing sf. Also people denying they're reading sf. I have no idea what Cormac McCarthy's stance on it is, but how many people have told me The Road is not sf because it's good? OY A LOT OF THEM. ack.

Sine we talked lin has told me Peradan has totally a recognizable style. She even recognizes stuff like, the author of the novel a movie must be based on. (I was in awe.) I'm not someone to listen regarding who is recognizable, clearly. :P

I maybe would give you García Marquez (though I would have to both re-read and read some of the authors I used to read when I read him, to see if the similarities are still there or were in my imagination) but Borges must be the most mechanical writer ever, I think. He has themes or images he repeats, of course (labyrinths! Libraries! ~~Libraries which are labyrinths!~~ Tigers! Mirrors!) but I'm not sure I would count that, though lin says I must. Though maybe I'm too used to him; I read and re-read his complete works during a good part of childhood.

Singularity - writing style, etc

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

PS reaction to above

Re: PS reaction to above

no subject