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

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

PS reaction to above

Re: PS reaction to above

no subject