Into the Fire

In style or out of style? Serious writers have a style—it’s innate. We are what we are when we write what we write.

Style takes some time to develop as we come into our own as novelists. The interesting thing about style is that although we might admire one writer, we write nothing like him. If a writer seeks to imitate another, his work will no doubt come off as a knock off, a cheap imitation. Similar styles cannot be avoided and can sometimes be celebrated by readers who have come to like a certain way of writing and can enjoy it in two different novelists because even though their styles may be alike, their stories are probably not.

Remember e. e. cummings? Nothing in caps? Short verses? His style of poetry was his own. He wrote his own way, and, yes, people actually tried to copy him.

Everyone is familiar with Hemingway, the purposeful sparseness of his writing.

How ‘bout Peretti? His novels are filled with vivid imagery, and as I’ve remarked he makes it seem like a movie to me. In The Visitation and Monster he used a lot of “sounds” depicting different noises. Eric Wilson also employs that tactic in Dark to Mortal Eyes and Expiration Date.

Let’s look at some of our Saturday Sample pre-published writers’ choices. Mark Harbeson sent you through a series of physical “special effects” in his protagonist’s experience. Becky Miller gave you strange visuals. Jason Joyner took you through the tension of a dying patient in the ER. Katie Hart let you feel the hidden emotions of her characters. Dee Stewart gave you the inner workings of her heroine and a vivid physical picture of her twin sister as well as the inner conflict. Dayle James Arceneaux used character movements effectively coupled with a strong sense of smell.

Some writers refrain from physical descriptions of characters, clothing, and anything that will portray their particular visual images to the reader, wanting that reader to see the characters for themselves. Not me. Some characters are so vivid in my mind, they can be no other way. Who they are is part of how they look and/or vice versa, and I want the reader to see them as I do. Others are less defined in appearance and are left to the reader’s imagination.

The writing itself is less easy to define. As you’ve no doubt noticed, I like the use of the –double hyphen—added on description, conflict, or thoughts. I like to use as few commas as possible. And sentence fragments. And even the dreaded run-on sentence occasionally. I like a series of adjectives/descriptions with no “and” to designate the end of the list. I like italics, the use of bold emphasis, and an occasional made up word. In other words, I’m a rebellious rule breaker, I guess. Big surprise.

I appreciate reading the different styles of authors. Some I love, some I don’t. When a writer deviates as much as I do from what is considered the “norm”, one author describes the results as “polarizing”. You’ll have your devotees and your detractors, as we discussed a long time ago on this blog.

Since I deviate so much from many expectations in current trends, my work is polarizing.

So how do you categorize your “style”? What styles do you enjoy reading? Can you define them—or yours?

Father, you give us all good and perfect gifts. You make us alike but oh so unique. You tell us in your Word that there is nothing new under the sun, yet you allow us different ways to tell the same story. Help me to tell the stories you give to me in a compelling manner to demonstrate your love, mercy, and grace in the fallen places of the heart. I love you, Lord. In the Name of Jesus, Amen.