Some Thoughts on Literary Style

 Some Thoughts on Literary Style

Literary style for any particular writer, when you come to think about it, is primarily a synthesis of different aesthetic forms, images, and uses of language that, in a sense, one has come to imitate and combine with one’s own sensibilities during the writing process because they are part of our culture. For we are aware of them, either from individual writers, or from literary movements, or from culture in general. Yet, we are bound by these stylistic things because they touch us in certain ways which compel us to use them as they enable us to express ourselves, either fully or partially depending on the individual work itself.

Therefore, some people love formal styles, and others love informal styles. Also, there are people that avoid the historical and prefer the modern. Moreover, conservative tastes and an obsession with tradition usually breeds the literary snob. What is more, literary snobs tend to believe in a type of high culture approach to judging style. So they think of some styles as being low art.

Now without literary style, we would have nothing to guide our endeavors if we ever chose to read or write any particular work. However, purveyors of so-called high culture, would expect you to read writers like Shakespeare, who had a style, which I personally don’t enjoy, though he did have some good lines. In addition, a writer should never limit themselves to one style, but should attempt to become versatile and highly deliberate in the way they use different styles and techniques to produce various effects in their writing. Nevertheless, a writer can still be happy if he or she chose to limit themselves to only one style and developed it further. There are no rules, really, except the ones that make you either good or bad. Therefore good writers follow good rules, and bad writers follow bad ones.

Literary art, aside from the ideas being conveyed, is an expression of something felt. Hence a literary writer is primarily trying to express a feeling, for everything else connected to it, in a sense, merely justifies what it makes one feel. So when you look up at the Sistine Chapel ceiling you are overwhelmed by a feeling, and this principle is the same for any kind of literary art. Therefore it is clearly not a mental or intellectual game for snobs, and is something that appeals to us on a visceral level.

Indeed, the production of a work of literary art has four main stages. Hence, the first involves the writing of the initial draught, with a beginning, middle and end. Then one edits it, so that it has the exact structure one wants. Next, one proofreads it for correction and consistency. After that, one polishes it, and gives the work its final form. Nothing else, really needs to be worried about.

Thus words have power, and one should learn how to wield them effectively, for one can always see what is weak in their own writing, and also learn to improve it. Yes, one can learn to make their words mightier than weapons of war, or the vagaries of empty language. Therefore there are not many things more powerful than the Bible, or the words of Homer and Hesiod and all the other writers that came after and followed their example. Moreover, they are a monument to the power of words, and these words live on and inspire.

Hence words are amazing tools of communication that enable us to transmit so much information. Just look at how powerful and articulate The Declaration of Independence is presented to us. Clearly it is a remarkable document. And even though that work is not a piece of literature in the normal sense, it is not completely divorced from it, either, as the traces of its literary influences, such as that of John Locke, come across in its words.

Also, translations are sometimes remarkable in their effectiveness. Just look at how well Walter Kaufmann has translated Nietzsche into English! Yet there have been numerous other translations which are equally as brilliant since a great number of talented translators have existed, and something of their own style has been added to those original works during the process.

Now literary art, and any kind of style associated with it, is subjective, for it depends on whether it affects you viscerally and psychologically. Moreover, this is a personal thing, as it is not universal. Thus it depends on many factors which are particular to your own individual experience. However, some of the content in literature does have an objective truth, such as the numerous statements in philosophy or other literary texts dealing with real life observations and facts.

Certainly we cannot escape style. It is always there in some way or another. Therefore, in general, flowery prose is not as effective as prose that is clear, simple, direct, and concise at communicating information. Nevertheless, it can still be a pleasure to read. Furthermore, writing which is archaic or old fashioned can create a different mood than something that sounds modern.

Consequently I do not like the term literary criticism since it has a negative connotation, for it implies that literature only exists to be criticized. Yet, literature should be created as well as exist above all preconceived notions of what it is supposedly meant to represent according to literary tastes. Therefore I much prefer the term literary analysis. So we analyze and judge what literature means to us internally and existentially, and it becomes, in a sense, understood psychologically.

Indeed, what are our motives for loving some forms of literature over others? Why can it sometimes be so reassuring in its power to compel us? Why does some literature give us such a pleasant feeling? And there are also many other important questions of this kind one can explore. Clearly they are interesting and valid questions. In fact, some people dedicate their whole lives just to reading and writing as well as everything else involved with it, whether academic or otherwise. It is a wonderful path to take.