style versus content

Morning. Style comes naturally I think, in the way that you have a style when you speak. It's only when you start all kinds of jiggery pokery then your style gets lost, along with your voice. You have a very definite style, mysterious but clear and you pull the writer along with you in the current.

Thank you rachel. Still trying to find my voice, which is funny considering how much I speak. But find it much harder when writing. I would rather go around telling stories than having people read them, but time (and tolerance) limits that somewhat.

I agree and thank you for the great advice. Style is how content dresses itself for the public presentation. That's how I like to think of it.

I would definitely agree that Orwell's essay is a must-read for all aspiring writers. He does actually say within the essay though (haven't got it to hand so can't quote exactly) that he will be found guilty of the errors he illuminates, they're often pretty hard to avoid. The kind of stuff he's talking about, cliches and worn-out metaphors, have only become so due to over-use. They roll so easily off the tongue* it isn't until later that we look back at them and realise how utterly powerless and vapid they are as phrases. However, when he writes 'the concrete melts into the abstract' he is not being figurative, he is (as I remember it) talking about concrete examples (ie defined, solid, tangible examples) sliding into a state of abstraction. Phrases that should mean something definite lose form and hence meaning. In that particular instance therefore he is not guilty. As for content vs. style, the two are essentially inseparable. Style itself is not a neutral choice, and whatever style is chosen for a piece of writing it affects the content from the very start. As for finding a writing 'voice', what we're actually talking about is the development of a definitive style, the kind of way of writing where people can pick up a piece and identify you as the author without any prior knowledge of it. This can be very hard to acheive, as being writers we are naturally also avid readers, and often find ourselves in the thrall of established authors. That said, having a kind of 'house style' as a writer may be more of a hindrance than a help to creativity. Style should always be something that develops and changes rather than stagnates. Of course Le Corbusier would have you believe that 'style is substance.' Then again he thought tower blocks were a good thing. *you see!

Style conveys an attitude toward the reader which helps to convey the content of the piece of writing that one does. Voice is an essential component of the style as I see it. It is the personality that style wears. George Orwell definitely has a style. He tries to tell the truth as he sees it. George Orwell praised writing that was stylistically valid. He said that Solomon's Ecclesiastes was a piece of great writing because it was poetic, profound and yet lucid. He personally did not like the mechanical writing that was practiced either by the Communists or the Fascists. Political writing was a lie because it was too abstract, although it may appear simple at first.

Heraing you talk about Orwell made me want to share this piece with you (that is, if you haven't already read it): http://www.resort.com/~prime8/Orwell/patee.html It's an essay written by Orwell called "Politics and the English Language" (but has thankfully little to do with politics). Reading it for the first time made me realise how little attention I paid to the content of my writing, what with being so preoccupied with the way my words sounded; ridiculous, really, considering that what I was producing was actually quite vapid and soulless. It was a truly humbling experience and I would recommend that any aspiring writer read it. It really helped me having someone else point out all the pitfalls that go with being too engrossed in style over substance.

It's interesting that in the article at the end of the link posted by rossco the second, (good read by the way) in which George Orwell gives his thoughts on the faults of writers, George is guilty of that very same error. His comments include an opinion of writers erroneously using metaphors, or failing to coin new ones, whereupon he writes 'the concrete melts into the abstract'. Concrete melting? Oops, think you mean tarmac there George. Oh well, you know what they say about glass houses... Back on the subject of style versus content however, the use of descriptive style can often serve to give the reader an understanding of that content with which he or she is unfamiliar. One is supposed to write about what one knows, but of course this often means that one reads about things one doesn't know. In which case the use of metaphors and similies to explain situations to readers unfamiliar with your subject becomes an important part of style. For example, in Johnnie Johnstone's book Wing Leader, where he writes about his experiences flying a Spitfire in WW2, of necessity he must use such methods, for he knows that the large majority of his readers will have never flown a Spitfire in a dogfight. A beautifully simple example of how he manages this, is when he describes the moment when one spots an enemy aeroplane in the distance. He describes the feeling at that moment as being exactly the same as the feeling one gets when driving a car and suddenly feeling it skid. Perfect - there can be few who have not had that unsettling experience and thus that feeling, so we understand an unfamiliar situation with the use of a simple comparison. Stuff like that is one of the challenges in writing which makes it so satisfying.