Developing one's writing style . . .

**Hushmonger** · 07-25-2002, 03:25 AM

Alright, this post doesn't intensively involve House of Leaves or any of its contents--as typically discussed on these forums--but rather the style in which it is written. This post involves my study of Danielewski and his writing style, and using his novels to help me in developing my own. (Incidentally, it's a drag encoding correct punctuation into one's posts, so, beyond marks and capitalisation, I give up.) I’m an 18 year old guy from the Chicagoland area who, come hell or high water, will someday see print. And not just see print, but hopefully create a work as remarkable as that of House of Leaves, because, as bullshitty and stupid as this sounds, you folks have no idea how beautiful and profound all of the rigourous discussion, contemplation, and reflection aroused by Mr. Danielewski’s two novels—just two novels—seems to me. And to date, they're still a puzzle we’re all trying to figure out. This is, for those as myself who loathe finishing a book, saying good-bye to the characters and places therein, the perfect novel, because one is almost required to read it multiple times to gain even a nominally decent understanding of the whole, and with each successive reading one finds greater fulfilment. I would like someday soon to write a book of comparable worth and uniqueness, but first have questions to ask of the reading/writing community. In a way, I guess, this is a call to fellow writers for advice. If none of this is of concern to you, then I implore you, please, to disregard this post.

To date, Chuck Palahniuk and Mark Z. Danielewski are my favourite authors. Chuck Palahniuk is a minimalist, and easily one of the foremost writers of our day. Danielewski, while still a prevalent member of the writing community, is the polar opposite. His style ranges the spectrum, utilizes elements not only of prose, but of poetry as well. While I don’t have a copy of House of Leaves on hand (the copy I purchased off eBay should be here any day, now, but that still leaves dangling the matter of The Whalestoe Letters), I do recall that a good number of Johnny Truant’s footnotes were astounding in their use of imagery and structure. The structures, they must each have distinct literary names, but I’ve never been involved in any intensive studies of the like. Anything I’ve learned in regard to style, I’ve learned from reading, like most people, I suppose. I’ve found grade school and high school proficient only in teaching me the most rudimentary precepts of writing, but nothing in the way of developing a narrative or critical thinking beyond the commonplace, or how to analyse a body of work—certainly not one so mind-reamingly complex as House of Leaves. Online writing tutorials, in fine, PISS ME OFF, because they're so rigid and objective, like the instructions for creating weapons of mass destruction, only after a page or two of the like, I'm the one who's blowing his top. Interviews with Palahniuk have yielded that he only started writing when he was 32, but up till then, studied the works of minimalists as Amy Hempel and Denis Johnson, while also mimicking the narrative styles of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Bret Easton Ellis. And even today, he says, he reads their works over and over again to prove to himself that narrative can be clean and concise. For Mr. Palahniuk, these writers are the corner stone of his now widely acclaimed writing style. And in case you’re wondering who exactly is Chuck Palahniuk, he’s the guy who wrote Fight Club, which at the box office wasn’t such a smash, but later developed quite the following upon recognition of the literary genius who actually thought up the tale.

Mark Z. Danielewski, he’s my corner stone. It seems unhealthily obsessive, I realise, but I go to bed each night ruminating over how outstanding a piece of literature House of Leaves is, and this leaves me, at times, a little deflated at the seemingly zero-probability of myself, or anyone else for that matter (but most especially myself), writing a piece of comparable excellence. Upon the advice of a close acquaintance, I no longer compare my work with that of the aforementioned authors—especially Danielewski—as this is in a very real way psychological suicide. When I receive my copy of House of Leaves, I intend to read it through a second time, not looking to so much mimic Danielewski’s writing style, but to use it as an augmentation to my own, which, presently, might be counted amongst the likes of your castaway penny dreadfuls.

Where this concerns any of you is your advice. Any advice you could offer in developing my style of writing, please, do not hesitate to assert; I would greatly appreciate it. In August I begin college. As of yet, I'm undecided on which classes I'll take. A few writing classes may be of some use, but I know for certain that majoring outright in literature is most probably a bad idea, since I'll need a profession to provide substantial income while I'm working on my novels. I don't want to be a teacher of any sort. I’m sure that some of you are college professors or writers yourselves, and have much to share of your knowledge of the craft and maintaining a safe balance between work and writing.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Arkady ]

**Axolotl** · 07-25-2002, 04:48 AM

Salve Arkady,
Is there anything to be read by You? I mean, could You send anything along, be it email- or snailmail-wise?

quote:
Originally posted by Arkady:
Alright, this post doesn't intensively involve House of Leaves or any of its contents--not directly--but rather the style in which it is written. This post involves my study of Danielewski and his writing style, and using his novels to help me in developing my own. (Incidentally, it's a drag encoding correct punctuation into one's posts, so, beyond marks and capitalisation, I give up.) I’m an 18 year old guy from the Chicagoland area who, come hell or high water, will someday see print. And not just see print, but hopefully create a work as remarkable as that of House of Leaves, because, as bullshitty and stupid as this sounds, you folks have no idea how beautiful and profound all of the rigourous discussion, contemplation, and reflection aroused by Mr. Danielewski’s two novels—just two novels—seems to me. And to date, it’s still a puzzle we’re all trying to figure out. This is, for those as myself loathe finishing a book, saying good-bye to the characters and places therein, the perfect novel, because one is almost required to read it multiple times to gain even a nominally decent understanding of the whole. I would like someday soon to write a book of comparable worth and uniqueness, but I have questions to ask of the reading/writing community. In a way, I guess, this is a call to fellow writers for advice. If none of this is of concern, then I implore you to, please, disregard this post.

To date, Chuck Palahniuk and Mark Z. Danielewski are my favourite authors. Chuck Palahniuk is a minimalist, and easily one of the foremost writers of our day. Danielewski, while still a prevalent member of the writing community, is the polar opposite. His style ranges the spectrum, utilizes elements not only of prose, but of poetry as well. While I don’t have a copy of House of Leaves on hand (the copy I purchased off eBay should be here any day, now, but that still leaves dangling the matter of The Whalestoe Letters), I do recall that a good number of Johnny Truant’s footnotes were astounding in their use of imagery and structure. The structures, they must each have distinct literary names, but I’ve never been involved in any intensive studies of the like. Anything I’ve learned in regard to style, I’ve learned from reading. Like most people, I suppose. I’ve found grade school and high school proficient only in teaching me the most rudimentary precepts of writing, but nothing in the way of developing a narrative or critical thinking beyond the commonplace, or how to analyse a body of work—certainly not one as mind-reamingly complex as House of Leaves. Online writing tutorials, in fine, PISS ME OFF, because they're so rigid and objective. It's like building a nuclear bomb. Interviews with Palahniuk have yielded that he only started writing when he was 32, but up till then, studied the works of minimalists as Amy Hempel and Denis Johnson, while also mimicking the narrative styles of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Bret Easton Ellis. And he says that even today, he says, he reads their works over and over again as to prove to himself that narrative can be clean and concise. For Mr. Palahniuk, these writers are the corner stone of his now widely acclaimed writing style. And in case you’re wondering who exactly is Chuck Palahniuk, he’s the guy who wrote Fight Club, which at the box office wasn’t such a smash, but later developed a cult following upon recognition of the literary genius who actually thought the whole of the tale up.

Mark Z. Danielewski, he’s my corner stone. It seems unhealthily obsessive, I realise, but I go to bed each night ruminating over how outstanding a piece of literature House of Leaves is, and this leaves me, at times, a little deflated at the seemingly zero-probability of myself, or anyone else for that matter (but most especially myself), writing a piece of comparable excellence. Upon the advice of a close acquaintance, I no longer compare my work with that of the aforementioned authors—especially Danielewski—as this is in a very real way psychological suicide. When I receive my copy of House of Leaves, I intend to read it through a second time, not looking to so much mimic Danielewski’s writing style, but to use it as an augmentation to my own, which presently might be counted amongst the likes of your castaway penny dreadfuls.

Where this concerns any of you is advice. Any advice you could offer in developing my style of writing, please, do not hesitate to assert; I would greatly appreciate it. I’m sure that some of you are college professors or writers yourselves, and have much to share of your knowledge of the craft.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Arkady ]

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Arkady ]

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Arkady ]

**Hushmonger** · 07-25-2002, 05:15 AM

At my site, sure. www.hushmonger.net It's really just a journal site, but if you look through the more recent "Chronicles," which are basically just melodramatised journal entries, you'll get a decent sample of my writing. Sometimes the content is a little dicey (no nudity or gore, though), so you've been forewarned. As of recent, I've done nothing in the way of short stories, since I'm seriously wanting for ideas. Er, maybe it's not so much that, as it is the need for a means of neatly structuring the ideas I have. Thanks for the reply, Axolotl.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Arkady ]

**ThomasJ** · 07-25-2002, 07:15 AM

I'm sure that many will disagree with what I have to say, but I speak from my own experiences only.

Bob Dylan once said, "Colleges are like old-age homes, except more people die in colleges." I thought this was amusing when I read this during my first year of college, and I wasn't really prepared learn how true it is.

With the lack of any other decent ideas, I went to school for art. I was conviced that I could make a living either selling paintings, or playing music on the side. In the years that I attended school, I learned a great deal about not only art, but music, literature, philosophy, and other things I've long since forgotten.

I also learned that I hated the art world. No, not the art itself, but the pretentious pricks that created it. The deeper I looked, the more I saw it. I knew this wasn't my place. In the end, I learned that I didn't even like art enough to devote my livelihood to it; it was merely something I was good at doing.

Well, if I were to have any advice after this pointless story, it would be this: go to school, take the classes, and take what you need from them. If you truly love your craft, your doors will remain opened. Don't let a few bad instructors or foolish students ruin what you have.

You are also intelligent enough to understand that you will have to have an income while you create your work (I never looked this far ahead). Believe me, after a long day at work, it can be difficult to harness the motivation to work on what is important to you, and believe me, at times it will seem like a lot of work.

Devotion is the key. Keep in mind that Jimi Hendrix wasn't born a great guitar player. He made himself one through years of practice. You may lose touch with people along the way, mostly people that don't understand your devotion. It happens. Just remember your ultimate goal.

I hope that I've helped in any way. I also hope to someday be opening an excellent book with your name on the front cover.

**girl2** · 07-25-2002, 07:34 AM

*nodding emphatically*

what thomasj said about school is so damn true, you don't even understand!

i am currently double majoring in philosophy and poetry (they had to make up the poetry degree just for me, woo hoo! =]) at a very small, very EXPENSIVE catholic college (and no, i'm not catholic. wierd, eh?). EVERYONE there is majoring in business. even if it bores them to death and they absolutely hate it more than anything in the world, even if they get bad grades cuz its so damn lame, even if they can't even imagine running a company as a career, they are ALL majoring in business. people have been known to either burst out laughing or walk slowly away from me when i tell them i'm doing my philosophy/poetry thing. this is a horrible generalization, but all the kids there come from extremely rich families, and "do something that will make you money" has been pounded into their brain so much that they don't even know what "do something because you want to do it" means. do you really want to learn stuff at school that you're not interested in, just for the sake of the goddamn bling bling (heh)? that's logical, that's realistic, but its also fucking boring and its not PASSION. if i were you, i would screw the school entirely and lock yourself in a room with nothing but a typewriter, some wine, and some tomato juice.

kay, i got carried away there a bit. my point is that you've gotta do what you love, even if its not logical. the whole point of love is being incredibly illogical and insane just for something that makes you happy. do you love writing? then show the world how much you goddamn love it! make it your life! be brave! be bold! don't get lost in the sea of business majors strapping themselves in for nine to five death!

*phew*

umm.... oh, yah, and don't mimic or study other people's writings. everyone on here will eat me alive for this one, and so would a few of the most brilliant instructors i've ever met, but i think it limits the creativity crawling around your brain by forcing you to forget what you know, and know what someone else knows instead. you're you. if i'm going to read something by you, i don't want to read pahalunik (i can never spell his damn name right), i don't want to read MZD, i'd want to read something that is one hundred percent yours, inspired by your mind and your experiences and your feelings and your passion. does that make a bit of sense? sorry if it doesn't.

don't take my advice though.
i'm crazy, definitely crazy.

*runs into a wall*

see, only a crazy person would run into a wall at eight in the morning!

errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr........

**Agrimorfee** · 07-25-2002, 09:23 AM

Do what moves you.

Check out Stephen King's "On Writing" if you get the chance (Harold Washington Library has a TON of copies on the 7th floor, fellow Chicagoan!)

I think the first and foremost step, it is to write every single day, even if it is crap. I'm not a writer; but I could be one if i really tried. I took Fiction Writing as a professed minor went I went to Columbia College and came up with some good shit that I let go by the wayside and put my creative energy towards music creation instead. I've ignored it big time due to personal events in my life. Mmaybe I will pick it up again, after reading your post--you sound determined and inspiring.

A great exercise to do if you ride in public transportation--sit near a talkative person and try to transcribe what they saying (but odn't let 'em catch you, dummy [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]). Note *how* they say things as well as what they say. Incorporate THAT into a story.

**Hushmonger** · 07-25-2002, 09:58 AM

Thomas J, Girl2, you both bring up excellent points about college and school in general, really, and I thank you so much for the encouragement. You have no clue at all of the gravity and reverence with which I regard such honest and well-meaning words. What you have to say actually gives me insight. During my high school experience, I possessed a fervour for reading great literature and writing, which other students would ridicule and cause me to feel inferior about. Because, as I did write better than most other students in the school (or so it seemed, at any rate—my writing is trash, as it stands), this feather in my cap, so to speak, came at the expense of maintaining any sort of social life. Blah-blah-blah. There's a quote by John Dryden: "There is a pleasure sure, in being mad, which none but madmen know." If anywhere, it certainly has applied here.

Matters as these are no longer concerns anymore, because I feel I have a clear-cut purpose, an end, if you will. I simply require the means to bring it to fruition. Thomas J, you’re right: devotion is the key. But the matter stands as to how exactly I can best devote my time to the study of literature. Mind you, I do all my best studying (and consequently, the most learning) independently. That’s not to say that I’m in any way abhorrent of useful suggestion as to how I might better my study time and methods. So, what I’m asking you, Girl2, and anyone else who reads this post is: how exactly does one go about studying a given author. Well, obviously, someone’s going to answer, “By reading his books, tard-ass!” Granted. As I stated earlier, my copy of House of Leaves is in the mail. But what am I looking out for?

Again, understand that I do not intend to just emulate Danielewski’s style, but rather to use it sort-of as a reference point, kinda like Chuck Palahniuk does with novels by Amy Hempel, Denis Johnson, and F. Scott Fitzgerald. Girl2, I can totally understand your perspective. It’s just that I realise that in and of myself, I probably do not possess the raw smarts to rival a writing style the likes of Danielewski’s. After all, for what it’s worth, he did, at one time, attend Yale. By comprehending and likening my style to his, I can from there deviate from that point into an even better, more unique, style. But first, I have to pay my dues and learn what Mark Z. Danielewski and other authors I deem worthy have to teach me, because like Thomas J said, “Devotion is the key. Keep in mind that Jimi Hendrix wasn't born a great guitar player. He made himself one through years of practice.” I’m certain he did. And I’m certain, also, that he put a helluva lot of time and effort into studying the guitarists he most admired.

All replies to this post are much appreciated, as I realise this is entirely apart from the norm here. Girl2, Thomas J, Axolotl, thanks again for your replies.

By the way, Thomas J, I recognise that haiki from Fight Club. [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

**Hushmonger** · 07-25-2002, 10:13 AM

Eh, don't mind me. I'm just presently in a position for the next hour or so where I can tentatively reply to posts as they come in. I promise you'll hear nothing from me while I'm at work for 5 hours. Agrimorfee, it's funny that you mention On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft by Stephen King. I'm actually reading it for the second time through. The narratives toward the start of the novel are hilarious and intriguing, to say nothing of inspiring, and the advice King offers toward the middle and latter portions of the book are helpful. Sometimes, though, I can only take what King has to say with a grain of salt, because reputedly he has a high proclivity for churning out slightly re-hashed versions of old material.

Aside from that, I admire his voracious lust (addiction?) for writing. The only thing impeding his progress these days is his eye disease. In a very real way, he's a modern day Beethoven.

Yes, I write everyday, though for months, now, at a loss for original ideas; most of what I write are re-runs of past originals, which really isn't saying much. I keep a journal, but, anymore, most of it is just self-replicating whiny monologues about nothing important. So it goes. Upon the suggestion of Mr. King, I've also picked up a copy of The Elements of Style by William Strunk Jr. and E.B. White. It has much to do with the nicities of writing, the ins and outs as to why some things work and why others simply do not. I'm paraphasing King here, but probably every writer should have a copy of this book handy at their workplace.

Agrimorfee, yes, currently I am taking public transporation, and you can be sure that from now on I'll take note of on-going conversations. I'm not much of a conversationalist, especially since, in a bitter twist of irony, I can't speak a tenth as well as I write, which really isn't saying much, and definitely does not boast well for future interviews with the press. ^^; Regardless, this gives you an idea of how bad off I am in that regard.

Again, Agrimorfee, thank you kindly for your response. I've found it terribly helpful.

[ July 25, 2002: Message edited by: Arkady ]

**ThomasJ** · 07-25-2002, 08:43 PM

When it comes to studying the work of a particular author, I've always felt best about discussing the author or his/her works in a group. However, since you want to do this independently, you may want to read a book about a particular author.

Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has written a book about MZD. My suggestion is to, yes, read, re-read, and re-read his work, and draw your own conclusions.

Oh, yeah. Talk to yourself a lot. It helps to work things out in your head, and when others see you do this, it will undoubtedly give you the privacy you seek. lol

**Mark Crimmins** · 07-25-2002, 09:31 PM

Hey Arkady. I wanna second T-J in advising you to talk to yourself outloud a lot (it's best to do it when you're alone): it's a great way of hashing through ideas and interrogating yourself and what you're doing, and it helps you with clarity of thought and expression. That's great advice from Agrimorfee. I'd add to it that you sort of use your diary to put down the actual things people say. I've been keeping a diary for almost thirty years, and when I read over it, a lot of the best stuff is what specific people said on specific occasions. If you have friends you really like that say amazing things all the time, be sure to write down some of their best lines. Often you'll find you've captured their character, and it'll sometimes make you realize why you like them. You might want to read some of the great diarists and see how they do stuff.
For my money, some of the best are Kafka,
Kierkegaard, Virginia Woolf, Sylvia Plath. It might be a help to you as a writer, cuz
often in their diaries, the writers we admire are rawer and unedited, so you get a bit more of an immediate sense of the writer's sensibility at work, how the writer' mind reacts to its surroundings. Some of the great writers are sort of lousy diarists, though, so you might not want to wade through them: Robert Musil, Thomas Mann,
Albert Camus.

Keep writing that diary, cuz it's where a lot of us get all of our lousy writing out of our systems.

I say you're well on your way. Just keep doing what you're doing. You express yourself pretty well on your posts and you read a lot of good stuff. Since great books can be so intimidating they'll squirm you into not writing, you might want to try some of the real shite books pretty good writers have written. You might not write something as perfect as A Farewell to Arms or Go Tell it On the Mountain, but if you read Hemingway's The Torrents of Spring, you'll realize you can definitely write better than Hemmy on a bad day--no offense to the fellow Chicagoan. When you find published writing by established writers that you think is really bad, that can be more encouraging than when you read something that grabs you like HOL.

I'd recommend you keep even your most brutally crumby diary entries, though, cuz that way you get a sense of progress and development as you get older.

You're already laying yourself open to other writers, so you've already made an important step.

"To write is thus both to disclose the world and to offer it as a task to the generosity of the reader. It is to have recourse to the consciousness of others in order to make oneself recognized as essential to the totality of being; it is to wish to live this essentiality by means of interposed persons; but, on the other hand, as the real world is revealed only by action, as one can feel oneself in it only by exceeding it in order to change it, the novelist's universe would lack thickness if it were not discovered in a movement to transcend it."
--Sartre, What is Literature?

Check out Sartre's The Words, where he divides his early life into two phases: Reading, Writing (if you haven't already). If JPS seems a little intimidating, keep in mind, he's just about the best mind the whole twentieth century puked up.

**girl2** · 07-25-2002, 11:26 PM

gah! the elements of style! strunk and white!

*horrible tenth grade flashbacks*

aaaah!

*sprints away from the evil*

**girl2** · 07-26-2002, 08:29 AM

and if you do read sylvia plath's journals, make sure you get the UNedited version...

damn ted hughes...

**Francis Glances** · 07-26-2002, 08:55 AM

With you all. I went to film school for three years and hated it. Not the filmaking, just the people, students with no sight and lecturers who can only judge you based on how you've understood established filmaker's work. It's so stifling.

For what it is worth:

I made a mistake. I used to write all the time, almost obsessively. I reasoned that writing is what I loved and I find it an easy thing to do so I got a job as a writer. So I wanted to write a novel, but writing all day leaves me with no desire to write in my spare time. And I've been working on my first 'big' idea for a year now and have a fragmented prologue and a bunch of notebooks. It's depressing. Get a mindless job that pays the rent and doesn't sap your reserves. (For those who like happy endings, I'm an editor these days so I don't write much at work anymore and am getting my novel back on track)

Other suggestions:

Find a place where you can write easily. For me this is public places, particularly trains for some reason. I find it easier to focus in a busy place. Put me in a silent room and I can't concentrate.

Write daily for a set period of time. Doesn't matter when. For me, I get all my best ideas in the middle of the night when I'm trying to sleep. Sleep deprivation is good for the imagination. Messes with your logic glands though.

Write as much as you can then cut it to shreds. Similar to editing a film, you can see your work getting tighter and more focused. If you're not precious about your work this'll come easier and its one of the most satisfying things in the world.

Studying authors is all well and good but is best done unconsciously. Else it becomes formulaic. Find something that evokes some emotion in you and work backwards from that point. Ask how the author did that to you. It's not at all easy. e.g. How do you write a character that is likeable?

Find someone on your wavelength, preferably another writer, who you can trust and show them what you've done. If you can find someone who is prepared to tell you honestly what they think, its an invaluable tool.

Write honestly, don't adopt a style - you have one and its you.

Don't read any books about novel writing.

**magnus_jor** · 07-26-2002, 01:13 PM

to all participants of this thread: great posts!

arkady: im also starting at college this fall... what sort of college are you gonna go to? mine is a united world college, dont know if you know what that is, but it follows the IB program and has students from like 70 different countries [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]... im mainly taking subjects within social studies (history and economics) and language/literature (english and norwegian)...

but i guess like girl2 and thomasj say, the most important thing when it comes to learning is not what the school does, but what you do. the past years ive probably learned a lot more from my personal reading than anything at school (except the more basic things in different, definite subjects)...

girl2: the sort of school you described sounds terrible! i mean with all the "brainwashed" students seeking only educations leading to financially profitable jobs... i think schools should make sure to encourage individual thinking in students when it comes to career-path selection- so they choose whats right for them and not what will make them the most money..

okay dokay, my school year begins in one month! ill be sure to tell you how it is (and please tell me about yours, arkady)!

**fatwoul** · 07-26-2002, 05:36 PM

My advice/comment is probably not useful for anyone reading it. If you read it and it helps, good. If you read it and it didn't Yah!! I wasted a part of your life reading something useless!!

I went to Leeds University and graduated in astrophysics, making sure I had something solid to fall back on (if all else failed I could be a science teacher), and then trained in my true passion: photography. Fortunately that is panning out and I have no need for the science teacher thing. However, my degree is not useless, since I am now doing scientific imaging (forensic stuff mostly - dead people), and find the science training always helped me work more efficiently than my peers, who were all at least 5 years younger than me.

The advice I think I am getting around to is that even if you come out of college/university thinking it didn't help you, it probably did more than you will ever know. I know that my time in Leeds taught me more about independence, communication skills and self-reliance than it ever taught me about relativity (although some of that stuff is pretty damn cool).

In other words, I found the learning process more useful than the things I learned. If someone 18-20 is unsure whether they are going to study the right thing at college, I would say it probably doesn't matter.

"Don't feel guilty if you don't know what to do with your lives. The most interesting people I know didn't know, at twenty-two, what they wanted to do with their lives. Some of the most interesting forty year olds still don't."

- Baz Luhrman "Everyone's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)"

By the way:

quote:
Originally posted by Arkady:
...beyond marks and capitalisation...

...Marks and Capitalisation? Marks? Marx? Capitalism? Haha... I'm going to imagine that was intentional [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: fatwoul ]

**Hushmonger** · 07-26-2002, 11:06 PM

[Author’s Note: This is a longish post, I realise, but in an effort to properly treat each respondent’s reply to its deserved attention without having every other person involved in this thread wade through material he or she could care less about, I’ve sectioned it off, addressing each individual post with its own reply. But, to be sure, feel free to read my reply to someone else’s post, and to reply accordingly if you have any further suggestion to add.]

I've slept long enough.¹ It's high time I reply once more to this thread, addressing the wonderful and mounting commentary of all recent respondents before it becomes, in all, too much to consider at once. But let me first preempt any commentary of my own relating to this matter by saying a thousand times "thank you" to all who have participated. I never expected so fine a response to this atypical brand of post, and must say, in fine, that every single response I’ve found, in one regard or another, to be helpful or entertaining. And most assuredly, all are relevant. So once more, thank you.

To Thomas J:

It’s funny that you mention self-discourse in helping to edge along the writing process. Absent-mindedly, I’d begun to speak to myself while writing months ago—early November, I think—and yes, whenever circumstances were favourable, it was done in the presence of No-One. This has been helpful, especially where dialogue is concerned, because the writer is made to recognise where conversation in a piece sounds contrived, like something from the pages of a Charles Dickens or Henry James novel. Anyone reading this post, if you’re at all unfamiliar with either of these two authors, go pick up Great Expectations or Portrait of a Lady, read a page or two at random, and you’ll see how the dialogue of most every character in said novels sounds like that of a Harvard English professor. Most people just don’t talk that way anymore, if ever they did, and should they do so in this day, they’re usually prime candidates for ridicule and taunting en massé. I should know; when I was 12, trying that shit on the West Side of Chicago got me into a good many scuffles with the neighbour’s kids. I can’t say they didn’t have it coming . . .

Discussing Mark Z. Danielewski and his works in a group is a non-option presently, especially since I know of no one who has read either House of Leaves or The Whalestoe Letters. And apart from online forum discussion, I would find discussing these matters in a public fashion loathsome. I’m sort-of selfish where reading is concerned, because I’d like to think that each book I find was written specifically for me, and that no other eyes have seen it prior to my own. Weird, I know, but just . . . try it. My plan, is to read these novels over and over again, paying close attention to how their respective plots are developed, and the various mechanisms used to do so. There are probably definite terms for these things, and listed in an objective, concise fashion by a textbook or college professor, any enjoyment I’d have in seeking them out would be quashed. As with most things I do for fulfillment, feeling them out in my amateurish, quasi-pragmatic fashion is generally preferable to any standardized means. Hence, I’ve referred my queries and concerns to a forum of what I’d thought, from the on-set, to be amateurs in my likeness.

Evidently, I was wrong.

Everyone knows a lot more about anything than ever I had anticipated. So it goes.

And Thomas J, I’ve been scouring the net high and low in search of materials concerning the author and his works. The most I’ve found are reviews of House of Leaves and The Whalestoe Letters, and interviews with Danielewski about the former. As I had suspected, he’s terribly hush-hush and elusive about its meaning, and at times, actually equivocates as to the relevance of certain matters brought to light by the interviewer, matters discussed even on these very forums . . .When I hear people ask, “What is the house?” I can’t help but ask in turn, “What’s isn’t the house?” I believe that it’s this air of duality and ambiguity Danielewski intends to foment about his work. Today, he may be appreciated only by a few of us in the reading community; in his lifetime, his book sales may never reach the level of those of a King or a Rice or a Clancy; and people may shun his work, as I’ve seen brashly done on many occasions, saying that it’s pseudo-academic bullshit that uses flashy type sets and textual schemes to draw upon the curiosity of the reader—and nothing more. As if any of the present company needs reassurance, take the word of a full-out, addle-brained tard-ass who knows nothing about anything anymore, if never he didn’t, except that: there’s definitely something to this House of Leaves. And should anyone disagree with me on this matter, then I ask (and certainly not to the intended discredit of these authors, as they are amongst the best at their respective genres), have ever the amassed fictional works of King or Rice or Clancy deservedly received such attention as this one House of Leaves?

A random question in mind: How does one even approach a sheet of paper with all or any of this book’s concept and not feel entirely overwhelmed?

Thomas J, at the delightful discomfort of co-workers and customers, yes, I will continue to muse aloud thoughts to myself. Er, perhaps you’re right, though. Any of this sort of thing should be done alone; my managers have begun to stare as of late.

Thanks a ton for your commentary, dude.

To Pedro:

I will indeed continue to keep my journal, which I’ve hoped to make more introspective and meaningful than your run-of-the-mill blog or LiveJournal. For the past few months, writing about the non-happenings of my existence has been my only recourse from not writing anything at all. I feel terrible about this—you have no idea—because I should be writing short stories like established writers did at my age, but I can’t think of anything worthwhile or original, so the monotony of my boring life has had to suffice. So it goes. This is why I sometimes question myself as to whether or not I’m a writer. The mind is willing, but the pen hand is weak. To be sure, I hope to at some point soon establish a routine with which I am so enamoured, that I might enjoy it as much as reading a novel by one of my favourite authors. I’m getting there. In an all-out attempt at subverting this total lack of ideas, and to develop on some level, a candid and direct style of writing best suited for dialogue , I’ve been reading in profusion the works of Albert Camus, Denis Johnson, Chuck Palahniuk, Kurt Vonnegutt, Franz Kafka—of whom I am particularly fond of, in especial, his piece A Hunger Artist—and various German poets and philosophers (e.g. Stefan George, Rainer Marie Rilke, Friederich Nietzsche, et al). Pedro,

I will, upon my soonest convenience (i.e. tomorrow), pick up any journalesque material I can find by Kafka, Kierkegaard, Virginia Woolf, and Sylvia Plath (yes, Girl2, the unedited versions, if available), and see what I can’t make of the journals of Robert Musil, Thomas Mann, and Albert Camus (whose notebooks, incidentally, I’ve meant to digest for some time, now, but never got around to). I’ve run into the philosophy of Kierkegaard before (he’s an existentialist, no?), and if I can recall, as with any philosophical text, for me, his work is of particular difficulty. The workings of philosophy scares me, but in attempting to better understand the thematic overtones, if any beyond the most evident ones of horror and the occult, of House of Leaves, I’ve done my not-quite-my-best in researching the works of Nietzsche and Kierkegaard, since many seem to hold that there are certain philosophical themes eminent in the text. It’s stuff like this that’s always way over my head, so I have to backtrack and get a good look at in order to gain even the most nominal understanding. I can’t say I mind, though.

[Author’s Note: Alright, 300 words past this point is where my computer crashed without me clicking the blasted “SAVE” button, so, to continue . . .]

Of Sartre: I’ve heard much about him, but never realised him to be of such high regard to common thought. And though I’m not sure that I understand it entirely, that quote gives me much to think about. It shan’t be disregarded.(In fact, tomorrow I’ll be foraging for a copy of What Is Literature?, along with The Words at the library.) Pedro, I feel these days compelled to lay myself open to the suggestions and constructive criticism of other writers, especially in lieu of my meeting with my beloved (eh?) Chuck Palahniuk. ²

See also: www.chuckpalahniuk.net

He suggested that for most any writer, the best thing you can do is become apart of a writing community, a family of sorts to help you massage along your style, acquire feedback, and be there to KEEP YOU WRITING—he stresses—because it’s so incredibly easy to just give up. Giving up, for me, is no longer an option as is the case with trivial matters, because I realise that penning works on par with or better than those of Danielewski is a noble goal (this, evidenced by, though not limited to, its causing readers to become more critical of the material they read), and above all for me, not in the least bit lacking for motivation. Take this from a manic-depressive No-Body wholly lacking in the regards of friends, money, and any hope for a “future so bright you’ll need shades to see,” as it were: House of Leaves, The Whalestoe Letters, the prospect of being survived by a comparably great literary work that actually affects people—these things move me for no ancillary purpose apart from the fame inherent of being a best-selling novelist; the aforementioned affect I’ll have upon others; and last but not least, the hordes of women that come with the territory. Hehe.

Seriously, though, Pedro, your post is much appreciated.

To Francis Glances:

Don’t over-do it. Noted. I can see how one might become jaded in his work by approaching it too rigourously. I’m reminded of the movie Pi, the part where Saul says something along the lines of, “You must take a bath, or else there will be no order!” Reading books about novel writing is, truthfully, sort-of a turn-off. Stephen King’s On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft always leaves me second-guessing myself, because in comparing myself to a pre-pubescent King, I find that I haven’t always been so faithful to the craft as he, and therefore, the lingering supposition forces itself upon me: “You’ll never hit it big like he has.” If anything, the aspect of this book that I enjoy the most is its tendency to slip into narrative. I just realised it, but I really enjoy reading King, but only in condensed form (e.g. [i]Carrie[/i:5a38673c85], The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon, etc.). I suppose that’s why I’ve taken such a liking to his memoirs on writing.

“Write honestly, don't adopt a style - you have one and its you.”

This is so true, but as it stands, my style of writing is coarse and boring. Mark Z. Danielewski’s style is often boring, yes, but when Johnny Truant takes over, I can’t pull myself away!

Of characterisation: Johnny Truant is a character of particular inspiration to me, because I can relate to the pall of sick desperation setting the overtone of his life for the length of the novel. While reading House of Leaves through for the first time, I couldn’t help but empathise with his plight, though the voices I hear are contrivances all my own, I’d like to think. Heh. I think any characters I might create in the future would be, in part, deviations of Johnny Truant. Someone will always be capable of relating to suffering. At any rate, I’ll steer clear of formulaic writing, else I end up re-hashing old narratives into new works—literary death. I feel a similar relation to Louise of Anne Rice’s Interview with the Vampire, just because he suffered so deeply over his immortality the cost of human life. And no, I don’t kill people, nor do I bite. Hard.

Francis Glancis, thanks for your post.

To Magnus:

First off, I can’t help but ask: your name, did you get it from that cloaked, blue-skinned dude with the pointy ears from Chrono Trigger? Heh. That game rocked. To answer your question, I’m going to St. Mary’s of Minnesota, special for all hoping to master in . . . ? Yeah, I haven’t a clue as to what this school is good for, and am, as of yet, hesitant to commit to a definite major or course of study. I don’t want to flood myself with literary courses which will cause me to develop a high-strung aversion for the thing I love. A definite part of my agenda, however, will be to take Latin. I’ve always been fascinated by this language, and (in my humble opinion), think it ought to be taught to children these days as it was to our grandparent’s generation. Moreover, Danielewski decided upon taking an intensive study of Latin at Yale, which to some degree lends credence to its usefulness in literature anymore. Maybe writers these days might benefit from a stout knowledge of this ancient language. Since you’ve brought it up, anything concerning the goings-on of myself can be found at the link posted in my signature. Be sure to keep me posted on how things are with yourself, dude.

Good luck in college, Mangus. Thanks for posting!

To Fatwoul:

I’ve pondered this for some time, now--having something to fall back on. I’m not really great at anything, and apart from writing, nothing really interests me . . . except maybe web design. Hm . . . And yes, the learning process could help me in developing an approach to researching information for my novels.

By the way:
quote:

Originally posted by Arkady:
...beyond marks and capitalisation...

"...Marks and Capitalisation? Marks? Marx? Capitalism? Haha... I'm going to imagine that was intentional."

Uh, no, the meaning of that bit is as plain as it seems. Heh.

Thanks, Fatwoul.

Once more, thanks to all who have posted thus far in the thread. I’m saving this thread to my harddrive to be sure I can reference it in the future. There’s tons of great advice here.

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: Arkady ]

**delirium** · 07-27-2002, 10:04 AM

Remember also that it's not simply about style. Both Palahniuk and Danielewski have each producued work within which lies a philosophy, attitude or perspective which is fresh and new, or at least is presented in such a way. Substance beats style every time.

Interesting people with interesting ideas tend to write interesting books. People who challenge received knowledge, who are prepared to look again, and to see through cliché write the kind of books I like to read.

And interesting people (who write interesting books) do interesting things. Challenge yourself. Be different. Leave the flock chewing grass in the meadow, and live. And remember, like writing, life itself is essentially an act of communication. And I mean that both metaphysically and biologically.

**magnus_jor** · 07-29-2002, 03:29 PM

My name is, actually, Magnus. Amazing, huh? [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] (its a common name in Norway, my home country).

**girl2** · 07-29-2002, 06:25 PM

this doesn't have too much to do with a writing style, but i just thought i would let everyone know that chuck pahaluinik (dammit, that's one name i NEVER spell correctly, no matter how hard i try) was at a local bookstore a few nights ago to read from choke and answer questions.

and i was in the area and everything and, well.... i didn't go.

*hangs head in shame*

i will never be a good writer if i don't attend book readings by abfab authors like chuck! arkady, do NOT follow my example![/LIST]

**Hushmonger** · 07-29-2002, 06:53 PM

Girl2, did you by chance read my account of Chuck's reading in the Chicagoland area on the 18th? Here's the link.

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: Arkady ]

**girl2** · 07-30-2002, 08:03 AM

oh cool, thanks!

i'lll read it and imagine that i'm at the one that was here...

**DaethisJain** · 08-07-2003, 08:28 AM

Just thought I'd bump this one up.

I was actually *searching* for reference to Sylvia Plath, and ended up getting caught up reading this thread.

Arkady's site is pretty cool, too. Just watch out for the pop-up porn.

**vernon crane** · 08-08-2003, 09:30 AM

As far as i can tell (if i can tell at all) it's just sticking at it, it takes a long time for most people to get even halfway decent, although i would say that expecting somehow to write a philosophically enriching, stylistically and formally challenging work straight off is too ambitious. i'd work with short narrative pieces and go for effect over style, ie, it was really useful to me when, years ago, a friend of mine who didn't like my somewhat hyperbolic style asked me to write something simple, i did, and it was effective and made me think about my work differently. House of Leaves is a kind of hotch potch of styles, journalistic, confessional, parodic etc and i think that lots of short experiments is the way to build up a range of techniques that you then begin to integrate. all of them will be YOU, but i don't beleive your 'Voice' is tucked away inside you somewhere and you have to patiently excavate it, i think it comes about through exploring all the different voices you have and then slowly synthesising them.
that's the theory anyway, in practice.....?

[ August 08, 2003: Message edited by: sixabortednovels ]

**ninziestar** · 08-09-2003, 05:00 AM

quote:
Originally posted by girl2:
don't mimic or study other people's writings. but i think it limits the creativity crawling around your brain by forcing you to forget what you know, and know what someone else knows instead. you're you. if i'm going to read something by you, i don't want to read pahalunik (i can never spell his damn name right), i don't want to read MZD, i'd want to read something that is one hundred percent yours, inspired by your mind and your experiences and your feelings and your passion.

(Hello fellow chicago-kids) I couldn't agree more with girl2, I was thinking similar things when reading the first post of the thread. I would say, it's it's nice to have a guide, so you can be sure you will get to your goal successfully (ie writing, using your favorite authors styles for help), but MZD did not have a guide (to the best of my knowledge), and he's novel came out beautifully. Do not underestimate yourself, write what you know. I am not suggesting you reject MZD or CP, but 'when' I read one of your novels, as said before, I want to read one of your novels.

Your friends here are anxiously waiting for your work [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] Best of luck

**ThomasJ** · 08-09-2003, 09:54 AM

Is girl2 still alive?

**fatwoul** · 08-09-2003, 02:33 PM

quote:
Originally posted by ThomasJ:
Is girl2 still alive?

Yes. She is Bonemaster/Mastergamer/Ghent/Crass/etc

**JuggaloStatix** · 08-09-2003, 03:50 PM

quote:
Originally posted by fatwoul:

Yes. She is Bonemaster/Mastergamer/Ghent/Crass/etc

so...much...evil...*passes out*

**frstmnkynspc** · 08-09-2003, 09:41 PM

quote:
Originally posted by fatwoul:

Yes. She is Bonemaster/Mastergamer/Ghent/Crass/etc

It's like Al Pacino's character in The Devil's Advocate being played by Keanu Reeves...

"I've got, like, so many names... Yeah...?"

[ August 09, 2003: Message edited by: frstmnkynspc ]

**Ellacia** · 08-11-2003, 07:55 PM

quote

She is Bonemaster/Mastergamer/Ghent/Crass/etc

don't forget me in that list.

Thread: Developing one's writing style . . .

Thread Tools

Display