On writing: sounds and sentences

[SkyBubble]

And in a way, that lack of training might be a benefit

When Ethel Merman went to one of her first auditions, all brass, the producer asked if she'd had any singing lessons. She admitted she hadn't.

"Don't," he said.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The choice may not be binary, however the pendulum would swing in one direction - I write for myself or I write for ratings.

I don't think it's a binary choice at all. I think you can write for yourself, and ratings come as a bonus.

If all you want is ratings, you pick the most popular categories and write there, give readers what they want. Or you can make a conscious decision not to do that, and establish your own voice, regardless of "what readers want."

 

[FrancesScott]

That's interesting to discover. When I first read your work, I thought you probably were an academic in some field or other, or a professional in some other literary field, because your command of your text is self-evident. I thought, clearly this person has written a lot before, even if not erotica.

If you've had no formal training, then you've certainly paid attention to your craft. And in a way, that lack of training might be a benefit, because what shines through in your writing is its exuberance, even if at times it might come close to self-indulgence. A formal literary training might put scissors to that quality. Too much polish can dull a bright shine.

I find myself somewhat embarrassed. I like to write. It gives me pleasure. I’ve got no desire to share personal details here, but any academic background is certainly not in literature-related fields.

I think you've said all your work published here is deliberately echoing another writer's style? If that's the case, I'd be curious as to FrancesScott's own natural style (setting aside the tributes to your fave writers in your account name).

Not all. I’ve written two stories as sort of pastiches of famous authors: Fitzgerald and Conan Doyle.

I’ve written quite a few stories exploring kinks I know nothing about, lactation and pregnancy fetish for example. And I have featured characters whose realities I know nothing about: an Indian-American woman and a deaf woman. But I seem to be gravitating more toward my own preoccupations the more I write here.

 

[EmilyMiller]

It’s kinda encouraging how many people want to share ideas about writing. Thanks @StillStunned you’ve done so much to elevate our convos since you joined

 

[ElectricBlue]

It’s kinda funny. I don’t know these things. I have no theoretical framework for what I do. But I seem to know them nevertheless. Maybe as a byproduct of reading a lot of good writers.

I'm the same, I don't know all of the literary theory, but people who do know it have said that I'm pretty good at that stuff.

One of the biggest buzzes for me is when someone decomposes my content and says, this is what you're doing here. I feel like Prufrock eviscerated on the table, but I love it when someone peels the literary flesh back from my bones.

 

[Dnthmn_19]

Ive learned there are times when full sentences are required, and times where incomplete sentences work better.

I disagree. Poor grammar is, to me, a turn-off. Maybe it's because of my background as a technical writer that I am so picky about the rules of correct writing but if I find enough incomplete-sentence dreck in a story I skip to the end, drop a 1 score and hit the backspace button.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I find myself somewhat embarrassed. I like to write. It gives me pleasure. I’ve got no desire to share personal details here, but any academic background is certainly not in literature-related fields.

Don't be embarrassed, and definitely not prying! But for sure, you're a wordsmith, even if not Wordsworth!

Not all. I’ve written two stories as sort of pastiches of famous authors: Fitzgerald and Conan Doyle.

I’ve written quite a few stories exploring kinks I know nothing about, lactation and pregnancy fetish for example. And I have featured characters whose realities I know nothing about: an Indian-American woman and a deaf woman.

Thinking about those two, I preferred them to the Fitzgerald "pastiche" - deliberate inverted commas, because it's the nearest word - although tribute would do. Probably because there's less hiding behind someone else's style.

I've not read your latest one yet, must do that.

But I seem to be gravitating more toward my own preoccupations the more I write here.

I suspect your own preoccupations will reveal far more interesting psychological truths. I know mine do, still with surprises, which is nice.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I'm the same, I don't know all of the literary theory, but people who do know it have said that I'm pretty good at that stuff.

One of the biggest buzzes for me is when someone decomposes my content and says, this is what you're doing here. I feel like Prufrock eviscerated on the table, but I love it when someone peels the literary flesh back from my bones.

I think that just means we read a lot, or have historically read a lot. You absorb shit by osmosis.

 

[SmilingLez]

I don't think it's a binary choice at all. I think you can write for yourself, and ratings come as a bonus.

If all you want is ratings, you pick the most popular categories and write there, give readers what they want. Or you can make a conscious decision not to do that, and establish your own voice, regardless of "what readers want."

So you are saying that for yourself, writing comes first and other people second. That is my point - you are writing for yourself (in your voice). What others think, aka rating doesn't matter if you are happy with what you create.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Ah, the many approaches of word choice and sound. These things are important, but word sound is especially important for humor writing. Some sounds are funnier than others, but rarely is it an objectively funny sound. Generally, hard sounds are funnier than soft sounds, lilting words with odd cadences are funnier than smoother ones.

My goal for sentences tends to be to make sure it doesn't trip up a reader when they're reading it in their head. Most people will mentally speak the words to themselves as they read, and it's best to avoid tripping your reader accidentally. Doing it on purpose, though, as has been mentioned, is an incredibly effective tool dependent on what you're trying to achieve.

Like all aspects of writing, every detail matters. The words you chose, the order you chose them, how you group them, how the nested structures interact with each other, all of those are part of what construct the world. But more importantly, all of those impact the reader, usually in ways that are too subtle to notice. That's the real craft — inducing reader mental and emotional states via tricksy methods. Cadence and sentence structure are my favorite tools in this regard. The words and meanings of words themselves give the overtones, convey the story, but the emotionality is also conveyed in undertones through structure. What mental state are you trying to put your reader in?

Voice, too, is highly instructive of how you construct sentences. People have different ways of talking, and structure and sound are great ways to convey subtle distinctions in voice that can add dimensionality to the narrator.

 

[FrancesScott]

I've not read your latest one yet, must do that.

It would be gratifying to get the view number into double figures. My current specialty seems to be writing lesbian stories that no one reads. Even my third placed story had low views before the winners were announced.

 

[Voboy]

Flowy sentences, to me, are like Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity: I can't really define it, but I know it when I see it.

I was an excellent English student in high school, so I learned about iambic pentameter; I both read and write all sorts of poetry too, but beyond that I can't contribute anything useful about the theory of sentence construction. But, like others have said, I frequently re-read my sentences after I write them, and decide whether or not I think they flow well. That's the point at which I edit them, if needed; once I've moved on, I've moved on. When I do a read-through of the finished story before submission, I no longer have to read for flow.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Flowy sentences, to me, are like Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity: I can't really define it, but I know it when I see it.

I was an excellent English student in high school, so I learned about iambic pentameter; I both read and write all sorts of poetry too, but beyond that I can't contribute anything useful about the theory of sentence construction. But, like others have said, I frequently re-read my sentences after I write them, and decide whether or not I think they flow well. That's the point at which I edit them, if needed; once I've moved on, I've moved on. When I do a read-through of the finished story before submission, I no longer have to read for flow.

Yes precisely this

 

[anthrodisiac]

Flowy sentences, to me, are like Potter Stewart's definition of obscenity: I can't really define it, but I know it when I see it.

I was an excellent English student in high school, so I learned about iambic pentameter; I both read and write all sorts of poetry too, but beyond that I can't contribute anything useful about the theory of sentence construction. But, like others have said, I frequently re-read my sentences after I write them, and decide whether or not I think they flow well. That's the point at which I edit them, if needed; once I've moved on, I've moved on. When I do a read-through of the finished story before submission, I no longer have to read for flow.

It's so much fun when you get into the intuition stage of writing, though it makes it a bit harder to explain why you did something and thus harder to help out newbies. But there's something immensely satisfying about just "knowing" something will work or not without having to interrogate it.

 

[NotWise]

I've written "flowy" text, with carefully constructed patterns of emphasis, only to realize that my way of reading the text was only one of two or more possible readings, and that other readings may not work as well. Sometimes that can be fixed typographically (italics for emphasis, for instance), but then that solution can be cumbersome and intrusive on the readers' experience.

There's a limit where I'm just fooling myself about the effect, and I need to move on.

 

[StillStunned]

It’s kinda encouraging how many people want to share ideas about writing. Thanks @StillStunned you’ve done so much to elevate our convos since you joined

That's me, I'm an elevator.

I agree it's wonderful to see so many writers chipping in with their thoughts.

 

[anthrodisiac]

That's me, I'm an elevator.

I agree it's wonderful to see so many writers chipping in with their thoughts.

Don't you mean a lift? I thought elevators was an American term.

Edit: Tossed in an emoji so people don't get the idea that I was serious, oblivious to the joke, or being anything other than a silly little goblin I'm usually only pedantic for laughs. Usually...

 

[TheLobster]

Don't you mean a lift? I thought elevators was an American term.

Don’t be such a bee in the bonnet.

 

[StillStunned]

Don't you mean a lift? I thought elevators was an American term.

But then the joke (such as it was) wouldn't have worked.

 

[TheLobster]

But then the joke (such as it was) wouldn't have worked.

Elevator or not, you’re lifting our spirits all the same.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Don’t be such a bee in the bonnet.

I'd rather be a bee girl in a bonnet

But then the joke (such as it was) wouldn't have worked.

Anthy: Humor so dry, even the Brits don't pick up on it.

Note to self: Include more emojis when doing dry humor so people realize I'm joking.

 

[Soixenta]

I have an example from my new story. It is more about sounds than rhythm, though.

Consciousness came suddenly. It wasn’t like waking up, when you gradually become aware of the world and the sounds and sensations surrounding you, and your mind connects the dots to tell you where you are.

This was much more abrupt. One moment there was nothing, the next I knew I was spreadeagled on a bed, my hands cuffed to the headboard, and my feet cuffed to opposite corners. A hard ball of silicon filled my mouth, stretching my jaws wide, with a strap keeping it in place.

I believe that these two paragraphs present a contrast. The first uses W and S sounds that create a soft, dreamlike effect. Like waking slowly and gently.

The second is more prosaic. The word "abrupt" sounds like what it means, and it sets the tone for the paragraph. The only alliteration is in "silicon", "stretching" and "strap". The last two reinforce the visual image of stretching, I think, and together they draw attention to the gag. This follows the repeated use of "cuffed", and by the end of the paragraph the reader should have the firm idea of the narrator's situation.

As some other posters have said, this is not something that I do deliberately while writing, but I do choose my words carefully to suit the tone of the sentence. In the editing I will be more aware of it, but only if the basic sounds are already there.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I have an example from my new story. It is more about sounds than rhythm, though.

I believe that these two paragraphs present a contrast. The first uses W and S sounds that create a soft, dreamlike effect. Like waking slowly and gently.

The second is more prosaic. The word "abrupt" sounds like what it means, and it sets the tone for the paragraph. The only alliteration is in "silicon", "stretching" and "strap". The last two reinforce the visual image of stretching, I think, and together they draw attention to the gag. This follows the repeated use of "cuffed", and by the end of the paragraph the reader should have the firm idea of the narrator's situation.

As some other posters have said, this is not something that I do deliberately while writing, but I do choose my words carefully to suit the tone of the sentence. In the editing I will be more aware of it, but only if the basic sounds are already there.

Good instincts on that. Softer sounds and words elicit different mendsets than harder sounds. It can be an incredibly subtle and effective tool, one that works incredibly well in things like creating tension. You'll especially see this in horror. It's why a lot of evil creatures have such rough-sounding names, to create a jarring, unsettling sound association with the Big Bad.

 

[BeechLeaf]

I've been examining my work in progress, looking for a good example of structural subtlety. There don't appear to be any, which is dispiriting in itself. Here's a mediocre example:

The car was another odd imbalance. He did not drive, never needed to, had never learnt, so if they were going to go places beyond the three towns and the bus routes, she it was who had to take them. That was the intention now, and he had left the arrangement to her.

Short sentence, long, fairly short. The long second sentence begins with three verb phrases sharing a subject, with the final one lacking 'and' (asyndeton). 'And' would make it more conclusive, and would trigger falling intonation, whereas without it 'had never learnt' repeats the intonation of the previous, which is what I want. Then there's the focused 'she' brought to the front of the 'it'-cleft. I can't remember why I chose that unusual construction, but it seems to better focus 'she' after a long stretch about 'he'.

 

[ElectricBlue]

This is one of my favourite openings to a story:

Perhaps we journeyed through France, you and I? In a borrowed old car that misbehaved and made your hands black with grease when it sulked and demanded your hands, your love. I understood the car. I knew it needed love and wasn't just there for a ride, even though it liked puttering round the French country lanes in the shade of lime trees.

Not my words. @stickygirl and I collaborated on a story, Their Summer in France, and that's her beautiful opening paragraph.

For my part, the story contains some of my best sentences, and some of hers. It's our quiet sleeper of a story.