Lesson 7: Basic Style.
This lesson examines different writing styles.
Natural style.
Artificial style.
Genre style.
Assumed style.
Simple style.
Conversational style.
Readability.
Viewpoint.
Writing exercise.
Natural Style
NATURAL STYLE.
This lesson examines different writing styles. All writers have their own natural style. Some of these are quite subtle, others unmistakable.
BRITISH AND AMERICAN STYLE.
Sometimes, a natural style will be coloured by social background and, particularly, by race, creed and culture. Broadly speaking, if you were given three 1000-word excerpts of the same genre, one written by a North American, one by a British writer and one by an Australian, you would almost certainly be able to tell which was which by the style.
Some of this regional style comes from setting, and some from choice of words. However, a great deal comes from tone and viewpoint.
If the 1000-word passage includes the words ranch, cowboy, pinto and pickup, hood (for a car), whole wheat (for bread) and deputy (as in Sheriff) you can bet your boots the book is American.
If the same concepts are rendered as station, stockman, piebald and ute, bonnet, wholemeal and bobby/sergeant/cop, then the book (bet your gumboots) is Australian.
The British book would probably use estate, cowman or herdsman, piebald and Land Rover, bonnet, brown and (bet your wellies) sergeant/copper.
OK, I'm joking a bit here, but you get the drift?
American style tends to be more specific, with every step explained, while British style is often oblique and ironic. An American author might mention that Mary was reading "Shock, the horror novel by Janice King", whereas the British author would simply mention the title and expect the reader to pick up the reference- or not.
Australian, Canadian, and New Zealand styles lie somewhere in between, with the Australian and New Zealander leaning slightly to the British while the Canadian leans towards the American.
Most American fiction is written in very tight viewpoint, with all the action seen through the eyes of one character. If a second viewpoint character is used, s/he will appear only on the other side of a very decided scene break.
British books are likely to use multi-viewpoint or omniscient viewpoint, with some Australians following this trend while others term the habit "head-hopping".
These different styles are neither "correct" nor "incorrect", any more than the different ways of spelling colour/color aluminium/aluminum are "correct" or "incorrect". They are simply different, and the most one can say is that each style should be taken in context.
Your natural style may be based unconsciously on the kind of writing style you admire. It may also be heavily influenced by your early education.
I learned to write during the 1960s. At that time we were taught various rules, some of which seem very old fashioned today.
Never begin a sentence with "And" or "But".
Don't use the word "got" or the word "nice".
Full stop, new line, capital letter.
I before E except after C.
Use adjectives. Lots of adjectives.
Long sentences are good.
Don't split infinitives. (i.e. if you have a two-part verb such as "to have" or "to fall" you should never split it with another word. So - "to actually have" is wrong. "Actually to have" is right (though clunky).)
Never end a sentence with a preposition.
A sentence has a verb, a subject, an object, and a predicate.
My memory is full of these rules and many others. Some of these I have discarded over the years. I now begin sentences with "And" and "But" if I want to. And (as you can see from that last sentence) I sometimes end with a preposition. However, I still don't split infinitives. The rules about adjectives and long sentences haunt me to this day, so my natural style tends to be convoluted and ornamental.
And yes. This trip down memory lane does have a point.
Perhaps your natural style is like mine; full of adjectives and long-windedness. If so, my advice is to let it have its head in the first draft, then get out your pruning shears and chop it back. Cut out 90% of the adjectives and adverbs. Lop your long sentences in two, and whittle the polysyllables down to their simpler cousins. The result will still be "your" style, but it will be refined.
Perhaps your natural style in monosyllabic. Maybe you never qualify anything. Maybe all your sentences are simple. Again, let it be in the first draft then colour it in later. My son, a person of few words, used to write 300 word essays. His natural style was succinct to the point of abruptness. After he had finished his first draft, he used to "fatten" his work, adding extra information and description.
Perhaps you, too, need to prune or fatten your style?
OTHER OOPSIES.
Other oopsies include the wandering apostrophe. An apostrophe should be used *only* to denote ownership (that's the possessive apostrophe) or missing letters.
Sally's chair. The chair's legs.
If you're using several subjects, the apostrophe goes after the s.
One cat's paw. Two cats' paws.
If your subject is a collective noun, such as "class", "crew" or "troop", it takes the singular form with the apostrophe.
The crew's ship. The class's homework.
The possessive forms its, his, hers, theirs, and ours do not use any apostrophe at all.
Words that miss a letter or letters in colloquial writing or speech are called "contractions". These have an apostrophe to show a letter or letters are missing.
can't is missing an n and an o. can(NO)t.
we've is missing an h and an a. we(HA)ve.
shan't is missing two Ls and an o. sha(ll)n(o)t. In very old books, you sometimes see "shan't" rendered as "sha'n't" - but these days we make do with just the one apostrophe.
These are the only uses for the apostrophe. It has nothing to do with adding "s", so don't write "I bought some carrot's at the market." And don't write "the cat's and the dog's went for a walk with their owner's." (Shudder). But you wouldn't, would you?
