Accidentalism: Finding a Literary Style
Acmeism, Byronism, centonism, Ciceronianism, classicalism, classicism, conceptism, concinnity, constructivism, dialogism, eulogism, Euphusim, floridity, genteelism, Gongorism, gothicism, Hermeticism, Ibsenism, Johnsonese, juvenilia, Kiplingism, Marinism, Marlowism, Ossianism, pastoralism, Petrarchism, poetasterism, prosaicism, quattrocentism, Ronsardism, sensationalism, sentimentalism, Shakesperianism, Shavianism, stylistics, Tolstoyism, Voltairisanism, and Zolaism.
These are all literary styles. Many of them are named after great writers. I didn't see Eubanksism in there. It should have fallen between dialogism, a style of representing an author's thoughts through his use of a dialogue between two or more of his characters, and eulogism, which is an expression of praise or blessing as used in a eulogy. That's a style? Sheesh. Someone has to die before I can adopt that style. Won't hold my breath.
The playwright, David Mamet, would be a great example of a dialogism writing style:
Anna: Speak.
Claire: This "man."
Anna: Yes.
Claire: This, this, this...
Anna: My "Protector."
Claire: Does he not know...does he not know your "reputation"?
Anna: He is just returned from a long sojourn abroad.
Claire: What? On the Moon?
Anna: Ha ha.
Claire: Is he in commerce on the Moon?
Anna: ...Ha.
And eulogism:
May the Lord Bless Bobby Bearcat on his journey to the next higher place...on the shelf of the Big Toy Store in the sky.
I like floridity. That's a florid style; flowery and highly ornamental writing. But I'm afraid to write like that, because I might be taken for a sissy. Or someone who doesn't have anything to say but sure says nothing in a grand way.
A good example of Kiplingism, would be found in Gunga Din, a long poem that bears an attitude of superiority over and sympathy for nonwhite peoples. Hm. Superiority and sympathy. That makes sense. It's gotta be easier to feel sympathy when you already feel superior to someone. Come to think of it, you can find this style on the editorial pages of The New York Times. (Oh, my. Did I just write something political? I just broke my promise to never write anything political in this blog. Oh, shoot. My delete button won't work. Oh, well. Forgive me.)
Zolaism, which is an overemphasis on the coarser sides of life, taken from the French novelist Emile Zola, who was instrumental in creating a naturalistic style that was based on the belief that one's heredity and social environment determine one's character. Wikipedia: "Whereas realism seeks only to describe subjects as they really are, naturalism also attempts to determine 'scientifically' the underlying forces influencing the actions of its subjects. Naturalistic works often include uncouth or sordid subject matter; Zola's works had a frankness about sexuality along with a pervasive pessimism. Naturalistic works exposed the dark harshness of life, including poverty, racism, sex, prejudice, disease, prostitution, and filth. As a result, naturalistic writers were frequently criticized for being too blunt." You know, stand-up comedy comes to mind. Louis C.K. maybe. I can see Emile and Louis sleeping together, can't you? Sharing a piece of pizza in bed or something? What a rich style. I won't be adopting it anytime soon.
So I'd like to name my own style. I'm not a big-name writer, so it can't be Eubanksism. I read my writing and look for style and everything about it screams, "Accident!" Not train wreck. Or head-on collision. Just...accidental. Not on purpose. But the more I study my own style and read old stories, the more I realize that what has appeared to be this organic process has actually been one of...well...pain and suffering. Painism. Sufferingism.
How did I find my literary style then? Through what process? If it's all an accident how writers get their style, then wouldn't the arbitrariness lead to styles without substance? Makes sense to me. Is accidentalism a fair way of describing what happens to my writing over time, since I wasn't exactly sitting at my keyboard and thinking, "Okay, I need to incorporate some Voltarian doctrines into this," or "I bet if I over-indulged in sentiment and emotionalism, allowed feeling to capture reason and intellect, like in the death scene of Little Nell in Dickens' Old Curiosity Shop, I could make readers wet their books with tears, and oh what a grand thing that would be, Artful Dodger!"
Style (or the lack thereof) arises from personality and experiences. But I really believe it comes from--yikes!--rejection. Yep. Think about it. If I'm one of those guys who doesn't know how to dress and comes to a party and gets giggled at by the girls, I'm feeling rejected, and so the next time I go--if I'm smart--I'll figure out a way to get some advice on adding style to my clothes.
Writing is an act not a thing; my writing style is not an appearance but a whole personality--a personality that carries the corrections and adjustments to the rejection of my previous writing. These corrections and adjustments form my style. Here's an example. In my 20s and even into my 30s, I over-wrote. "Concise" was not in my vocabulary. I had to explain everthing in great detail. I used so many adjectives that my nouns had to have therapy from their feelings of inferiority. Why did I explain the obvious? Because I thought everyone was as dumb as I was. Why did I over-describe? Because I thought that was the best way not to be boring. But I grew up. Or, rather, my writing grew up. Because some folks had the guts to tell me the truth (my wife, for one). So my "style" of ignorance--ignorism--transformed into a more concise and colloquial style. Shorter sentences. Writing more the way I speak. And even my way of using humor in my writing changed with the maturing of my style. Where I used to think of punch lines (with a rim-shot at the end of the paragraph), I now try to use a rhythm throughout the writing that stylizes my writing to the extent that the reader knows I'm not taking myself seriously nor will I accept the notion that I think I'm that funny, when I'm not. I know many funnier writers than I am.
I didn't change my style on purpose. It changed over time. I knew, though, that I had found my style when it was comfortable to write, where I didn't have to think about each word before typing it. Those writers who ponder every word before they type it have style, too. I'm not saying they don't. But for me, I want to write like the hare not the tortoise.
Hm. Hareism.
These are all literary styles. Many of them are named after great writers. I didn't see Eubanksism in there. It should have fallen between dialogism, a style of representing an author's thoughts through his use of a dialogue between two or more of his characters, and eulogism, which is an expression of praise or blessing as used in a eulogy. That's a style? Sheesh. Someone has to die before I can adopt that style. Won't hold my breath.
The playwright, David Mamet, would be a great example of a dialogism writing style:
Anna: Speak.
Claire: This "man."
Anna: Yes.
Claire: This, this, this...
Anna: My "Protector."
Claire: Does he not know...does he not know your "reputation"?
Anna: He is just returned from a long sojourn abroad.
Claire: What? On the Moon?
Anna: Ha ha.
Claire: Is he in commerce on the Moon?
Anna: ...Ha.
And eulogism:
May the Lord Bless Bobby Bearcat on his journey to the next higher place...on the shelf of the Big Toy Store in the sky.
I like floridity. That's a florid style; flowery and highly ornamental writing. But I'm afraid to write like that, because I might be taken for a sissy. Or someone who doesn't have anything to say but sure says nothing in a grand way.
A good example of Kiplingism, would be found in Gunga Din, a long poem that bears an attitude of superiority over and sympathy for nonwhite peoples. Hm. Superiority and sympathy. That makes sense. It's gotta be easier to feel sympathy when you already feel superior to someone. Come to think of it, you can find this style on the editorial pages of The New York Times. (Oh, my. Did I just write something political? I just broke my promise to never write anything political in this blog. Oh, shoot. My delete button won't work. Oh, well. Forgive me.)
Zolaism, which is an overemphasis on the coarser sides of life, taken from the French novelist Emile Zola, who was instrumental in creating a naturalistic style that was based on the belief that one's heredity and social environment determine one's character. Wikipedia: "Whereas realism seeks only to describe subjects as they really are, naturalism also attempts to determine 'scientifically' the underlying forces influencing the actions of its subjects. Naturalistic works often include uncouth or sordid subject matter; Zola's works had a frankness about sexuality along with a pervasive pessimism. Naturalistic works exposed the dark harshness of life, including poverty, racism, sex, prejudice, disease, prostitution, and filth. As a result, naturalistic writers were frequently criticized for being too blunt." You know, stand-up comedy comes to mind. Louis C.K. maybe. I can see Emile and Louis sleeping together, can't you? Sharing a piece of pizza in bed or something? What a rich style. I won't be adopting it anytime soon.
So I'd like to name my own style. I'm not a big-name writer, so it can't be Eubanksism. I read my writing and look for style and everything about it screams, "Accident!" Not train wreck. Or head-on collision. Just...accidental. Not on purpose. But the more I study my own style and read old stories, the more I realize that what has appeared to be this organic process has actually been one of...well...pain and suffering. Painism. Sufferingism.
How did I find my literary style then? Through what process? If it's all an accident how writers get their style, then wouldn't the arbitrariness lead to styles without substance? Makes sense to me. Is accidentalism a fair way of describing what happens to my writing over time, since I wasn't exactly sitting at my keyboard and thinking, "Okay, I need to incorporate some Voltarian doctrines into this," or "I bet if I over-indulged in sentiment and emotionalism, allowed feeling to capture reason and intellect, like in the death scene of Little Nell in Dickens' Old Curiosity Shop, I could make readers wet their books with tears, and oh what a grand thing that would be, Artful Dodger!"
Style (or the lack thereof) arises from personality and experiences. But I really believe it comes from--yikes!--rejection. Yep. Think about it. If I'm one of those guys who doesn't know how to dress and comes to a party and gets giggled at by the girls, I'm feeling rejected, and so the next time I go--if I'm smart--I'll figure out a way to get some advice on adding style to my clothes.
Writing is an act not a thing; my writing style is not an appearance but a whole personality--a personality that carries the corrections and adjustments to the rejection of my previous writing. These corrections and adjustments form my style. Here's an example. In my 20s and even into my 30s, I over-wrote. "Concise" was not in my vocabulary. I had to explain everthing in great detail. I used so many adjectives that my nouns had to have therapy from their feelings of inferiority. Why did I explain the obvious? Because I thought everyone was as dumb as I was. Why did I over-describe? Because I thought that was the best way not to be boring. But I grew up. Or, rather, my writing grew up. Because some folks had the guts to tell me the truth (my wife, for one). So my "style" of ignorance--ignorism--transformed into a more concise and colloquial style. Shorter sentences. Writing more the way I speak. And even my way of using humor in my writing changed with the maturing of my style. Where I used to think of punch lines (with a rim-shot at the end of the paragraph), I now try to use a rhythm throughout the writing that stylizes my writing to the extent that the reader knows I'm not taking myself seriously nor will I accept the notion that I think I'm that funny, when I'm not. I know many funnier writers than I am.
I didn't change my style on purpose. It changed over time. I knew, though, that I had found my style when it was comfortable to write, where I didn't have to think about each word before typing it. Those writers who ponder every word before they type it have style, too. I'm not saying they don't. But for me, I want to write like the hare not the tortoise.
Hm. Hareism.
Comments