Erm, didn't mean to go on so long, and apologies if I come across as spouting obnoxious or obvious things to the writers' crowd, it isn't my intention! ;)
Not being a hypocrite, the -last- thing I am every going to criticize someone for is the length of their posts <wry g>. And I find the reply interesting because if you cut certain words, it could just as easily be a discussion about your writing process; it's all creative.
When I was talking with one of my cover artists on the phone, she said that she works out the details in the colour sketches, and also works out the flaws, sometimes changing the picture as she goes -- the painters version of first draft, in which something that seemed like a great idea in conception just doesn't work with the -words-. Well, not words in her case <g>.
But I also remember, during our first conversation, that the artist said she was never going to be try to do a photo-realistic type of painting because to her it didn't look like a painting; it looked like a photo.
As for invisible methods of creation ... :/. One of the things that I often hear complaints about -is- my prose, or the difficulty of getting around my prose to the story beneath it.
I think my favourite usenet post, way back (which someone kindly emailed me, because I would have missed it otherwise) was written by someone who almost -loathed- my word-for-word style. Why was it my favourite? Because he'd clearly read every word I'd written to that point, and I think more than once, and while he jumped up and down about the style, he said that the characters were interesting enough -- barely -- that he could keep going. He was, I think, the only poster in that thread who -had- read everything. So it tickled my funny bone.
I kind of like words. If I have to work at them, if I'm aware of them, I still like them -- it changes the texture of the story for me, that's all. I do understand that in the interest of accessibility, the less visible the prose, the better.
But I don't write convoluted sentences on purpose, and even in editing, they seem perfectly natural -to me- <rueful g>.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
Re: Parallels...
Date: 2004-07-14 08:23 pm (UTC)Not being a hypocrite, the -last- thing I am every going to criticize someone for is the length of their posts <wry g>. And I find the reply interesting because if you cut certain words, it could just as easily be a discussion about your writing process; it's all creative.
When I was talking with one of my cover artists on the phone, she said that she works out the details in the colour sketches, and also works out the flaws, sometimes changing the picture as she goes -- the painters version of first draft, in which something that seemed like a great idea in conception just doesn't work with the -words-. Well, not words in her case <g>.
But I also remember, during our first conversation, that the artist said she was never going to be try to do a photo-realistic type of painting because to her it didn't look like a painting; it looked like a photo.
As for invisible methods of creation ... :/. One of the things that I often hear complaints about -is- my prose, or the difficulty of getting around my prose to the story beneath it.
I think my favourite usenet post, way back (which someone kindly emailed me, because I would have missed it otherwise) was written by someone who almost -loathed- my word-for-word style. Why was it my favourite? Because he'd clearly read every word I'd written to that point, and I think more than once, and while he jumped up and down about the style, he said that the characters were interesting enough -- barely -- that he could keep going. He was, I think, the only poster in that thread who -had- read everything. So it tickled my funny bone.
I kind of like words. If I have to work at them, if I'm aware of them, I still like them -- it changes the texture of the story for me, that's all. I do understand that in the interest of accessibility, the less visible the prose, the better.
But I don't write convoluted sentences on purpose, and even in editing, they seem perfectly natural -to me- <rueful g>.