Where does the balance fall between writing conventionally and writing with a unique voice?
If we take someone like Ayn Rand for example, it's almost guaranteed you are either going to be offended by the way she puts words together or you are going to be relieved that someone could communicate in a way that is so eloquently straightforward. My writing style involves a lot of uncommon pairings of parts of speech (such as "eloquently straightforward") that may appear as bad writing to some but refreshing to others.
Likewise, sometimes I'll use two modifiers that mean similar but distinct things because to me it paints a more accurate picture, but to others it may be redundant and pedantic (oops I did it again).
I think purpose matters too. The purpose of my book is not *just* to communicate useful information. It is to introduce me to the reader. I want them to feel like they are having a conversation with me, and that they recognize me behind the text. This will be even more evident as I narrate it myself. My writing has been referred to by some as "full of signature Diehlian wisdom" and "beautifully logical", but others have said I come across as verbose and intentionally condescending.
Share your blood sweat tears query for feedback and lend your hard-won expertise to others
1 post • Page 1 of 1
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest