This has me thinking of the long battle of Hemingway vs Faulkner. I much prefer Hemingway. And it also reminds me that my father loved Louis L'Amour but thought that Zane Grey got too fancy. But when it comes to "genre" writing versus "literary" writing, I don't measure the work by its writing style as much as I do by the rendition of human complexity. I define "genre" writing as that which is mostly concerned with heroes and villians and "literary" fiction as that which doesn't work in those binaries. But these distinctions aren't binaries for me. There are many sci fi, fantasy, and crime novels that are literary and there are many novels that are marketed as literary but are more genre. I think that a majority of today's most critically acclaimed literary novels are about lightly-flawed heroes of a certain political bent who are surrounded by obvious villains. They are, in other words, genre novels with a slightly larger vocabulary.
Hi Winston, solid reflection. Not sure there’s any space for snobbery on matters of fiction. Readers will like what they like - there’s room for all sorts of stories. What annoys me most is when subjective opinions are passed off as definitive literary statements. Some readers are there for the plot and characters, others for the world-building, others for words, and some for a combo. Joyce egregiously foregrounds words in his storytelling - they’re about as visible as it gets - and is still a brilliant novelist. I suspect the choice of invisible / visible prose properly resides in the author’s judgement regarding how best to tell the story. Dan Brown also knows what he’s doing!
I didn't really take the article to be hateful, Winst. That seems like kind of a hot take 😄 As for the rest, I don't really enjoy the class war of literary vs. genre—and make no mistake: that's precisely what it is. For me, art is finding one's way in a very difficult landscape and somehow, against the odds, remaining true. It's not easy.
Interesting article. I'm naturally an invisible prose writer, but most of the authors I admire most have a much more descriptive, "literary" style. Yes, I'm aware that you don't have to write purple prose to be literary, but literary horror often tends that way. The disconnect between how I want to sound and how I actually sound can sometimes be frustrating.
Great article! As a young writer, I feel like schools teach you to always write with descriptive language, like purple prose, and invisible prose isn't graded well. Due to this, I've always edged towards using purple prose in my writing, but most of the books I like to read use invisible prose. Now that you've highlighted the perks, I'll definitely be more aware of my writing style and make sure the reader has the best experience while reading my work.
Great thread. I guess readers will read what they like and it's good that there's a variety of styles to choose from. Often when I'm reading I notice when the descriptions are "too flowery" or purple as you put it - and those passages tend to take me out of the story for a moment. So, personally, I like to read more invisible prose because it keeps me more engaged with the story. As for writing, I'm not a trained writer but I like to think my prose is more invisible and my goal in writing is to try to keep the pages turning. Plus, I'm not sure if I could write purple prose even if I tried ;-)
Really interesting discussion. I remember reading a review a while back (I can't remember what the book was or who the reviewer was) but I remember one of the major criticisms was that the (unsophisticated) author apparently never used words that would send a reader running for the dictionary! This was, in the mind of the reviewer, a strike _against_ the book. All I could think was: who wants to read novels filled with pretentious words they need a dictionary for? I mean, I think I have a decent vocabulary. I'm not a total moron. But if you can't tell me a story without resorting to linguistic exhibitionism, you're a blowhard and I don't want to read your book. I can appreciate a well-crafted sentence as much as the next reader, and I like an apt metaphor or some attention to rhythm and flow. But what irks me when reading a book is prose that is clearly self-conscious, trying to one-up the story. Unlike the invisible prose you describe, which doesn't call attention to itself, this not only makes itself known, it becomes a constant awkward presence between you and the story. I get that some people love this style, and that's cool (as my dad would say, there's an ass for every chair ;-) But, for me, prose should complement and augment the story, not compete with it for attention.
This piece really helped clarify in my mind how to distinguish my writing of genre fiction (in my cases historical mysteries and space opera science fiction) from more "literary," work. I am proud of my work, it sells well with great reviews and ratings from readers, but i know (and often have found myself apologizing) that my strengths are world-building, plotting and character, not the prose itself. And while I wouldn't characterize the prose of those I feel are better (or care more about) at crafting sentences and scenes that in themselves are almost poetical as writing purple prose, I do like the idea that my prose is of the windowpane style. I don't want my prose to get in the way of, but only enhance the story and character, whereas the other kind of prose seems to invite the reader to simply enjoy the actual flow and imagery in the immediate paragraph, often briefly taking them out of the story line. Perhaps rather the difference is that this sort of writing is more decorative, to be enjoyed for the actual framing or the quality of the glass. As someone who has been a speed reader since childhood, (and who as a professional historian who has been trained to "get through" immense number of books and articles to get at the core meaning, rather than to enjoy the process of reading) I find I seldom actually read every word, much less every sentence. As a result, I probably miss the decorativeness of the language used, or simply find it an impediment to getting at mention. I suspect that the voracious readers of much genre fiction, such as my own, are similar and therefore appreciate that windowpane approach. I know that others, who are reading more for the language, will find much genre fiction too elementary. One of the blessings of being an indie author is that I had time to find those readers who preferred my kind of writing, and didn't have to go through a couple of agent or editor gatekeepers to do so. Again, thanks for this piece and the clarity it brought me.
I think I've encountered beige prose as an alternative term for this. On the Sanderson thing, some people just hate 'genre fiction' and will use any excuse to 'justify' their ivory tower. I've never cared much for scenic views, I look at it and I'm ready to move on, so purple prose doesn't interest me. I'm more interested in watching how animals move when it comes to nature.
Like with Mark, this also helped me understand my own works. I've been showing my writings to the people I know in real life. My mom in particular liked the fact that my writings are "easy to follow". Since my parents are Indonesians, they tend to have trouble grasping the more intricate details of the English language even though they speak if fluently.
The hit piece on Sanderson was written by a journalist who said he'd read around 17 of Sanderson's books. Normally I'd call that a fan!
It was a mean spirited article, not written in good faith.
I've not read any of Sanderson's books. I'd never heard of him until coming across his lectures on YouTube. He's personable, open, and generous, and jokes about his poor spelling when he writes on the whiteboard. He's also ridiculously successful.
Two things I learned today: that there's a term for invisible prose, and that I'm not the only one who had to learn its benefits. :) Invisible prose confused me for a long time because it's so straightforward. I normally like a bit of flowery descriptions, which work really well in fantasy/sci-fi/etc novels, but not so much in crime or mystery books. One day, I realized that not everybody likes the flowery stuff, and that invisible prose really appealed to them because they could forget the narrator and just dive into the action. It also might open the door for someone who doesn't normally consider themselves a reader to find something they love, which is a huge win.
Great article! I really appreciate finding out that there's a term for my writing style, which is more simple and straightforward than flowery or poetic, and I think the term "invisible prose" is perfect for explaining that. It draws the reader into the story instead of drawing attention to the writing itself. While the writing itself may be simple, that doesn't mean the storytelling and worldbuilding are simple. Personally, I believe the story should always take first place. In a movie, you can add all the visuals and special effects you want, but without a strong story with meaningful character development, it falls flat. Same with written fiction - the goal isn't to wow readers with your literary prowess, but to invite them to enter into the story alongside your characters.
May 29, 2023·edited May 30, 2023Liked by Winston Malone
My own writing falls in the invisible prose category rather than the purple prose category. I employ a visual writing style designed to make readers feel like they are watching a movie as much as reading a book. I've had quite a few readers tell me that's why they enjoy my stories.
Purple prose annoys me because I feel like it solely exists to draw attention to itself at the expense of the plot and the characters.
This has me thinking of the long battle of Hemingway vs Faulkner. I much prefer Hemingway. And it also reminds me that my father loved Louis L'Amour but thought that Zane Grey got too fancy. But when it comes to "genre" writing versus "literary" writing, I don't measure the work by its writing style as much as I do by the rendition of human complexity. I define "genre" writing as that which is mostly concerned with heroes and villians and "literary" fiction as that which doesn't work in those binaries. But these distinctions aren't binaries for me. There are many sci fi, fantasy, and crime novels that are literary and there are many novels that are marketed as literary but are more genre. I think that a majority of today's most critically acclaimed literary novels are about lightly-flawed heroes of a certain political bent who are surrounded by obvious villains. They are, in other words, genre novels with a slightly larger vocabulary.
Hi Winston, solid reflection. Not sure there’s any space for snobbery on matters of fiction. Readers will like what they like - there’s room for all sorts of stories. What annoys me most is when subjective opinions are passed off as definitive literary statements. Some readers are there for the plot and characters, others for the world-building, others for words, and some for a combo. Joyce egregiously foregrounds words in his storytelling - they’re about as visible as it gets - and is still a brilliant novelist. I suspect the choice of invisible / visible prose properly resides in the author’s judgement regarding how best to tell the story. Dan Brown also knows what he’s doing!
I didn't really take the article to be hateful, Winst. That seems like kind of a hot take 😄 As for the rest, I don't really enjoy the class war of literary vs. genre—and make no mistake: that's precisely what it is. For me, art is finding one's way in a very difficult landscape and somehow, against the odds, remaining true. It's not easy.
Interesting article. I'm naturally an invisible prose writer, but most of the authors I admire most have a much more descriptive, "literary" style. Yes, I'm aware that you don't have to write purple prose to be literary, but literary horror often tends that way. The disconnect between how I want to sound and how I actually sound can sometimes be frustrating.
Great article! As a young writer, I feel like schools teach you to always write with descriptive language, like purple prose, and invisible prose isn't graded well. Due to this, I've always edged towards using purple prose in my writing, but most of the books I like to read use invisible prose. Now that you've highlighted the perks, I'll definitely be more aware of my writing style and make sure the reader has the best experience while reading my work.
Great thread. I guess readers will read what they like and it's good that there's a variety of styles to choose from. Often when I'm reading I notice when the descriptions are "too flowery" or purple as you put it - and those passages tend to take me out of the story for a moment. So, personally, I like to read more invisible prose because it keeps me more engaged with the story. As for writing, I'm not a trained writer but I like to think my prose is more invisible and my goal in writing is to try to keep the pages turning. Plus, I'm not sure if I could write purple prose even if I tried ;-)
Really interesting discussion. I remember reading a review a while back (I can't remember what the book was or who the reviewer was) but I remember one of the major criticisms was that the (unsophisticated) author apparently never used words that would send a reader running for the dictionary! This was, in the mind of the reviewer, a strike _against_ the book. All I could think was: who wants to read novels filled with pretentious words they need a dictionary for? I mean, I think I have a decent vocabulary. I'm not a total moron. But if you can't tell me a story without resorting to linguistic exhibitionism, you're a blowhard and I don't want to read your book. I can appreciate a well-crafted sentence as much as the next reader, and I like an apt metaphor or some attention to rhythm and flow. But what irks me when reading a book is prose that is clearly self-conscious, trying to one-up the story. Unlike the invisible prose you describe, which doesn't call attention to itself, this not only makes itself known, it becomes a constant awkward presence between you and the story. I get that some people love this style, and that's cool (as my dad would say, there's an ass for every chair ;-) But, for me, prose should complement and augment the story, not compete with it for attention.
This piece really helped clarify in my mind how to distinguish my writing of genre fiction (in my cases historical mysteries and space opera science fiction) from more "literary," work. I am proud of my work, it sells well with great reviews and ratings from readers, but i know (and often have found myself apologizing) that my strengths are world-building, plotting and character, not the prose itself. And while I wouldn't characterize the prose of those I feel are better (or care more about) at crafting sentences and scenes that in themselves are almost poetical as writing purple prose, I do like the idea that my prose is of the windowpane style. I don't want my prose to get in the way of, but only enhance the story and character, whereas the other kind of prose seems to invite the reader to simply enjoy the actual flow and imagery in the immediate paragraph, often briefly taking them out of the story line. Perhaps rather the difference is that this sort of writing is more decorative, to be enjoyed for the actual framing or the quality of the glass. As someone who has been a speed reader since childhood, (and who as a professional historian who has been trained to "get through" immense number of books and articles to get at the core meaning, rather than to enjoy the process of reading) I find I seldom actually read every word, much less every sentence. As a result, I probably miss the decorativeness of the language used, or simply find it an impediment to getting at mention. I suspect that the voracious readers of much genre fiction, such as my own, are similar and therefore appreciate that windowpane approach. I know that others, who are reading more for the language, will find much genre fiction too elementary. One of the blessings of being an indie author is that I had time to find those readers who preferred my kind of writing, and didn't have to go through a couple of agent or editor gatekeepers to do so. Again, thanks for this piece and the clarity it brought me.
I think I've encountered beige prose as an alternative term for this. On the Sanderson thing, some people just hate 'genre fiction' and will use any excuse to 'justify' their ivory tower. I've never cared much for scenic views, I look at it and I'm ready to move on, so purple prose doesn't interest me. I'm more interested in watching how animals move when it comes to nature.
Like with Mark, this also helped me understand my own works. I've been showing my writings to the people I know in real life. My mom in particular liked the fact that my writings are "easy to follow". Since my parents are Indonesians, they tend to have trouble grasping the more intricate details of the English language even though they speak if fluently.
Most of my writing is invisible prose, this newsletter helps me understand this better. Thank you!
The hit piece on Sanderson was written by a journalist who said he'd read around 17 of Sanderson's books. Normally I'd call that a fan!
It was a mean spirited article, not written in good faith.
I've not read any of Sanderson's books. I'd never heard of him until coming across his lectures on YouTube. He's personable, open, and generous, and jokes about his poor spelling when he writes on the whiteboard. He's also ridiculously successful.
Two things I learned today: that there's a term for invisible prose, and that I'm not the only one who had to learn its benefits. :) Invisible prose confused me for a long time because it's so straightforward. I normally like a bit of flowery descriptions, which work really well in fantasy/sci-fi/etc novels, but not so much in crime or mystery books. One day, I realized that not everybody likes the flowery stuff, and that invisible prose really appealed to them because they could forget the narrator and just dive into the action. It also might open the door for someone who doesn't normally consider themselves a reader to find something they love, which is a huge win.
In Literature, Invisible Prose is to Vivid Prose as Negative Space is to Positive Space in Art; each is necessary to create Beauty.
Great article! I really appreciate finding out that there's a term for my writing style, which is more simple and straightforward than flowery or poetic, and I think the term "invisible prose" is perfect for explaining that. It draws the reader into the story instead of drawing attention to the writing itself. While the writing itself may be simple, that doesn't mean the storytelling and worldbuilding are simple. Personally, I believe the story should always take first place. In a movie, you can add all the visuals and special effects you want, but without a strong story with meaningful character development, it falls flat. Same with written fiction - the goal isn't to wow readers with your literary prowess, but to invite them to enter into the story alongside your characters.
My own writing falls in the invisible prose category rather than the purple prose category. I employ a visual writing style designed to make readers feel like they are watching a movie as much as reading a book. I've had quite a few readers tell me that's why they enjoy my stories.
Purple prose annoys me because I feel like it solely exists to draw attention to itself at the expense of the plot and the characters.