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.
My dad loves Louis L’Amour, too! I’ll have to ask if he read any Zane Grey.
I admit that I unintentionally conflated several nuanced ideas into one oversimplified article. Reading everyone’s comments has given me more insight into these definitions, especially yours as I hadn’t ever thought of genre and literary fiction in those ways. I totally agree that they aren’t binaries. I felt compelled to write this article because I didn’t like the notion that someone’s writing was considered “bad” based solely on their prose, conveniently leaving out the other aspects of telling a good story. Possibly because I’m fearful that it encapsulates the way I approach storytelling. But I could have framed it better than alluding to a false dichotomy where literary styles are pitted against one another. I appreciate and value your perspective, Sherman!
Have you read “The Name of the Wind” by Patrick Rothfuss? That’s a really good example of a fantasy writer leaning into literary fiction.
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!
Hey Adrian, you’re absolutely right. It’s all subjective and the readers have the final say on what they like. I’ve read things that make me stop and put the book down just to let it sizzle. Those moments are what make it fun and unique. You also make a good point about what readers are there for. There are so many aspects of telling a compelling story and prose is just one of them. I could have framed this article in so many different ways, but I like that it has become a discussion so that we can fine tune these nuances a bit. Thanks for commenting!
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.
Thanks for reading and commenting, T. Sorry if it seemed like a hot take. I initially started the article out in a different tone and edited out a lot of my hotter takes loool. Felt like it was necessary to at least keep in the motivating factor for me writing it.
You’re so right about staying true to yourself. I think the problem with my post (as I reflect on the comments) is that it oversimplifies the issue by creating a false dichotomy. I never meant for it to be like that, but more of an exploration for my own writing and how I hope to get certain stories out. It’s much more complex for sure.
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.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Leigh! I admire many literary writers, too. I fear I may have set up a false dichotomy and should tweak the article a bit. Purple prose is apparently a pejorative and I've made it sound like all writing that isn't invisible is purple. Let me know if that's the case.
There's no way I sound like the way I write. I'm a terrible speaker. For me, that's the beauty of writing!
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.
I'm glad you found it helpful. Thinking back on school, I don't recall ever being enticed to write anything at all. Maybe it was my curriculum, but the bar was set so low that they were happy to have a student willing to take the extra time to formulate thoughts and opinions about anything.
In my first Creative Writing class, the fact that I wrote at all made me stand out and the teacher would force me to stand in front of the class and read my short stories. I'm introverted and don't like public speaking, so this was an odd experience. The stories weren't even good thinking back on them. What I'm getting at is the mere act of writing is a step in the right direction.
Another example of this are the works found on Wattpad. Some of the stories had racked up millions upon millions of views, but was it the quality of the prose in most cases? Doubtful. It was because someone had a good concept for a story and people were eager to read it, grammar errors and all.
Upon rereading your initial comment, I’d like to clarify that just because your writing isn’t invisible, that doesn’t make it purple. From what I understand, purple is overly flowery to the point that it becomes a distraction. Please don’t change your style because of this article. I was simply trying to highlight what I value in writing and reading, and that may be different for you. Stay true to yourself and how you want to tell the story!
For sure! I meant to say that I'd be more aware of when it's necessary to use flowery language and when it isn't, because I've noticed that it can detract from the reader's experience sometimes.
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 ;-)
Hey Dan, thanks for dropping by to comment. Yes, it’s very subjective and there’s something for everyone! Fantasy is such a complex genre already, so it doesn’t need much added flowery-ness. It’s vivid and full of wonder and excitement, the last thing I want is to wade through the text and lose track of what’s happening. Plus, fantasy and sci-fi have made-up terminology that is already a hurdle for the reader. I wonder if that has something to do with the push for invisible prose in genre fiction? I’m sure there’s many aspects to it.
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.
Great comment. I’m starting to see how there’s a fine balance at play. For example, I’m listening to this fantasy novel published 15 years ago and it’s well-written, mature, and sophisticated. However, there are lines like “He ran fast, but doubt ran faster.” Where I’m like, “Wait a second. Doubt runs faster?” Lol I don’t know! I like it, but at the same time it pulls me out of the story. I’m going to be a complete hypocrite when it comes to this though because I’ve got some lines in The Angel of War that are like that but to me I like them so much that I can’t delete them haha. This is probably why editors exist to tell authors what they don’t want to hear. XD
Haha, I hear you. Sometimes phrases like that make me do a double-take and think too literally about them, which makes them distracting to read, and sometimes I fall in love with them. I'm also guilty of writing them :-D There is this one novel I despise that has about 10 of those on every page, and it was grueling for me to get through because I found them all so awkward and, frankly, ridiculous ("His voice wheedled and ducked, like a weasel escaping the nest."), but I read other people's reviews of it and they talk about it like it's pure poetry. I guess there's no way of knowing how something is going to land with a reader. I say just write what you like and let the chips fall... but it also probably can't hurt to let an editor take a red pen to the really egregious stuff for good measure ;-)
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.
Hello, M. Louisa Locke. Thank you for writing such a detailed and thoughtful response.
You make a lot a good points in your comment. I agree that not everything written beautifully is purple prose. I’ve since removed that from the article because I hadn’t realized that it was a pejorative term and didn’t intend to frame it that way. I would love to be able to speed read, but I get caught up in reading every word and that’s also why I prefer clear and easy-to-read prose that allows me to get into the story faster.
I wonder if genre fiction trends toward windowpane because the world building is already so complex that it would be an added layer that might bar entry for some folks. But then again, writers can’t cater to everyone, so I don’t know how much water that holds in the end.
I’m glad to hear that the article helped you in some way. Us indies have to stick together!
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.
Hey Michael, happy to hear this was useful to you. The point about your family is very important. That's partially why I'm inclined to write more clearly and to the point lately as well. There's something about starting out more vanilla, or, as Will brought up, "beige". I think it allows for more growth later on when you have room to experiment with personal style. Right now I'm more concerned with getting these complex ideas out of my head!
It's good to hear that you connected with it on some level. Sometimes when I write these posts, I'm not sure how they will come across. Thanks for commenting, Mark!
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.
Hey Olivia, thanks for commenting. It definitely has its uses! The objective of the author is at the heart of the work subconsciously in some ways. I think where it gets muddied is when there are things in the story that don't pertain to the story itself, descriptors that sound nice but then never play a role in the outcome of events taking place. Lately, I've been trying to be more cognizant of these things and if it doesn't fit, I cut it out. I agree with your points about finding new readers. That is ultimately the goal, for me at least, to allow my stories to be read by as many interested people as possible.
Thank you so much for making this point. You need both indeed. I may have over-emphasized my dislike of the WIRED article while drafting up this post and even though I toned down certain aspects of it, it still may have come across as derogatory against other forms of writing. That wasn’t my intention. I wanted to highlight the fact that genre fiction gets a bad rap for the most bizarre reasons. And I agree, vivid prose is beautiful and has its place!
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.
Hey Sarah, thanks for reading and commenting! I’m happy that you found the article useful.
You make some really good observations. I think that was the impetus for this article in the first place, that I thought it was extremely odd that someone would criticize someone’s writing by their prose alone. Writing is so much more than prose, it’s a beautiful symphony being orchestrated, but in this case, the less the reader can distinguish each instrument being played, the better (IMO).
The movie example you bring up is another good one. Special effects in a movie can make or break it for some viewers, but there’s always a level of suspension of disbelief that plays a part in the process. If the movie has outdated visual effects but the story is amazing, then people are willing to look past it regardless.
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.
That’s awesome, John! Do you think it’s a generational thing? Your comment about telling stories as if they are movies seems to be a common thread I’ve heard at conventions. I, too, enjoy writing stories in a very visual prose sort of way. I wonder if it has something to do with how we enjoy processing stories in general?
I think it could be a generational thing. Readers have shorter attention spans in the digital age with the proliferation of social media. Writers have had to adapt their storytelling to draw readers and keep them engaged in their stories.
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.
My dad loves Louis L’Amour, too! I’ll have to ask if he read any Zane Grey.
I admit that I unintentionally conflated several nuanced ideas into one oversimplified article. Reading everyone’s comments has given me more insight into these definitions, especially yours as I hadn’t ever thought of genre and literary fiction in those ways. I totally agree that they aren’t binaries. I felt compelled to write this article because I didn’t like the notion that someone’s writing was considered “bad” based solely on their prose, conveniently leaving out the other aspects of telling a good story. Possibly because I’m fearful that it encapsulates the way I approach storytelling. But I could have framed it better than alluding to a false dichotomy where literary styles are pitted against one another. I appreciate and value your perspective, Sherman!
Have you read “The Name of the Wind” by Patrick Rothfuss? That’s a really good example of a fantasy writer leaning into literary fiction.
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!
Hey Adrian, you’re absolutely right. It’s all subjective and the readers have the final say on what they like. I’ve read things that make me stop and put the book down just to let it sizzle. Those moments are what make it fun and unique. You also make a good point about what readers are there for. There are so many aspects of telling a compelling story and prose is just one of them. I could have framed this article in so many different ways, but I like that it has become a discussion so that we can fine tune these nuances a bit. Thanks for commenting!
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.
Thanks for reading and commenting, T. Sorry if it seemed like a hot take. I initially started the article out in a different tone and edited out a lot of my hotter takes loool. Felt like it was necessary to at least keep in the motivating factor for me writing it.
You’re so right about staying true to yourself. I think the problem with my post (as I reflect on the comments) is that it oversimplifies the issue by creating a false dichotomy. I never meant for it to be like that, but more of an exploration for my own writing and how I hope to get certain stories out. It’s much more complex for sure.
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.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Leigh! I admire many literary writers, too. I fear I may have set up a false dichotomy and should tweak the article a bit. Purple prose is apparently a pejorative and I've made it sound like all writing that isn't invisible is purple. Let me know if that's the case.
There's no way I sound like the way I write. I'm a terrible speaker. For me, that's the beauty of writing!
Yeah, I might suggest clarifying that a bit. Good article otherwise, though.
Thank you, Leigh! I’ll see if I can adjust some things to make it more clear (oh, the irony!)
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.
I'm glad you found it helpful. Thinking back on school, I don't recall ever being enticed to write anything at all. Maybe it was my curriculum, but the bar was set so low that they were happy to have a student willing to take the extra time to formulate thoughts and opinions about anything.
In my first Creative Writing class, the fact that I wrote at all made me stand out and the teacher would force me to stand in front of the class and read my short stories. I'm introverted and don't like public speaking, so this was an odd experience. The stories weren't even good thinking back on them. What I'm getting at is the mere act of writing is a step in the right direction.
Another example of this are the works found on Wattpad. Some of the stories had racked up millions upon millions of views, but was it the quality of the prose in most cases? Doubtful. It was because someone had a good concept for a story and people were eager to read it, grammar errors and all.
That's a very valid point. I suppose my environment just focused more on the presentation of ideas instead of the ideas themselves.
Upon rereading your initial comment, I’d like to clarify that just because your writing isn’t invisible, that doesn’t make it purple. From what I understand, purple is overly flowery to the point that it becomes a distraction. Please don’t change your style because of this article. I was simply trying to highlight what I value in writing and reading, and that may be different for you. Stay true to yourself and how you want to tell the story!
For sure! I meant to say that I'd be more aware of when it's necessary to use flowery language and when it isn't, because I've noticed that it can detract from the reader's experience sometimes.
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 ;-)
Hey Dan, thanks for dropping by to comment. Yes, it’s very subjective and there’s something for everyone! Fantasy is such a complex genre already, so it doesn’t need much added flowery-ness. It’s vivid and full of wonder and excitement, the last thing I want is to wade through the text and lose track of what’s happening. Plus, fantasy and sci-fi have made-up terminology that is already a hurdle for the reader. I wonder if that has something to do with the push for invisible prose in genre fiction? I’m sure there’s many aspects to it.
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.
Great comment. I’m starting to see how there’s a fine balance at play. For example, I’m listening to this fantasy novel published 15 years ago and it’s well-written, mature, and sophisticated. However, there are lines like “He ran fast, but doubt ran faster.” Where I’m like, “Wait a second. Doubt runs faster?” Lol I don’t know! I like it, but at the same time it pulls me out of the story. I’m going to be a complete hypocrite when it comes to this though because I’ve got some lines in The Angel of War that are like that but to me I like them so much that I can’t delete them haha. This is probably why editors exist to tell authors what they don’t want to hear. XD
Haha, I hear you. Sometimes phrases like that make me do a double-take and think too literally about them, which makes them distracting to read, and sometimes I fall in love with them. I'm also guilty of writing them :-D There is this one novel I despise that has about 10 of those on every page, and it was grueling for me to get through because I found them all so awkward and, frankly, ridiculous ("His voice wheedled and ducked, like a weasel escaping the nest."), but I read other people's reviews of it and they talk about it like it's pure poetry. I guess there's no way of knowing how something is going to land with a reader. I say just write what you like and let the chips fall... but it also probably can't hurt to let an editor take a red pen to the really egregious stuff for good measure ;-)
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.
Hello, M. Louisa Locke. Thank you for writing such a detailed and thoughtful response.
You make a lot a good points in your comment. I agree that not everything written beautifully is purple prose. I’ve since removed that from the article because I hadn’t realized that it was a pejorative term and didn’t intend to frame it that way. I would love to be able to speed read, but I get caught up in reading every word and that’s also why I prefer clear and easy-to-read prose that allows me to get into the story faster.
I wonder if genre fiction trends toward windowpane because the world building is already so complex that it would be an added layer that might bar entry for some folks. But then again, writers can’t cater to everyone, so I don’t know how much water that holds in the end.
I’m glad to hear that the article helped you in some way. Us indies have to stick together!
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.
Yes, beige prose does fit this! Thanks for bringing that up. I'll edit the article to reflect that.
I love that metaphor of animals moving through nature as opposed to static, scenic views. Very compelling.
If we're making them up, I'd like to nominate my preference for denim prose 😏😄 Or perhaps black leather prose. Or latex prose.
There ya go!
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.
Hey Michael, happy to hear this was useful to you. The point about your family is very important. That's partially why I'm inclined to write more clearly and to the point lately as well. There's something about starting out more vanilla, or, as Will brought up, "beige". I think it allows for more growth later on when you have room to experiment with personal style. Right now I'm more concerned with getting these complex ideas out of my head!
Most of my writing is invisible prose, this newsletter helps me understand this better. Thank you!
It's good to hear that you connected with it on some level. Sometimes when I write these posts, I'm not sure how they will come across. Thanks for commenting, Mark!
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.
You’re right! I don’t know what he was thinking when he wrote that, but Sanderson is super nice and didn’t deserve that.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Caz!
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.
Hey Olivia, thanks for commenting. It definitely has its uses! The objective of the author is at the heart of the work subconsciously in some ways. I think where it gets muddied is when there are things in the story that don't pertain to the story itself, descriptors that sound nice but then never play a role in the outcome of events taking place. Lately, I've been trying to be more cognizant of these things and if it doesn't fit, I cut it out. I agree with your points about finding new readers. That is ultimately the goal, for me at least, to allow my stories to be read by as many interested people as possible.
In Literature, Invisible Prose is to Vivid Prose as Negative Space is to Positive Space in Art; each is necessary to create Beauty.
Thank you so much for making this point. You need both indeed. I may have over-emphasized my dislike of the WIRED article while drafting up this post and even though I toned down certain aspects of it, it still may have come across as derogatory against other forms of writing. That wasn’t my intention. I wanted to highlight the fact that genre fiction gets a bad rap for the most bizarre reasons. And I agree, vivid prose is beautiful and has its place!
It's a great point - Beige is pretty a color too 💖
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.
Hey Sarah, thanks for reading and commenting! I’m happy that you found the article useful.
You make some really good observations. I think that was the impetus for this article in the first place, that I thought it was extremely odd that someone would criticize someone’s writing by their prose alone. Writing is so much more than prose, it’s a beautiful symphony being orchestrated, but in this case, the less the reader can distinguish each instrument being played, the better (IMO).
The movie example you bring up is another good one. Special effects in a movie can make or break it for some viewers, but there’s always a level of suspension of disbelief that plays a part in the process. If the movie has outdated visual effects but the story is amazing, then people are willing to look past it regardless.
Great comment, Sarah!
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.
That’s awesome, John! Do you think it’s a generational thing? Your comment about telling stories as if they are movies seems to be a common thread I’ve heard at conventions. I, too, enjoy writing stories in a very visual prose sort of way. I wonder if it has something to do with how we enjoy processing stories in general?
I think it could be a generational thing. Readers have shorter attention spans in the digital age with the proliferation of social media. Writers have had to adapt their storytelling to draw readers and keep them engaged in their stories.