ADPA 2-3: Style · 1:11am Feb 16th, 2014
Note: This post will focus on literature a bit more than other mediums. As mentioned in ADPA 2-1, style translates in a non-linear way between art forms, making a more generalized post difficult. Hopefully, the general applicability of these ideas is still clear enough.
~~~
~~~
Style is the second way in which a piece can use shared frameworks with an audience to aid in communication. This concept goes down so far as the language employed in literature; English, for instance, is a shared language and framework for the discussion of concepts. In a literary work, the style of a piece describes how one employs the language of choice to convey their ideas; decisions such as point of view, narrative style, and narrative tense all fall under the style of a piece.
Much as how it would be difficult to explain the workings on English in every literary piece that employs it, introducing an audience to a new style can be a cumbersome process. Since the audience does (presumably) speak the language being used, however, there is some leeway; they know the meaning of the words being used, and an author can attempt to elegantly ease the transition into a new way of delivering concept. This will be covered in more detail in the upcoming ADPA post on artistic innovation.
Because of the difficulties of introducing a new style, it is often preferable for an artist to rely on a recognized, existing framework for conveying prose. Certain styles have become associated with certain genres over time. Conforming on both levels can certainly ease an audience into a new story, giving them a sense of familiarity, and confidence in how they're reading the piece.
Similar to genre, however, is the problem of finding a good fit for a given piece; existing styles may not accurately convey the tone or concept of a work, or may be associated with a very different genre from one the piece is otherwise conformed to. A work may even require multiple styles (much as it may borrow elements of multiple genres) to properly deliver its concept. As with multiple genres, this can lead to cohesion issues if done poorly.
As an aspect of delivery, style should be chosen or designed based on what the artist is trying to convey; even a subtle shift in style, which delivers the same concepts differently (Such as first person to third person in literature, or a different brush technique in painting), can have a powerful influence on how a work is perceived.
Generally, the two major concerns for style are how accurately it captures what the artist wishes to say, and how understandable it is to the audience. Thus, the two major ways a style can fail are by either not matching up properly with the concept/tone it is meant to deliver, or by being incomprehensible to the audience; the issue of incomprehensibility can depend on an audience's exposure to a given style, however, and as a result can be more difficult for an artist to gauge.
The typical consensus in literature is that the audience should be able to figure out a given style just by having a solid grasp of the language, but there are acclaimed exceptions to even this rule. Poetry could be considered literature which has taken style to an extreme (More on poetry in later posts), and in some cases, a working knowledge of the language is not sufficient to grasp the underlying style of a poetic form in a piece. Some works, both in poetry and traditional literature, rely on the style being unclear at first, and the reader slowly grasping it as they progress through the piece. Some famous paintings also look nonsensical at first glance, but reveal more order and technique on closer inspection.
The consistency of style in a piece is also an important topic; generally, a style should remain as consistent as possible to avoid confusion on the part of the audience, unless there is a specific reason to deviate. This essentially brings up the same argument as choosing a style to begin with; both accuracy to concept and comprehensibility to the audience must be considered. 'Breaking style' or changing styles can be jarring to an audience, which may or may not be the intention of the artist. In some cases, however, the transition may be so subtle that it goes unnoticed.
The requirements that a style must fulfill differ greatly from once piece to the next. Some works of literature attempt to capture what it's like to think/live as a given character, putting the point of view inside of their mind. Since different people can process information and thought very differently, this may necessitate a very different style from character to character. It may even change for a given character over the course of a piece (That may, indeed, be the point of a whole piece). Some characters (for instance, those with mental illness) may not even have a consistent mental style to begin with. Even a dramatic shift in mood might be depicted best with a stylistic change (this technique is seen more frequently in visual mediums than literature, occurring most frequently in comics and animations). Another piece might be trying to capture the atmosphere of a given area, rather than the mindset of a particular character. If the atmosphere (or area of focus) changes, it may be necessary for the style to shift accordingly. The requirements set for a style depend on what the artist is using that style to convey about their concept; different works will rely on style to different amounts.
Mediums such as drawing rely on a cultural understanding of what is acceptable to simplify out of a drawing compared to real life, as well as what exaggerations are appropriate. As with literature, a piece might slowly familiarize an audience with a given unusual style, which may in turn become accepted. Likewise, older drawings and paintings may use antiquated styles that make them appear ridiculous by modern standards. In general, style is involved where multiple valid possible deliveries exist, leaving the decision of which to use up to preference. The evolution of styles over time will be discussed in greater detail in the upcoming ADPA post on innovation.
I'll give you credit for matching your style to what you wish to say--this feels exactly like the style Umberto Eco uses in his more scholarly works. But it's very ponderous, and unlike in Eco's case, I don't feel like it needs to take quite this long to parse what exactly you're talking about. Take the above, for instance, which could just as easily be:
To be honest, I'm getting pretty skeptical. If you were posting about spelling and had terrible spelling, I'd have stopped reading by now. Right now, you're posting about delivery with impractically dense delivery, and I'm starting to feel a little
1839299
I chose to make my post more accurate to what I wished to say over making it more comprehensible to the audience. Your simplified version cuts out some of the nuance; I posted summaries of what each term means in the ADPA 2-1 post, which are intended to be the more simplified overviews, and thus remove the need to do so here.
I also don't see this delivery as being impractically dense, but that can be difficult for an author to gauge, since I can't be sure what a given reader might have been exposed to.
Slightly humorous reflective assessment of your comment aside, I appreciate you taking the time to provide constructive criticism. I was considering some aspects of this series that may rely too much on reader inference, because elaborating on them in the posts themselves would form a digression and break the more formal style. These documents are organized as much for reference as explanation.
Consequently, I intend to write a few "special" posts that are more explanatory, and delve into topics that are related to the series, but wouldn't be appropriate for their own full ADPA posts. Some of those may help individuals that are confused.