Today in class, we read a really cool essay by Kate Ronald, a professor of English at some university or other. She wrote this essay called "Style: The Hidden Agenda in Composition Class, or, One Reader's Confession." Anyway, I just thought that her essay was really great, and in it, she wrote about writing style and how particular writing styles persuade more readers to actual read what you write. It was really interesting because I'd never really thought of style in the way she described it. I just thought I'd post it here since there seem to be quite a lot of people concerned with writing style, particularly with what it is, how to develop one, and how to figure out what style to use. Kate starts off by confessing that sometimes, when she reads her students' work, she is unconsciously swayed by each students' particular writing style.  She then goes on to explain how "style" was taught by rhetoric and composition teachers back in the day. Plato and Aristotle were great advocates of rhetoric, but when people started using and absuing it, they got concerned that people were emphasizing style over content. Nowadays, a lot of teachers are trying to steer students away from style and getting them to focus more on content. But Kate confesses that although teachers say that style doesn't matter... well, it does matter a little. My professor always says that the first rule of writing is to get your reader to read the first sentence. The second rule is to get them to read the second sentence. The 165th rule is to get them to read the 165th sentence, and to give them the desire to keep reading.

Here's a quick example of the differences between style. 

Almost as soon as I stepped off the train, my lungs filled with dryness and dust. The rays of sunshine that pierced my skin felt like drops of acid, and it only worsened as seconds passed since I left the air-conditioned bliss of the first-class car. I bared my teeth, glowering in my father's direction — he was conversing with the valet, the scorching heat obviously not bothering him at all, and oblivious to my troubles — and I wished I were back home. Taking a few cumbersome steps forward, I intended to tap my father on the shoulder and argue my case. But I was just a few strides away when he turned in my direction. The smile on his face made his eyes crinkle with glee, a truly happy smile. I couldn't bring myself to complain after that.

Versus:

When I got off the train, I choked. The sun was hot and my skin hurt because of the heat. It got worse the more time I spent outside, and I wished that I'd stayed inside the train. I frowned at my father's back. He didn't seem to notice the heat, or my discomfort. I walked forward and I was going to ask him to take me back home. But he turned to me and smiled. I couldn't ask him after that. 

So, both these short passages basically express the same ideas: the narrator gets off a train, it's hot and stuffy, it's uncomfortable, and she wants to ask her dad to take her back to wherever they came from. The difference, then, is how these two passages express that idea. The second passage is quick, it's straight-forward, and it gets work done. Perfectly fine! The difference, though, is the the first passage, although a bit longer and perhaps even overwrought, is that it doesn't just tell the reader what happened; the first passage intends to make the reader see the story and hear the narrator instead of just reading the words. Further, it gives you even more ifnormation about the scene. From, the second passage, all we can know is that the character has traveled a long way, she's with her father, she's uncomfortable, she cares about what her father thinks. But from the second passage, we can also conclude that this character is probably pretty wealthy ("air-conditioned bliss of the first-class car" & "conversing with the valet"); not only is the setting hot, it is also dry; this character's discomfort is apparent in her movements ("a few cumbersome steps"); this character is probably pretty assertive otherwise ("intending to...argue my case"); her father has a wrinkly smile, and the wrinkles he gets in his eyes is probably how she can tell a genuine smile from a fake one. 

There's really no set definition as to what writing style is. It's something every person kinda has to develop on their own, because it can't exactly be taught. Now, don't take this as me saying that if you write like the second passage then you're doing it wrong. It's not like that at all. In some cases, the style used in the second passage would be perfectly appropriate. Maybe if you're writing a really long story, the second style would be a lot more efficient at moving the plot right along, and in that case, that sort of style would have been the best choice. I think it depends on what your intention is, what you hope to accomplish with what you're writing. But, I think, when writing fictional stories like people on AFF do, it's best to write in a way that lets readers know that you're invested in your story and there is a living, breatjing person who is narrating this story. Kate Ronald says that the difference between what she thinks is a good paper and a bad paper is style, in how the presence of writer is felt by the reader, and the degree of honesty that the writer uses in trying to communicate with her or his readers. Writing for the sake of getting your readers to see the story unfold the way it does in your imagination. Now of course, everyone is different and we won't all see the same thing. Here's a couple of tips that Kate Ronald gives in her essay:

Write as if you're saying something to somebody: What Kate is trying to say is, when you write, try to imagine that actual people will be reading it, so write as if you were writing to a person who is genuinely interested in what you're writing. I often say that even though writers should definitely write for themselves, I think we still need to respect the fact that readers are giving us their time and attention and they're expecting something good. I think by writing with the audience in our heads is a good way of delivering that.

Write a lot, even outside of school: In this section, Kate gave a really cool idea for a writing exercise to develop style. She said to pick a book you like and then copy down a passage word for word. Doing this will help expose you to different ways of writing. And then, after copying it, write your own passage, imitating the style in the passage from that book (word for word, part-of-speech for part-of-speech. Here's a quick example that I decided to try:

I'm pretty sure Marv'll be at me again soon, wanting me to run with him in preparation for the Annual Sledge Game. For a while, I even manage a few laughs thinking of it—seeing us running barefoot through the dew and the frightening nettles of people's front lawns. There's no point running in shoes if the game's played barefoot.

From Markus Zusak's I Am The Messenger

My version:

I'm doubtful that Christine'll be here anytime soon, wanting me to run lines with her in preparation for the Fall Drama. For a while, I even manage a scoff of sarcasm thinking of it—seeing us reciting dialogue in pseudo-British accents in the afternoon and the hallowed halls of the community theater. There's no point in practicing lines and cues in the summer when the play's not for another seven months.

Ok, not the best attempt. I had to look up what in the world "nettles" were, and apparently, it just means plants. Also, I've no idea how I came up with "scoff of sarcasm" (whut), but anyway, you get the gist of the exercise. It's pretty cool because ti teaches you a bit of discipline, makes you more aware of what you're writing. Also, I've never written the line "dialogue in pseudo-British accents" in a piece of writing before, and it's pretty cool to discover what you can write. Also, Zusak is awesome.

Read your work-in-progress out loud, Kate continues. And preferably to a real person. She also advises people to cut out all the words that you can out of a draft. This one is really hard for me because I tend to write a lot of words, and it's hard to be more decisive over which words are needed and which aren't. But this is a good way to see if you've actually written something substantial, or if you're just being super wordy. Thomas Jefferson once said "The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do."

Finally, Kate advises us to actually write about our own writing style. And this is something that I am starting to. I find that scrutinizing my own writing style gets me more motivated to find new ways to talking about things. What Kate is really trying to tell us is to actually commit to our writing and our ideas and our readers. Write about what you want to someone you want to write to. Love your words, but also love your audience.