# Could this possibly evolve into a whole new writing style?



## belthagor (Sep 24, 2013)

Hello my f̶a̶n̶s̶ friends....

As of recently I have been having much fun a̶b̶u̶s̶i̶n̶g̶ using for perfectly normal purposes a strikethrough text tool, usually for single words, obviously t̶o̶ ̶a̶n̶n̶o̶y̶ ̶p̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶a̶n̶d̶ ̶c̶a̶u̶s̶e̶ ̶c̶o̶m̶e̶d̶i̶c̶ ̶s̶i̶t̶u̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶s̶ to better myself as a writer, and imagine what people might be feeling after reading my clearly rejected material which I left somewhat intact so people could still see it. In all seriousness I don't feel it should be used innapropriately, and there are probably all kind of uses for it. I have used it in my book which is still not done yet, and it has made it look totally unique. When I previewed it before as a test, the strikethrough words were not rejected by Createspace -Yay! So could you help me think up some uses and write lets say no more than a paragraph here. Show me how you would use the ability to cross out words but leave them visible in writing.

Talk to me about any thoughts you have about how this tool would make people feel, what effects it could have, and stuff. I would post a link but it will probably get removed, so if you need to find it just google strikethrough and the website on the list called fsymbols is the one which works with most text, at least I never had a problem using it.

Your Eternal s̶e̶r̶v̶a̶n̶t̶ student.
Belthagor


----------



## Terry D (Sep 24, 2013)

I would find it beyond annoying in a story. It can be funny in an e-mail or a forum post, but it not in a story where there is great value placed on choosing the right word the first time. Such a technique pulls the reader out of the story and is an intrusion by the author.


----------



## WechtleinUns (Sep 24, 2013)

It could work. Although, if you want it to develop into a new form of genre, you're going to have to champion it. If there's one thing I've learned from the computer programming field, it's that nobody adopts a standard you haven't adopted yourself.


----------



## Sintalion (Sep 24, 2013)

It's okay, but I'd tire of it quickly if every other page had at least  one word stricken. It'd be a nice addition if you choose to create an  unreliable narrator or have girls passing notes to one another in fifth  grade. You could also kill story momentum/strength, depending on where  it's used. Imagine how Bram Stoker would read:

"If ever a face meant death, if looks could h̶y̶p̶n̶o̶t̶i̶z̶e̶  kill, we saw it at that moment."


----------



## Jeko (Sep 24, 2013)

I agree with Terry D; unless you want to give your narrator a flashing sign that says 'I'm here!' it would be annoying and ruin the capability of the prose. That being said, it could work in certain situations; a letter, for example, from a character within the story - exposing how they wrote it could help within the context of whatever you're tying to do in that passage.


----------



## bookmasta (Sep 24, 2013)

No. If I found that in a book, I wouldn't get past the first page just because of how irritating and distracting those are.


----------



## J Anfinson (Sep 24, 2013)

I'll agree with the others, but I'm thinking it might work in something that's intentionally comical. Would it sell as a comedy? Beats me.


----------



## OurJud (Sep 24, 2013)

Terry D said:


> I would find it beyond annoying in a story. It can be funny in an e-mail or a forum post, but it not in a story where there is great value placed on choosing the right word the first time. Such a technique pulls the reader out of the story and is an intrusion by the author.



As seems to be the trend for agreeing with another member's forum post these days, I'll just say, _'this'._


----------



## WechtleinUns (Sep 24, 2013)

Actually, this kind of style is used a lot in some of the articles on uncyclopedia. Go figure.


----------



## popsprocket (Sep 24, 2013)

If your narrator was very active and extremely obvious you could get away with it (e.g. they are specifically writing their own tale), but the joke only works if you do it once or twice. After that you begin to lose effect and become annoying.

I wouldn't use it so frequently as a device to create and unreliable narrator - there are better ways to do that.


----------



## dale (Sep 24, 2013)

caitlin kiernan uses the effect in her latest book "the drowning girl" in certain chapters. of course...it's a 1st person narrative 
by a clinical schizophrenic....so there you go.


----------



## FleshEater (Sep 24, 2013)

Just in reading your first post I wanted to throw my iPad out the window. It might work, but if I bought the book and tried to read it I'd burn it after one page.


----------



## philistine (Sep 25, 2013)

Just one of many ridiculous fads that lends zero to the writing itself. In fact, I would automatically assume that an author who felt the need to jazz up their writing with such absurdity couldn't write anything worth a damn anyway. Just like those kinds of artists, who, having no mastery of any discipline whatsoever, put their energy into making artwork from cow pats and used tampons.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 25, 2013)

If, as mentioned above, it was written by a character in a letter or some such thing, I could get past it. From the author? I'd be wondering why s/he couldn't get it right. And no, the book would not get read.


----------



## Morkonan (Sep 27, 2013)

belthagor said:


> Hello my f̶a̶n̶s̶ friends....



_Hello my friends! I'm sure you have been waiting with bated breath for my return! Well, here I am!_

See what I did, there? 

Implying something is perfectly normal. After all, that's your job. However, the mechanics of reading would make the use of too many strikethroughs very annoying. Strikethroughs are used in novels, but only on rare occasions and for certain effects. IIRC, the one book I can recall that had a strikethrough in it only had one and it was used "for effect", as most alterations of text are used. Using them conventionally would be irritating to the reader and would be far outside of their expected use. If you're going to do something unexpected, you should make it pleasant. Strikethroughs aren't pleasant in large doses.


----------



## Greimour (Sep 27, 2013)

I agree with Anfinson...

I wish for the life of me right now I could remember the story... but I have read one where this was used. The use was very very limited and it was almost always in the MC thoughts or dialogue. Like:

"Mr Bessingtree, how [strike]annoying[/strike] good to see you again."

and

_Sometimes I hate _ _really don't like that man._


I didn't exactly enjoy or like the strikes, but it worked. He was having a personality make over and was having to correct his own mannerisms.
I wouldn't say it didn't work... but I would have been just as happy with the story if it wasn't used. 

I think if it is used as a writing process, where you strike all words you were using, it could help for other things... just not published work. In my opinion, if it doesnt better the work, dont use it. Though it may not detract from the work if done well (really well) it wouldnt better the work either... (not in any imaginable sense that I can think of) so there is no point using it.


Thats what I think.


----------



## Jon M (Sep 27, 2013)

Could see this having a specific application, the strikethroughs employed to create or add to a particular story's narrative voice. Probably not in general, though. 



philistine said:


> Just one of many ridiculous fads that lends zero to the writing itself. In fact, I would automatically assume that an author who felt the need to jazz up their writing with such absurdity couldn't write anything worth a damn anyway. Just like those kinds of artists, who, having no mastery of any discipline whatsoever, put their energy into making artwork from cow pats and used tampons.


Not exactly the same thing, but Irving Penn used to take pictures of cigarettes, as well as other pieces of trash. Beautifying the ugly, and all that. Then there is, of course, that Duchamp fellow ...


----------



## philistine (Sep 27, 2013)

Jon M said:


> Could see this having a specific application, the strikethroughs employed to create or add to a particular story's narrative voice. Probably not in general, though.
> 
> Not exactly the same thing, but Irving Penn used to take pictures of cigarettes, as well as other pieces of trash. Beautifying the ugly, and all that. Then there is, of course, that Duchamp fellow ...



I of all people don't need a lesson in art history. Photography and are manifest from their visual components, or whatever materials were used to create an image or representation of something. Writing is using language as a construct in order to communicate a set of ideas, beliefs or ideologies et al- to tell a story, essentially. Dotting one's work with symbols and punctuation just to stand out and be dubbed the artificer of a new style seems... many things, really. One thing's for certain, interesting it is not.


----------



## InkwellMachine (Sep 28, 2013)

The problem with dubbing this a new writing style is that *this*could *then* be *justified* as just a different *"style"* of writing, as opposed to blatant neglect for the tool's more appropriate uses.

It's a tool, not a _style modifier._ Use it thusly.


----------



## qwertyman (Sep 28, 2013)

philistine said:


> Writing is using language as a construct in order to communicate a set of ideas, beliefs or ideologies et al- to tell a story, essentially.



 Telling a story to communicate beliefs and ideologies, makes me shudder. 

Write an essay or something but don't try and sell your beliefs in a book, that's called propaganda and is extremely irritating.


----------



## philistine (Sep 28, 2013)

qwertyman said:


> Telling a story to communicate beliefs and ideologies, makes me shudder.
> 
> Write an essay or something but don't try and sell your beliefs in a book, that's called propaganda and is extremely irritating.



People's beliefs end up in their book whether they like it or not. They could be incredibly small, or much more noticeable.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 28, 2013)

qwertyman said:


> Telling a story to communicate beliefs and ideologies, makes me shudder.
> 
> Write an essay or something but don't try and sell your beliefs in a book, that's called propaganda and is extremely irritating.



Dickens should have written essays then?


----------



## qwertyman (Sep 28, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> Dickens should have written essays then?



What irritates me is agendas, somebody writes a novel to get their point across, to indoctrinate, to educate the reader.

Predominantly, Dickens was a moralist, everyone got his or her comeuppance.  Plot and character were the prime movers, all else was subservient.

Yes, Dickens wrote social commentary, but did he preach or report?

Most of his work was serialised and he would often change plot and characters according to feedback on his last instalment.  I don’t think he wouldn’t change a story to insert a doctrine. Poverty and social injustice clearly inspired storylines. In spite of Dickens sparse references to religion I would be more convinced by an argument that Christian (Victorian?) values were preached.

Anyway, shadowwalker...having read your posts on a similar (current) thread, I think we are of like mind on this subject.

Incidentally, I thought 'Vernon God Little' was a really great entertaining read...until the last bit, where D.B.Pierre turned it into a nonsense morality tale...sigh. Why did he do it?


----------



## Jeko (Sep 28, 2013)

> What irritates me is agendas, somebody writes a novel to get their point across, to indoctrinate, to educate the reader.



I think doing such does not take away from a story's artistic merit. In fact, it forms part of it. Some people may find it irritating and disapprove, but it forms a whole area of fiction because for many it is a purpose of fiction and many people enjoy that purpose.


----------



## qwertyman (Sep 28, 2013)

Cadence said:


> I think doing such does not take away from a story's artistic merit. In fact, it forms part of it. Some people may find it irritating and disapprove, but it forms a whole area of fiction because for many it is a purpose of fiction and many people enjoy that purpose.



I believe you are saying some people seek out fiction that promotes a doctrine.  I would be astounded if that were correct.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 28, 2013)

> I believe you are saying some people seek out fiction that promotes a doctrine. I would be astounded if that were correct.



Trust me; you can get a degree in it.

I personally read books to be _either _educated or entertained (or both, on rare occasion). When my reading concerns the former I study doctrine as much as I study anything else in the story. 
_
The Great Gatsby _is a fine example of a book I love that is full of various interwoven messages; and while some people won't like that aspect of it, that does not make it worse. It's just a matter of opinion and taste.


----------



## Robert_S (Sep 28, 2013)

I think I would find it more meaningful if instead of seeing strike outs, you have the narrator search through their memory for the right words to use and contemplate them for their value. However, even that might get tired after too much use.


----------



## Robdemanc (Sep 29, 2013)

I think there is a name for this type of writing(Metafiction?).  Any writing where the presence of the author is clear is asking for trouble.  I agree with others in that the only way it would work would be if it were something written by a character (letter), or if the book was meant to be a spoof of writing itself.


----------



## qwertyman (Sep 29, 2013)

Robdemanc said:


> Any writing where the presence of the author is clear is asking for trouble.



In that case qwerty's in deep doo-doo. 

My current work doesn't just prod at the edges of the fourth wall, it takes a wrecking ball to it.

There have been notable works using this format. Is your comment a personal aversion or is it based on research?


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 29, 2013)

Yeah, I wouldn't say an author's presence/fourth wall thing is a bad thing - as long as it's intentional and not a gimmick. Some writers do it by accident (and it shows) and some do it as a gimmick (and it shows). I think there's also a difference between the narrator addressing the reader and the author addressing the reader, and it's always kinda fascinated me to try and figure out which is actually the case. But that's probably just my mind twitching again...


----------



## Robdemanc (Sep 29, 2013)

qwertyman said:


> In that case qwerty's in deep doo-doo.
> 
> My current work doesn't just prod at the edges of the fourth wall, it takes a wrecking ball to it.
> 
> There have been notable works using this format. Is your comment a personal aversion or is it based on research?



I've not researched but I would say this type of writing would be very difficult to get right.  "Getting right" would mean that it would be seen as necessary in telling the story and its hard to imagine such a story.   If I was contemplating a writing project using this method I would be constantly asking myself why, as I do when I read novels that have used this.


----------



## qwertyman (Sep 29, 2013)

shadowwalker said:


> ...I think there's also a difference between the narrator addressing the reader and the author addressing the reader, and it's always kinda fascinated me to try and figure out which is actually the case. But that's probably just my mind twitching again...



In my case it's definitely the narrator, it's (supposed to be) humorous.  There's no agenda or doctrine pushing...he ( a redundant City banker and not a writer), says thing like this on getting off the plane.

Note to reader: It’s hot on the Costa del Sol and I’m not going to repeat that on every page. I’m not an eskimo Inuit and I don’t have two hundred words for the climate.  Just accept every day is baking and every night is stifling unless I say otherwise.


----------

