How important is for a writer to have his own style?

There are many seemingly conflicting views on this issue in the literary world. Pessoa, for example, supported that "the great poet writes as he feels", that is the great poet is able to express his own emotions well, and his work consists of a good presentation of those emotions. Baudelaire claims in a letter to Flaubert that "what is most important is to not look like your neighbor", meaning that a writer should first and foremost be different than the next writer.
On the other side stand quotes such as that by Kafka, and Lovecraft. Kafka seems to have been "ressurecting" his emotions by reading other writers, and many times comments that he is "lost" in his work, or is "like a sheep in the night and in the mountain, or like another sheep following that sheep". An d although this sentiment goes well beyond his literary character, it appears to present a reality of that as well.
Lovecraft at one time claimed that "there are my Poe pieces, and there are my Dunsany pieces, but alas, where are my Lovecraft pieces?". So he too was of the view that he had not found his own voice, and was (to put it in Borges' aphorism about Lovecraft) "an unwilling mimesis of Poe".

Since i also happen to be a published writer, i have pondered this issue a lot. At times it seems that my style is not really there, being mostly an amalgam of De Maupassant's, Kafka's, Borges' and of some others. I can write a complete story, but am unsure as to whether another writer could not have produced almost an identical one.

So in this thread i would like to ask you what you think of the issue of being "original" or rather "uniquely expressive", and individual as a writer :)

I do not think it is biologically possible for a writer to have a completely unique style. We cannot avoid the fact that our writing is an entangled combination of every other writer we've ever read, and every experience we've ever had. The key is in reaching a combination that appears to be unique. If you look closely, you'll see the influences and the marks of other writers, but the exact mixture, and the effect of the whole, should be something no one else quite managed.

I tend to agree, although finding a somewhat original style, or at least original to some degree themes in your work, seems to be crucial if you are to ever become known (although many known writers died utterly unknown, like Pessoa). I think i have some sort of distinct thematology, although my style of prose is a mixture of that of other authors...

Btw i Love your avatar :)

Not everyone has a unique style (something quite hard to achieve), but everyone does have their own voice, if only for the simple fact that no one, independently, will ever write the exact same things someone else writes. I think to develop a style, one needs to find their voice and develop it.

"Every writer creates his influences", to paraphrase (but not alter its meaning) a quote by Borges. It seems to signify that inevitably if one becomes known (something i am not) people are bound to see similarities with older writers. Sometimes people see their own similarities, or even double influences, for example my first ever published story has been termed as similar to both Poe's and Dostoevsky's style, by the same person...

Ultimately those writers did not have unique styles either. Some (such as Dostoevsky) arguably did not even have a good style, let alone an individual one (sometimes individuality can be harmful too). Sometimes one can express even the same ideas, with different words, and still become known, as Cavafy put it in some poem: "(they are) Saying the same things again, without much strife, as we the old words uttered with a different way".

I still think that the themes are more important, and can indeed be a place where one not only affords to, but is urged to be unique or at least individual. I see many works published here that deal with the economic crisis; although obviously most of them are of low quality, some should be better, and they would not have this theme if not for a mimesis of one's reflection of what is going on. Although one can have his own themes without being obviously concurrent with what is happening .

And i agree with you that one needs his true voice. That is the essence of Pessoa's quote i think :)

.....

I'm glad someone raised this question, as it has always troubled me. I have always been a natural when it comes to recognizing the distinctive elements of someone else's work and then simulating their style reasonably well, but I have struggled to break free of influence and actuate a style and voice uniquely my own.

By a similar token, readers and critics are more apt to compare with what is familiar than to recognize a new voice crying out in the wilderness. The associative instinct, albeit quite natural, is a formidable force for any would-be writer to contend with, and for that reason, one should not easily be dismayed if compared to other writers (especially the likes of Dostoevsky and Poe).

At the risk of being redundant, as I know others have already touched on it in this thread, each of us does have a distinct voice, but before one can properly utter it, one must first learn to hear it oneself.


"For even if we have the sensation of being always enveloped in, surrounded by our own soul, still it does not seem a fixed and immovable prison; rather do we seem to be borne away with it, and perpetually struggling to transcend it, to break out into the world, with a perpetual discouragement as we hear endlessly all around us that unvarying sound which is not an echo from without, but the resonance of a vibration from within."
-- Marcel Proust

I agree that ultimately one has his own voice- it is like the imagined problem of new writers who think what they write is boring, when inevitably it will have their own character if they manage to express themselves relatively well.

But, like Intravenus mentioned, i too feel that i am good at simulating other people's styles. Perhaps i am still afraid that if i go outside of this created zone, there is no guess as to whether my work will be sufficiently interesting, or "alive", or have some characteristic, easy to pick up, cohesion.

Maybe i am just used to picking up patterns (i have some autistic elements) and synthesize them in my own work. I do believe that there is some hidden structure in literature i percieve as good, although obviously a very complicated structure, probably not conscious to its other writers either...

This question is really intriguing to me since as a writer I have burned so much midnight's oil meditating over this question. Style is what distinguishes you and gives you your own identity different from the mob in the literary field. Of course all great writers have their idiosyncrasies, speaking somewhat brusquely. James Joyce had his own quirks and he kind of built on something what kept him "apart" making him of the class not of the mass. That is what is the objective of a good piece of literature, not to entertain the multitudes, but to stagger the intellectual few.

I would agree with that, but i think that nowdays one has (at least here, where the market is smaller) to strike a good balance between being original and ingenious, AND be easy to read by the multitude as well...
I try to do this by having elements in my work which at the same time have deeper meaning, but also an obvious surface. At least i hope it works that way :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyriakos

I would agree with that, but i think that nowdays one has (at least here, where the market is smaller) to strike a good balance between being original and ingenious, AND be easy to read by the multitude as well...
I try to do this by having elements in my work which at the same time have deeper meaning, but also an obvious surface. At least i hope it works that way :D

---

If the surface is too obvious critics may label it as simplistic, naïve, shallow…. my friend. There are two genres: one light literature and the other serious literature, which side you want to remain is your choice.

I think only bad critics do that, since what i mean by a surface is the front of the story, whereas there may be hidden meanings below it for fewer people to pick up :)

Take Poe's stories for example, they characteristically have a notable surface, which is often seemingly about violence and mental problems. But below that exist symbols. For example in the murders of Rue Morgue, the surface is about some large ape which kills two women. A striking image by itself, and very easy to follow. But below that one could argue that the ape is a symbol of anything negative and atrophic which follows the protagonist, so the story has even possibly an existential analysis too.

.....

Well, "there are more things in heaven and earth..." etc. By which i mean that i am of the view there exists a multitude of parameters unaccounted for in your polemic, Declan.
Surely a writer can be "boring", but i was reffering to "new writers" who think they are boring, but instead mistake their own expression as something not worthy of being written down. Which is why i mentioned Pessoa's aphorism, which exactly hints that if one is expressing his own reality well, it would seem that nothing more is needed to be a good writer- a sentiment with which i agree, since it is difficult to know oneself that well so as to express oneself in depth.

.....