It is certainly true that some writers have a style or formula. For example, somebody picking up a Jackie Collins novel is expecting a certain type of book.
However, other writers, such as Dylan Thomas, have been criticised for not sticking to a consistent style with their prose. Paul Auster is another example of an author whose style can shift dramatically between books. (compare Mr Vertigo with the New York trilogy)
Whether this is a good or bad thing, comes down to your expectation of the author. I love reading the Marlowe stories by Raymond Chandler. There are slight variations in style, but the tone is consistent throughout.
Nevertheless, I enjoy the prose of Dylan Thomas, despite the variety of styles that are encompassed in his short stories. I do not 'mark him down' for having the talent to write in a number of different styles.
The publishing industry is competitive, publishers are keen for their established authors to write 'more of the same' when the author's previous work has sold well. I suspect this is one of the main reasons why writers develop a formula and stick to it. I think a writer who is happy to write in a certain style and never deviate from it should do so, but a writer who wants to push the boundaries of their writing style should experiment and grow.
Personally, I enjoy writing in different styles, but I'm aware of the need for a consistent identity if I hope to establish myself. I'm not particularly happy about this, but I also understand why a publisher might be reluctant to take on a new writer if they have not yet built a trust relationship with that author.
I like you're idea that, in terms of writers who deviate from one particular or consistent writing style, their works are in fact examples of 'bravery and talent' rather than being something worth criticising negatively for. If a writer has the confidence to experiment, then why not? I now feel urged to take a look at the works of Dylan Thomas, and in doing so take on this perspective :)
ReplyDelete