Fairy Revel

Mark C. Newton talks about overuse of the word “clunky” to describe writing.

So what is it that people mean when they use the c-word? Is it that the words they see on paper don’t pass through their mental filters, the ones calibrated by their own everyday conversations? Is it a reluctance to process words outside of their comfort zone?

And what about prose – if it’s about rhythm, why not say so? If it’s that you felt sentences were too short, too long, too baroque, why not explore that instead of saying the c-word?

I don’t think “clunky” is simply another way of saying, “I don’t like it,” or “That’s too different.” At least, not for me.

Clunkiness, the way I understand it, is a rhythm issue, but it’s not the same as saying, “The sentences are too long,” or “The sentences sound clipped.” To me, it’s a general impression that the author has a tin ear, that no melody or rhythm is being observed at all. A piece of writing should be like music, and discordant notes and rhythm changes should either enhance the whole, or they are clunky, undesirable distractions from the composition. You’re reading along happily and then clunkity-clunk.

I don’t think it has anything to with ease of reading (if by reading, you mean understanding). I can read a whole line of nonsense words and it either has melody and rhythm or it doesn’t. “Jabberwocky” is not clunky; a line of perfectly formed English in an instructional manual often is.

I also don’t think it’s a specific style of writing that is either clunky or elegant. There are all kinds of poetic voices, and all kinds of narrative voices; some may take getting used to, but ultimately everything in one work needs to fit together to make an overall impression. There are different meter and rhyme schemes for form poetry; if you’re writing a piece of form poetry and you have a line that bucks your scheme, it had better be intentional and have a good aesthetic effect on the whole impression or it’s a mistake. To a certain degree, prose is the same.

Also, although it’s an “I know it when I read it,” kind of thing, I’ll be honest and say that I think it’s not so much that clunkiness is a matter of subjective opinion, but that rhythm may matter more to some people and less to others. Some people don’t need it the way others do, and so don’t notice or care when the rhythm is “off”.

Lazy usage of adjectives is a problem in reviews, however. Along with “clunky”, “lyrical” is another word that is used too often without thinking, and I try to use it judiciously.

At the beginning of each year, I wonder whether it’s wise to set these goals, or if it’s even important. I think about skipping this step every year, and this year is no exception. This morning, though, I realized that I finally met a long-term goal of mine in 2009: I wrote a novel. It’s a NaNoWriMo novel, hardly what you could call “complete”, but it has a beginning, middle and end and has a main story arc. I’ve finally done it! So this year, I’m going to keep setting goals and keep trying to reach for them.

Writing Goals

• Revise Dogwood, my 2009 NaNoWriMo novel.
• Write another novel.
• Write a short story and submit it for publication.

Reading Goals

• Read 50 books (every year I participate in the 50 Book Challenge; year before last I read about a dozen, in 2009 I read 27, so I’m getting there!)
• Read 20 books off my list for 100 Project.
• Conquer my own bookshelves! I’d like to put a big dent in the unread books I own.

That’s all for reading goals. I’m trying to avoid any challenges involving specific authors, series or similar since usually end up regretting them. I’m also not hosting any challenges other than 100 Project, because every time I do, the blog I host it at dies a sudden death! Though I’m sure I’ll try again in the future . . . but not right now.

Personal Goals

• Learn to make madeleines.
• Develop a homekeeping routine.
• Learn wirework jewelry making.
• Keep working on bellydance.

I have more personal goals I could list, but I think I’d better keep it reasonable. If I get to other stuff, all the better. Those are the definites.