The Art of Words

This is a topic that Lori Lewis asked me to address at her webzine Everyday Opera, trying to help people appreciate all the different literary styles:

“I can’t stand all of those flowery descriptions in classic literature. Why don’t the authors just get to the action?” “I don’t like opera with all of that over-the-top emotion.” “Those old writers are just not realistic!” Those are common complaints, but they deserve an answer.

First of all, literature is an art form that consists of language. Whereas a painter uses daubs of paint, an author uses daubs of words. Whereas a musical composer works with individual musical notes, working them together into complex harmonies, rhythms, and melodies, an author creates the effects of a novel or a poem with individual words.

This is to say, an author can’t just “get to the action” because a story is not just a matter of action. It’s words. Plays, including the dramatic production that is a movie, do consist of action. But even a visualized story generally depends on the language of dialogue, which actors use to create their characters. Purists who want only action might restrict themselves to silent movies. But even silent movies—as with all dramatic scripts—have to be written.

Words are multi-dimensional and can create an infinite number of effects–including the illusion that the words are doing nothing. Those who are impatient with “style” often don’t realize that “realism” is also a style.

continue reading.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • SKPeterson

    Yeah, well, I still prefer the poetic styles of W.H. Auden or Wallace Stevens to those of Emily Dickens or Walt Whitman. I even like some of e.e. cummings stuff, but almost nothing by Maya Angelou. But, I’ll wager that there are some people out there with very questionable taste who would invert my choices. I call these people Philistines. They probably call me bourgeois.

    This is simply to say that stylistic variation is a good thing. It allows all of us to enjoy the beauty of words and rhythms, songs and meters in a manner and form that is most pleasing and meaningful to each. This is part of the beauty of being made in the image of God – to create and to appreciate. Even for Philistines.

  • SKPeterson

    Yeah, well, I still prefer the poetic styles of W.H. Auden or Wallace Stevens to those of Emily Dickens or Walt Whitman. I even like some of e.e. cummings stuff, but almost nothing by Maya Angelou. But, I’ll wager that there are some people out there with very questionable taste who would invert my choices. I call these people Philistines. They probably call me bourgeois.

    This is simply to say that stylistic variation is a good thing. It allows all of us to enjoy the beauty of words and rhythms, songs and meters in a manner and form that is most pleasing and meaningful to each. This is part of the beauty of being made in the image of God – to create and to appreciate. Even for Philistines.

  • Helen K

    Congratulations, Dr. Veith. I shall enjoy reading more of your insights.

  • Helen K

    Congratulations, Dr. Veith. I shall enjoy reading more of your insights.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X