I guess the first of this series was George Orwell.
I’m talking about writers who lay down the prose with a clear directness, a crystal-clear declarative style. Gay Talese not quite, as he has a bit of a knowingly courtly style. Not Hemingway either, as he seems too mannered.
Veronica Geng doesn’t quite fit here but I think that’s how she would’ve written, had she written extended nonfiction.
Of the authors listed above, Ishiguro is the most famous for having a style that’s ostentatiously plain (as Dyer might put it), but I’d say the others have it too. Reading their books can make me uncomfortable, in the same way as if I’m talking with someone who I realize is staring into my eyes, and I’m not interested in a staring contest.
P.S. I just finished the latest Dyer book and, when placing it on the shelf, I flipped through his two books of essays—it seems appropriate to flip through a book by Dyer and not read it cover to cover—and then, when replacing those, came across a book of essays by John Gregory Dunne which was next to them on the shelf. This was another one not to read all the way through again, but I did come across this great line about movie critic Pauline Kael: “Reading her on film is like reading Lysenko on genetics—fascinating, unless you know something about genetics.”
P.P.S. Just to be clear, I don’t think there’s any obligation for authors to write in this plain style. Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Martin Amis, lot of writers have distinctive, even flashy, styles that work well. It’s good that we can encounter a range of writing styles.
That’s wonderful on Pauline Kael.
I would add Haruki Murakami–his stories often involve a delightful does of magic realism, but it feels like you’re engaged in a casual conversation with a guy at a bus stop. It’s a fantastic combination, easy reading but makes an impact.
I love Murakami’s vivid writing style but there is so much mysticism that I can’t quite suspend disbelief. Hayao Miyazaki has mystic notes as well but somehow it works better in the anime format (for me).
Didn’t early Orwell aim for some purple prose? I seem to recall that he had some such aim to combine honest realism with poetic passages in Burmese Days for example.
Roberto Bolan[y]o’s translator, Natasha Wimmer, renders his prose like this too, although I don’t read Spanish and can’t judge the originals. Especially in The Savage Detectives, Nazi Literature in the Americas, and the short stories, I get the impression (which I like) of a “photo-negative” of literature, as if it’s somehow about literary themes without itself being literary.
I agree. I’d also nominate Knausgaard, though I don’t read Norwegian, and it’s not clear how much is the translation and how much is the prosaic nature of the topic, which probably lends itself to direct prose.
Jonathan:
All the rest of our blog commenters read Norwegian so I don’t know what your problem is.
If I knew Norwegian, I’d say “Stikk den opp i rumpa.” Apparently, that’s fairly direct prose.
Ja hoor.
Thanks to three obvious cognates, it’s pretty direct to someone who knows English, too.
For fiction, I would add Kingsley Amis, Christopher Isherwood and Norman Mailer in “The Executioner’s Song.” For non-fiction, Edmund Wilson, John Berger, and Robert Hughes (at least in passages) are all exemplars of the plain style. I’m not sure where writers like Gore Vidal and George Bernard Shaw fit.
Matt:
I dunno, something about Edmund Wilson . . . I’m interested in the topics he writes about, but I find him exhausting to read. He does give off that David Owen plain-man vibe, though, I’ll grant you that. K. Amis not so much, as he had to work so hard to keep up the plain-man image that it kind of destroyed him, both personally and artistically.
Forgot to add Alan Moorehead: https://archive.clivejames.com/books/moore.htm
“I’m talking about writers who lay down the prose with a clear directness, a crystal-clear declarative style.”
The two great American detective novelists, Raymond Chandler & Ross McDonald, had excellent writing styles. While it is certainly a different genre than the author’s Andrew mentioned, they clarity and a way with words was exceptional.
I liked the Kael quote. Back in the day when he was still alive, I read Stanley Kauffmann’s movie reviews in ‘The New Republic.’ Born in 1916 Kauffmann saw his first films in the 1920s. His reviews were always spot on and he could say in a page and a half (the usual length of his reviews) what Kael could not say in six pages.