My preferred forms/genres

I think one of my favorite genres to write in is creative nonfiction, even though I wouldn’t usually call myself much of a creative writer.  I always feel like whatever I write is going to seem cliché to someone, because everything I write will probably remind someone of something they’ve read before or it will seem like a really been-there-done-that, unimaginative piece.  I’m not going to go off on a tangent and discuss what it really means to be creative or whether or not any idea is really new; I just think my issue is mostly that I have trouble coming up with plots. Otherwise I would probably love writing short stories.  However, in creative nonfiction, the facts are mostly already there.  I have to do some research to find them, but the creativity is in spinning the story. 

Working with creative nonfiction definitely has its constraints.  For one thing, you’re dealing with truth.  When I write a short story, I have total control over the facts, but in nonfiction, I can’t embellish things to make a good story.  Trying to give life to these facts and turn the truth into a story instead of a research paper is difficult. This usually pushes me to find out what it is about the story that other people care about, which is when the essay clicks. I have only written a few pieces of creative nonfiction for class, and I was never really happy with how any of them turned out, but I find it to be one of the most interesting forms of creative writing for me. 

The other type of writing I like to do is generally just business writing.  I haven’t had much experience with it since I’m not in a professional setting, but through Business and Technical Writing class and the countless emails I have to send as an officer in my sorority I’ve found that I actually enjoy analyzing my audience and determining how to deliver information in a way they’ll be responsive to.  It also doesn’t hurt to know that if I do end up working for my dad I’ll be able to use these skills answering email inquiries and constructing online ads.

These two genres are pretty different in terms of the style required for each, but I think the fact that they both have definite constraints has helped me develop my style.  In creative nonfiction, I can let myself into the picture.  I can comment on the facts I’m presenting, I can use humor, and I can be very conversational if I want.  In a lot of the emails I write, it’s more about getting information across in the clearest way possible, but when I’m writing emails for sorority, I’m definitely trying to portray a certain image, depending on the purpose.  For example, if I’m writing to new members who may be intimidated by the payment process or by me in general, I try to adopt a friendlier, conversational style while getting the point across as clearly as I can.  If I’m writing to someone who is behind on payments, I’m usually more firm and straight to the point, but I still have to make myself seem approachable rather than like a debt collector if I want to expect a response.  

the development of my style

It’s hard to pinpoint how my style has changed over the years, other than to say that it has matured.  The content has moved from silly poems and stories about kids dealing with the same things I dealt with in high school to more complex ideas, but it isn’t easy to identify exactly how my style has changed. 

After looking at a few essays and creative pieces I’ve written throughout my college experience, I can see some development in how I stick to conventions.  As a freshman, I was armed with strict guidelines that had been drilled into my head about how to properly write an essay, what each sentence should look like, and what words I could never, ever use.  It was beaten in my brain that I wasn’t allowed to sound like me at all.  Of course, that was garbage.  Contractions and first person input were not going to make my essay implode.  When I started bending the rules in my academic writing, my creative writing shifted as well. 

In the beginning, my creative writing was kind of stilted.  I wrote how I thought I was supposed to be writing rather than how I actually felt I could be writing.  I used a lot of clichés and I was more interested in completing a plot than creating characters that were real and filling the story with meaning.  After a while, when my writing began to change, I played around with writing more like I actually thought and spoke.  I used fragments, added humor and sarcasm to my stories, and wrote dialogue that wasn’t all proper English. I started working with the senses when I realized how much more power there was in showing rather than telling.

A lot of this is just my own growth as a writer through the classes I’ve had to take for my major, but I think that before I took these classes, I never really tried to establish a certain voice.  I can’t say whether or not I’ve really reached the voice I’m trying to achieve for myself. I’d like to say that I’m a straightforward writer.  I don’t like to make things abstract or difficult to comprehend, but sometimes I write rambling sentences that reflect the way I think and seem to run on a little longer than necessary.  I even find myself falling victim to the Virginia Woolf-esque sentences I hate so much with too many commas and thoughts upon thoughts upon thoughts.  I don’t work to make my writing especially humorous, but I don’t filter my natural sarcastic tone. 

How Larsson's Style Sounds

When I first started thinking about what Stieg Larsson’s writing sounds like, I thought that it was pretty descriptive writing.  He often goes into lengthy descriptions of things, such as types of flowers or step by step explanations of how someone hacks a computer.  Here’s an excerpt from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo:  “The plant was native to the Australian bush and uplands, where it was to be found among tussocks of grass. There it was called Desert Snow. Someone at the botanical gardens in Uppsala would later confirm that it was a plant seldom cultivated in Sweden. The botanist wrote in her report that it was related to the tea tree and that it was sometimes confused with its more common cousin Leptospermum scoparium, which grew in abundance in New Zealand. What distinguished them, she pointed out, was that rubinette had a small number of microscopic pink dots at the tips of the petals, giving the flower a faint pinkish tinge.”

I hadn’t really spent much time thinking about how exactly to describe Larsson’s writing until this assignment, but when I did, I changed my mind a bit.  Here is another example from Larsson’s books.  This is much less specific, but it’s how Larsson generally describes surroundings.

“Salander put her book down on her lap and sipped her iced coffee before reaching for a pack of cigarettes. Without turning her head she shifted her gaze to the horizon. She could just see the Caribbean through a group of palm trees and the rhododendrons in front of the hotel. A yacht was on its way north towards St Lucia or Dominica. Further out, she could see the outline of a grey freighter heading south in the direction of Guyana. A breeze made the morning heat bearable, but she felt a drop of sweat trickling into her eyebrow. Salander did not care for sunbathing. She had spent her days as far as possible in shade, and even now was under the awning on the terrace. And yet she was as brown as a nut. She had on khaki shorts and a black top.”

After evaluating the parts of speech in this paragraph, I decided that maybe “descriptive” wasn't a very accurate way to describe Larsson’s writing.  There are actually very few adjectives compared to the amount of nouns and verbs, and the ones that are used, like “grey” and “khaki,” are very simple.  The verbs are also pretty easy, and the sentences aren't extremely complex.  It certainly isn’t pretentious writing.  When I realized that, I started thinking about what else Larsson’s writing isn’t.  

A quick Google gave me a list of words that describe writing style and definitions to go along with them.  Combined with the list we made in class, I quickly crossed a few things off the list.  This style is not rhythmic or lyrical.  It’s not ornate or prim or stately, and it’s not incoherent or humorous or sarcastic.  Mostly, I found the style to be kind of plain.  It offers a lot of details, but not with super specific adjectives and adverbs.  It’s orderly, coherent and clear.  It’s almost journalistic, as though he’s reporting what’s happening and what’s going on around the characters.

A lot of this could come from the translation of the text.  Maybe the translator chose the simplest translation instead of the most accurate.  However, my own experience with translation makes me doubt this, at least to the extent that it would completely change the writing style.  The English language has an incredibly expansive lexicon, so it’s not usually very hard to find a good word or phrase to express something. 

I think that overall, Larson’s style is straightforward, journalistic and detailed.  He spends a lot of time talking about surroundings and specific actions, but he does so in a straightforward way.  Sometimes the information might be complex, but the writing isn’t.  

Second Presentation Reflection

Good things I did:

• I made more of an effort to get the audience involved
• I tried to use more transitions and clarify the context of what I was presenting

Things that need work:

• I had less time to prepare for this presentation, and I think it's evident in the way I read my notes a bit more and sound less confident in some places.  
• I need more practice with using slides--putting the longer quote on the slide and reading it too didn't prove as effective as I had thought it might be
• My movements/nervous hand gestures are still a bit awkward.

Stieg Larsson's Influences

If you witnessed something gruesome happen to another person and did nothing to stop it, you’d probably be pretty affected by that.  It would probably stick with you.  In an article written by Kurdo Baski, a personal friend and business partner of Stieg Larsson’s, an event that stuck with Larsson was also revealed.

When Larsson was 15, he watched a group of his friends brutally gang rape a girl, and he did nothing to interfere.  A few days later, he tried to apologize to the girl.  She told him she would never forgive him.  That event haunted Larsson for the rest of his life.  His friend recalls that when Larsson heard news reports of deaths of other women at the hands of men, he would often tear up. 

Baski said that Larsson told him, “Every day, all over the world, women are mutilated, murdered, ill-treated or circumcised by men rich and poor.  It might happen in South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Mexico, Tibet or Iran. But the fact is that there's no such thing as soft or hard oppression of women: men want to own women, they want to control women, they are afraid of women. Men hate women. The oppression of women has nothing to do with religion or ethnicity.”

Book critic Sarah Weinman had this to say about  Larsson’s obvious inspiration: "The books reflect both Larsson's sense of righteous indignation about how women are treated in Swedish and overall society and his love of crime fiction.  It was clear to me how much his heart and soul comes through, even filtered through heavily edited translation, and you simply cannot fake that sort of wonder-filled enthusiasm about characters and knowledge. Readers know that and sense it."

So it’s pretty clear where the content of Larsson’s books was inspired from. But where does his style come from? 

Several sites list authors like Agatha Christie, Sara Paretsky, Elizabeth George, and Val McDermid as his favorite and most influential writers, and many of those claims are backed up by quotes from personal friends of Larsson.  Some of these writers are actually mentioned in his books. The blog for the book “The Tattooed Girl”, written as a backstory to Larsson’s series, offers some insight to why Larsson liked these writers.   One post suggests that “Larsson liked Paretsky for her fearlessness, her smart political point of view, and her tough female private investigator.”  There is a pattern to the type of writing he liked, and he applied that to his own writing. 

Many online articles also claim various influences on the main female character, Lisbeth.   She is a strong-willed person, an extremely skilled computer hacker, and a victim of sexual violence. Neil McDonald writes for Quadrant Online that Lisbeth is based off of Peter O’Donnel’s Modesty Blaise character, who, like Lisbeth, has some very specific skills and came from a rough childhood.  Others suggest Lisbeth was inspired by Carol O’Connell’s novels, where her character Mallory was also a heroine very similar to Lisbeth in her strength and gruesome childhood.   There are numerous examples of potential influences on the internet.  Larsson’s friend Baski claims there is a lot of Larsson himself in Lisbeth’s character, from their bad eating and smoking habits to their unwillingness to discuss their pasts.

Larsson himself claimed that the inspiration for Lisbeth was a grown up Pippy Longstocking, from the children’s books by Astrid Lindgren.  In the only interview Larsson ever gave about his series, he said “I considered Pippi Longstocking. What would she be like today? What would she be like as an adult? What would you call a person like that, a sociopath? Hyperactive? Wrong. She simply sees society in a different light. I’ll make her 25 years old and an outcast. She has no friends and is deficient in social skills. That was my original thought.”

I think it’s clear, through the research I’ve done and my own reading of the books, that Larsson put a lot of himself into these stories.   These authors that he liked obviously influenced him enough to include their names in his stories, so it’s likely that the writing itself was influenced too, especially through the characters.  

First Presentation Reflection

Good: 

• I didn't need to use my notes very much

Bad: 

• My hand gestures seemed more like nervous movements than deliberate ones
• I didn't sound very interested or enthusiastic about my topic (also, I hate my voice and was annoyed just watching myself talk...)

Stieg Larsson's Audience

Stieg Larsson is one of the bestselling authors in the world. In fact, according to AbeBooks.com, Larsson was the 2^nd bestselling author globally in 2008.  Naturally, he has a very large audience. However, as his books were published after his death, he may well have never anticipated the audience he actually has.  He might have imagined that his books would be translated to English for UK readers, maybe, but he managed to reach an American audience as well.  For me, figuring out the specifics of his audience was difficult, because I obviously don’t have Larsson’s input on the subject. 

It could be argued that most of Larsson’s audience was invoked because, at the time of his death, his only audience had been publishers.   He didn’t know many concrete facts about the entire audience he would eventually address, because it didn’t exist yet.  We can assume that is original audience addressed was Swedish adults, due to the mature and graphic content of the novels. I also believe Larsson clearly used positioning as a tactic to get people to receive his message.  He wanted to demonstrate the corruption of Sweden and the injustices of women at the hands of men, so the main point of view of the books is from a man.  The main male character is left-wing, investigates corruption, and sympathizes with the main female character (the victim of men) because he knows more about her than any other character in the novels. By making readers see Lisbeth’s story through a man’s eyes, Larsson positions his audience to agree to his message, almost from his own point of view.  Larsson himself was very much like his main male character; he was an investigative journalist and he witnessed the rape of a young woman, and he campaigns against right-wing extremism, so in a way, readers are positioned to receive his message through his own eyes.

Obviously, Larsson couldn’t anticipate the wide audience his books would eventually reach, as they were all published after his death, so it was up to his translator, Steven Murray, to make sure the translations were audience appropriate.  In an article on ReaderVeiws.com, editor Irene Watson basically says that texts translated for American audiences need to be simplified and Americanized to make them readable.  The article itself misspells some foreign words she tries using to make a point, so I have a hard time taking her advice seriously.  Apparently, Steven Murray did not believe his audience needed to be babied like this.  The translation is not incredibly “dumbed down.”  There are still many very Swedish elements, such as specific locations and names that Watson would consider too confusing for an American audience, but then, the audience is a mature one. 

As far as the relationship Larsson (and through his translation, Murray) has with his audience, he doesn’t lecture them or argue with them, or give a sarcastic or overly opinionated narration.  It’s almost as if he’s just feeding his audience the story through the characters.  The closest relationship Larsson had with his audience was that he put much of himself into his main male character.  Because the author died before his works reached the massive audience he has now, we don’t have his own comments on his audience; we can only assume what he knew about them from how he placed his own views in the stories.