I've been reading a book by Jeff Vandermeer that talks about a few different approaches to style. Here is how he defines the different approaches, with examples (textual and authors), and I thought it might be interesting to see what everyone here tends to gravitate to!

---

#1 Minimal / Stark

Sparse, understated prose that often relies on inference and suggestion. Use of detail is minimal but may be more powerful in isolation. Descriptions are rare and take on significance common to poetry. Poor execution leaves no purchase for the reader and induces boredom and sometimes contempt. Characterization relies in part on what's not said, or not expressed.

Example: "He walked out to the main road, turned, limped toward the main gates. A man was dead, murdered, or perhaps very much alive. Borchert was playing with him, and perhaps the others were as well. The night was cool, cloudless. Where was this place? He turned and looked back, saw the building he was staying in, the only light being that of his own room." -Brian Evenson, "The Brotherhood of Mutilation"

Representative Writers: Samuel Beckett, Raymond Carver, Brian Evenson, Ernest Hemingway, Amy Hempel

---

Transitional Writer: Carol Emshwiller

---

#2 Invisible / "Normal"

The "baseline" approach common to much fiction, especially in commercial modes, picks its spots with balance in scene/summary and judicious sue of sensory detail. Immersive reading is usually the goal. Few long sentences. Poor execution induces a reaction of "mediocrity."

Example: "Amy Fremont got up from the rocking chair, and came across the porch. She was a tall woman, thin, a smiling vacancy in her eyes. About a year ago, Anthony had gotten mad at her, because she'd told him he shouldn't have turned the cat into a cat-rug. Although he had always obeyed her more than anyone else, which was hardly at all, this time he'd snapped at her. With his mind. And that had been the end of Amy Fremont's bright eyes, and the end of Amy Fremont as everyone had known her." -"It's a Good Life," Jerome Bixby

Representative Writers: Octavia Butler, Daphne Du Maurier, Joe Haldeman, Mary Doria Russell, Karin Tidbeck, Kurt Vonnegut

---

Transitional Writer: Karen Joy Fowler

---

#3 Muscular / Conspicuous

Sentence structures tend to be more complex and summary/half-scene is employed in a more layered way, with time perhaps more easily manipulated as a result. Character POVs may be differentiated as much by style as content. Ample use of extended metaphor and sensory detail. Poor execution induces a reaction of "too clever" or "lost the thread."

Example: "A moment I float beneath her, a starry shadow. Distant canyons where spectral lightning flashes: neurons firing as I tap into the heart of the poet, the dark core where desire and horror fuse and Morgan turns ever and again to stare out a bus window. The darkness clears. I taste for an instant the metal bile that signals the beginning of therapy, and then I'm gone." -Elizabeth Hand, "The Boy in the Tree"

Representative Writers: Martin Amis, Michael Cisco, Elizabeth Hand, Ursula K. Le Guin, Kelly Link, Joyce Carol Oates, Ben Okri

---

Transitional Writer: China Miéville

---

#4 Lush / Ornate

Word play, extended (sometimes raucous) metaphors, and self-conscious approaches may occur, with longer sentences and descriptive passages likely. The paragraphs exist to advance story and showcase the words. Characterization can occur through stylistic exaggeration. Poetic meter may be present. Reverie and hyperbole become more foregrounded. Poor execution induces a sense of thickness, "encrustedness," and a lack of emotional resonance.

Example: "Stilt-legs scissoring, snip-snap! the bird gods dance. Old craneycrows, a skulk of powers. How they strut and ogle with their long eyes, knowing. How they serpentine their necks. And stalking, how they flirt their tails, insouciant as Groucho. Fugue and counter-fugue, the music jigs and sneaks. On tiptoe, solemnly, they hop and flap; they whirl and whet their long curved clever bills." -Greer Gilman, "Down the Wall"

Representative Writers: K.J. Bishop, Angela Carter, Robert Coover, Rikki Ducornet, Jamaica Kincaid, Tanith Lee, Mervyn Peake, Salman Rushdie, Catherynne M. Valente

---

One thing that I also liked was how Vandermeer made a point to emphasize that just because a style is not lush/ornate, doesn't mean it isn't complex! Piranesi by Susanna Clarke and Mad Sisters of Esi by Tashan Mehta don't read the same as the example #4 paragraph above, but the writing is wrought with so much depth and intricacy that i feel like we can't call it anything other than "complex".

So my question is: which style do you find yourself reading the most? Does your preference change across genres or in long-form (novels) vs short-form fiction? (If you need some pointers on pinpointing styles, most commercial romance tends to be comfortably style #2. Most popular SFF ranges from #2-3.5, with more upmarket or literary titles trending #3-4 - I feel that #4 is rare in a modern SFF titles, but i'm happy to be proven wrong! And litfic seems to employ a wider variety of styles given the experimentation with language.)

I think my sweet spot tends to be around #2.5-4. I enjoy a very well-executed style #2 as well, i.e. Kurt Vonnegut's stuff is really fun to me! But I tend to get lost in the artistry and technical craft of the language as well as the actual story, plot, and characters - in fact, my fave books use all these elements in service of each other - so I will always appreciate a more ornate or experimental/complex approach to style if the author decides to take that risk!