I'm curious how much importance readers here put on an author's unique style or voice.

This came to mind while thinking over a lot of the writing advice I've seen in writer and author spaces online. Much of it is good advice, when given and taken judiciously, however much of it is also set out as prescriptive, without regard to an author's style or voice. You see it most often in things like "show don't tell" (just thrown out there, with no thought behind it) or exhortations toward the leanest possible prose, admonitions against purple prose (without understanding what it is), and so on.

I think the general effect of such advice is to try to move prose toward the most generic, commercial quality possible, and I think newer or starting authors are more likely to be influenced by the advice.

For sure, that type of prose works well for certain books--thrillers, for example, often benefit from prose that is more generic and kind of fades into the background as a vehicle for delivery the action of the plot. I also enjoy many books written in that lean, commercial manner. However, what makes many books such fun to read and such wonderful works of art are the idiosyncracies of style brought by the author, the word play, sentence and story structure, experimentation, or what have you, that makes the writing itself part of the art rather than the mere method for imparting the story's action.

Anyway, the most popular new works that I've read tend toward a more generic style, which I guess makes sense on some level. But I'm curious as to whether that is what most people here like to read.

So as says on the tin lid, where do you draw the line on historical accuracy.

Potential spoilers to anyone saving the Odyssey as there current read or future read

I rarely engage in book discussion outside of here and my irl book club, however, I found myself making a rare comment under a post of The Odyssey (film coming out). The creator was making a point about the women of the odyssey, how Odysseus (and Telamacus) at the end treats the female slaves callously (to put it mildly) at the end but is removed (iykyk). This is a a point explored in Emily Wilson’s translation, to question the “heroics” of a male pov - which I believe Christopher Nolan used as a reference point but seems to have failed to deliver on. (Will disclaim I haven’t seen as of yet)

I commented referencing the book Sweetbitter Song by Rosie Hewlett (part of the Queer All Year Quest, a sapphic Ithica retelling) and how, for me, my main take away from this book was the hidden histories outside of the grand male figures we have been told. Sweetbitter song does a fantastic job at suggesting that all these big moments for the men were in fact created (or set intentionally in motion) by the characters that were actually on the side or even on the fringes of the original tale. I didn’t necessarily comment on the content of the book it self just that it got me thinking of hidden histories.

Queue another tiktok user instantly slating the fact I’d read it and how they, having also read it (hmm 😒), thought it terrible and glorifying the relationship of a slave girl and a senior woman of power. How Melantho (the girl) was aged up to make it work.

Now whilst I understand the toxic nature the user is implying, I also think that kind of complaint comes from a modern lens and lacks the nuance. I think when shut down like this, conversations about the topics in such books as Sweetbitter Song are often held to a higher standard of “not being factually correct” despite it being based on myth as well?

There are an abundance of other things wrong with the book if you start picking apart the actual historical accuracy. I would argue it applies to most historical fiction.

So I’ve returned to the Boundlings - I would argue a good historical fiction is where you forget about the facts and the author has known where to add detail saccurate of the time (and story if a retelling). But then also know where to fluff/skew dependant on their POV without compromising the original source material.

Where do you stand on historical facts on historical fiction? Does it throw you out if not mostly correct? Can you separate a topic you obsess over (like me and Greek myths) and the fictional work you’re reading for the sake of the plot?

Edit: aware history and myths are different - the other user on TikTok was trying to my to argue the historical accuracy of the supposed myth, which for me are separate and myths (for me) especially have more wiggle room in retellings but I was curious as to others thoughts.

Also thankyou ve try much to everyone’s response, its really nice to see people responding with really thought out responses - the consensus being do your research 😄