The style is satirical sabi and the text contains a lot of in jokes which means that you have to be sure of your audience. If a reader is not prepared to look for the clues then you have lost him, on the otherhand if he is prepared to go along you have an easy style that lends itself to the OTT and the grandiose and the reader will be captivated.
With your nose for a hot topic you should have no problem in coming up with subjects and if you stay with the same style you will find it ideal for lambasting sacred cows.
The real work of writing is probably taking what you are calling an off the cuff piece and editing it to suit a publisher.

Interesting start for an organic gardening book. You already have the fertilizer nicely distributed.

Did anyone find Johns comments useful, constructive or what or is it just me?

Tony:
Suffering from cabin fever?

I offer the following comments in the spirit of your request for "suggestions to improve."

Try to avoid clichés weary bones for example. Find a new way to say it.

When things dont make sense, it takes the reader out of the story. I am reading along, trying to understand what our character is going through, and my mind is pulling back and saying What? Was his plaid thermos already filled with ginger tea? Or did he, in the face of mysterious pink slime raining down from the sky, stop and make tea and fill the thermos? And later, did he stop to hunt up TWO pair of gloves before fleeing?

Make sure that what you write in one sentence doesnt contradict what you wrote in the last. How can he be comforted by his walking stick while its pricking his had through his gloves? Which is it, a comfort or something painful?

Make the details clear and important. Consider the following sentence: Big crocodile tears welled up in his eyes as he fondly reflected on his many thoughtful journal entries by the fire. The term crocodile tears means fake or insincere tears or crying. Why was he faking it? Especially since no one else is there, and hes thinking of the journal fondly. And why is the detail of the fire given? Youve included random details that dont gel together or give us important information.

Style is fine, but everything has to work as a whole no matter what your style is, or you end up with niggling details that dont jibe, and the reader cant enjoy the style or what youve written.

Thank you Tony and C.L. for your insightful and helpful comments. This is exactly what I am looking for and I appreciate your time. This type of feedback I can use...

John D, I notice many of your posts attempt to be wry yet appear dunning (or should I say dunging?). Unique style?

Sabi

Wasabi:
You lost me. Could you please elaborate?

Perhaps I too suffer from cabin fever. Please accept that in trading jibes I am not trying to take you to task, rather, just curious if it is a stylistic tendancy, an affected persona, perhaps directed at only a few, or indeed a pattern? Acknowledging that 1) you have an unique and accomplished way with words, 2) I stretched meaning a bit with "dunning", 3) may have overreached in saying "many" posts, 4) refrainment from posting other examples may deter a brawl and 5)I resemble the observations...I respectfully suggest you seem to derive pleasure from shitting on, and or changing topics and offer the following definitions by way of elaboration:

Wry = 1) Dryly humorous, 2) Temporarily twisted in an expression of distaste or displeasure, 3) Being at variance with what is right, proper, or suitable; perverse

Dunning = (typically written) attempt to extract (as in payment)

Dunging = 1) The excrement of animals, 2) Manure, 3) Something foul or abhorrent

Shitting = 1) to defacate in, 2) to tease or try to deceive

I'm still not understanding what you are trying to get at.

Of the two styles demonstrated I find the enigmatic, less direct more appealing sabi. Your target will not be able to understand either one and the former is far more entertaining.
That out of the way.
Don't clfo and I agree in a strange way? I understand the in jokes and recognize that cliché is an essential part of the style but cl doesn't and offers an outsiders critique that astutely pinpoints these very things. All in all I think it was a fitting eulogy and very powerful in the way that details were linked. Encore! I say.

I absolutely agree, acj7000! Writing is a great deal like the visual arts that way. Back in the day I was an artist who worked in photo-generated collage. When I read reviews of my work I was always astounded at the variety of interpretations. Often they were 180 degrees away from my thinking, but nevertheless, they were right on the mark... just not the mark I had intended.

...let me put it another way...if denial and obtusity get married in Kentucky and divorced in West Virginia, are they still brother and sister?

Frankly, I cannot comment on the story because the opaque, overly adjectival style put me off and bored me. So I was unwilling to read more than a few lines. I don't quite understand your objectives -- if it's to challenge Tolkien then your ponderous style may have weight to the readers of such literature; but if it's to address garden questions or plant science, etc., then clear away the brush and get down to clean prose. So, no, an affected style is not appealing to me at least.

ugh.

Who would be your audience? Like Clfo, I wondered about the aralia spinoso walking stick - how it could be a comfort then a pain but those are literal details. I did read every word. I am enjoying reading others comments.

Who would be the audience? Punk rockers?

Now we are getting somewhere...In addition to the candid observations of Tony and C.L., it is good to hear other substantive comments. If this topic drags anyone out of lurking into contributing, so much the better. This stuff makes me think and learn and I appreciate the constuctive criticism...

It may surprise some to hear that I absolutely respect and concur with your unfettered opinions. I especially appreciate Ron's candid assessment of the writing "style", as ponderous. Given the dripping slime I wonder if he perhaps also implied pendulous? ;) I also appreciate his metaphorical suggestions of how to improve. John P said much with little..."ugh"...but, John D...you're mynah chiming may be style consistent but contradicts your own actions. You were obviously an early reader turned critic...are you a closet punker?

The quickly penned story was not meant to challenge anyone, especially Tolkien, as I'm too much of a light weight to even think in such terms. It was however, intentionally dense, obtuse and peppered, as Tony points out, with numerous insider references and conflicting bits of information (the aralia spinoso walking stick was to illustrate the odd impenetrable non-logic logic of our fictional hero). That several readers picked up on these oxymoronic details pleases me, but if I ever attempt to write for a broader market, it will be with less dissimulation.

I enjoyed the exercise, but the unclearly affected style fell obviously short of artifice while nonetheless communicating nuance to a narrow audience.

Sabi

Without insight into the insider references, one might conclude the story has no plot development, or at the very least, is incomplete. Your descriptive abilities are excellent, but I would agree, the style is ponderous, and unlikely to appeal to today's readers who, raised on the Disney video where something happens every 30 seconds, have little patience for a slow-moving hermit gardener. To summarize, your writing is good, but the story is dull. Since this effort was more a spontaneous exercise in sarcasm (wrong word?), if your turned your efforts to more serious writing, I suspect you would be successful. (I am speaking as a reader, not as a writer.)

I enjoy stretching my vocabulary as much as anyone, but can't help but wonder why you insist on using so many "big words" when simple ones would do. Showing off? And I agree with an earlier poster - there are far too many adverbs.

Pkock (or should I address you more formally as "Peacock"?),

Some people think in different languages...some view the world in terms of colors...some interrelate mathematical meanings with all things...some are dyslexic...some have ADHD...some write and speak simply...some don't.

For whatever reason, I happen to enjoy playing with language. I look for words in or out of correct context and appreciate subtleties including multiple meanings. I tend to use sententious, facund or even limning words and work on my vocabulary while trying to improve my word usage by learning from my own and other's mistakes.

Examples...silly me, I was not aware until being corrected by C.L. that "crocodile tears" connoted false or insincere crying. From her kind comment, I learned of my error.

Similarly, you may not be aware that your statement "there are far too many adverbs", while perhaps complimentary or parallel to C. L.'s comment regarding "the opaque, overly adjectival style", (which I presume you are referring to), is not technically in concord with hers. C.L.'s critique, (which by the way contains three adjectives) offered with subtle, mordant wit, referred to modifiers of nouns while your objection relates to verbs.

Just as spices impart distinctive flavor to recipes, so select words used in appropriate context can lend unique meaning to a passage. In attempting to employ them am I showing off? (or perhaps sowing off ;))...hardly...to me it is more like exercising.

Verbosity, aside, I yam what I yam, so I write as I think. I have no illusions about pleasing everyone, so I don't worry much about it. I don't generally set out to ruffle feathers for the sake of it, but sometimes it happens.

Sabi

Apology: I erroneously attributed a comment regarding "the opaque, overly adjectival style" to clfo....it was Ron Lanner's (pinetree30) observation, not C.L.'s.

Sabi

Sabi, I don't mean to be rude or discouraging. I'm aware that writers do have varying styles, and thank goodness they do. And I did realize, as soon as I'd posted, that Ron didn't refer to adverbs, but adjectives. My mistake, but I stand by my opinion. One thing writers are constantly told is to minimize use of adverbs, because overuse of them is a sign that you're telling, not showing as you should be. This is particularly a problem in fiction.

You say that you enjoy playing with words and experimenting, and exercising. That's great! Perhaps part of my criticism stems from my own need to write material that is marketable; I sometimes forget that not everyone shares that goal. Ouch, that sounds like an insult - I don't mean it that way! What I mean is this: if you enjoy writing this way, by all means, keep up the good work! But if your goal is to sell your writing, you might consider some alterations.

I think I get your longhand point...you're telling me that if I want my writing to sell I should be showing without showing off.

Thanks for attempting to politely clarify your position.

sabi

Elmore Leonard has a very spare style. His writing is laced with humour, some of it dark. Leonard writes stories that are driven by the characters. He has ten rules of writing that I list below. I know that garden writing is a different kettle of fuchsia but I thought these rules would be useful in the context of working on an appealing style.
1) Never open a story with the weather.
2) Avoid prologues.
3) Never use a verb other than "said" to carry dialogue.
4) Never use an adverb to modify the verb "said".
5) Keep your exclamation points under control.
6) Never use the words "suddenly" or "all hell broke loose".
7) Use regional dialect, patois, sparingly.
8) Avoid detailed descriptions of character.
9) Don't go into detail describing places and things.
10) Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.
He sums up these rules by saying "If it sounds like writing, rewrite it."
These are not my rules of writing, although I agree completely with the sum up, nevertheless we could discuss them.

wasabi -
You have a good premise - could be funny - but the style is what editors call "purple prose" ... overly verbose and adjective ridden, full of trite phrases (weary bones), with the action concealed by all that verbiage.

On a chilly winter night that was dark but not unusually dark, rather more indigo than navy blue, actually, thoughts twisted like smoke over the rooftops in towns, cities and farms across the continent. Little did the forum readers expect what would soon befall them.

"What?!" The churlish pimply author suddenly squeaked, pulling at the frayed cuffs of his dirty denim shirt with the missing button. "Whaddaya mean? No exclamayshun points?!!!!" he said slowly, lingering over every consonant.

It was then that all hell broke loose.

Johnp, I know you meant your post to be facetious but I thought your style was interesting in a humorous way and that is good. It gives me an idea for a new post.

I find the question confusing. When would an 'affected' writing style ever be appealing? (def: "1) mannered; artificial; 2) assumed or simulated to impress others.")Seems like we suffer from enough of that already, no?

In reading your material (and I commend you-- you are very brave for putting that much of your work out on this forum) I supposed that you meant your piece to be tongue-in-cheek. If you are aiming for a full-blown satire, are you clear about what aspect of human folly you are being ironic about? Satire has some basic rules, as do all genres. In my opinion it is so important as a writer to know what genre one is dealing with when one sets out to write a piece for publication. At this stage in your career it sounds like you're looking for a new venture. Have you asked yourself if you want to write fiction, creative non-fiction, (essays, etc.) or non-fiction feature writing? I think it's a mistake to let your writing style dictate the type of writing you choose to do -- we are not hired for the style of writing we do but for the content we provide. An editor, having read a manuscript, may then request that the writer make the piece wittier, more entertaining, less verbose, more practical, etc., but is less likely to say "I like the style of this piece but I don't know what it's about. Could you give it a subject?"

You may have a good chance of success if you assign yourself some specific areas of writing that you want to learn more about (sounds like you've got financial writing nailed)and then read published pieces in those genres. Another good place to start is the local college, or a regional writers convention/workshop, where writing classes for adults are offered along with valuable writer networks that can be tapped for practical advice and feedback.

Hope this helps.

See what happens when you break the rules John? It does help to illustrate a point though without Shenandoah's preaching tone. If you set out to write a piece that is meant to be overblown or a pastiche of your subject (target) then obviously it has to be silly. It is quite another thing when someone writes with serious intentions, in the style that wasabi was sending up (affecting).
The question still remains, for me, considering that garden writing appears to be a serious subject, what are the rules?
"we are not hired for the style of writing we do but for the content we provide" is a ball breaker for sure and I would suggest that someone like Henry Mitchell was not hired for that reason.

First page of Henry Mitchell's book, I thought "This is great, I'm going to highlight the profound stuff." Second page of Henry Mitchell's book, I thought "The heck with this, I'll be highlighting the entire book."

Am I to surmise that if the message really matters, writing style is secondary?

Writers (garden or otherwise) you think best deliver worthy message with style?

sabi

I think you may have misunderstood me Eddie.
It was suggested that content was all that mattered, I gave Henry Mitchell as an example of a writer who wrote "profound stuff" as you call it but with a style that puts life into the subject.
In other words his writing has both content and style. He does not present new "profound stuff" he presents old stuff in an original way.

And, as always, you are right.
Eddie

Are you having a pop at me Eddie? You sound like my wife there.

But you were right. When I just wrote that bit about his profundity I really didn't give much thought to style or content. Your last post did remind me of the woman who said "I didn't know when I married Mr. Right his first name would be Always." Wives have a way of giving us a reality check, I know mine does.

Last time I checked, Henry Mitchell was a writer renowned for the quality of his content. I suggest that he most certainly is hired for his ability to deliver content in a well-written, restrained and literate style. Consider passages like this one from One Man's Garden: "All I require of society, in the matter of gardening, is a decent awareness that gardeners have a greater stake in society than others, and an occasional reflection that no life is worth living without a vine or a fig tree."

Providing content as a garden writer does not mean that one should be restricted to writing manuals. It means that one's offerings should be meaningful, concise, and above all, original. Style is not as important as what one has to say, whether you're writing about horticulture or world history. Style naturally follows content if you're an educated and disciplined writer who is in this profession for the long haul and you are constantly practicing your craft. Count the number of adjectives in the passage I quoted and you'll see what I mean.

Points well made, neighbor. Henry Mitchell's work is on my short list. Thanks for your insights.

sabi

i'm not a literary person, but from what I can tell is that the style overall, reminds me of screenplay writing, e.g.:

"Gathering up papers and his favorite plaid thermos, he tied them into a kerchief and fastened the satchel to the end of a stout length of devils walking stick. He stooped a final time to clear the doorway of his former lair. Tired, but resolute, he crossed the clearing, pausing briefly against an over pruned Shishigashira to catch his breath."

What I mean is that the writing style is very descriptive in terms of both actions and local, and less informative psychologically in terms of the character. Psychological states of the character, I guess, are inferred through these very discriptive, or highly visual/cinematic passages - as in a screenplay. This last passage for instance can be viewed in terms of cinema as a shot. Where sometimes visual clues such as location and character gestures play a larger role in the telling of the story, rather than the actual character dialogue or narration:

"Behind him, in the eerie calm of sunset, a single unobserved green leaf made no sound as it slowly drifted to settle neatly on a background of uncharacteristically red moss beneath the maple, signaling a natural, albeit most curious end to a tenured era."

...it's cinematic.

I'm curious . . . how did you, Wasabi, hear about our exploding whale tale? It happened more than 30 years ago. Each year on its anniversary, KATU airs the story, showing the same tired footage, but I didn't realize it made the news anywhere else. I wouldn't have believed the tale well known enough to spark a story by someone living on the opposite coast (thanks for sharing).

Not that it matters for your story, but are you aware that you took literary license by putting the Willamette so close to the coast (where they blew the whale up)? Or perhaps your hermit is a *very* speedy walker. ;-)