Writing What Hurts - Style

Author

David Niall Wilson
October 05, 2025

In partnership with

What’s Happening

Don’t forget to subscribe and share. Subscribe at my website

You can also subscribe to the growing Crossroad Press Newsletter at our website.

I’ve been writing for a very long time. Books are unique things, and there are types and levels to them. Some are fun stories. Some are comfortable, easier to write and easily recognizable. Then there are the ones that come out of nowhere, not fitting any of the normal themes. You can write an unforgettable book of any type. From a children’s picture book to cozy mystery, hard-core horror to space opera. It’s the connection to the story that determines the level. It can catch you by surprise.

For me, an example of this is my unfortunately titled novel Jurassic Ark. I set out to write a satire. I wanted to write something in the world of that guy Ken Ham, who created the a Noah’s Ark theme park and added dinosaurs, because he believed the world to be only about six thousand years old. I came up with that title, which turned out not even to be the first time it was used, and set to work. I even launched it with a chase scene with the main protagonist almost being taken out by a T-rex.

Everything from that point on was a book I never intended to write. It’s a fantasy. There is intrigue and magic. There are dinosaurs as well. What I didn’t anticipate was the way the idea that this family was creating a boat that would save them, while all of those they knew, all of those who helped them – everyone but their small family – would die.

I researched and made sure I had as much of the original mythology worked in as I could, not just what appears in the various versions of the Bible, but Jewish lore. Noah himself started out as a hardline authoritarian and his relationships with his children, and the people in the city below his mountain, evolved.

I think it’s actually one of the finest things I’ve written, but it’s not “Jurassic Ark,” and I am considering a re-release with an entirely different cover and title. The audiobook was performed by Joshua Saxon who really brought those characters to life. It’s not the great American novel, but leveled up along the way.

The book I’m writing now has been like that. I had a certain thing in mind to do with it, tying in as many horror tropes as I could manage and not lose track of the story. It has turned out, as the story is finally winding into the ending, that those tropes just dangling in the early parts of the book are the threads binding it together. Again – it’s much more than I expected it to be. The first draft is closing on 120,000 words, but it will be trimmed and revised in the first round of edits. I’ll be working on it after I send this newsletter.

Audio

This isn’t new, but I’m going to mention it because the paperback just became available (finally) and It’s a great book. Also, it’s Halloween time, and the narrator, Al Dano, did most of the Orangefield novels for us – Al Sarrantonio’s series set at Halloween, and I’m feeling a little sad after posting about him and his books in the Crossroad Press Newsletter. So…

Fourteen tales of madness, horror, fantasy, zombies, and dark magic, as well as fourteen original poems. Spanning more than two decades, the stories offer a wide range of glimpses into the creative process that has formed my career.

Contents include these short stories: "Through an Eyeglass Darkly", "Fear of Flying", "Moving On", "One off from Prime", "Headlines", "Wayne's World", "Redemption", "Swarm", "The Purloined Prose" (with Patricia Lee Macomber), "Shift", "Pretty Boys in Blue and Long Hair Dangling", "To Strike a Timeless Chord", "Etched Deep", and "Unique". Also included are the poems: "End of Days", "The Acropolis", "Clamdigger", "Cuttlefish Squeezings", "Thanatology", "A Poem of Adrian", "Gray", "The Fishmonger", "Revelation", "Loch Ness", "Mirrored Hearts", "Dark Man", "Banished", "End of Days", & "Longhaired Puppies".

From Writing What Hurts

STYLE

Style is a word you see tossed about a lot in literary circles. There have been epic battles fought over stylistic writing vs. plot-driven writing vs. character driven writing. There are authors who understand words and punctuation and the painting of images in sequences of letters so well that they can twist and turn the language into intricate pretzels of brilliance…and there is an even larger number claiming "style" to hide a lack of grammatical skill, or a simple misunderstanding of the term.

My take on it is as simple as my take on most of the big writing arguments. In fact, let me qualify this by stating my opinion on most such squabbles up front. If you are arguing over style, or plot, or who is right about what aspect of the craft of writing, you aren't writing. If you spend all your time worrying over how others work, or whether you are doing it "right" then you aren't concentrating hard enough to create anything useful. Creation requires your full attention – don't waste it on irrelevant nonsense, because, in the end, if you don't create something it's all so much wasted breath.

Style is what it is. While I believe you can recognize a style that you like, emulate it, study it, twist it and turn it – it isn't your style until it develops into something so ingrained in your psyche that it occurs without thought. It's like I tell my oldest daughter, who is fond of telling everyone how she likes to be random. If you are trying to be random, it's not random. In her case, of course, I was proved wrong. She is very centered, but often random in ways I don’t expect. That’s not the point here. If you are trying to write with a particular style you may be in a developmental stage, but it can't be considered your own. I would go so far as to say that even if you absolutely LOVE the style of another author, unless it molds itself to your mind and becomes something entirely new, you are writing in someone else's style and can never be more than a reflection.

I wrote early on in this piece about influences. You can't avoid them and shouldn’t try. On the other hand, you also can't get caught up in them. Like drinking, or television, or video games – if you let yourself get too tangled up in one influence or another, you will lose yourself, and if you don't personally have anything to say, why are you writing? If you don't believe your own words, in your own voice, will reach out and grab people – or get your message across – or do justice to the voices in your head, what is the point? It's not arrogance to believe you are as good as anyone out there, it's mental survival. Never strive to be second best, or the next "so-and-so"–strive to make what you are a thing that others envy and want to emulate. Be the first you.

And with that in mind, a bit about style. Just like everything in the arts, you have to be careful with that hat that says "stylist" on it. The publishing world, and subsequently the world of readers and consumers, is very fond of labels. The thing about literary labels is that they come with their own particularly sticky and difficult to wash off adhesive. If you write a horror novel, and it does well, you are a horror writer. You can overcome this over time – particularly if you are a successful author, like Dean Koontz, or Billy Martin (Poppy Z. Brite) – but it's not an easy task.

The problem from the publisher's side of the fence is a simple matter of marketing. To create a best-selling author, you begin by publishing and marketing that first book – and you build on it. You try to create a recognizable brand – a product you can quantify, qualify, and pop onto the right shelf. If the aforementioned horror writer turns in a mainstream novel, or a mystery, you have to either build parallel paths (possibly with one genre under a pseudonym to keep from getting it all messy) or start all over in the new genre, building that brand. I get this – and you should too, if you plan on putting that stylist hat on. You still have to write what moves you and connects with you if you want the work to be special. Don’t let marketing or worrying over success make your writing a chore.

For one thing, if you are going to be a stylistic writer, you had better have the standard styles down pat. You'd better be able to communicate and articulate, punctuate and prove it. If you become a rule breaker, you have to be able to prove you know you broke rules, and didn't just do it because it sounded "cool." You'll get called on it. The problem with writing as a stylist is that most of the readers who are interested in that type of writing are a more literate crowd, and they are quick to flush out "poseurs".

Also, think long and hard about your reasons. Some authors, Caitlin Kiernan comes to mind, write the way they do because it's the way they write. Kathe Koja has a "voice" that has been present since her first novel. It's not an affectation, in other words, and I believe that to be effective, style can never be an affectation. It has to be a naturally occurring voice.

That brings me to the actual point (sometimes I really get there if you stick with me). The point is, we are all stylists. Your 'style' is how the words come out when you are in your 'zone.' The Zone, for me, is that place where I'm working – the words are flowing – and I am not thinking about them at all, just pounding the keys and letting it flow. That's the natural state of my work. It is possible to force that work into other voices, and styles, but a rare occasion when I can pull it off without losing something in the translation.

It's also important to understand what stylistic means. There are any number of quirks that can distinguish one literary voice from another. Short sentences, long sentences, punctuation that uses flips and tricks to reach an end, stream-of-consciousness, quirky first person, clipped phrases …you get the idea. Early in my career, I used WAY too many ellipses. Sometimes I still do. I used to think it was part of my "style" and now I know, sadly, that it's a flaw in my grammar. I also overuse the em-dash, and now it seems people are trying to equate that with AI assisted writing. (narrator: it’s not).

One of my pet peeves in writing could, I suppose, be considered nothing more than a stylistic preference. The use of the word "could" to modify verbs irritates the crap out of me. If you take a paragraph full of "He could see the campfire from where he stood" like sentences and change them so they read in the immediate, real-time way I think they should, you get "He saw the campfire." Over a few pages, this can tighten and trim up a manuscript with incredible swiftness and aplomb. That's what I think. In practice, I see everyone from Stephen King to John Grisham tossing the "could" word at verbs and that is their choice. It only bothers me when I notice it one time in a jarring sentence, but from that point on it can irritate me right out of my happy place

The point of this short aside is just to note that this is a quirk of my own style. I'm not necessarily right, or wrong about it, but in my own writing you'll not find me using that sentence structure very often. It's the tip of a huge iceberg. I will be getting further into my own style as we progress and hopefully examining where elements of it came from – why they stuck with me while others did not – and how this may, or may not relate to your own writing. Stay tuned.

What I’m Reading

On the Kindle I’m still reading The Works of Vermin, an ARC for the upcoming novel by Hiron Ennes. I’m about 16% in – it’s a long book. This is a seriously wonderful book and even this early on I highly recommend it. Because it’s so long I’ve pre-ordered the audio as well and will switch when I’m done with my current listen.

About 60% done with The Essential Bukowski: Poetry

What I’m Watching

Movies – just watched The Man in My Basement – which was a very cool idea that I think fell a little short of the message it might have presented, but still put forth some powerful images and themes. It’s worth the watch, but is a movie (fair warning) with very few outside scenes, and a lot of monologue from the main characters, Corey Hawkins and Willem Dafoe. It’s a strange one.

Still watching Franklin & Bash, Peacemaker, and Only Murders in the Building and have added the new season of Murder in a Small Town, which is not very intense, but good, comfortable filler. Also catching up on recent South Park episodes… like you do.

What I’m Listening to

VEIL – by Jonathan Janz – Performed by John Pirhalla (who reminds me a bit of the late Frank Muller). A few chapters in… very creepy stuff. I am about 36% of the way through it. There are a variety of themes here, family dynamics, an apocalyptic event, with all the associated bad actors acting badly… fully invested now and ready to find out where this leads.

Looking for unbiased, fact-based news? Join 1440 today.

Join over 4 million Americans who start their day with 1440 – your daily digest for unbiased, fact-centric news. From politics to sports, we cover it all by analyzing over 100 sources. Our concise, 5-minute read lands in your inbox each morning at no cost. Experience news without the noise; let 1440 help you make up your own mind. Sign up now and invite your friends and family to be part of the informed.

Buy My Books