Writing Style of the Series

The Sixth World of Men employs a very simple writing style. This style has drawn both praise and sneers from those who have read A Beacon of Hope. I really expected more criticism than I've received so far. Perhaps more criticism will come as the series becomes more well-known.

Now, you might rightfully ask, "If you knew writing in such a plain style would be controversial, why did you write the series in this manner?" The answer is slightly complicated so allow me a few sentences to explain how the style came to be.

Originally, I had planned to compose the series as a series of journal entries. The style of writing that I chose was based on the background of the main characters. These characters would be the authors of the journal entries. I imagined that each of the main characters in the first part of the story would write very directly because of the backgrounds. The main characters had backgrounds in either a scientific discipline or in the military. If you've read papers published by these types of people, you know that most of them employ a very straight-forward, no nonsense approach to their writing.

I decided against this method to tell the stories because of the difficulty of keeping the story in its chronology using this method. This story needs to be told chronologically to avoid confusion. Subsequently, I rewrote the series using the characters' point of view. However, while doing this, I found that the style of the journal entries fit this story very well. Therefore, I kept the style simple. Perhaps, not as simple as the style of the journal entries, but I mimicked the style as I thought appropriate.

The simplicity of the writing varies slightly depending upon which character's point of view is being used. Also, some dream sequences in the series aren't written quite as plainly either. I thought this to be appropriate.
You might then ask, "How do you know that the writing style used in the series will meet with controversy?" The answer is simple. I have several friends who are writers. Some of those friends thought that I was writing "beneath my ability" in this series. Others thought that the style was an act of genius for the series. It all depended on whether they saw what I saw. If they did, they thought that the style was grand; if they didn't, they expressed disappointment.
It is interesting how some people who don't understand the use of the plain writing style refer to the style. Some call the style "inexpert writing." Others call it "disappointing. The most amusing of the responses is the comment that said that the book contained many "grammatical errors." I suppose that this person just didn't like the style and lacked the vocabulary to express their dislike appropriately. (In fairness, the same reviewer said that there were typos in the book. This could be true. I'm not the greatest typist ever born. Many editors went over the book looking for typos, but it is possible that a couple might have gotten through. I am sorry if a typo was missed. Though, I've not heard that comment from any other source to date.)

I am surprised that a large percentage of reviewers called the style refreshing, original and "perfect for this story." It is a testament to these reviewers that they can put their literary biases aside and focus on the impact that this style has on this particular story.

A couple of reviewers say, "you have to get used to the style." These same reviewers continue to say, "once you do, you can just go along for the ride; the author does all the work for you."

I would like to take that time to thank all of the reviewers who took the time to understand the style employed in this series. It gives me hope that fresh styles still have a chance to blossom.