I love tackling books written prior to the 1940's. They wrote in a different voice - if that makes any sense at all.
Sadly, I realized that over the years authors have scaled down their depth and their writing styles to accomodate readers. Detailed descriptions of landscapes and well-worded emotional expressions used to form part of our vernacular. Now the echoing blast from a gun gets broken down to mili-seconds and stripped into words - which the editors eventually scratch out.
Do we no longer credit readers with brains? Or has illiteracy ratings guided us to a more depraved grammar in order to make our stories more readable? Or has self-publishing opened the door for writers who would normally not have made it to the shelf?
Stuart, the topic has digressed a tad. Apologies. My first posting was to stress a concern for not writing too dumb (if you pardon the slack way of putting it) and crediting even the most-unschooled (I know this sounds terrible, but there's no other way) reader with a bit of brains. By no means should an author play himself down to a level he doesn't wish to be writing at.
Other than not writing stupid for stupid folk (I'm really letting go) I hoped to create an interesting discussion where fellow authors/ readers could relate how they encourage a non-reader to pick up their book. There is not an author out there who doesn't want someone to read his work.
So, here it is, by writing long prose in a modern slang or drifting on in a poetic style while explaining how a junkie takes ahit, we relay our styles to those who need to read it. By doing so, we get to credit the reader with ample of what he needs to turn the telly off, sit down and read a book. Right you are, if a reader senses that it's not real then the author did not credit the reader accordingly.