A Manifesto (or maybe an Anti-Manifesto) on Style

In "A Reader's Advice to Writers," Salon's Laura Miller advises novelists to concentrate more on good old-fashioned story-telling and less on style: "Remember that nobody agrees on what a beautiful prose style is and most readers either can't recognize `good writing' or don't value it that much....I've seen as many books ruined by too much emphasis on style as by too little....whether you write lush or (please!) transparent prose, keep in mind that in most cases, style is largely a technical matter appreciated by specialists. You probably don't go to movies to see the lighting and photography, and most readers don't come to books in search of breathtaking sentences."

While I agree with most of Miller's pragmatic advice, I find her comments on style to be simplistic and cavalier. Are there really only two kinds of style, lush (= bad) and transparent (= good)? How about a style that achieves elegance and clarity without sounding like every other book out there? A style with a little poetry, some music, a few original figures of speech, words and sentences put together in a way you've never heard before? A style that carries and supports the story but that is itself worthy of note and recognizable as belonging to one particular writer--that's what I want to read and write.

I study literary style so that I can better appreciate how writers use the tools of their art to achieve the totality of their work. I attempt to learn about great works of music and art in the same way, and yes, I go to movies to see the lighting and photography as well as to enjoy the story. And among educated people, I don't think I'm that unusual.

Style isn't the most important element of a literary work, and like all the other elements, it can be overdone. But that doesn't mean that the "transparent" style that betrays not a hint of craft is the only one worth writing or reading. Both writers and readers deserve more credit than Miller gives us.