Use of Metaphor and Descriptive Language

I'll respond first.

I hate descriptive language. If anyone ever accused me of having "purple prose" I'd probably start punching things until there was nothing left to punch.

Personally, I'm all for letting the reader compose their own environment. Unless it's a plot point, who cares that the hero had clear blue eyes? Does it matter that the heroine had tresses like waves of honeyed mead?

Of course, I'm too weak on my describing as a direct result of this. So my opinion is only worth so much

The lazy way: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_prose

In particular: "Purple prose is sensuously evocative beyond the requirements of its context."

Birol said:

Is there a such a thing as having too much descriptive language? When is simple language better?

Click to expand...

You can describe your scene as long as you don't over do it. ^_^ Only describe when it's necessary.

It's okay to describe a kitchen or a bedroom, or a character. But it is NOT okay to describe something that the reader already knows about. Like German Sheperds.

Overdescription means the reader describes so much material to the point that not only to stray away from the plot but also takes over and ruins it for the reader who wants to visualize things on their own.


Oh by the way. Don't describe chewing!

metaphor is a fundamental building block of language and learning.

frost nailed it in 'education by poetry'.

Birol said:

How do you define purple prose?

Click to expand...

A matter of degree. Many people would consider the following purple prose; I would disagree. I would call it deliberately evocative of a mood, a tone Durrell wished to establish, a mind set for the novel and the city it portrays.

"In the great quietness of these winter evenings there is one clock: the sea. Its dim momentum in the mind is the fugue upon which this writing is made. Empty cadences of sea-water licking its own wounds, sulking along the mouth of the delta, boiling upon those deserted beaches - empty, forever empty under the gulls: white scribble on the grey, munched by clouds. If there are ever sails here they die before the land swallows them. Wreckage washed up on the pediments of islands, the last crust, eroded by the weather, stuck in the blue maw of water... gone!"

Justine - The Alexandria Quartet, Lawrence Durrell

Birol said:

Why not? What if it's relevant to my character?

Click to expand...

Then just say chewing the reader knows what chewing is. It's just too "common sense" to describe.

it has been studied and proven in communication studies that one of the best forms of persuasion and understanding is a metaphor.

use them whenever possible to bridge a gap in understanding. It is one of your strongest communication tools - especially for understanding, persuasion and evoking emotion.

BlueLucario said:

Then just say chewing the reader knows what chewing is.

Click to expand...

The reader already knows what the sea is. Yet I (mostly) enjoyed rugcat's post.

(It got a little over the top for my taste, but I'm able to recognize that it's just my taste and that the writing itself wasn't awful.)

BlueLucario said:

Then just say chewing the reader knows what chewing is.

Click to expand...

To add to Birol's question: what if, say, the texture of the food the character is chewing is relevant? Or if the character's jaw clicks while he's chewing something during an awkward moment? Or if the character stuffs food in his mouth? Or if the character counts the number of times she chews something before swallowing? All of those things may shed light on the story.

As always, my stock answer is "if it works, then it's correct."

MeowGirl said:

To add to Birol's question: what if, say, the texture of the food the character is chewing is relevant? Or what if the character's jaw clicks while he's chewing something during an awkward moment? Or if the character stuffs food in his mouth? Or if the character counts the number of times she chews something before swallowing? All of those things may shed light on the story.

As always, my stock answer is "if it works, then it's correct."

Click to expand...

Then describe the texture. If anything happens then just say it.

Birol said:

What if they chew like a cow? Or take a dainty nibble as if they are afraid the food might bite back? Or only eat on the right side of their mouth, the cheek on that side of their face bulging like a chipmunk storing food for the winter?

Click to expand...

Then say it, just don't describe the chewing. Say it as a metaphor or a simile.


T

BlueLucario said:

Then say it, just don't describe the chewing. Say it as a metaphor or a simile.

Click to expand...

This would, inherently, be "describing" it.

Birol said:

This could be considered telling. While not always wrong, just saying it, might also take away from the characterization, the pacing, or the story.




Why do I get the feeling you're repeating something you've read or been told without fully understanding what it means?

Click to expand...

This is hard. -.-. My head hurts.

BlueLucario said:

This is hard. -.-. My head hurts.

Click to expand...

To quote Tim Kasher: "Art is hard."

My personal preference has always been for clean, simple writing. Now a good metaphor can nail something exactly, make it come to like in a way that the most detailed description won't. But overuse can interrupt a story, no matter how clever the metaphor.

A brilliant metaphor is likely to resonate with a reader, but it also can take that reader out of the story -- the very fact of appreciating the writer's skill and depth makes the reader aware there is a writer operating behind the scenes. The "invisible" writer is the one I want to emulate -- the unobtrusive type that tells a story so seamlessly that you forget you're reading a book.

rugcat said:

My personal preference has always been for clean, simple writing. Now a good metaphor can nail something exactly, make it come to like in a way that the most detailed description won't. But overuse can interrupt a story, no matter how clever the metaphor.

A brilliant metaphor is likely to resonate with a reader, but it also can take that reader out of the story -- the very fact of appreciating the writer's skill and depth makes the reader aware there is a writer operating behind the scenes. The "invisible" writer is the one I want to emulate -- the unobtrusive type that tells a story so seamlessly that you forget you're reading a book.

Click to expand...

Although, to be contrary, I sometimes like when a writer says something so wonderfully that I step back and go, "Wow, what a clever beast!" Even if it makes me realize there's a writer behind the pages. I feel like I've connected with the book on a new level.

Birol said:

{A lot of people say things like that after talking with me.}

ETA: I have faith in you, Blue. You can get this.

Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. Of course I can. It'll take a while but I'll get it. After all, there are people in this forum who taught me well.

My personal preference is somewhere in the middle between sparse and descriptive. Saying that, in my first drafts I always go over the top on description. My WIP I'm editing at the moment - I think I caught simile-itis. Seems to be one in every sentence!

When reading I'm the same though, I love description, especially if it adds a little detail that, while it fits in perfectly with the setting, I would never have thought of myself (if that makes any sense), but I agree you can get too much, and it can be too flowery for my tastes at times.