Purple prose issues

You might get better advice if you give an example of your purplest prose. Is it because you spend too much time lovingly describing your characters and settings? Is your prose heavy on the abstract and in need of more concrete details? Do you prefer "emerald pools" over "green eyes"? Are your metaphors and similes over the top?

Self-Editing for Fiction Writers might be your best bet? The Elements of Style is another good choice; however, I suggest reading Spunk and Bite along with it. I also enjoyed On Writing Well (though its focus is on nonfiction), and Writing Tools is my all-time favorite. All of these favor clean, concise writing.

Admittedly I like more florid styles. Purple prose is inherently intrusive and tends to be littered with clumsy clichés, but there's nothing wrong with being on the more descriptive side. Once you have the purple under control, I definitely suggest finding authors who're admired for their descriptive prowess and studying them.

Start by removing your adjectives and adverbs and see how your prose works. Those are usually the chief villains in over-written "purple" prose. This recommendation doesn't mean you should never use an adjective or an adverb, only that the overuse of these modifiers is likely a problem. Make sure your modifiers actually accomplish something useful. If not, get rid of them.

Also read your prose aloud, both to yourself and to someone else if you can enlist such.

dunno about books, but read it and say to yourself "do I sound like I"m adding to the scene, or like the douchebag uncle I have who sends ten-page christmas cards about how they have "received a cornnucpoia of blessings to their very special and loved family" and all that crap--do you sound like you're adding descriptives to flesh out a scene, or runing wild with them, desperate to prove your "writer-worthiness"?

Purple prose is generally tedious to read because it's trite, not because it's too descriptive.

Take a writer like Nabokov: guilty of florid, ornate, self-referential, beautiful prose. He makes it work. He was the rare type of writer who could wax rhapsodic about the mundane and make it transcendent.

If prose is rife with cliche, inept or trite metaphor, abuse of adverbs, and various other sins of overwriting, then readers will accuse the writer of purple prose. But the core problem is probably triteness.

You don't always have to use pedestrian descriptions like "green eyes." But "emerald pools" is certainly cliche--comparing eyes to gems and bodies of water. (Besides, almost nobody actually has emerald eyes. In humans, green eyes tend to be yellow-green or brown-green, like olive or hazel, which aren't as spectacular as precious gemstones.) There are many ways to describe green eyes without resorting to tired cliches. If you're struggling to find one that isn't cliche, though, it's probably best to just say "green eyes" and get on with it.

Laughing at quicklime's advice. So true!! I would also add that accusations of purple prose can also come from "literary" construction of your sentences (in addition to the much-maligned adverb). Example: "She wept. For she was the saddest damsel in all the land. As the dewdrops fell, so did her tears." Purple, purple, purple.

If you wouldn't use the same phrasing when speaking out loud, there's a high likelihood of purple.

Hope that helps!

Another approach is to ask a very blunt question of yourself. Are your sections of purple prose written to make the story more clear to the reader, or to impress the reader with what a cool writer you are? It can be a tough question, but a common problem with many new and developing writers is the "cool writer syndrome." Hook your reader with the story. Readers will likely tire of attempts to hook them with florid prose, particularly if it gets in the way of the story, or slows it down.

Purple prose is extremely ornate language, heavily laden with metaphors, similes, adverbs, adjectives, and unnecessarily fancy words (definition so noted in case your commenters have a different definition, a possibility with critiques). It commonly turns up in descriptions.

At the same time, you don't want to lose some of the things it brings to the table, because those are useful writing tools. So here's some concrete ideas for cutting back to think on:

1. Since it does commonly turn up in descriptions, use the highlighting tool to highlight all your descriptions. That'll give you a very visual representation of how much you're doing it.

2. In those passages of description, look for any adverbs modifying an adjective. Look both up in the dictionary. What you'll probably find is that you're modifying an adjective with a word that means the same thing. It's also going to force you to really think about what goes in there--especially if you're overusing the adverbs and adjectives. You're going to get awfully sick of them and start chopping them out.

3. Limit yourself to one metaphor or simile per page. You should not have paragraphs with two or three. One on a page is a pinch of salt; three in a paragraph is dumping the salt shaker into the soup. A little goes a long ways.

4. If you're trying to be writerly, don't. The story needs to stand up for itself, and purple prose will overpower it.

These are just some broad ideas to give you an idea of how to identify the purple prose and cut back without destroying techniques that you can still use--just not in excess.

Good advice! that is why I love this site.

I've found that it's easier to let your descriptive side go when you're outside the POV describing what's happening to them, so you might also try putting yourself more in your point of view character's head.

If you're solid in the POV, you can look at every word and ask if that's how that character would say it. Would they really use such a flowery term inf that situation when their adrenaline is surging full tilt? Would that down to earth character with limited education describe something in that way?

Also, when you focus on the characters and what they think, feel, and see, you're showing the story more and describing the setting/action/situation less.

Just from a very basic standpoint, one thing to note is how many unadorned nouns you have versus nouns with an adjective attached. And then, how many nouns have more than one adjective. Even without going to all the way to the Purple Side, you can write sentences like, "He walked with a steady stride, his hard body swaying like the lush palm trees above, along the sandy, white beach that bordered the warm, blue-green water." After a little of that, the reader is dying to have a few plain nouns.

I agree with first cutting all the adjectives and adverbs, and replacing them with strong verbs and nouns.

Then look at all the similes, metaphors, etc. Do they belong there? Do you have more than one in a sentence, and more than one sentence like that in a paragraph? Are they full of cliches, or are they fresh? Some writers are accused of being purple (Nabokov, Chabon, Cunningham) but they're so unique and original that their prose is actually lush and rich.

Third, think about why you write purple prose to begin with. Is it because you think that would make you sound writerly? Are you telling a story effectively, or are you trying to sound like James Joyce?

If all fails, strike out all your flowery prose (purple or not) and start over again. And this time, stick with the essential and basic style. After a while, you may get a hang of writing precisely without ornate purpleness.

Purple prose is generally tedious to read because it's trite, not because it's too descriptive.

Take a writer like Nabokov: guilty of florid, ornate, self-referential, beautiful prose. He makes it work. He was the rare type of writer who could wax rhapsodic about the mundane and make it transcendent.

If prose is rife with cliche, inept or trite metaphor, abuse of adverbs, and various other sins of overwriting, then readers will accuse the writer of purple prose. But the core problem is probably triteness.

Click to expand...

Definately this.

And even when you look at authors who are particularly lyrical, they still have clean, clear language. Adverbs and adjectives should only be used if they add something unique, or a particular rhythm.

Also, be concrete, rather than abstract. That is at the heart of good "showing".

Adjectives and adverbs works best when they are used with absolute precision yet are a little suprising. Ask yourself "have I heard this description or turn of phrase somewhere else before, or is this new?"

Same withe metaphors and similies. A few very unique ones go a long way. Don't feel like you have to struggle to come up with a lot of them.

Avoiding purple prose doesn't mean dumbing down your language; as a reader I love beautiful, complex prose, and I am not averse to the occasional trip to the dictionary. But those rare words have to be used very precisely, cleverly, and be absolutely necessary.

For example, I remember in an early chapter of Kavalier and Clay, Michael Chabon refers to "all of cathected Prague." That is a brilliant use of a somewhat obscure Freudian term. No other simpler word would do precisely what "cathected' does in that sentence. It also fits because the character his omniscient narrator is talking about is a psychologist, back in the day and age when Freud was a big deal, and it fits the overall themes of the book, about how people deal with their loss and unbearable attatchments through escapism. So the rare word works because it connects with so much in the book, rather than just being an instance of going to the thesaurus for something new.

I would read some authors who write great prose to get a sense of what good lyrical writing sounds like. Don't try to copy, but examine how they use metaphor, simile, and other aspects of language to paint beautiful pictures, and how it differs from trite, purple prose. Some of my favorite books to study for the prose and they way it fits the narrative and the characters are:

- To the Lighthouse by Virgina Woolf (more complex...but not necessarily with big words),
- The Road by Cormac McCarthy (lyrical but sparse),
- The Earthsea Books by Ursula LeGuin (clean but also lyrical, an especially good example for fantasy prose),
- Little, Big by John Crowley (more ornate, and requires an occasional trip to the dictionary, but a great example of how to do ornate prose and big words well.)

It does also depend on POV and what type of book you are writing. If you are writing from a character POV, your language should more closely match their thought. If you are writing from an omniscient POV you have more freedom, writing in the voice of the narrator, but still want to keep it appropriate to the style of the book and the characters (and your narrator's attitude towards them). You want your prose to "fit" your story, and your genre.

If you write fantasy, Ursula LeGuin's essay "From Elfland to Poughkeepsie" is a must read about prose specifically in fantasy. It was written a few decades ago but is timeless advice.

bonitakale said:

Just from a very basic standpoint, one thing to note is how many unadorned nouns you have versus nouns with an adjective attached. And then, how many nouns have more than one adjective. Even without going to all the way to the Purple Side, you can write sentences like, "He walked with a steady stride, his hard body swaying like the lush palm trees above, along the sandy, white beach that bordered the warm, blue-green water." After a little of that, the reader is dying to have a few plain nouns.

Click to expand...

Fixed.

elf-Editing for Fiction Writers might be your best bet? The Elements of Style is another good choice; however, I suggest reading Spunk and Bite along with it. I also enjoyed On Writing Well (though its focus is on nonfiction), and Writing Tools is my all-time favorite. All of these favor clean, concise writing.

Click to expand...

The Elements of Style. Great book.

Yes, don't try to sound writerly. I don't know that I've ever seen that work. You don't have to sound like Joe at the beer hall, either. It depends. I certainly do not agree that you have to use the same words you'd use out loud to friends or anything.

My advice would be to write straightfowardly. At the same time, read some really good rich language if that's how you'd like to lean. After a long while of reading how the greats do it, let a little slip out that way in your writing. Play with it! But don't be afraid if betas say it's still not there. It takes a while to strike a good balance, I think!

Definitely seek out folks who like 'literary' writing if you have what you hope is a rich piece. It's not everyone's taste -- even the greats' work!

BB_Baker said:

Thank you all so much. These are such great suggestions. And to answer tutty's question - I try to sound too writerly. - Too much over writing the details.

Thanks again everyone for your help.

B

Click to expand...

try to find a few books you hate...."Bridges of Madison County" is on my short-list from the excerpt on the jacket alone, which struck me as almost painfully over-wrought. Read something like that (not everyone hates "Bridges", but it is an example) and let your skin crawl. It really helps slam home the fact you're better just writing the damn story than trying to go all "artiste" with it.

I've found the best way, in the end, to overcome my poor habits is to edit, edit, then edit some more.

The more I edit my work, the better capable I become of recognizing the problems AS I WRITE THEM. All the above suggestions are good, but this puts into practice what I learn.