When and where should you use metaphor and descriptive language? Is there a such a thing as having too much descriptive language? When is simple language better?
Is there a such a thing as having too much descriptive language? When is simple language better?
Oh by the way. Don't describe chewing!
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.How do you define purple prose?
Why not? What if it's relevant to my character?
Then just say chewing the reader knows what chewing is.
Then just say chewing the reader knows what chewing is.
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."
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?
Then say it, just don't describe the chewing. Say it as a metaphor or a simile.
Then describe the texture. If anything happens then just say it.
Then say it, just don't describe the chewing. Say it as a metaphor or a simile.
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?
This is hard. -.-. My head hurts.
This is hard. -.-. My head hurts.
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.
{A lot of people say things like that after talking with me.}
ETA: I have faith in you, Blue. You can get this.