Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know about #4, sometimes I just get annoyed with 'essay' narratives. Anything you can picture a 3rd grader with a sun dress and pigtails reading in front of the class. I prefer the development of nuanced phrases to flat out story telling.
I don't know about #4, sometimes I just get annoyed with 'essay' narratives. Anything you can picture a 3rd grader with a sun dress and pigtails reading in front of the class.
There's a subtle difference there, I think. "Purple Prose" refers to too much description, where the reader can get lost in paragraph after paragraph of flowery words that add nothing to the story. Descriptive language is certainly a great part of writing a story, and for the reader, it adds to the whole scene. Still, too much of it is distracting. I think that every sentence should add something to the story, should move the story forward. When a writer spends five paragraphs trying to explain how ominous the woods are, well, I think that's too much.
The better way to handle it would be to work the description into the "action". A couple quick examples: "Jo Bubba ducked under a decaying branch..." or.. "Shuddering, he quickly wiped away the thick spider webs that relentlessly clung to him..." Whatever, they aren't great examples, but I think they get my point across.. I could spend a few paragraphs telling the reader how scary the forest is, or, I could show them through the character - with his reactions, his feelings, his viewpoint of the scene.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ticky909
I prefer the development of nuanced phrases to flat out story telling.
I don't consider that "purple prose", I consider that good story telling..
The lightning bolt didn't care about the nuns, or Jennifer's skull. It tore through her brain and sent the sisters flying toward the baptismal trough. Father Devlin began to dance as he ran toward the poor box. He would soon be heading for Las Vegas in order to become a gigilo. A man can only witness so many lightning strikes before he goes on the fritz himself.
Along these lines, I'd like to recommend a book. Gun in Cheek, edited by Bill Pronzini. He refers to the contents as "alternative" fiction. But it's actually some of the worst detective stories ever committed to paper. And, by the way, it's absolutely hilarious. (Don't do what these writers have done, and whatever you produce will be just fine!)
Heh. Ten minutes with any crusty ol' city editor will cure anyone of "purple prose" ... permanently.
Twenty-eight years after beginning a career in newspapers -- and 12 years after leaving the news business -- and I'm still afraid of adjectives.
Way back when, I was taught that news writing consisted of factual information: "who, what, when, where, how" -probably not in the right order, there. Now it seems like news media concentrates much more on 'how did you feel when' - as in 'how did you feel when you found out the flight your husband (or son or daughter or wife) was on went down with no survivors?' How do they think any reasonably sane person would feel? It's all emotion, with barely enough fact to hang it together, more or less. At times, even the facts are wrong, and even after that's been proved, still the debates go on as if the original was accurate. I'll admit this is mostly in media that is in front of a camera, but still, someone has written it before it's broadcast.
I don't really trust newspapers for anything more than entertainment now. Usually 1/3 of it is cut and paste from another newspaper anyways. The rest is opinion, emotion, mudslinging, etc. I read the articles and just think "false, claim, claim, claim, irrelevant, claim, claim, etc" I feel like I'm being dishonest if I quote anything from a newspaper in something. Not really sound writing at all.
I don't really trust newspapers for anything more than entertainment now. Usually 1/3 of it is cut and paste from another newspaper anyways. The rest is opinion, emotion, mudslinging, etc. I read the articles and just think "false, claim, claim, claim, irrelevant, claim, claim, etc" I feel like I'm being dishonest if I quote anything from a newspaper in something. Not really sound writing at all.
Ticky, I'm right there with ya.. I think that if someone is going to write something that's supposed to be considered fact, they need to keep all of the excess "crap" out of it.. I guess that's what they think people like though, so I don't see it changing anytime soon.
I've seen a lot of odd writing as a copy editor. I think the oddest thing I've ever run across came from an inexperienced writer in broadcast news.
You've all seen "locators," which describe where and when video was recorded. We were planning to air file footage of Neil Armstrong after Apollo 11 touched down.
FILE
The Moon, Space
July 20, 1969
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
