So I've just gone though my back log and have made quite a few changes the posts on Why Write?, Inspiration (And Writer's Block), Clichés (and Originality), and the series on Mary Sues. There a quite a few new ideas and thoughts added (especially to the Mary Sue Series and to two on Clichés and Originality). I suggest you go check it out. (Sorry to make you reread, but I promise there is more good info to be had!)
** Yes I did hyperlink those words to the blog post, so no excuses. ;)
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Saturday, September 11, 2010
Controversy: Teen Writer's Suck?
Now I know I promise to go back to Basics, and don’t worry I intend to, but I wanted to address this blog post I found the other day (I suggest you check it out he covers some areas I left out of this post). The writer, a very published author, states decidedly that teen writers suck. He goes on to add that that isn’t a bad thing. Sucking is a completely normal and important part of being a good writer. As you can imagine, teen writers weren’t very happy about this.
Let me make one thing clear, before I continue, I almost completely agree. I’ve read lots of teen writing, and even when I was a teen I thought most it sucked (of course I didn’t think I sucked, not that I thought I was brilliant, but... this isn’t about me). Anyway I feel the need to qualify his statement.
Hold on folks I’m about to get metaphor CRAZY.
Let’s just say that a well-written novel is like a nice restaurant dinner. Delicious. Let’s say a Pulitzer prizing winning, classic novel, is like a restaurant dinner made by a five star chef. Oh my god, did I just eat heaven? And an average crap story is like eleven-year-old attempt to make a plain chocolate cake that required more then adding water. Uneatable. The average novel written by a teenager with talent is like that cake attempt except eating it won’t give you some kind of food poisoning. In an exceptionally talented teenage writer, the cake might not taste half bad, maybe it’s even quite tasty.
So what point am I trying to make? Well the average talented teen writer, even the exceptionally talented ones, are like that 11 year old that can make maybe a decent cake. However can he make a five-start meal? No. He doesn’t have the skill to. Does that mean he’ll never be able to make one? Of course not. If he works hard, makes lots of mistakes, and trains for years he could definitely be a chef, maybe even a master one. But through that process of learning how not to suck (aka how to cook really really well), he discovers his craft, what inspires him as a chef, his unique style, and how he works best.
So when people say teenage writers suck, they just mean compared to what they can become and compared experienced writers as a whole. Of course, if you narrow the viewing area down and look only at teenage writers. Some stand out as significantly better then their peers and some of them can make tasty cakes that people enjoy. Meaning that teen writers can write something good, but just for their skill level, not compared to how a real chef would make it (which is delicious, uniquely theirs, and expensive). Of course there are the Mozarts and Picassos in writing, but if you compare what they did as children and teens to what they did as adults then the metaphor still stands. Compared to what they became, they still sucked.
Never fear, the metaphor extends to any new writer. Of course when the new comer is an adult, they have the advantage of being older when they try and make their first cake. It might still suck, but given their age and the life experience they already have, they’ll have a good chance of learning faster then their younger brethren that are equally talented. (Of course the whole metaphor isn't prefect as the two crafts are quite different, but I think you guys get the idea.)
But don’t despair my teenage readers! Not getting published at a young age, or as a young writer, is a good thing (which the writer of the above link discusses). And getting your first manuscript (completed novel) published is actually doing you a disservice especially at a young age. Getting rejected teaches new writers three things (and has three other advantage).
1. It teaches you how to have thick skin and not to take criticism so personally that it paralyzes you from writing again or makes you bitter. This is especially crucial as being a published author hardly keeps critics away. In fact it attracts them.
2. Those rejections force the writer to look at their own work and discover their weaknesses. This obviously improves their writing.
3. And when you do finally start getting personalized rejections you’ll not be so sensitive about your work as not to be able to handle constructive criticism. And when you do get an offer and start working with an editor it will be much easier then it would have otherwise been as you're use to people critiquing your work.
4. You don't have to follow up your first book by writing your second manuscript. That is a good thing. If you're writing your second manuscript for publication your worries about duplicating your success and over reactions to criticism of your first book can show in the final piece. When you've written more you'll be more settled in your style and method.
5. The publishing industry can be a scary place and coming in as a teen can and probably will disillusion some people. Having the self assurance and life experience as adult can make that a much smoother and easier transition.
6. Being a skilled writer coming in decreases the chance of your book flopping. The last thing you want to do as a writer, especially a young one, is try to salvage a career that's dead in the water.
So take heart. Sucking is a critical part of becoming a good writer. And if you never try, you’ll never suck and therefore never be amazing.
** Also check out Too Young to Publish
Let me make one thing clear, before I continue, I almost completely agree. I’ve read lots of teen writing, and even when I was a teen I thought most it sucked (of course I didn’t think I sucked, not that I thought I was brilliant, but... this isn’t about me). Anyway I feel the need to qualify his statement.
Hold on folks I’m about to get metaphor CRAZY.
Let’s just say that a well-written novel is like a nice restaurant dinner. Delicious. Let’s say a Pulitzer prizing winning, classic novel, is like a restaurant dinner made by a five star chef. Oh my god, did I just eat heaven? And an average crap story is like eleven-year-old attempt to make a plain chocolate cake that required more then adding water. Uneatable. The average novel written by a teenager with talent is like that cake attempt except eating it won’t give you some kind of food poisoning. In an exceptionally talented teenage writer, the cake might not taste half bad, maybe it’s even quite tasty.
So what point am I trying to make? Well the average talented teen writer, even the exceptionally talented ones, are like that 11 year old that can make maybe a decent cake. However can he make a five-start meal? No. He doesn’t have the skill to. Does that mean he’ll never be able to make one? Of course not. If he works hard, makes lots of mistakes, and trains for years he could definitely be a chef, maybe even a master one. But through that process of learning how not to suck (aka how to cook really really well), he discovers his craft, what inspires him as a chef, his unique style, and how he works best.
So when people say teenage writers suck, they just mean compared to what they can become and compared experienced writers as a whole. Of course, if you narrow the viewing area down and look only at teenage writers. Some stand out as significantly better then their peers and some of them can make tasty cakes that people enjoy. Meaning that teen writers can write something good, but just for their skill level, not compared to how a real chef would make it (which is delicious, uniquely theirs, and expensive). Of course there are the Mozarts and Picassos in writing, but if you compare what they did as children and teens to what they did as adults then the metaphor still stands. Compared to what they became, they still sucked.
Never fear, the metaphor extends to any new writer. Of course when the new comer is an adult, they have the advantage of being older when they try and make their first cake. It might still suck, but given their age and the life experience they already have, they’ll have a good chance of learning faster then their younger brethren that are equally talented. (Of course the whole metaphor isn't prefect as the two crafts are quite different, but I think you guys get the idea.)
But don’t despair my teenage readers! Not getting published at a young age, or as a young writer, is a good thing (which the writer of the above link discusses). And getting your first manuscript (completed novel) published is actually doing you a disservice especially at a young age. Getting rejected teaches new writers three things (and has three other advantage).
1. It teaches you how to have thick skin and not to take criticism so personally that it paralyzes you from writing again or makes you bitter. This is especially crucial as being a published author hardly keeps critics away. In fact it attracts them.
2. Those rejections force the writer to look at their own work and discover their weaknesses. This obviously improves their writing.
3. And when you do finally start getting personalized rejections you’ll not be so sensitive about your work as not to be able to handle constructive criticism. And when you do get an offer and start working with an editor it will be much easier then it would have otherwise been as you're use to people critiquing your work.
4. You don't have to follow up your first book by writing your second manuscript. That is a good thing. If you're writing your second manuscript for publication your worries about duplicating your success and over reactions to criticism of your first book can show in the final piece. When you've written more you'll be more settled in your style and method.
5. The publishing industry can be a scary place and coming in as a teen can and probably will disillusion some people. Having the self assurance and life experience as adult can make that a much smoother and easier transition.
6. Being a skilled writer coming in decreases the chance of your book flopping. The last thing you want to do as a writer, especially a young one, is try to salvage a career that's dead in the water.
So take heart. Sucking is a critical part of becoming a good writer. And if you never try, you’ll never suck and therefore never be amazing.
** Also check out Too Young to Publish
Friday, September 10, 2010
Hot Topics: The Said Debate (Abverbial and Action Tags)
So by now you’re really discouraged and are probably wondering what other ways are there to spice up dialogue.
Well here’s one way,
“Mark, you should go,” Julie said blankly. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark said sadly. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie said with annoyance. “Go.”
This an adverbial dialogue tag and it describes the way a character says something. And often these are better then using Said Bookisms. They can be especially useful to give necessary tonal information if the context of the scene or conversation doesn’t. However as you can see in this example, it's easy to over do them too. (These sometime get the nickname Tom Swifties if they're puns. Please be aware of unintended puns, your audience might laugh at you.)
Anyway, in a similar vein you can describe how the words are being said, without the direct tag (this would technically be an action tag). A trick I commonly use.
“But Julie.” His voice trembled slightly. “I don’t want to leave you.”
However just like adverbial tags using these too much, too often can be redundant and lessen their impact. However describing the way something is spoken or using adverbial tags can be especially useful for avoiding those impossible Said Bookisms like ‘she laughed’. For example: “I don’t know.” Her words were breathy, interrupted by laughter. “He just did!” or “I don’t know,” she said brokenly, her words interrupted by her laughter. “He just did!”
My last example is the one I use commonly and that’s the action tag (and again note that action tags are separated from the dialogue by a period, not a coma). Like so...
“Mark you should go.” Julie turned away from him picking out a dirty dish from the sink to wash. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie.” Mark stepped closer. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark.” Julie glanced up at him. “Go.”
Now action tags are INCREDIBLY useful, they can do double, even triple duty. You can let the action inform the reader who is speaking and the tone of the dialogue. Julie is clearly trying to avoid the issue until Mark insists and won’t let her escape. Mark is feeling like she's not listening to him. This is powerful stuff as it leaves much of the interpretation up to the reader and it's easier to avoid writing things that seem out of character or overly extreme and melodramatic. However these tags can slow the pace of the dialogue down so keep that in mind, especially if it's meant to be a fast exchange or an action scene. They read as a mental pause or beat on the page. It can also have the problem of making your characters seem hyperactive if you over use it. Make sure that every action isn't grand and that you're careful not to describe every subtle movement. That can get very soap opera-y too if over used (think constant zooming in on overly expressive eyes). Sometimes people really are just sitting around, doing nothing, and talking.
Lastly you can even go a few lines without any tags as long as you give the reader enough earlier information to figure out who is speaking. However this can easily become Talking Head Syndrome, which means the character's become nothing more then voices in a vacuum. Action tags can help avoid this by engaging the physical world of your story, but even just regular tags work fine.
One last note, a dialogue tag should never interrupt a complete sentence of dialogue. An action tag can sometimes interrupt a complete sentence, but be aware that it will create a pause in the sentence so make sure it doesn't read weirdly (would someone in real life pause there?). Otherwise use it either between two sentences or before or after one. Putting them between an incomplete and complete sentence can work just keep the pause in mind.
In conclusion there are very few hard and fast rules when to use what tags where. That knowledge is something that comes with experience and settles with the evolution of your personal style or voice.
“Good luck writing.” Fireheart raised a figurative hand in farewell. “And have fun!”
Well here’s one way,
“Mark, you should go,” Julie said blankly. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark said sadly. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie said with annoyance. “Go.”
This an adverbial dialogue tag and it describes the way a character says something. And often these are better then using Said Bookisms. They can be especially useful to give necessary tonal information if the context of the scene or conversation doesn’t. However as you can see in this example, it's easy to over do them too. (These sometime get the nickname Tom Swifties if they're puns. Please be aware of unintended puns, your audience might laugh at you.)
Anyway, in a similar vein you can describe how the words are being said, without the direct tag (this would technically be an action tag). A trick I commonly use.
“But Julie.” His voice trembled slightly. “I don’t want to leave you.”
However just like adverbial tags using these too much, too often can be redundant and lessen their impact. However describing the way something is spoken or using adverbial tags can be especially useful for avoiding those impossible Said Bookisms like ‘she laughed’. For example: “I don’t know.” Her words were breathy, interrupted by laughter. “He just did!” or “I don’t know,” she said brokenly, her words interrupted by her laughter. “He just did!”
My last example is the one I use commonly and that’s the action tag (and again note that action tags are separated from the dialogue by a period, not a coma). Like so...
“Mark you should go.” Julie turned away from him picking out a dirty dish from the sink to wash. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie.” Mark stepped closer. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark.” Julie glanced up at him. “Go.”
Now action tags are INCREDIBLY useful, they can do double, even triple duty. You can let the action inform the reader who is speaking and the tone of the dialogue. Julie is clearly trying to avoid the issue until Mark insists and won’t let her escape. Mark is feeling like she's not listening to him. This is powerful stuff as it leaves much of the interpretation up to the reader and it's easier to avoid writing things that seem out of character or overly extreme and melodramatic. However these tags can slow the pace of the dialogue down so keep that in mind, especially if it's meant to be a fast exchange or an action scene. They read as a mental pause or beat on the page. It can also have the problem of making your characters seem hyperactive if you over use it. Make sure that every action isn't grand and that you're careful not to describe every subtle movement. That can get very soap opera-y too if over used (think constant zooming in on overly expressive eyes). Sometimes people really are just sitting around, doing nothing, and talking.
Lastly you can even go a few lines without any tags as long as you give the reader enough earlier information to figure out who is speaking. However this can easily become Talking Head Syndrome, which means the character's become nothing more then voices in a vacuum. Action tags can help avoid this by engaging the physical world of your story, but even just regular tags work fine.
One last note, a dialogue tag should never interrupt a complete sentence of dialogue. An action tag can sometimes interrupt a complete sentence, but be aware that it will create a pause in the sentence so make sure it doesn't read weirdly (would someone in real life pause there?). Otherwise use it either between two sentences or before or after one. Putting them between an incomplete and complete sentence can work just keep the pause in mind.
In conclusion there are very few hard and fast rules when to use what tags where. That knowledge is something that comes with experience and settles with the evolution of your personal style or voice.
“Good luck writing.” Fireheart raised a figurative hand in farewell. “And have fun!”
Hot Topics: The Said Debate (Said Bookisms)
Just a reminder of our original sentence before we continue with our regularly schedule program:
“But Julie,” Mark said. “I don’t want to leave you.”
So example number 1:
“But Julie,” Mark whined. “I don’t want to leave you.”
Okay. First off whined is a rather strong word and doesn’t leaved much room for depth or interpretation, but you might be asking what's wrong with it? Well, besides being unnecessarily strong and letting no other element of the story contribute to its meaning, let’s look at conversation where every line is written with a Said Bookism.
“Mark, you should go,” Julie intoned. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark whined. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie scolded. “Go.”
Do you see the problem now? There’s no subtlety to that conversation. A real conversation, might – might – have one instant where something said deserved the strength of a Said Bookism, but not every conversation and certainly not every line. Let the dialogue breath. That’s not to say you can’t use Said Bookisms at all. What it means is that their use really needs to be extremely limited and should probably be one the uncreative types like yelled or mumbled.
Ah but I’m not done with Said Bookism yet, let’s try one more.
“Mark, you should go,” Julie sighed. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark grimaced. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie hissed. “Go.”
Now these might seem like the examples above, but they're not. These little words are actually worse. That’s because that you can’t sigh a sentence, maybe a word (very melodramatically), but not a sentence. Neither can you hiss or grimace one. You also can’t laugh one or sneer one. Basically a good rule of thumb is it if the tag can be done independently of dialogue, it shouldn’t be a dialogue tag. However these peculiar mistakes are often just a result of not understanding how dialogue tags work grammatical. So lets try that scene again, with correct grammar to make them work.
“Mark, you should go.” Julie sighed. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie.” Mark grimaced. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark.” Julie hissed. “Go.”
Using a period instead of a comma separates the two thoughts, making the "dialogue" tags into to action tags (I’ll get to that next post). The words are no longer describing how the line was said, but an action taking place between, after or before lines. My favorite thing about this example is that it points out the problem with Said Bookisms in general, mainly out how ridiculous they sound. I don’t know why Mark grimaced in the middle of the talking or why Julie hissed, but at least now the described scene is physical possible.
“But Julie,” Mark said. “I don’t want to leave you.”
So example number 1:
“But Julie,” Mark whined. “I don’t want to leave you.”
Okay. First off whined is a rather strong word and doesn’t leaved much room for depth or interpretation, but you might be asking what's wrong with it? Well, besides being unnecessarily strong and letting no other element of the story contribute to its meaning, let’s look at conversation where every line is written with a Said Bookism.
“Mark, you should go,” Julie intoned. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark whined. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie scolded. “Go.”
Do you see the problem now? There’s no subtlety to that conversation. A real conversation, might – might – have one instant where something said deserved the strength of a Said Bookism, but not every conversation and certainly not every line. Let the dialogue breath. That’s not to say you can’t use Said Bookisms at all. What it means is that their use really needs to be extremely limited and should probably be one the uncreative types like yelled or mumbled.
Ah but I’m not done with Said Bookism yet, let’s try one more.
“Mark, you should go,” Julie sighed. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie,” Mark grimaced. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark,” Julie hissed. “Go.”
Now these might seem like the examples above, but they're not. These little words are actually worse. That’s because that you can’t sigh a sentence, maybe a word (very melodramatically), but not a sentence. Neither can you hiss or grimace one. You also can’t laugh one or sneer one. Basically a good rule of thumb is it if the tag can be done independently of dialogue, it shouldn’t be a dialogue tag. However these peculiar mistakes are often just a result of not understanding how dialogue tags work grammatical. So lets try that scene again, with correct grammar to make them work.
“Mark, you should go.” Julie sighed. “It’s your dream. Besides, you’ll never shut up about it if you don’t go.”
“But Julie.” Mark grimaced. “I don’t want to leave you.”
“Mark.” Julie hissed. “Go.”
Using a period instead of a comma separates the two thoughts, making the "dialogue" tags into to action tags (I’ll get to that next post). The words are no longer describing how the line was said, but an action taking place between, after or before lines. My favorite thing about this example is that it points out the problem with Said Bookisms in general, mainly out how ridiculous they sound. I don’t know why Mark grimaced in the middle of the talking or why Julie hissed, but at least now the described scene is physical possible.
Hot Topics: The Said Debate
This one is an interesting topic, in that unlike many of my other Hot Topics it doesn’t have to do with the basic fundamentals of story telling, but rather writing stories. It has to do with tags. I don’t mean tags like twitter, I mean dialogue tags, words likes said, whispered, yelled etc. The problem happens when a writer doesn’t know how to use them or understand how they come across to the reader.
The problem starts at a young age. A well-meaning teacher (or even that well meaning writer friend) tells you not to use the same word over and over again, especial and including the word said. It’s boring they say, repetitive. So you rack your brain for a word you can use instead. That's when you pull out words like murmured, shouted, whispered, cried, thundered etc.
And all that would be true except for one thing- the reader doesn’t read the word said, it’s like leaving a question blank on the SAT, it’s completely neutral. They skim over it. But unfortunately that teacher or writer friend has screwed you over to two fold. That would be because of what you replaced said with. Those “fancy” tags have a name, editors call them ‘Said Bookisms.’ That’s because it’s the literary equivalent of acting in Spanish Soap Operas. No one speaks like that in real life. People rarely yell, much less thunder. These words call attention to themselves, especially the more creative ones, and that generally is bad as it interrupts flow and reader concentration. The only things most of those words are missing are big hair and mustaches.
So how can we fix our mistakes? Well I going to take one line of dialogue and show you what can go wrong with it and then what can go right.
“But Julie,” Mark said. “I don’t want to leave you.”
This is a no frills dialogue here. You know who said it and what was said. With this example the context must tell the reader how it was being said and why. There’s nothing wrong with this at all and is a perfectly acceptable piece of writing, if unremarkable. But because you decided this is boring, in the next couple posts I’m going to change it up a bit.
*** Note: This is likely the most technical/grammatical I'll ever get with writing as a written language in this blog. So breath a sigh of relief if you were worried about it. If you were sad, I would tell you I'm sorry, but I'm not.
The problem starts at a young age. A well-meaning teacher (or even that well meaning writer friend) tells you not to use the same word over and over again, especial and including the word said. It’s boring they say, repetitive. So you rack your brain for a word you can use instead. That's when you pull out words like murmured, shouted, whispered, cried, thundered etc.
And all that would be true except for one thing- the reader doesn’t read the word said, it’s like leaving a question blank on the SAT, it’s completely neutral. They skim over it. But unfortunately that teacher or writer friend has screwed you over to two fold. That would be because of what you replaced said with. Those “fancy” tags have a name, editors call them ‘Said Bookisms.’ That’s because it’s the literary equivalent of acting in Spanish Soap Operas. No one speaks like that in real life. People rarely yell, much less thunder. These words call attention to themselves, especially the more creative ones, and that generally is bad as it interrupts flow and reader concentration. The only things most of those words are missing are big hair and mustaches.
So how can we fix our mistakes? Well I going to take one line of dialogue and show you what can go wrong with it and then what can go right.
“But Julie,” Mark said. “I don’t want to leave you.”
This is a no frills dialogue here. You know who said it and what was said. With this example the context must tell the reader how it was being said and why. There’s nothing wrong with this at all and is a perfectly acceptable piece of writing, if unremarkable. But because you decided this is boring, in the next couple posts I’m going to change it up a bit.
*** Note: This is likely the most technical/grammatical I'll ever get with writing as a written language in this blog. So breath a sigh of relief if you were worried about it. If you were sad, I would tell you I'm sorry, but I'm not.
Hot Topics: Purple Prose (video)
Check out this: Dramatic Reading as this story is perfect example of purple prose, much better then my examples as I've never been a description heavy writer. See if you can find the problems I was talking about.
Hot Topics: Purple Prose (Diction and Similes)
While the last section focused on over description, this section will focus on word choice (diction), and your choice of metaphors or similes. I know your inter-high-schooler just groaned, or if you’re still in high school you did, but it’s an important idea to understand especially to help you avoid purple prose.
So let’s get down to business, here’s my scene:
Josh halted the car, opening the weighty metal door with a wide swing like a baseball bat rushing towards its goal. He took one step out of the car, cowboy boots, deep sloth-brown in color and cracked like the surface of the Grand Canyon, hitting the hard earth. Frowning in a pinched manner, he looked across the wide oranged landscape, the hot desert breeze skating across the azure sky, cloudless like unmarred virgin. He couldn’t imagine how she could ever what to come to this nightmarish place.
Oh god, that might have been one of the most difficult things I’ve ever written and I didn’t even crack open the thesaurus. If you have to try as hard as I just did (which required me to stop writing what came naturally and think of the most “creative” way to word something) then your trying way too hard. That isn’t to say you shouldn’t try and spice up your descriptions, you should, but don’t think of it as a contest to show how amazingly wide your vocabulary is, or how unique or beautiful you can make your descriptions and similes. Your word choice should help set the scene and shouldn’t distract from the narrative, by that I mean the reader shouldn’t be confused or taken out of the story or be laughing at your descriptions. Descriptions are not the time to show off, especially not at the expense of the story.
Diction and metaphor/simile problems, perhaps more so then over describing, are what really call purple prose to the reader’s attention, but fixing these problems are all pretty similar. It’s about knowing how to use what description where. First one needs to look at the word on an individual level. Do you know what the word means? I mean really know what it means? Do you understand all it’s connotations? Do you use this word in real life? If you answered yes to these questions you're probably okay to use that world as more then likely it came to you without much thought, even if it was a replacement word for a boring original choice. But even if you do know what the word means you should still think about what that word is really saying in your sentence. Looking to my example above, a lot of people know what the word halted means, however in that sentence it’s weird. It implies Josh enacted his will upon the car, like a policeman would tell a criminal to halt.
Furthermore let's look at the similes in the example above. They’re weird! They don’t make any sense in the context of the scene. How does comparing the motion of an opening car door and a swinging bat help tell the reader anything about the scene? Now maybe if Josh was using the door as a weapon, that analogy would be more appropriate, but not in this scene. Moreover what do Grand Canyon boots tell us about the character? It’s a very strong metaphor to use on something as unimportant as the character's boots. And don’t even get me started on the virgin sky.
Your metaphors and similes should be appropriate for the tone of the scene/book, the time period it's set in and reveal a quality about what it's being compared to that otherwise would be hard to express in words. And moreover it's a powerful descriptive tool, so save it for a important, dynamic, or interesting moment. Not for boots. Keep these things in mind when using them.
So what’s overall my point? Well, the point is that the writer needs to think about how his descriptions fit into the overall tone and purpose of the scene. Do they reveal something about the character? Do they set the scene or set the mood? The best descriptions serve double duty. Of course description variation is a good thing, but that’s just the toppings on the cake. First and foremost the description should serve the story.
Oh and I almost forgot:
Josh stopped the car and with a hard push opened the door. Stepping out, he took a quick survey of his surroundings. He was in the middle of a desert, the scorched earth spreading infinitely in every direction. It was a desolate place. He couldn’t imagine why she would want to come here.
So let’s get down to business, here’s my scene:
Josh halted the car, opening the weighty metal door with a wide swing like a baseball bat rushing towards its goal. He took one step out of the car, cowboy boots, deep sloth-brown in color and cracked like the surface of the Grand Canyon, hitting the hard earth. Frowning in a pinched manner, he looked across the wide oranged landscape, the hot desert breeze skating across the azure sky, cloudless like unmarred virgin. He couldn’t imagine how she could ever what to come to this nightmarish place.
Oh god, that might have been one of the most difficult things I’ve ever written and I didn’t even crack open the thesaurus. If you have to try as hard as I just did (which required me to stop writing what came naturally and think of the most “creative” way to word something) then your trying way too hard. That isn’t to say you shouldn’t try and spice up your descriptions, you should, but don’t think of it as a contest to show how amazingly wide your vocabulary is, or how unique or beautiful you can make your descriptions and similes. Your word choice should help set the scene and shouldn’t distract from the narrative, by that I mean the reader shouldn’t be confused or taken out of the story or be laughing at your descriptions. Descriptions are not the time to show off, especially not at the expense of the story.
Diction and metaphor/simile problems, perhaps more so then over describing, are what really call purple prose to the reader’s attention, but fixing these problems are all pretty similar. It’s about knowing how to use what description where. First one needs to look at the word on an individual level. Do you know what the word means? I mean really know what it means? Do you understand all it’s connotations? Do you use this word in real life? If you answered yes to these questions you're probably okay to use that world as more then likely it came to you without much thought, even if it was a replacement word for a boring original choice. But even if you do know what the word means you should still think about what that word is really saying in your sentence. Looking to my example above, a lot of people know what the word halted means, however in that sentence it’s weird. It implies Josh enacted his will upon the car, like a policeman would tell a criminal to halt.
Furthermore let's look at the similes in the example above. They’re weird! They don’t make any sense in the context of the scene. How does comparing the motion of an opening car door and a swinging bat help tell the reader anything about the scene? Now maybe if Josh was using the door as a weapon, that analogy would be more appropriate, but not in this scene. Moreover what do Grand Canyon boots tell us about the character? It’s a very strong metaphor to use on something as unimportant as the character's boots. And don’t even get me started on the virgin sky.
Your metaphors and similes should be appropriate for the tone of the scene/book, the time period it's set in and reveal a quality about what it's being compared to that otherwise would be hard to express in words. And moreover it's a powerful descriptive tool, so save it for a important, dynamic, or interesting moment. Not for boots. Keep these things in mind when using them.
So what’s overall my point? Well, the point is that the writer needs to think about how his descriptions fit into the overall tone and purpose of the scene. Do they reveal something about the character? Do they set the scene or set the mood? The best descriptions serve double duty. Of course description variation is a good thing, but that’s just the toppings on the cake. First and foremost the description should serve the story.
Oh and I almost forgot:
Josh stopped the car and with a hard push opened the door. Stepping out, he took a quick survey of his surroundings. He was in the middle of a desert, the scorched earth spreading infinitely in every direction. It was a desolate place. He couldn’t imagine why she would want to come here.
Hot Topics: Purple Prose (Over Use)
So this post will focus on knowing when to use description and how to wield that awesome tool in your belt correctly to get the most bang for your literary buck. To do this I’m going to write an example of poor use of description, then contrast it with a better way to write that scene.
Josh wrapped his well worn hands around the brass doorknob blacken with age. Taking a deep trembling breath, he pushed open the door, the action causing a sharp momentary squeaking from the near hidden hinges. Drawing his eyebrows together he took a small step inside. Before he had made any really distance into the room a voice interrupted him coming from further inside the apartment.
“Hey Josh that you?” The voice sounded like it belonged to high pitched woman’s. It was attractive, almost musical. “What took you so long?”
His face falling slightly, Josh took a slightly larger step inside, then turned around to face the wall that hid the kitchen from sight. “Yeah I’m sorry, they were out of ice cream.”
Do you see the problem with this? None of the descriptions taken alone are peculiarly strange or oddly used, but they are unnecessary. In fact most of this description is unnecessary. There’s no reason to describe so much. This narrative is too busy. Every time you write a piece of description the reader will assume it’s important, important for setting the scene/mood or for plot reasons or to show what the character’s are feeling.
This scene doesn’t know what it’s saying. The scene is about how Josh wasn’t able to get ice cream for Mary and he’s slightly worried about how she will react. In this scene the descriptions draw your attention to the qualities of Mary’s voice, the squeak of the door, Josh’s worn hands and the aged door knob. None of these descriptions add to the scene, in fact they distract from it. Furthermore by using too much description for this scene, the tone doesn't match the content. It feels like he's about to tell her he just got her daughter killed, not that store was out of ice cream.
The human senses get thousands of input signals a second, but are people aware of every one? No of course not. If Josh is really worried about Mary being angry he’s going to notice the butterflies in stomach, he might notice things that remind him of his guilt, when he walks in he might notice the bowls she put out, or that she looks slight annoyed already. Of course what exactly he notices or doesn’t is going to be indicative of his personality, but the point remains, he notices things related to his thoughts, the ongoing mental story in his head. You, as the writer, have to be the mental filter for the reader, passing on relevant information to them (of course there is something as a unreliable narrator, but I’ll get into that in a different post).
And that filter is where your power as a descriptive storyteller lies. You can choose to leave out things because the character doesn’t notice them. You can describe the tiles of the floor to show the character is bored, or describe things that seem creepy about a house or a person to make the audience suspicious. Or you can throw in the occasional line to reveal the appearance of a main character or describe her new friends house in order to reveal something about that character. And especially useful, any descriptions will add to the tone of the novel, whether it’s meant to be creepy or light and fluffy.
The power to control what the audiences “sees” is a useful and necessary tool to have. But remember, the power to control what they don’t “see” can be just or even more useful.
So lets try that scene again.
Josh hesitated at the door a moment before he opened it. The living room was empty, but he could hear Mary in the kitchen and the sound of opening cabinets.
“Hey Josh that you?.” The noise stopped, her voice was raised slightly with annoyance. “What took you so long?’
Shifting slight, Josh spoke, almost wincing, “Yeah, I’m sorry. They were out of ice cream.”
Every writer is going to have the description level they're comfortable and that's fine. Just as long as you're aware of what you're trying to tell the audience with your description and how it affects your story.
Note: Obviously you want to give description of places and people, but general shorten it to a few sentences tops that capture the essences of a place or person and maybe a few details. You can also spread the description throughout a scene in relevant ways. (Be aware that a character would need a reason to describe something they see all the time. You can engage the setting, like have them put up a new poster. Really, this a good idea for any setting, it makes it come alive.)
Josh wrapped his well worn hands around the brass doorknob blacken with age. Taking a deep trembling breath, he pushed open the door, the action causing a sharp momentary squeaking from the near hidden hinges. Drawing his eyebrows together he took a small step inside. Before he had made any really distance into the room a voice interrupted him coming from further inside the apartment.
“Hey Josh that you?” The voice sounded like it belonged to high pitched woman’s. It was attractive, almost musical. “What took you so long?”
His face falling slightly, Josh took a slightly larger step inside, then turned around to face the wall that hid the kitchen from sight. “Yeah I’m sorry, they were out of ice cream.”
Do you see the problem with this? None of the descriptions taken alone are peculiarly strange or oddly used, but they are unnecessary. In fact most of this description is unnecessary. There’s no reason to describe so much. This narrative is too busy. Every time you write a piece of description the reader will assume it’s important, important for setting the scene/mood or for plot reasons or to show what the character’s are feeling.
This scene doesn’t know what it’s saying. The scene is about how Josh wasn’t able to get ice cream for Mary and he’s slightly worried about how she will react. In this scene the descriptions draw your attention to the qualities of Mary’s voice, the squeak of the door, Josh’s worn hands and the aged door knob. None of these descriptions add to the scene, in fact they distract from it. Furthermore by using too much description for this scene, the tone doesn't match the content. It feels like he's about to tell her he just got her daughter killed, not that store was out of ice cream.
The human senses get thousands of input signals a second, but are people aware of every one? No of course not. If Josh is really worried about Mary being angry he’s going to notice the butterflies in stomach, he might notice things that remind him of his guilt, when he walks in he might notice the bowls she put out, or that she looks slight annoyed already. Of course what exactly he notices or doesn’t is going to be indicative of his personality, but the point remains, he notices things related to his thoughts, the ongoing mental story in his head. You, as the writer, have to be the mental filter for the reader, passing on relevant information to them (of course there is something as a unreliable narrator, but I’ll get into that in a different post).
And that filter is where your power as a descriptive storyteller lies. You can choose to leave out things because the character doesn’t notice them. You can describe the tiles of the floor to show the character is bored, or describe things that seem creepy about a house or a person to make the audience suspicious. Or you can throw in the occasional line to reveal the appearance of a main character or describe her new friends house in order to reveal something about that character. And especially useful, any descriptions will add to the tone of the novel, whether it’s meant to be creepy or light and fluffy.
The power to control what the audiences “sees” is a useful and necessary tool to have. But remember, the power to control what they don’t “see” can be just or even more useful.
So lets try that scene again.
Josh hesitated at the door a moment before he opened it. The living room was empty, but he could hear Mary in the kitchen and the sound of opening cabinets.
“Hey Josh that you?.” The noise stopped, her voice was raised slightly with annoyance. “What took you so long?’
Shifting slight, Josh spoke, almost wincing, “Yeah, I’m sorry. They were out of ice cream.”
Every writer is going to have the description level they're comfortable and that's fine. Just as long as you're aware of what you're trying to tell the audience with your description and how it affects your story.
Note: Obviously you want to give description of places and people, but general shorten it to a few sentences tops that capture the essences of a place or person and maybe a few details. You can also spread the description throughout a scene in relevant ways. (Be aware that a character would need a reason to describe something they see all the time. You can engage the setting, like have them put up a new poster. Really, this a good idea for any setting, it makes it come alive.)
Hot Topics: Purple Prose
Purple Prose – if you spent anytime writing you likely are familiar with the term. But what exactly does it mean? Well most its most basic level its unnecessary description, but at what point does your beautifully described waterfall suddenly start flowing vibrant silvery liquid while the rainbow sunset is streaking across the once azure sky? Like everything in writing the line can hard to see, but lets try and see if there can be anyway to define it more clearly.
To start out, if you are regularly pulling out a thesaurus – congratulations you are writing purple prose. And please – for everyone's sake please put that poor book down, you’re breaking its spine. Furthermore if you wish to make every sentence sound like it came out of poem – congratulations you’re writing purple prose. And need I add there is a reason poems are short. If in your attempt to find the perfect phrase you’ve developed a protruding vein or the sentence you just wrote won’t feel lonely on a shelf full of hallmark cards – Congratulations you’re writing purple prose.
All joking aside, though, that line can be difficult to see. What could be considered purple prose in one novel, can be acceptable in another, or in a different scene.
A beautiful description can bring alive the world for the reader. It can make them understand just why Josh’s heart skipped a beat when she saw Mary from across the room. It can illustrate just how creepy that house down at the end of the street really is. Description is a powerful tool in a writer’s arsenal. Purple prose happens when someone who doesn’t know how to wield it uses it.
Purple Prose-rs tend to both over use description (misunderstanding its purpose) and don’t understand how word choice affects the tone of the description (and therefore the story). They often think description is more important then it is, while undermining or not understanding why description is important in the first place. To illustrate this point I’m going to write two different scenes in the next two posts, one will over use description and one will have poor word choice and then write each in the non-purple prose way.
To start out, if you are regularly pulling out a thesaurus – congratulations you are writing purple prose. And please – for everyone's sake please put that poor book down, you’re breaking its spine. Furthermore if you wish to make every sentence sound like it came out of poem – congratulations you’re writing purple prose. And need I add there is a reason poems are short. If in your attempt to find the perfect phrase you’ve developed a protruding vein or the sentence you just wrote won’t feel lonely on a shelf full of hallmark cards – Congratulations you’re writing purple prose.
All joking aside, though, that line can be difficult to see. What could be considered purple prose in one novel, can be acceptable in another, or in a different scene.
A beautiful description can bring alive the world for the reader. It can make them understand just why Josh’s heart skipped a beat when she saw Mary from across the room. It can illustrate just how creepy that house down at the end of the street really is. Description is a powerful tool in a writer’s arsenal. Purple prose happens when someone who doesn’t know how to wield it uses it.
Purple Prose-rs tend to both over use description (misunderstanding its purpose) and don’t understand how word choice affects the tone of the description (and therefore the story). They often think description is more important then it is, while undermining or not understanding why description is important in the first place. To illustrate this point I’m going to write two different scenes in the next two posts, one will over use description and one will have poor word choice and then write each in the non-purple prose way.
New Post
New posts coming in my Hot Topic series! I have at least one more planned for that and then I'm going back to Basics!
I have a LOT more free time this semester, so hopefully I find more time to post up here. And it's great distraction from my current manuscript.*
*note: I am not encouraging distractions, the more your write the better you get. True Story.
I have a LOT more free time this semester, so hopefully I find more time to post up here. And it's great distraction from my current manuscript.*
*note: I am not encouraging distractions, the more your write the better you get. True Story.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)