I know what you mean. I'm a lover of traditional music, sung or played by amateurs, and can certainly forgive a wrong note or two. But if they hit a LOT of wrong notes, I cringe and don't enjoy the performance. I soon lose track of what they mean while they're singing. I would not buy one of their CDs.
Yes, I agree that this has become the norm in today's society. Even I had a hard time getting through the parts in Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" where he went on and on about farming and communist ideas. Ended up skimming most of those chapters, since I was time-crunching the final project to begin with. But the problem isn't necessarily just the fact that people are forcing word economy. It's the fact that whenever I see it mentioned by a critic on a site like this, they never explain why. They don't explain what you said, which is that it's become standard. Thing is, it's quite important to explain why (as you just did) because if the person isn't even interested in being published then you could be wasting your time. Or if the person *is* interested in getting published, an explanation would really enhance their understanding. And as I mentioned before, it still seems to be a stylistic choice. I think it's far more important to help them improve their voice, rather than simply attempt to tell them to only write "x" way and not "y" way without any reasoning. I think individuality and independence are important values that shouldn't go to waste simply because most of the crowd is doing something else. I agree word economy is very useful when trying to communicate ideas, but that sounds to me like something that's far more important in non-fiction or journalism. Works of fiction are - and have - ideas obviously, but I can't imagine it's equally important. It's a story, not a manual or instruction booklet, so I feel like the author has the freedom to take as long as necessary to convey their thoughts. In other words it's not too long, nor too short, but simply as long as it needs to be.
You hit on the reason in your own post. Just as you skimmed chapters of Anna Karenina where Tolstoy went on and on about farming and communism, the average reader will do the same when any author goes on and on with no good reason. The author can take as long as they like to get to the point and express their idea. The reader can give up and move on to another book that doesn't make them wait around. The standard opposition to purple prose and needlessly complicated writing is not an all-encompassing rejection of one style in favor of another. In reality (at least for me), it's a rejection of authors who make poor stylistic decisions, or in some cases no stylistic decisions. Long complicated sentences and repetition and murky language and minute descriptions all have their place within fiction writing, just like short, precise descriptions and clear simple language and sentence fragments have their place. But the important thing is not whether there is only one correct use of them (spoiler: there isn't), but that they are being used effectively. And that reasoning is probably why concision became the new standard--because it's far easier to go right with concision than it is to go right with long-windedness, in the unlikely case that you were to adopt one style to the exclusion of all else rather than mixing the two for optimal results.
As I also mentioned, I think that my procrastination also put me in a tight spot, leaving me with no patience for it. There was obvious merit and value to those chapters and ideas, and I managed to still glean some of that, but for the purpose of completing the project and not failing the class I decided to opt out a little bit. That's exactly my point. When people bring up concision in their critiques, they ought to explain what you just explained so eloquently. It would be far more beneficial to try and help them write more effectively in their own way, than simply "don't bother trying; just start writing more concisely". Help the writer understand where they are falling short and *why*, rather than take the easy way out and demand they just write a different way altogether with no explanation. I totally agree with you that it comes down to a matter of preference, and most importantly that it's well written (whether it be long-winded or concise)! My primary point is nobody is doing anybody favors by saying either of the two are somehow objectively bad. I mean, if you aren't willing to provide a reason, you might as well not even mention it to begin with, unless you think the writer is going to blindly follow your whims. It would appear that I'm preaching to the choir though here. Apologies for derailing this and getting off-topic. Just thought it was important to clarify what constitutes as purple prose, and emphasize that the person doing the critique should explain the reasoning behind their suggestions.
This was pretty well discussed before I got to a keyboard and remembered this thread, but I wanted to say that for me, writing is likely to turn purple when the author is trying to show how smart or sensitive or literary or soulful he or she is, rather than trying to communicate. When you see a sentence and you can imagine an author saying, "That's too plain and simple. How can I add some frills and show off my vocabulary?" that sentence is often purple. And I feel as if we need another "color" for another kind of "too many words" writing--overwrought incomprehensible writing that is also totally lacking in emotion, such as the writing in some quite badly written textbooks. Yet another kind of "too many words" writing is writing where the writer is just not practiced at expressing him or herself well, so the thoughts drift and ramble, with a lot of explanation and clarification that could have been avoided with more careful writing. Now, this is different from writing where the writer chooses to drift and ramble and can do so in a pleasing way. In general, I would say that every word should be there for a reason, but the "reason" doesn't have to be that the whole sentence or paragraph would just fall down without that word. I tend to like that sort of minimalist style, but it's not mandatory. There are countless legitimate reasons for words to be there--to set a mood or an emotion, to furnish an image, to be funny, to....well, countless reasons. But those reasons shouldn't be about making the writer look smart, soulful, etc. One of the examples that I sometimes use for non-concise writing is The Wind and The Willows. I grab a random paragraph from the Project Gutenberg file: The Mole never heard a word he was saying. Absorbed in the new life he was entering upon, intoxicated with the sparkle, the ripple, the scents and the sounds and the sunlight, he trailed a paw in the water and dreamed long waking dreams. The Water Rat, like the good little fellow he was, sculled steadily on and forebore to disturb him. There are extra words there. We could ruthlessly cut all the words that aren't needed for bare meaning: The Mole never heard a word he was saying. Absorbed in the new life he was entering upon, he trailed a paw in the water and dreamed. The Water Rat sculled on and forebore to disturb him. But why would we do that? It leaves us the bare picture and a bit of the character interaction, but it destroys most of the magic.
Oh, Lawd. I think The Da Vinci Code is proof that plot can prevail over questionable writing. I made it through it because it was interesting, though not what I usually read, but it got downright painful at times. (Google tells me that Dan Brown is reviled for this kind of thing). Some examples: The Da Vinci Code, chapter 4: A voice spoke, chillingly close. "Do not move." On his hands and knees, the curator froze, turning his head slowly. Only fifteen feet away, outside the sealed gate, the mountainous silhouette of his attacker stared through the iron bars. He was broad and tall, with ghost-pale skin and thinning white hair. His irises were pink with dark red pupils. The Da Vinci Code, chapter 4: Captain Bezu Fache carried himself like an angry ox, with his wide shoulders thrown back and his chin tucked hard into his chest. His dark hair was slicked back with oil, accentuating an arrow-like widow's peak that divided his jutting brow and preceded him like the prow of a battleship. As he advanced, his dark eyes seemed to scorch the earth before him, radiating a fiery clarity that forecast his reputation for unblinking severity in all matters. Apparently there was something called the Delete Key Awards for bad writing. It's not around any more, but worth a look: Excerpts from the 2009 finalists
@Foxx and @taariya - I do think it's important to think about when Tolstoy wrote Anna Karenina. Back then, and in that place, the bits about farming and communism would have been very interesting to the people reading the book. If it were a modern book, they'd be discussing different issues, which would likely be more interesting to today's readers. I feel as if we're being slowly forced down a narrow chute towards the goal of writing for people who don't want to read. So many readers come across as too hyped to sit still and get immersed in a book. If reading itself, and the immersion that comes with it, has lost its appeal, that makes me really sad. I was talking to my husband the other day about this, and he said he still loves getting his hands on a thick book, because that means the experience of reading it will last a long time. That's my feeling too. I feel quite cheated when I read a short 'fast' book that just skips over the story to arrive at the conclusion as quickly as possible without much in the way of rich character development or detail. I'm not reading because I have to, or have a half-hour train journey to kill with my Kindle. I'm reading because I love the experience of 'being there.' If the experience doesn't last very long or doesn't engage me much, I feel I've wasted that time. And yes, my husband and I are both retired. However, I've felt that way about books my whole life, including while I was at school, when I was working full time, double shifts, you name it. Instead of buying three short books, I prefer to buy one long one. It takes longer to read it, but I'm not doing any MORE reading than I would if I had three shorter books to get through. It's the immersive experience I love, and that's what the longer books provide.
I agree with this completely. I have a difficult time getting through every page of the unabridged Les Miserables, because he goes off on chapters-long asides about the political mood of the time or a rather sizeable portion of the book dedicated to the history and rules of a convent for his characters to take shelter in. I understand that these things were relevant at the time he wrote these books and his French audience would have completely understood the long-winded descriptions of shifting political sands. I find it quite dry and a jarring break from the narrative. So I skim those parts. The first time through I gave full effort to read every word, but now I understand that I can skip big chunks of it without hurting my experience. That said, I do not think Hugo was a bad writer because he ventured into lengthy tangents. I still love his works and his wordiness. It does seem that the general tolerance for rich, vivid descriptions seems to be waning. I see the trend inclining towards more spartan text, as has been discussed here. That makes me sad. Like you, I don't read a book to jump straight into it and get it over with. I want to linger. I want to be charmed by a particular turn of phrase. I want to feel immersed in a well-described world or in the head of a well-described character. I don't think a writer is "bad" if they decide to use more words than current opinion favors. But I can't get past bad grammar. I can forgive a lot of things. Weak plot, even, if the writing is good enough. But not bad grammar.
I don't believe there's much correlation between the length of a book and its memorability or immersiveness, and definitely not a causal relationship. Plenty of modern readers settle in for long books--but the long books they settle in for for fun tend to be the classics. The Count of Monte Cristo is about 1200 pages long. It is my favorite book and I remember it in vivid detail. Every time I reread it I am struck again with the same powerful emotions that gripped me the first time reading it. Abridging it and cutting down Dumas' original writing is, in my opinion, a crime. The Rum Diary is only about 200 pages long, exactly as long as it needs to be and no more. It perfectly captures the desperation and hopelessness of young people wasting their youth and ruining their lives from being afraid to get old and chasing vague, elusive dreams. I was captivated from start to finish, and Hunter S. Thompson definitely did not skimp on character development or detail. A book being longer than another has no bearing on how immersive it is. Keeping a reader fully engaged while taking them through 800+ pages of elaborate detail and complex plot (as Collins did in The Woman in White and Cervantes did in Don Quixote and Dumas did in The Count of Monte Cristo) takes skill. To keep a story short and make it fascinating, memorable, and impactful also takes skill. And an author who doesn't have that skill won't be able to keep their readers entertained regardless of how long their book is. This is the reason why I generally dislike super long contemporary fiction in a nutshell. Older authors who wrote 800+ pages (i.e. Tolstoy and Dumas and Cervantes and Collins and Dostoyevsky and so on) typically did so because they had 800 pages worth of their story and all its elements, as well as any theme/message they wanted to get across. But I feel that some contemporary authors are taking the same attitude that you're taking here, believing that making a novel longer will make it better or more enjoyable to read or a more captivating experience. It's like a college student that inflates the length of their essay using convoluted sentence structures and repetition of the same thing in different words over and over again in order to disguise the fact that they don't have much to say. Professors can sense that and so can readers. In reality a story should be exactly as long as it needs to be, and a reader will know when an author has rushed ahead just like they'll know when an author has purposely dragged their feet.
I don't think that's QUITE my stance! I'm a big fan of editing, and believe that all content should advance the story in some way. It just doesn't have to do it quickly, with no time or toleration for immersive narrative, description or whatever makes a story bloom. One of the things I asked my betas to do was to mark parts of my novel that dragged, or they were tempted to skip. These bits needed attention—either cut altogether, or re-written. A couple of early chapters got cut altogether, because they sidetracked the main story. I had planned to include an event that would have made these earlier chapters necessary to set it up. However, I decided against developing that plotline as the story wore on—so they had to come out during the edits. Sometimes dragginess has more to do with the pace than the content of a particular section of the story, however. As you approach a 'slow' part of the story, you have to prepare the reader for the pace to slow down. Reading is like most other activities. There will be periods where you push ahead, and periods where you relax a bit. Manipulating these periods is a difficult skill for a writer to master, but it's a skill every writer should strive for. You don't want to bore your reader, but you don't want to wear them out either. It's a journey, not a race.
So I think a better expression would not be a preference for thick books but of a slower pace. What I'm ain't criticizing in certain contemporary novels is what you have described already, which is slowness due to events or descriptions that don't advance or develop the story in any way and need to be cut out, as you did. It seems authors sometime just leave those bits in, maybe not realizing that they are technically pointless.
Sleek, sprawling, sleek and sprawling- there's room under the sun for all types of novels. That being said, it's very important that the writer is sensitive to modern sensibilities. I grew up on the "classic novel." Prose like from Conrad or Cervantes seemed normal to me. Having engaged with the writing community and more contemporary novels, I've come to understand, even appreciate, the modern style. It achieves certain things that "classic" cannot. That doesn't make it better, it just makes it more suitable for modern audiences. @Foxx, while agree the choice can be called stylistic, I think that's an oversimplification. I'm sure a literature major would agree that literature, like anything, evolves. The preferred style today fits certain needs. Still, it would obviously be a shame to completely ignore older styles and write them off as outdated. Like someone else said, hand if off to your betas and see what happens.
Oh, I like thick books! I just want all the stuff in them to be relevant to the story. And I like a varied pace within the story. I've been reading thick books all my life. In fact, it's only relatively recently that 'skinny' books have become the norm. Look back at the huge bestsellers that were popular in the 80s and 90s if you don't believe me. That was only 20-30 years ago. It doesn't take much thought to realise that telling a complex, layered story with lots of subplots, characters and a rich setting is going to take more book time that a simple, straightforward one with fewer characters and subplots, and a sketchy setting. I prefer complex and layered because it keeps me occupied for longer and gives me a much richer experience. Think of it like the difference between a feature-length movie and a half-hour TV show. You'll get a lot more stuff in a movie. That doesn't mean it's boring or slow. There is just more in it. The thing is, if you set a slow pace in a short book, you're not going to cover much territory, are you?
I suppose that's a valid argument, although I still don't think authors necessarily have to sacrifice detail and development in a short novel. They just have to find a way to convey it at a breakneck pace. I have a great admiration for authors who can pull that off.
But my argument is 'why.' Why do they 'have' to find a way to convey detail and development at a breakneck pace? What's the point? So the reader can get done more quickly and move on to the next 'fast' book? Fair enough if an author can pull that off, but that's not necessarily a virtue. And I do maintain that anything done at a breakneck pace will not be a rich experience. You'll get there quicker, but the journey will be a blur.
In The Rum Diary, Hunter S. Thompson uses 200 pages to paint a vivid picture of pre-statehood Puerto Rico and capture the hopelessness and desperation and aimlessness of his protagonist and the pathetic, conflicted, despicable men surrounding him. Could Thompson have dragged this out and extended it by a few hundred pages? Sure. But why would he have? The story works perfectly well in its short form and in fact the fast pace perfectly suits the theme of young people wasting their youth chasing elusive dreams and being afraid of getting old only to suddenly find that their exploits and escapades and wandering through life haven't saved them from their own mortality. Was it short and fast-paced? Yes. Did it have a strong impact on me, and do I still remember it in great detail to this day? Yes. Was I fully immersed and engaged while reading it? Yes. The only time that the journey of reading a short novel is a blur is when the reader fails to actively engage with the novel by analyzing it instead of just consuming it and reads with no destination but the ending. And that would be their fault for being a lazy reader if that were to happen, not the author's fault or an inherent shortcoming of concision. I think we've spent enough space in this thread arguing about this, and being only barely on-topic, so let's just call it a draw. I don't think our conflicting opinions could really be reconciled, and it feels kind of like banging my head against a wall.
Yes, no problem. It's been a good discussion, and you're right about not derailing the thread. I hope your head doesn't hurt! Don't worry. It's never possible to convert everybody to an opinion or preference, is it? That doesn't mean the other person is being obtuse. It just means they see things differently and enjoy different things. I admire Hunter Thompson, and acknowledge that he's a well-respected 'modern' writer. I don't enjoy reading him, though. And yes, I have tried. But I did enjoy Anna Karenina. I am a history buff, and enjoy reading the historical detail about things like communism and farming methods in Russia at that time.
Unless the writing is so terrible that takes me more than a minute to read a page, then I'll always finish the story. Just because I feel open minded and much more tolerant.
No. When I pick up a book, in real life or online, I always open it randomly to check the writing. If the writing is not decent enough to be read (I mean decent grammar, the very least) I put away the book. But now that I think of it, I was fooled once. I bought a self-published book where the option "see inside" wasn't available. I did it for two reasons: 1) I wanted to try and check how that site worked in terms of paying and shipment, etc; 2) the premise seemed vaguely interesting. I was left wondering if a kid no more than 13 had written that book. If the person is older, then that person has no talent at all and should be kindly told to pursue other hobbies. I ended up skipping over through the pages because after all I'd bought it and the premise was indeed interesting, but the person ruined it (no surprise there). This was an amateur with no proficiency in grammar whatsoever thinking he could write a historical novel the same way he tells a joke to his friends. (This was a book in my native language, I know what I'm saying.) The site allows for comments on the book. Out of kindness I didn't comment. Should I have commented?
Oh, I forgot the most excruciating read I've ever did in English! I know some people will want my skin for this, but here goes, James Joyce's "Ulysses". Only without the "great plot" part. There was no plot. I read it a couple of years ago for research/study purposes. I wanted to know what was all that fuss about the book. That last chapter (maybe more than one chapter, I can't recall) without punctuation marks was excruciatingly painful to read. At some point I was skipping over lines, horrified that people can actually say that's one of the greatest novels of all time. I only forced myself to finish for a matter of principle and stubbornness, and maybe a vague hope to discover what the fuss was about. Sure, original, ground breaking for its time, but I won't read anything like that again. Original doesn't always mean good and that's the case. (Flay me all you want, I won't change my mind about this. I pity anyone who is forced to read it for school.)
