Novel Purple Prose: The Good(?) and the Bad

It all depends on the writer's skill (which is a boring answer and for that I am sorry XD).
I think the majority of people would agree that Lolita is a masterpiece of English literature (its the best selling "classic" novel published by Penguin at least, which says something, considering their rather extensive and intimidating catalogue).
And, I think any publisher given a copy of Lolita, even without having Nabokov's name attached, would have recognised that it was an excellent MSS (if they wouldn't have, it says more about their skill as a publisher than his as a writer). But Lolita is exceptional in every sense of the world - Nabokov takes obvious and ecstatic delight in taking the English language, warts and all, and manipulating it until it becomes a thing of immense beauty and power, and he does that not by stripping away from his language until it is essentialised (not that there is anything wrong with that approach - other writers employ it with fantastic results) but by layering meanings and sounds and patterns in a way that none but the most gifted, insightful, sensitive and intelligent writer would be able to do. For that reason, I think I, like most publishers and readers, would be highly sceptical of a similar writing style from an unknown writer - it may be a work of immense depth and colour like Nabokov's or, more likely, a shallow and superficial imitation.

Moreover, it seems that many writers "purple" their prose by opening a thesaurus and throwing in all the big words they can, or by lengthening sentences unnecessarily to emulate the effect. With Lolita, not a single word is wasted, nor misused. Writing like that can only come from extensive reading, and not simply scanning the pages, but absorbing the language, the structures, the poetry. Perhaps coming to english as his 2nd/3rd (after russian, and probably after french, i'm not sure of the exact order he learnt his languages) gave Nabokov an insight into its character that us native speakers don't have...

 

Agreed; I sumbit to your reasoning. However. . . that still doesn't give me a better term, Cog. I think you're hedging.

 

Arron, brilliant post. I agree with you 100%. Your take on Nabokov was bang on.

That's exactly what I dislike about the purple prose I see from amateurs. It is always a shallow and superficial imitation, which only pays insult to the incredible contributions of literary masters.

Yeah, that's the worst kind of purple. It is simply bad, and I can't help but think that only the inexperienced reader/writer would ever support such follies.

Yes, on the surface it can seem almost ridiculously excessive, but the closer you look, the more you realise that every word was chosen with surgical care and precision for the best possible effect. They say that no writing is ever perfect, but that book may be the one exception.

I say that it's excessive simply because his descriptions and wordplay weren't exactly required to deliver the story. They were, however, necessary to create the greatest possible emotional and intellectual impact, which seemed to be his primary objective.

I generally label a submission purple (here, and elsewhere) when the extra verbosity adds nothing to the impact of the piece. In that case it's just a lot of irritating fluff.

 

And that, in my opinion, is what separates good writing from bad writing regardless of whether it is purple prose or not, whether it is a novel or an essay or a poem, whether it is fantasy or horror or comedy. Every word should have a purpose and a reason. I think it was Kurt Vonnegut who said that every word in a short story (though it can be applied elsewhere) should only be used if and only if it furthers the story along to it's point or whatever.

For me, that was one reason why I liked The Catcher in the Rye - some may disagree with me with good reason, but I felt that for a book with an angsting teenager character, Salinger knew exactly which words to choose and how to use them.

So, to bring back to the original topic, something that has the characteristics of purple prose may not necessarily be truly "purple prose".

 

Sometimes I think the line drawn between purple prose and good description is blurred. I read a good description and some people call it purple prose, but their rewrites take all the power out of the description.

Thunder cracked outside. The wind sang a song as if for them. The snow drummed against the cabin, a slow, melodic sound, a deep sound, a distant sound.
​

Personally, I like it, purple or not, I think it's good description.

Or what about the following from Paladin of Souls? by Lois McMaster Bujold.

A faint white blob floated in her vision. As she stared, dismayed and frowning, two more slipped out of the walls and collected with it, as if drawn to her warmth. Ancient spirits, these, formless and decayed to near oblivion. Merciful oblivion.
​

 

I've never read anything by Nabokov, but a couple modern books that contain what might be called "purple prose" would be The English Patient by Michael Ondaatje and Love Walked In by Marisa de los Santos. Interestingly, both writers are successful poets, which probably explains why they are so skillful with their rhetoric. I tried to find purple prose examples of each of their writings online, but the excerpts are too short. You can see a bit of it in chapter one of Love Walked In. If you're someone who chooses books for its evocative and lush language, you'll probably enjoy books that skillfully use purple prose.

 

The only issue I see there is the repetition of 'the' and 'sound', but it is clearly intentional and used to good effect. There's nothing wrong with the occasional description like this, imo. If I were writing a review I would caution against over-using the technique, as the more you use it the less meaningful it becomes. Eventually it can be an irritating exercise in redundancy. Of course, you already know where I stand on this. But as for the quote, it's good.

That's a wonderful description. It's really quite efficient, and it certainly delivers. I think this is a case where simplification would subtract meaning, and thus be a detriment. The issue, as I see it, isn't how many words are used, but the care with which they are selected.

 

Marina, I'll check out those authors you mentioned. Thanks for the suggestions.

I couldn't find much in the way of quotes for Lolita either, except for the opening bit. As only a single paragraph, it doesn't, by any means, demonstrate his versatility, but it is good.

Hopefully that will give some of you a better idea of what us Nabokov fans are raving about.

 

I like this, but I wouldn't accuse it of being anything like purple prose. In fact, for what it conveys, I think its quite succinct and effective.

For those who haven't yet experienced Nabokov, here's a brief quote or two so you can see what we mean (and whet your appetite so you can go buy a copy yourself, which you absolutely definitely positively should):

And presently I was shaking hands with both of them in the street, the sloping street, and everything was whirling and flying before the approaching white deluge, and a truck with a mattress from Philadelphia was confidently rolling down to an empty house, and dust was running and writhing over the exact slab of stone where Charlotte, when they lifter the laprobe for me, had been revealed, curled up, her eyes intact, their black lashes still wet, matted, like yours, Lolita.

Or how about:

Apart from the psychological comfort this general arrangement should afford me by keeping Dolly's day adjacent to mine, I immediately foresaw the pleasure I would have in distinguishing from my study-bedroom, by means of powerful binoculars, the statistically inevitable percentage of nymphets among the other girl-children playing around Dolly during recess...

(both from Lolita by Vladmir Nabokov; Penguin 1959/1995)

Just....pure magic.....beyond compare....

 

Ah, those were just the kind of quotes I was looking for, arron. Unfortunately I don't have a copy on hand to extract them from. It's a crime, I know. I'm so ashamed.:redface:

 

Some of what he writes is a bit convoluted based on the examples given.

and dust was running and writhing over the exact slab of stone where Charlotte, when they lifter the laprobe for me, had been revealed, curled up, her eyes intact, their black lashes still wet, matted, like yours, Lolita.

​

When they lifter the laprobe for me, stuck in the middle of the sentence makes it hard to follow. If he did that too often, I would quickly grow tired.

Now if it were written in a different order, I would not even have had to think about the meaning.

and when they lifter the laprobe for me, dust was running and writhing over the exact slab of stone where Charlotte had been revealed, curled up, her eyes intact, their black lashes still wet, matted, like yours, Lolita.

 

As always, the sentence is better understood in context. It reflects the narrator's pyschological state at the time.

Here's another sample. Humbert Humbert contemplates the perfect murder:

And that will have to be the last of them, else I'll get in trouble with Cogito.:redface:

If anyone else has some fun quotes (from other books) to share, please do!

 

I would be hesitant to describe this passage as 'purple.' It is very deep, very colourful and textured- but it flows much too well and frankly is too beautiful to fit what I think of as purple prose. That passage is the inspiration for one of my favourite songs- every time I read it I transpose the pronunciation and timing of the song onto the text which oddly enough makes it sound even better in my mind.

There is a difference I think between a passage like this- one that is very heavy in its description, yet not to the detriment of the piece, and purple prose. When I think of purple prose, I think of writing composed of overburdened sentences and flashy word choices, not to express and amplify an idea, but as the idea in and of itself. It is by its nature clumsy- the fact that it is clumsy is partly what defines it as purple. The problem, as I believe architectus mentioned before, is that different readers will have their own definition of what is awkward.

To contribute, I'm apparently the only person in the world that likes The Heart of Darkness. I've heard people describe it as purple... but I thought the descriptions were so deep I found it immersive.

 

My thoughts exactly. It does have an almost musical quality to it, and I can't imagine a better opening for the novel. Still, Nabokov is one of those writers commonly regarded as supremely purple, though, not, it seems, within more literary circles. There is apparently much confusion as to what qualifies as purple prose, and this thread is helping to clarify things for me. This is what I've always thought, though until recently I've been standing alone. Sadly, the vast majority of people I know would take one look and drop Lolita like a ton of bricks.

Exactly, which means there there is no absolute definition for the term. Your definition is the one I use when applying the purple label as criticism. I guess with all the criticism directed at authors like Nabokov, I became accustomed to thinking there are two kinds of purple. That may not be true, but if so, it's a very common misuse. I think It's another one of those abused terms that are probably best left out of one's vocabulary. I think I prefer to say 'pretentious', because what you described above (overburdened sentences and flashy word choices that don't benefit the piece) is the definition of pretentious writing. Unfortunately, people take more offense when you call their work pretentious.

I haven't read that yet. Sounds like I'll probably enjoy it, since we seem to have a similar interest in books.

 

I've never heard the term "Purple Prose" used in any way other than derogatory, myself--often, in fact usually, meaning writing that's offensive or even pornographic. In my recollection, it's usually tied to love or sex scenes in romance novels that either weren't terribly well written or at least weren't perceived as good writing. I've never anywhere other than here in this forum heard it used to describe long sentences as if length or challenging prose is what makes the difference between something that's well written and something that isn't. So, it's hard for me to understand the term "Purple Prose" as being a point of debate about the possible value of excess.

In any case, "excessive" just means more than necessary, doesn’t it?--trending toward a LOT more than necessary--meaning that either prose has too many words or words that are too long or with meanings that are too intellectual--at least to that particular reader. LOLITA wouldn't have been the masterpiece I think it is in any words other than the ones Nabokov used as only he possibly could. So, I don't read Nabokov's writing as excessive at all. Many readers do think LOLITA is pornographic (I don't). Maybe it might qualify as "Purple" in the minds of some readers on that score.

Just because a sentence is long or uses words a reader's not familiar with, does NOT mean it's either excessive or purple (in my mind). A criticism to the effect that writing is excessive just means that reader is expressing a personal preference for simplicity and/or (maybe more) transparency of meaning, or attempting to describe a piece of writing they find unnecessarily intellectual, maybe even obscenely so.

It's true that sometimes a reader will grab for the most derisive possible way to criticize something she doesn't understand or fully appreciate, so maybe that's where the use of "Purple Prose," in this context about excess, developed. But I think that kind of hyperbole, especially if it's misunderstood, probably says at least as much about the reader as it does about the writer, in any case.

 

Maybe it's my ADD that's the problem, but those sentences do not hold my attention. In fact, they give me a headache. They just seem like run-on, or like the ramblings of a pedophiliac narcissist. If the intention was the latter, then the embellished rhetoric was perfect for his story.

 

Do y'all really think anyone's ever finished a first draft and gone, "Nah, needs ta be purpler."?

 

LOL. No, but I think there are people who love using rhetorical devices or lush, evocative language. Maybe they won't think of it as needing to be purpler, but just needing more description and word play?

 

Molly, that settles it. I didn't know about the (incorrect) porn definition. I don't think I'll be using the term 'purple prose' at all anymore. Just one more for the garbage bin, rendered useless by misuse. The pornographic link/definition you describe is, to my understanding, entirely imaginary. That would be like saying the colour orange has three arms. I suppose it may have come from the 'sensually evocative' part of the definition (where this would be the aim of many romance novels), but the general phrase covers any/all senses in any context. . .

As for your other thoughts, I agree with you to a point, though you do seem to have a more tolerant perspective than I.

I wonder what you might have to say about this paragraph, copied from another writing site. Author "v.m." :

In my mind, this is far, far, far more purple than anything Lytton ever wrote. I think the author's forced attempt to sound intellectual has ruined whatever message he wished to convey. There are so many things that are simply wrong in the piece. I'm far too distracted by conceptual errors and nonsensical phrasing to appreciate any of it.

 

That example is just horrid, in my opinion. Each sentence tries a different metaphor on for size, and none of them fit well.

 

Well, this snippet doesn't paint a very clear picture to me of anything really, although the first sentence is very suggestive of something to follow (which doesn't). It almost reads like a series of sentences that have been connected into a paragraph because they each contain a word, maybe two, that could be construed as dark or ominous. Is that what folks mean by "Purple Prose"?

I probably wouldn't call that "excessive," myself, because there're far too many specific questions I'm sure I'd be asking about word choice, monotonous rhythm, verb tense, and juxtaposition of pretty vague images. But I see what I think you're driving at, which is the use of words for their shock value or emotional content alone without any apparent thought given to whether the whole actually conveys anything substantial to the reader (much like pornography, no?). I suppose a writer might have a good reason to do such a thing, and maybe I'd overlook it in context somehow, where alone, it's just puzzling for all kinds of reasons. In a manuscript, I'd probably be asking about all-the-above.

Incidentally, it doesn't read to me like an effort to be needlessly intellectual, so much as a (maybe failed) effort to use imagery in a unique way, for effect.

P.S. What Cogito said

 

Lol Cogito; yes. But from a couple of comments in this thread, and views expressed elsewhere, I'm curious to see if anyone might try to justify it somehow. I also wanted to demonstrate how purple prose isn't just a term tossed around by the ignorant or lazy to insult writing that's 'above' their comprehension or ability to appreciate, as Molly (and forgive me if I'm putting words in your mouth, Molly) seemed to imply. Sometimes it is an appropriate label. Sometimes the writing is just bad.

 

For my nickel, it's only appropriate if it means something that's either useful to the writer or helpful to someone wanting to learn. Like other vague but global comments about writing (e.g., "The writing is just bad), that does nothing beyond insulting the writer or author. It seemed to me people were looking to classics for examples of "Purple Prose," in the very same context that I usually hear from writers who are automatically offended by authors they feel are "elitist" (though there's never a consensus as to who those authors actually are). I still don't know when "Purple Prose" is an appropriate "label," or even if a "label" is ever appropriate when there are more precise ways to discuss or critique writing, either published or never-gonnabe. And, for the record, my comments were meant to suggest that ALL criticism (whether it's vague or precise) is subjective to the individual critic, not just the lazy ones (and there are some).

But you're forgiven

 

Well, if you were in the market for a cheap car, and someone tried to sell you the worst heap of scrap you have ever seen, the required repairs of street legality alone costing more than you ever wanted to pay for a vehicle in the first place, and you said, "I'm sorry, but that pile of junk isn't worth buying for anything more than parts" (which is kinder than most would say) would that just be a malicious insult to the manufacturer and the owner? Perhaps it's not the kindest way to make your point, but the owner's attempt to sell you the vehicle in the first place is insulting. When the product is so obviously bad it can be a challenge to balance sensitivity and criticism.

Now, as for critiquing, I do agree that it's much more productive to be specific - the more specific, the better. However, when someone posts an entire chapter or prologue like that above, it can be a monumental task (and a delicate one) to help with every point that needs attention. In that case I'm more inclined to make general comments like, "You need to pay closer attention to vocabulary, because some of the words you're using don't even make sense in context, and there's no good reason to send your reader after a dictionary every line." Then I'll give some examples, but not all of them. That's just too much. The author should get an idea of what the problem is, and apply the principle himself. I can't critique a 5000 word piece like that line-by-line. I'd be at it all day, and the writer would hate and ignore me. Besides, it is also difficult to know when you're imposing too much.

Someone posted a prologue to a children's story a few months ago, which was immediately labeled purple prose by most reviewers. Everything from the vocabulary, sentence structure and overall format to the content itself was entirely unsuitable for that market (or for anyone, really). Despite numerous helpful (and specific) comments (and a complete revision) the author still couldn't seem to grasp all the issues. For example, strange vocabulary no child would ever know. At some point you just want to throw up your hands and say, "It's too purple! Just simplify it."

Still, I agree with you in that simply saying a piece is purple isn't very helpful at all, if that's all you say. That's right up there with, "good work, keep it up" on the constructive scale. Incidentally, it wouldn't pass for a review here, anyway. It is helpful, however, to explain why you might dislike a piece altogether. If a dozen reviewers all say a piece is too purple, that's a very strong indication that something's gotta give. Even though it is purely a matter of opinion (the worst writing in the world can be enjoyed by someone, I'm sure) popular opinion is good to know, especially if you aim for commercial success.

 

what was acceptable to most people in writing a hundred or more years ago, just as what was acceptable in social behavior, is not necessarily acceptable to most people today...

and purple prose is NOT acceptable to most readers today, thus is not acceptable to publishers... period!

it has nothing to do with what an individual may like... it has everything to do with what will have the best chances of being published in today's world...