You need a strong but simple image. For example, what would be better would be: Mary Sue eased out of the shower, shuddering as the cold slammed into her. If you wanted to place a little more emphasis on describing, you could add a "like an icy fist" at the end, but if it's purely action, I don't recommend it. It really depends, sometimes, on what the scene is. If it was horror: Mary Sue stepped out of the shower, and the creature dropped down on her. If it was romance: Mary Sue stepped out of the shower, her mind occupied with thoughts of Brad. [romantic mush] If it was a thriller: Mary Sue stepped out of the shower, her mind already formulating a plan to destroy the Eeluminati Symbolholics Anonymous members. And so on.
If it was a comedy: Mary Sue stepped out of the shower, slipped and skated across the wet floor like an inebriated ice dancer, limbs flailing in every direction. As her towel fell, she cursed her maverick decision to have her shower installed in her front garden.
I've been told my style is a bit too academic for the stuff I write, but then, I'm very definitely writing for YA audiences so people might be quite demeaning to what they thing the average YA audience can understand while I'm not. I think a lot of the trouble is because I want my characters to sound smart... And, seeing as I hold a degree in history, I'm very familiar with pretentious, academic ways of saying things, and so when I'm trying to write well inevitably I start using convoluted sentence structure and long words and stuff, which makes a really obvious contrast to the silly YA way I present other parts of the story, as well as the fact I apparently write some of the descriptions in a very technical way. But I think I should be more concerned since I write for young adults... I think as long as you don't go as far as the terrible usage of "lubricated" you'll be fine.
I don't recommend it either, under any circumstance. "Like an icy fist" is really overwrought, melodramatic language, and I can't think of a single market outside of parody where this would be seen as good, professional level writing. In fact, "shuddering as the cold slammed into her" is pushing it, and would probably be quickly crossed out by most editors, agents or publishers for the same reason as above and given in this thread. Sorry, it's not personal, it's just that those are not good examples nor a good direction to encourage writers to go in with their language or prose.
*grimaces* I'm good at describing things like runeswords or lost artifacts, but not somebody getting out of the shower. Maybe it's because if I do something wrong, people will just attribute it to part of the runesword's mystical properties.
Big words should be taken iin and digested then flow out easily, Not swollowed hole to get coughed out like a hairball.
Out of context it's overwriting. In context there might be a reason to drive the point home. That always makes it tricky to judge short extracts like that. Used correctly a sentence like that can bring a passage to life. Used badly then, as you say, they're overwriting.
In Woolf or Proust, for a start Deemed by whom? I don't want only to read prose that has been stripped to a minimum, I like sometimes to read prose that revels in language. If the passage is in the middle of a pile of minimalist writing then it will draw attention to itself, so the reader will be wondering why it is significant that she is feeling so cold. In that case there had better be a reason. If it's in the middle of a pile of slow, descriptive writing it will fit right in. Not everybody wants to read the same sort of stuff all the time!
That's an obscure form of writing you refer to I feel. Prose that revels in the language. The words are just a tool to create the image. Many words creating the same image make for an inefficient tool. I suppose you have a point that the redundancy could be stylistic. But more often than not it just comes off as being redundant.
I don't think it's that obscure. It's pretty standard for literary fiction, and some of that hits the popular end. I'd say it applied to Kate Atkinson's Behind the Scenes at the Museum and to Jon McGregor's If Nobody Speaks of Remarkable Things. Both first novels, both reasonably recent, both pretty good sellers. Just because it's not to your taste doesn't mean that it's not to anybody's taste or that it's bad.
I'm with digitig on this. Hemingway and Faulkner and Thomas Wolfe all wrote very differently. What kind of tone, what kind of style, are you looking for? It is not necessarily true that the words are just a tool to create the image. Language has more uses than simply that. For example, sentence length and rhythm can have an effect on the reader's reaction to the story, and that's above and beyond the mere conveying of an image. Reducing style to simple image-creation is to ignore a great deal of the potential strength of prose fiction, in my opinion.
I think it sounds cool but it can be difficult to read sometimes. A lot of Lovecraft's works are like this. I have to underline quite a few words in every story of his just so I can look them up later. I suspect a lot of the words he uses are outdated and rarely used anymore though.
I think it sounds cool but it can be difficult to read sometimes. A lot of Lovecraft's works are like this. I have to underline quite a few words in every story of his just so I can look them up later. I suspect a lot of the words he uses are outdated and rarely used anymore though.
Well, Lovecraft was a notorious overwriter. But you can build a larger (and weirder!) vocabulary by reading him! I didn't know the word "eldritch" until I read him.
I keep wondering: Why lubricated and not slippery? Was slippery rejected because it's an ordinary everyday word?
I don't have this problem and hopefully won't get into a habit of it. The current audiobook I'm listening to is a bit wordy for me, but I agree that it is concerned with style. Maybe just try to think your words and then write them down. That might water down the length of your sentences.
I sometimes have the urge to write "academically" but that's because of my lack of articulation. I rather like the wordy books because it gives me something to read, and I get bored quite easily. Also, having spent 2 years in remedial (high school) English it has made me appreciate the more academic style of writing. I'm currently in the transition from YA books to Adult (though I can't tell the difference in most.)
Perhaps you're right. Out of interest I'd like to see an example from either of these books that uses redundancy to strengthen an image.
i agree that 'lubricated' was pushing the envelope to the point of ripping it to shreds... the word means something was done [on purpose or by accident] to make something slippery, not that the tiles were just slick for some other reason, such as being wet... don't use fancy words just for the sake of trying to 'write fancy' or 'sound literary'... doing so never works...
I didn't like "lubricated" either, and would prefer "wet" or, at a push, "slippery". But that wasn't in the sentence that was described as overwritten.
Same here. I actually thought he invented that word as a synonym for the "Old Ones" at first until I looked it up.
Agreed, I thought this too. Personally I think it's simply a case of asking yourself whether the shower is significant enough to warrant so much attention. Unless it is a scene-opener, I would say no. If you can say something simply, then it's usually best to do so; just remember that simple doesn't have to mean it's less effective.
I'd say that the type of words you use should be somewhat of a representation of the main character's personal voice and personality. If a your main character is educated, went to a nice college and is know to be intelligent then I would say your words are fine. But if your character is a high-school rebel who's failing school, then I'd say those words are too much. I like your description about Mary Sue's shower, assuming that she is an intellect. But if she isn't than I would tried to use simpler words. Shorter descriptions. The second description was okay, but I would say cut out the end bit. She took a shower so therefore she's wet. Readers know what taking a show is like you don't need to elaborate. "She got out of the shower" is better than "She got out of the shower, dripping wet and cold" but it's not completely right. Change the weak verb "got" and change with with "emerged" or "stepped" or even "stumbled". "Stumbled is a good one since it vividly describes her actions. So now we have "She stumbled out of the shower." It's simple sentences that are effective in a story along side longer ones to often describe the situation. These sentences though should be uses wisely, reading short frank sentences can get annoying after awhile. Now if you want to make this sentence longer, you can add some adjectives or verbs, but I would say only a few. Let's see... how about this? : "She stumbled out of the shower, her heart pounding." Well, it's not a perfect sentence, but with enough editing it could be the perfect fit.
Slippery just sounds too elementary for actual writing, but in the same sense lubricated is one of those words that doesn't belong in literature. Instead of using a descriptive word, the writer should describe the action. For example instead of saying "the boy fell on the slippery floor," say "the boys feet slid aimlessly, causing him to fall to the ground." Its just a matter of restructuring a sentence.
