How do folks feel about random alliterative sentences? Maximum once per piece, maybe two if its a novel. I kinda like to throw one in just because I can. Is it masturbation or does it offer the reader a nice little bone to chew on? A change of pace or mindless self gratification? I really didn't get on with James Ellroy's entirely alliterative novel, his work is opaque at the best of times and I abandoned it, but I just wrote.... Stephen sat in stunned silence as she soliloquized the sordid scenario. Totally unnecessary, with words I wouldn't otherwise choose, but when I get as far as 'Stephen sat in stunned silence', it felt almost rude not to. Thoughts?
Alliteration is self-indulgent. You can't get away with overdoing it. Here's one: The sunless sullen sky opened up. A somber, solemn yet soothing rain came falling down.
Nice, I'd go for sullen sunless over sunless sullen but its much less indulgent than mine. I dont know why but when I see one brewing I feel obliged to embrace it fully! Once every 30,000 words, surely that's allowed?
I don't know if the line below counts as alliteration - I believe not - but my girlfriend recently fought tooth and nail (and feckin' won) to get one of my favorite lines and a minor tribute to Monkey Island out of my book. Based on that bloody battle, I would say it's a bad idea because my story is ridiculous enough to make the following line look sensible. How many raffles could a raffle master raffle if a raffle master could master raffles?
I think subtle alliteration is the best. When you do it consciously and gaudily for its own sake it's basically inexcusable most of the time. Alliterative poetry is a different case.
Quite possibly although I quite enjoy it. My question isn't about the integrity of the sentence, but how other writers/readers feel about a random alliterative line in a 50k+ word novel, just for kicks. as a reader it would either pull me out or I would enjoy the writer's little in joke with themselves, I couldn't actually tell you which. It's just a little kink I have for the very occasional line. To use the well worn writer's toolbox metaphor, extreme alliteration would like some weird screwdriver which you've never found a screw for, so do you wedge it in to a slightly poor fitting head occasionally or throw it in the bin?
Stephen sat in stunned silence Not too bad so far as she soliloquized the sordid scenario. Nope. I'm done here. This is way too blatant, and you even had to squeeze in totally strange and inappropriate words to make it work.
I would only do it if it's part of the scene. Kinda like in My Fair Lady when the professor has Elisa doing this over and over. Totally necessary for the setup to her eventual success. Otherwise I find it annoying and cheesy.
It's too much. For alliteration to work it has to have rhythm, it needs to be broken up and it shouldn't cause too much attention to itself that the reader is going - he deliberately picked these words to be alliterative because nobody uses soliloquized. Take Nabokov in his opening lines - Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. He allows the rhythm, the breaks - he doesn't insist on keeping the l's going with lust of my loins. And he can emphasis the alliteration by slipping into another. To break it up I'd maybe do Stephen sat in stunned silence as she told him the sordid details. You have two pairs of alliteration going on - the repeating s's and the repeating d's.
Top flippin' tip: Slip in some, erm, spacers, when scripting alliterative stuff. I don't think the rule's hard and fast that it's the initial character in subsequent words that makes alliteration. Could do it with syllables too I reckon, make subtle patterns, make your words have background music.
Makes sense. I feel maybe the slightly tongue in cheek nature of this thread got missed, I know the sentence is not great! But yeah, I think you've summed it up nicely with "shouldn't cause too much attention to itself." I suppose it's masturbatory and I've already said 50 hail marys for even suggesting it.
Yeah, that Nabokov's exquisite, but your own alliteration will almost always turn out in strange taste. Matching up looks easy and that's why everyone fails at it. (I like the dad best. It's like he knows.)
We were walking on the beach, the soft sand swallowing our steps. On the left, the sounds of the jungle cut through the night. The birds, the breeze were singing the same sad song: this is your last day in paradise.
I don't if this works: I leaned in close to inhale her scent. Her perfume was luscious, something light, something lovely and lemony.
IDK, I'm thinking light and luscious may conflict with each other. One’s delicate, the other's rich. You could possibly accommodate them by doing away with your first sentence altogether. Then insert the 'lean in' action between more suitable pairings. So light and lovely was the scent before the 'lean in' (further away = a low potency of the fragrance), then lemony and luscious for the olfactory close up/sentence finale. FWIW I believe lemon scents don't get much truck in our Western culture (save for cleaning products)... you may want to find something more exotic for your alliteration structure—rare flower/expensive perfume?
I'm with Seth that light and lovely are combating with luscious. Also although I love all the l's I feel like it's not doing justice to describing a perfume that grabs attention or sparks anything that you can maybe toy with. Lily of the valley is a wonderful scent - it has all those l's, it has a scripture from Song of Solomon, folklore and a wonderful shape that you can maybe extend the description with symbolism.
Everyone covetously stared at her as she entered the café, sporting a Carolina blue dress. I caught a whiff of her perfume as she pushed back her chair, it was something light and lovely. I leaned in closer to kiss her cheek, to inhale her scent. There was a delicate lily of the valley perfume on her neck. A fragrant, luscious femme fatale.
