Precision in writing - some tips.

LOL, come on, that's all you've got? I did good And I said that 'look like' a bunny ear

And yeah, Tesoro, moccasins are cool. Or you could just be like me and not tie your shoes unless you're working out or running

 

.......then bringing certain websites down as they all search desperately for words which rhyme with "carrots", which is futile because its hard to complain about society by linking rabbits with parrots, and even harder to find a rabbity word which rhymes with "-shun", unless they call themselves Urban Rabbit Amalgamation, seein' in the dark, all across the nation, feedin', breedin', diggin' up the park...........


Well, it's Saturday night....goin' wild!

 

Trish!

My dog's always been a smart one, but after I read him your instructions he tied my shoelaces for me!

So........

I bet it's tough to describe in words how to make tea and toast.........

 

Errrr.....

It's a whole new popula -shun

 

Gosh I'm slow tonight... I keep posting too late and then the post I made is irrelevant. I need to start using quotes. *sigh* That's a smart dog

 

....every three days!

 

Good fun, but gotta sleep now.

'Night all!

 

good writers don't have to be that incredibly boringly precise to convey to their readers what they want them to 'see'...

 

how do you know?
it is a valid question.

 

subtelty then?!!

 

That's exactly the point. It's an effective writing exercise because it forces you to think of every little detail and then try to convey it to someone so they can do it too. Would I ever write fiction in that manner? Of course not. The point is to write out all the 'boring' details and then you can learn what can be left out and still be effective.

But okay..... 'show' me how to tie my shoes, when I have no idea how, without being boringly precise.

 

I don't know to what this post refers, so I can't go further yet.

 

....or maybe I can.

What was "incredibly boring"?

Also....

Surely good writers want to avoid ambiguity. To do this they must write precisely. I've never read a Stephen King novel and been in doubt of what he meant in any of his writing. King is excrutiatingly precise.

Of course, the reader doesn't notice this, thanks to his talents as a storyteller.

 

You don't need to describe things with mathematical precision in fiction; the reader can fill in the blanks. See: Compressed descriptions

 

The post to which you refer is excellent, but has nothing which relates to my original post here. I gave an example of how it's possible to write a sentence which seems unambiguous and satisfactory but in fact isn't, on closer scrutiny. Mine was not a post about the wider aspects of descriptive writing - just about making sure one writes what one means in a given sentence.

Some posts here seems to dismiss writing precision as something to be avoided, which I find bizarre. Writing precisely does not have to mean that the prose becomes stilted, dull, boring and mechanical. The point is to make sure, whatever is written, that the reader fully understands what was meant by the writer.

Further, In my OP I gave an example which I then analysed. Such analysis is hardly going to read like literature, but rather like a mechanical analysis. Writing precisely doesn't mean that one's prose would read like the example.

Hopefully .

 

Sorry, I forgot another point.

From where does the idea of "mathematical precision" come from? Precision in writing is about being clear, that's all. Simple enough, really, and not some kind of complicated system of fabricating sentences.

A writer writes well, technically, or doesn't. How interesting others find the material is a separate issue.

(That's "technically" in terms of technique, and nothing to do with "technology", nor indeed mathematics).

Writers of precision:

Shakespeare, Dickens, Graham Greene, JK Rowling, AA Milne.............it's a long list!

 

What do you guys think about purple prose? Does it help precision or is it counter productive?

 

this is the first I have heard of it..will have to go and reseach it.

 

Wiki:

Purple prose is a term of literary criticism used to describe passages, or sometimes entire literary works, written in prose so extravagant, ornate, or flowery as to break the flow and draw attention to itself. Purple prose is sensually evocative beyond the requirements of its context. It also refers to writing that employs certain rhetorical effects such as exaggerated sentiment or pathos in an attempt to manipulate a reader's response.

Sounds good to me.

Please try not to confuse "precision" with "limiting", or "restrictive", for example. As I've written, precision is all about making sure the readers get what you want them to get, to fully understand your meaning.

Flowery precision? Why not? Ornate description? No problem, if one writes with respect to the reader!


Clearly!


Precision is to do with writing technique, only. It is not a style of writing. All writing should be precise.

 

An extreme and somewhat stupid example of precision in writing would be to write "red" if one wanted the reader to visualize something red.

Writing "brown" would be imprecise.

 

to be truly precise, one would have to include the exact shade of red, since 'red' alone covers a variety of shades...

 

I think purple prose is, by it's very nature, quite precise in terms of description. It also can be used to sneak in information the reader needs to know.

For instance :

"She had blond hair and green eyes." Simple description and perfectly acceptable and effective.


"She had dark blond hair and emarald green eyes." Still fine, though you could probably drop the word 'green' as most people will picture the color in their heads without it.



"Her hair reminded him of harvesting wheat back home, the way the stalks looked when they flashed in and out of the new shadows at dusk. And her eyes. Those eyes that wouldn't leave him alone, flashing emerald fire at him each time he closed his eyes." This would most likely be considered purple by most people (at least from what I've seen).

I tend towards liking it, as long as it's sensical. Even I, with my deep appreciation of imagery with words, have a very hard time reading a two page description of a sunset, though, heh. I'll just skip it if it's too much. I think there needs to be balance (which is hard to find, no doubt) between the "purple" and the concise.

(and I just made up my example on the fly, so try not to beat me up too bad over it, heh.)

 

And therein lies the problem. You can be too precise. And that ruins the pacing of a scene. If you described wallpaper as being 'red in stripes of varying darkness' no one would bat an eyelid (well, they would, but go with me here), but if you said that the wallpaper was 'red in stripes ranging from vermilion to crimson to scarlet', you'd just be bogging yourself down for no reason - it's wallpaper, and you shouldn't waste words describing it as it's inconsequential. If it's important, then go into detail. Otherwise, sketch the scene and paint it in broad strokes and put the care and attention into characters and action.

Going back to the original example, just saying he put his underpants on his head and stuck a couple of pencils up his nose is perfectly fine. You'd already know, given how far in it is in the episode, just what Blackadder looks like (officer class, greatcoat off showing his khaki shirt and braces holding up his trousers, pencil moustache on his upper lip, etc). Just adding the underpants and pencils is in itself enough; it's the juxtaposition of his appearance as an officer (and sort-of-gentleman) with the lunacy of sticking random inanimate objects about his body. Whilst saying 'wibble'.

 

I cannot precisely describe in words a shade of red. I could refer to the reddish hue of an old terracotta pot, for example, but that's as far as my precision goes on that one.

 

Very nice, Trish!

I'd plump for harvested, though, because I can't connect the appearance of a hairstyle to a physical task.

I know what you meant straight off, but that's just luck.



But you are not "wrong", because he would see the wheat stalks as he harvested, and could be reminded of them when he imagined her hair. One option would be to use "the wheat harvest" instead of "harvesting wheat". Reading your original sentence, I have to wait until later in the sentence to get a full understanding of what you meant......which is fine. Perhaps it's a special "delaying" effect. But to use a delaying effect should be a matter of intent rather than luck or accident.

When I read "harvesting wheat", I began to have a rapid succession of fleeting thoughts about long hours, the hot sun, the singing of workers in the field, and the grinding roar of a combined harvester. My next thought was that she had hair the colour of wheat.

It's important to remember just how powerful a person's imagination can be. Compared to the speed at which it can work, writing is done at a crawl. Also, every sentence and its contents are new to the reader. The writer may have read each one several times, and thus knows what follows any given point in the text. This can blur judgement - I am frequently guilty of this failing, even when I try with all my determination to put myself in the reader's shoes.


The final "eyes" isn't necessary.