Precision in writing - some tips.

Thanks. This better?

"The color of 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 own."

See, I'd call terra-cotta an orange-red.... but maybe another good point. You could simply call it orange-red. You could call it terra-cotta, bringing a more specific shade to mind. Or you could add emotion to it

"The rusty red of shattered gardening pots, left to fend for themselves in the weather..."

As Dante said, it's a matter of importance. Knowing what things are important enough to describe and which ones aren't. And the choices you make can change everything.

EDIT: Was arguing over the "eyes" thing as an edit (missed that you said it the first time) then realized you were right. Too repetitive. Heh. Thanks.

EDIT: part 2. Now it sounds like poetry. Blech. Glad it's not part of anything important, lmao!

 

Hi Trish!

I edited my previous post a few times - it took me about twenty minutes, and maybe you missed some of it if you caught the first draft only.

Re "eyes"....

I meant:

"....each time he closed his."

- understanding of the missing noun by association with the subject of the sentence - "those eyes".

 

Re:

"The rusty red of shattered gardening pots, left to fend for themselves in the weather..."

Why the comma?

How about:

"in all weathers".

A bit more expressive?


All my nitpicking is genuinely intended to promote thought and discussion, in the hope that at least some of it will be of value to someone, somewhere, sometime............I am not a writing expert, but I have thoughts and opinions on the subject which I am happy to share.

 

LOL, yeah... could have just dropped it (The eyes thing)

Why the comma? I guess because I hadn't finished it out. It wasn't complete yet. Had I finished it I'd have said something like "The rusty red of shattered gardening pots, left to fend for themselves in the weather, and bringing to mind clear fall days and the scent of woodsmoke." (Yes, I always write in long sentences that I later have to fix and edit down )

Or something. See, I hadn't really decided what I was describing and since the topic at hand was the color red I just let it drop off. Maybe I shouldn't have But you're right. That would work too, though I'd probably never use it. I don't like the word "weathers" used that way. I don't know why, I just don't, heh.

And I'm certainly no expert either, but I'm the same as you. Just hoping it helps and happy to throw my mistakes up as examples to be nit-picked

 

I did miss it, I'm sorry.


No, no, it DID work. See, I said in the original that you can use "purple" prose to sneak in information you want the reader to know. I WANTED you to realize that he used to be a farmer, used to work til dusk on a harvester, etc. Plus, her hair is making him think of home, now a million girls probably have the same color hair, so instead of outwardly saying that she reminds him of home (warmth, security, safety, etc.) I say her hair does and the reader already knows she's special... to him. At least I hope.

Further, we can even break it down more (maybe) and assume that he's rugged, hard working, dedicated, etc. It's asking a LOT of a simple sentence, but there's no reason it can't do it. At least to me. That's what I try for.

 

Hi Dante Dases!

A few points from your post which I disagree with:


You can be too precise. And that ruins the pacing of a scene.

I cannot see any way that precision could ruin the pacing of a scene. Too much unnecessary detail, yes. Precision, no.

....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.

Well, it would be one or the other, or something in between .

.....just saying he put his underpants on his head and stuck a couple of pencils up his nose is perfectly fine.

Not so, if I want for some reason to convey a more detailed image.

 

My final thought was that she had spiky hair - reminiscent of the stalks, after the harvest.

I think, now, that you didn't mean "stalks", but - hmmm?

From the web, about a combined harvester:


... which moves through the fields cutting the heads off the stalks, threshing, ...


Heads is a bit uninspiring. What's another word for the head of the wheat?

 

You see, cropped stationary stalks could flash in and out of the shadows, as the light changes with the setting of the sun. If you had used the verb "swayed", I would have understood that the wheat had not yet been harvested, because the stalks were moving.

So I thought, from your original:

"She's got short, spiky hair, but I don't know exactly what colour it is, but because the colour is in some way similar to that of cropped wheat stalks in the changing light of sunset, her hairstyle is probably two-tone, probably blonde with darker streaks."

That's the truth. Can you read the paragraph and see why I understood it like this?

Your edit doesn't clear things up for me.


I think this is the hardest part of being a writer - reading what's there, and not what you might think is written.

More or less, the unharvested stalks in a wheatfield can only be seen from outside of the field, looking at the edge of the crop. The main view of a wheatfield is that of the heads. That's why I thought the wheat had been harvested - we can see the stalks!


S'all wild, innit"

 

But the color part you got is right on. Streaky, dirty blonde is what I was going for, so I'm okay with what you got. And it really doesn't matter anyway, because I'm not actually so controlling that I want to stand over the readers shoulder and show them a fabric sample It's what it means to them that's important, that they CAN see a clear image.

I didn't mean short and spiky though, so yeah, would have to change the wording on that a bit maybe

 

That's what precision is about. It's in no way a style-killer, but your friend.


Trish....

My previous post was edited several times................

 

Ah.. I see. Your assumption that the unharvested stalks can only be seen from the outside of the field is incorrect though. Those machines are huge, but still can only make passes, like a lawn mower, and are constantly opening up more and more area where they can clearly see the "outside of the field" angle. The view from a harvester is much different than the view from the middle of the field (just standing there) or from say, an airplane. They're changing the perimeter of the field, you know? But again, arguing semantics is kind of pointless, because if you didn't get it, you didn't get it, and it would be my failure as a writer, not your failure as a reader.

 

I think it's "ears of wheat".

 

Or cream of wheat. Wheat flour. Amber waves of grain. Ahem. What?

 

This is a condition to which I'm not immune - assuming the reader will draw the same conclusions as myself.

You are right, of course, about the mowing passes. But, losing myself in the romantic nature of the paragraph, I was high on a hill and looking down at a field of what should have been an ocean of shimmering, golden wheat ears.........

 

^^^^^^

That doesn't quite fit as a follow-on, but I love the adjective "shimmering" - better than "dancing" or "swaying" because something has to move for shimmering to happen, even if it's only the changes to the degree of hot-air refraction producing the illusion of movement.

 

it's 'ears' of corn and 'heads' of wheat...

 

'Kay, 'kay.

 

Thanks!

I'm disappointed though - "head" is a bit dull for something that can shimmer.

It could work for Trish:

Bobbing about. She was always bobbing about, like the heads of wheat in an evening breeze during the harvest back home. She looked like them, too, with her long, streaky-blond snarls of wheaty hair flapping around her flashing, emerald eyes as she bobbed.

Chip growled. He opened his eyes.


And so on......


(Yes, you got it! Chip's a dog).


BUT.....

Regarding the eyes........his, or the dog's?


Imprecise!!


QED

 

Hello!

 

LMAO! You're hilarious!

I liked 'shimmering' and maybe you could call them 'fronds'? Would that make sense or am I crazy? (I mean I'm crazy, but in this specific instance I'm not sure )

 

"Snarls" is mega!

Then we bring in a dog!


Whaddaya want? Blood?

 

Ummm... yeah. I want blood. Nod.

 

Crazy?

Hmmm......

I have been propelled through life by the thrust of the most amazingly powerful whims and fancies.

Me too, probably.

 

LOL, welcome to crazy town

 

I just edited the forgotten smiley into #71....looked a bit stark without it.

Sorry.