Precision in writing - some tips.

Thanks!

Where's the biscuit stash?

 

You're welcome! It's a pretty friendly place

If I tell you where the biscuits are I'll have to kill you :/

 

Re the last part of your signature....I have a poem. I haven't done my constructive critiques yet, but here's the first verse, sneaked in:

Thieving empires
Once stood tall,
And peddled dreams
Before their fall.


I wrote this while watching the film Cleopatra with Elizabeth Taylor. I'd never written poetry before, but I had a pen in my hand and a pad on my lap.....off I went.

I strongly recommend poetry as something at which to have a go.

No, skip the technicalities.......

I strongly recommend poetry as something to have a go at.

 

Imprecise....

I wasn't actually with Elizabeth Taylor when I watched the film Cleopatra......I meant something else.

Luck, again, that you knew what I meant.

 

Oh me oh my

 

Which part of my signature?

I like your verse

You think I should do poetry? Who says I haven't? There should be some here... unless it's been lost in the switch, heh. I'm just really really bad at it

 

Tyranny......

 

Well.........

It's precise!

 

In my verse, the two "m"s are....................cool. But that's only according to me.

 

The first "m" is short, the second long.

That's how I go.

 

Thanks for liking.

I'll get the rest up, after my kreeteeks.

 

You're welcome

Thanks for not making me kill you over biscuits. Would be entirely wasteful.

 

'fronds' works for palms or ferns, not for wheat or any other form of 'grass'!

 

darn thing duped on me, again!

 

That's a rather elliptical thing to write so emphatically...

 

Hrm. Actually not true. I could describe a head of wheat as resembling fern fronds swaying in the breeze and you would still get the idea and know what I was talking about. Granted I wouldn't be actually calling the heads 'fronds' but instead would be using the image it brings to mind. And, sure, you could say just call them what they are, but maybe that wouldn't work for some reason, maybe the person looking at them didn't know they were wheat, didn't know to be proper, and instead thought of them as 'fronds'.

Definitive statements such as that are detrimental. Now some poor writer (potentially) is trying to figure out what to do if their character doesn't know what a wheat head is, how to describe it then and not break the absolute rule that what they've thought of is unacceptable?

The first thought should always be given to the character and what would be natural and real for them. In the example I showed he WOULD know they are 'heads', in another case the character may not know a frond from a head from a frog.

 

too elliptical, i guess, arron!... since i was only referring to what the 'head' of the wheat is called, i should have made it clear that only the 'heads' of wheat and other grasses was what my statement referred to... mea culpa and apologies, folks!

and if we want to get that technical, trish, i really don't see how just 'a head of wheat' [= only the very top little 'grainy' thing] could be described as 'resembling fern fronds swaying' since a fern frond is nothing like just the wheathead alone...

anyway, enough with the wheat... other than the fact that i'm right now eating my favorite wheat product for my breakfast!

 

Because if someone wasn't from farm country, and instead from a rainforest, and they saw wheat swaying in the wind, they would equate it with what they KNEW. So, they may very well think think that wheat heads resemble fern fronds. They are kind of flowy

 

Cute thread.

Precision can be useful, and other times it's effective to give simple descriptions and leave the details to the reader's imagination.