By nature, a manifestation of my personality is to create in color. In a subsquent drafts , The over evocative purple is trimmed, broken up ,sprinkled with action and dialouge .
The key is that word "overly". What is "overly" in one context might not be in another. Descriptions can be more flowery in a romance than in an action adventure. You're not going to find a level that's acceptable to all readers of all genres. You either need to write what you would like to read and hope that others would like to read the same thing, or you have to research the preferences of your target demographic.
You want to find somewhere between just saying "his eyes are blue" and going into massive detail about his eyes. It also depends what you're writing. The above would be acceptable in a romance novel but not likely in an action novel. The problem with saying "he has blue eyes" is that there can be many shades of blue. Are they a deep blue, a light blue, sharp icy blue? just calling his eyes blue, sure you've avoided purple prose. However you've fallen into the trap of "beige prose" For more information on purple prose look here http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PurpleProse For more on Beige Prose, look here http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeigeProse One more thing, the question is not about doing purple prose. Some can be fine to write. The thing is if you write poorly written purple prose. Some more classic novels are full of purple prose, and still get away with it.
uh-huh... but when were they written?... and were they written for readers who watch tv and movies, text each other, and don't speak anywhere near the way the characters in those novels do?
That’s right. So write for the reading public of today, those that want action action action. Those that bore in a few seconds because a sentence was more characters then their tiny dumbed down TV brain could handle. Those that are reading your book between making the dinner or taking a crap. All this talk is pretty arbitrary. If we all followed the same rules then every book would read exactly the same, only the characters and situations would change. Its writing and its an art and as such every writer should find his or her own style. If you want to go into reams of description, go for it. It may never sell, but look at some of today’s most famous artists. Many were broke and un popular their entire lives.
I tend to disagree with this. Constant action gets boring pretty fast, especially if there's no character development. And if you use reams of description, you probably aren't going to be the next Van Gogh, even if you cut off your ear.
Captivating descriptions is not a problem. What is a problem is that you need two full paragraphs to make a description captivating. You should be able to make a captivating description in just one or two short sentences.
Well again, you are only projecting your opinions on what someone else thinks is their art. It would be like you saying to Georges Seurat, "George you idiot, whats all these flipping dots! this is boring and unrealistic" It may not be something you like, or anyone for that matter, but who's to say they aren't developing something new. Or take writers like Jack Kerouac or even Ernest Hemingway, they had styles that were unheard of at that time and people berated them for it. If you heard rap music 30 years ago what would you say about that? But it has its place in modern culture now. All I'm saying is telling someone not to do something because of what you feel, or what is not popular is narrow minded. Let them write and let them find out what works for them. If you only want to write to make money, then that's a different subject. And yes in this day and age, probably everything that has been said here is true.
I believe I'd say "Why this sounds an awful lot like that rap music I've been hearing on the radio for the last couple of years." Rapper's Delight came out in 1979.
If someone is trying a certain style for the sake of the style, that is one thing. If someone is writing a certain way because they've fallen into a bad habit, or they don't know any better, that is something else. I'm willing to bet that most people on this forum, myself included, usually fall into the latter category. Most people don't say, "Hey, I'm going to tell, not show, and I'm doing it on purpose because I'm brilliant." You compare writing to art, and that's fair, but don't forget about the art of writing. I think people should learn the basics first before trying advanced, off the wall methods.
I do. I'm fully convinced that I am a writing genius, so pretty much everything I do is totally planned and so when people tell me I'm doing it all wrong I can act like a tortured artist who no one understands. Though, I've never been good at imagery and purple prose... I just get BORED writing it, having to strain for new descriptions. I write reasonably fast-paced because I understand what is texture and what is stuff the reader can guess for themselves. If I state something is velvet I don't take the next paragraph to give a metaphor-riddled essay on what velvet feels like, emotionally, to touch, feel, loooove... People who write florid prose have great imaginations and a high opinion of themselves, whether they're doing it in an amateur way or a cultivated sort of way you can almost get away with. If you can channel that imagination into describing well, then the level of detail isn't a problem. If it's all relevant, than yay! If not, bleh.
ha ha good points. I just like playing the devils advocate..um or is that just called being a shiyt stirrer? But I do really dislike when people go on about how things "should" be, and as I said this use of "purple prose" is rather arbitrary in that sense. I think someone else pointed out, where is the line where too much is too much?
What I've been saying is that it's not the "purple prose" that is the problem. It's the poorly written purple prose. (unless it's a cheap romance novel, then it can be crappy purple prose. Cheap romance novels are allowed to do that)
I think it's a matter of opinion though. I'm pretty sure the phrase comes from classical (and then later Renaissance) writers throwing it at each other, every single one of whom literary critics all just assume are geniuses these days. There are probably dozens and dozens of books that are popular now that someone has accused of writing in purple prose, and unlike something like a crappy tense choice or bad grammar, there's no real way of isolating which bits are bad and which bits are okay. One English teacher could hate the book and never teach it, the other could analyse the rambling passages with deep passion to a class of students.
I think we need to consider when something was written. What may have been 'acceptable' then may not be the best way now. Luckily I'm not overly sentimental and I don't write romance, so there's not much danger of purple prose slipping into my writing.
Purple Prose is highly, and sometimes overly flowery or overly extravagant writing. Purple Prose isn't always poorly written, and poorly written prose isn't always purple. Prose can still be very dry and have no description, and can be poorly written.
I'll accept that we have varying definitions of the term. Whichever definition is correct, purple prose I will not read. I will not read it in a truck, I will not read it with a duck. I do not like this purple prose.
I would not like it in a house, I would not like it with a mouse. Even if we have to come to blows, I do not like this purple prose.
Dr. Seuss has it figured out. There's no purply prose there! It's just green eggs and ham, man. Green eggs and ham.
Ah, but in avoiding pruple prose we must not fall into Beige Prose. Anyway Purplyish prose has its place in sappy romance novels about cowboys and leggy blonds and forbidden one night stands. *nods sagely* You know the ones where they spend a whole page describing Billy-bob-joe-sexy-mc-sexypants the cowboy's abs and how he takes the leading lady into his arms and romances her.