12-10-2014, 02:31 AM
This is just my experience with writing, so please don't take it as any kind of rule. Most people I know, from Lit majors to Plumber Joe, swear by KISS when it comes to novels (Keep It Simple, Stupid). The few people I know that write entire short stories in purple prose have found the classes they present such stories to have nothing to comment on, apart from the fact that they understood very little of what was going on. Maybe with enough time to read, and re-read, and re-read again, I might have a firm grasp on it. Unfortunately, that's not really my idea of "a good time", especially when most of those short stories involved a cold winter's night and something dying in a very artsy way.
I personally find purple prose useful in situations where a lot is happening in a very small frame of time, such as what goes through one's mind at the moment of an epiphany, or at the exact instance that something extremely important has just occurred. Metaphors are strongest in situations like these, where the importance of a feeling, emotion, or action is determined by what you can compare it to. By it's nature, flowery writing is disruptive, so it's really best kept to small bursts, with a limited time frame. In this way, you can be dramatic (and poetic) while still delivering the information to the reader, and hopefully without the reader having to look up any words you used to do it.
I've found that dialogue and character interaction, not imagery, are where most works tend to fall short -- especially if the author doesn't know how to work exposition into an actual conversation -- or in short stories where there is no dialogue to speak of, the narration is either inconsistent or bland, or both. Above that, it all comes down to the plot; if that's good enough, you can follow every single line of dialogue with "he said." or "she said." and you can still hook your reader. Depending on how mundane your setting is, you may not need to describe what a forest or a river looks like. If it's not critical to the plot at hand, the need is even less.
Of course, there are entire series of novels built on the back of purple prose. It's not entirely fair to dredge up older authors like Tolkien as modern examples; those were different times, entertainment was different, the human brain most likely handled information with a higher attention span, and some of the literature we call "classic" sold extremely poorly. I think it's more appropriate to call "The Lord of the Rings", "A Primer on Middle Earth Culture, Geography, and Linguistics, in which a Story Also Happens to Occur". A more modern series like "The Wheel of Time" handles itself very nicely, but can be a huge hassle to read and digest.
But as for actually writing descriptive imagery, no matter which way you go, it all comes down to how many questions you can answer. If Alice and Bob are talking, where are they talking? What time is it? Is the sun in Alice's eyes? What's Bob wearing? What goals are driving each of them? Do they have a rapport, or is it their first time talking? Are they nervous? Does it show? Is there something the reader should know that they don't? Once you start answering questions about what's surrounding the event you're describing, it's not too difficult to fill out the narration with the relevant details. Can't paint a picture if you didn't bring any paint, right?
I personally find purple prose useful in situations where a lot is happening in a very small frame of time, such as what goes through one's mind at the moment of an epiphany, or at the exact instance that something extremely important has just occurred. Metaphors are strongest in situations like these, where the importance of a feeling, emotion, or action is determined by what you can compare it to. By it's nature, flowery writing is disruptive, so it's really best kept to small bursts, with a limited time frame. In this way, you can be dramatic (and poetic) while still delivering the information to the reader, and hopefully without the reader having to look up any words you used to do it.
I've found that dialogue and character interaction, not imagery, are where most works tend to fall short -- especially if the author doesn't know how to work exposition into an actual conversation -- or in short stories where there is no dialogue to speak of, the narration is either inconsistent or bland, or both. Above that, it all comes down to the plot; if that's good enough, you can follow every single line of dialogue with "he said." or "she said." and you can still hook your reader. Depending on how mundane your setting is, you may not need to describe what a forest or a river looks like. If it's not critical to the plot at hand, the need is even less.
Of course, there are entire series of novels built on the back of purple prose. It's not entirely fair to dredge up older authors like Tolkien as modern examples; those were different times, entertainment was different, the human brain most likely handled information with a higher attention span, and some of the literature we call "classic" sold extremely poorly. I think it's more appropriate to call "The Lord of the Rings", "A Primer on Middle Earth Culture, Geography, and Linguistics, in which a Story Also Happens to Occur". A more modern series like "The Wheel of Time" handles itself very nicely, but can be a huge hassle to read and digest.
But as for actually writing descriptive imagery, no matter which way you go, it all comes down to how many questions you can answer. If Alice and Bob are talking, where are they talking? What time is it? Is the sun in Alice's eyes? What's Bob wearing? What goals are driving each of them? Do they have a rapport, or is it their first time talking? Are they nervous? Does it show? Is there something the reader should know that they don't? Once you start answering questions about what's surrounding the event you're describing, it's not too difficult to fill out the narration with the relevant details. Can't paint a picture if you didn't bring any paint, right?