What are your thought on "purple prose"?

>>9494549
Well I'm certain that you should kill yourself.

>>9494551
lol. gotem

i agree with horace

>>9494549
Who is that?

>>9494585
I wish I could know.

>>9494595
I googled "italian badminton reporter" and this was the first result.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmyGURNxyHU

>>9494549
>tfw you will never live in ancient greece

it hurts so fucking bad I just want my life to mean something

>>9494612
You are my personal hero today, thanks.

>>9494549
Pictures of women should be banned from this board. They're not used for anything but shitposting and riling up the thirsty virgins.

File: paracelsus.jpg (306KB, 1000x1200px) Image search: [Google]

306KB, 1000x1200px

>>9494549
purple p sat on a pin

Why do you guys hate purple prose so much? Nabokov used it.

>>9494622
But that one was sweet and actually roused chaste thoughts of eternal commitment, sort of..

>>9494739
Purple prose is by definition bad. Poetic prose is what you are looking for.

>>9494852
Therefore, Nabokov wrote bad books.

>>9494967
You just don't get it. Purple is not an objective style, it's a subjective evaluation.

>>9494971
It's not that I don't believe you. I still processing it because I am an uneducated wannabe.

>>9494549
Can you elaborate on what it is you're trying to know? If you don't know what it is, google the internet about it. If you're not sure how to recognize it, I again would turn to google. If you want to understand why it's typically considered poor writing, google probably can help you. If you want to know how to avoid it, give us a sample of your writing and someone here may help you, though most of the chimps here are the shit-throwing sort. I can share a thought or two, but I need something more from you.

>What are your thought on "purple prose"?

My thought on it is, try to avoid it in your own writing, but be graceful when you encounter it in the writing of others.

I think its something that pseuds use to tear down the work of they're betters.

>>9495057
>I can share a thought or two, but I need something more from you.
I would like to know when it's useful and when it's not. I understand that "brevity is a virtue" but it can't be always true. I thought that P.P. could add some "beauty" that simplicity couldn't.

Also, what's the difference between this and a very descriptive narrative style?

>>9495106
>what's the difference between purple prose and poetic/overly descriptive narrative?
Quality.

>>9494549
Idk but I can tell you my thoughts on people who say "purple prose"- they are massive faggots.

>>9495068
THIS

I think it's a highly misused term that is employed as a catch-all for any and all writing that isn't Hemingway minimalism wank.

Prose is purple when an author punches above his weight and uses expressions he hasn't mastered. An author who wields a word comfortably will always sound natural using it (provided the reader is competent with it too).

>>9494967
yes, actually

>>9495106
Economy is important if you want to get anything done, but as far as aesthetic criterion goes economy better befits a shoemaker better than an artist. It would be hard to argue (though not impossible) that Finnegans Wake is economical and it stands as one of the greatest literary achievements of all time.

The problem is every halfwit out there thinks he can ramble out pages and pages of useless wank and then call himself an artist for it.

>>9495068
>>9495437
>>9496205
t. people who are butthurt about their shitty writing

>>9496263
This is close but simply knowing what one is saying isn't enough. Shoving six adjectives in front of every noun will not help your writing even if you really really know what they all mean.

>>9494549
It's fine if you can pull it off and it fits in the whole. I like when things fit in the whole.

>>9496291
>This is close but simply knowing what one is saying isn't enough. Shoving six adjectives in front of every noun will not help your writing even if you really really know what they all mean.

The no adjectives rule only applies if you're a bad writer, so it's pointless. I'm not even sure the rule is good advice as far as it goes – it seems like a frozen critical cliché with nothing to it, like telling people not to split infinitives. If you want to do with as little as possible, don't write the fucking book.

>>9496342
i never said to not use adjectives, unclench your anus

>>9496291
>Finnegans Wake is economical and it stands as one of the greatest literary achievements of all time.
>The problem is every halfwit out there thinks he can ramble out pages and pages of useless wank and then call himself an artist for it.

Joyce dead.

>Economy is important if you want to get anything done.

Honey, you should let writers talk about this while you get your head out of your ass. if you are going to say something about word economy at least tell them that there is a difference between telling and staging.

If it's something that's not important to the story but it has to be said, just tell it. But, if it's something that has to be showed, then build it. The true question is how much? The answer is, as much as needed. That's the tricky part; being able to guide your pen to construct your vision but doing it in an effective way.

Writing is like making a puzzle and the words are the pieces. They should build images and feelings in the reader, but you have to set them with enough care that they are able to build the whole without knowing the final picture.

Reading is an experience, not just consumption. It's the enjoyment of the qualities of the word, may it be musical, evocative, descriptive. If your writing is short for economy sake, you may be mutilating the experience, but if you over do it, is like an anchor in your work.

If you have ever read a book and thought it was amazing but rereading it became a chore or just dropped it after a couple of pages, surprise: the story is done and there is nothing else to enjoy.

Experience may not be everything, but is the hearth.