Oy. That was disturbingly easy to write. Those sentences are littered with adjectives/adverbs that are another form of telling. We get carried away by our own awesomeness, by the idea we can paint a picture with words instead of what isn't said. Let me say that again: what ISN'T said. The most effective writing is one that gives the reader enough info to populate his/her own imagination. It's a fine line and one that can years to perfect.
Let's see if I can demo this right off the cuff:
He grimaced so she saw his pointed teeth. Tears snaked down her cheeks, hot trails of fear fueled by the knife at her neck.
Far fewer words, yet a much bigger impace on the reader. Or so I hope. You'll have to tell ME which is better. (This is a subjective business, no?)
Now you try. :)
5 comments:
so agree--wonderful points
The discontinued original first draft of my contemporary historical Bildungsroman was littered with purple prose. I was so shocked and horrified when the long-lost file was miraculously resurrected last spring. It was like a Grimm's fairytale on acid, with so many depressing, graphic, over the top descriptions of these people's poverty. No wonder I always had unexplained depressing feelings when I thought about that original draft, because I must've subconsciously remembered how much purple prose I'd used to describe that depressing tenement.
I wish I was better at that. It is definitely something that takes years to get a grip on:)
While I agree that the first paragraph is overkill and the second is tighter, I don't necessarily think the second is better. They don't convey the same message. Yes, I get the point with the second one, but there's more suspense building in the first. Not that I think the first one is better either. I think it kind of depends on the mood of the piece and whether you're looking to speed up the action or slow it down a little, and other things like that.
Post a Comment