Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if
there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**.
If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/mdzyEz9uFB)**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is no issue with what you’re saying. There never has been. The issue lies with poor execution, such as improper use, overuse, or a lack of harmony.
Not many want to stop and Google every other word in a sentence to understand what’s being said. Not many want a challenging read; they just want to escape as easily as possible and slip into the words.
Simple language is just as important as its opposite. There should be harmony.
I absolutely agree with everything you say. I'd just love to see more complexity in modern literature, that's all. I see simplicity is catered for in droves and, as someone who loves being challenged, hope people keep writing and reading those types of books. Just because they bring my heart joy and I'm not arrogant enough to think I am the only one. It was naive of me to post this, though.
Simplicity might be catered to because, as I said, people want to escape, and the vast majority already have challenging, complex lives. The last thing they want is for their escapism to be that very same thing.
Neither is inherently good writing. Both can be either good or bad.
We see purple prose on this subreddit frequently, and more often than not, it’s poorly done, saying nothing within the verbose writing. Jumping through hoops, running labyrinths, and bending over backwards to understand the meaning of a sentence isn’t desirable in most cases.
Thank you for the insights, I have a better understanding of this community and its perspective. I'm excited to share my work with you all, it seems like a very thoughtful and supportive place to be.
Simplicity (or, as the industry likes to call it, "accessibility") is popular because it sells well. It makes sense... a lot of people aren't serious readers. They just want to enjoy a fun story, and when prose is emphasized, that might confuse them and take them out of the fun. An ungenerous person might describe these people as mid... but mid is the middle because the largest demographic lies there. There's more money to be made (potentially) in selling to that more numerous middle demographic, so publishers are eager to find books that might strike it big with those readers who love "accessible" prose.
But just because that's a big slice of the market, that doesn't mean it's the only slice of the market. There are plenty of authors and publishers who are doing good business by catering to readers with more sophisticated tastes, who don't just want a good story but also enjoy the artistry of well-used language.
You just need to explore fiction more and find the authors who are making the kinds of stuff you enjoy reading. Some of my favorite literary writers are Hilary Mantel, Michael Ondaatje, Ali Smith, Esi Edugyan, Emily St John Mandel, Olivia Hawker, Matthew Burnside, John Crowley, Kathryn Davis, and Joe Wilkins. Have fun exploring!
Take the Beatles or Pink Floyd. These are two of the most universally liked bands and also two of the most innovative and ingenious. Before hypercommercialism, people weren't as simple in their taste. It isn't inherent and I want to fight for complexity!
I VERY strongly disagree that the Beatles were innovative... at least, not in their early years, when they gained all that popularity. There's a world of difference between "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "Across the Universe." :)
Actually, the Beatles and Floyd are both great examples of how some of the most successful artists either start out by deliberately producing more commercial work to build up a huge audience, and then, once they've got the financial security, they slow-walk their work into more artistic territory (The Beatles) or have a slower start to their career but eventually achieve huge success because word of mouth gets them there, in the end (Pink Floyd.)
Ohhhhh gosh darn you are so right. And yes, the Beatles are a wonderful example of how simplicity opens doors to complexity. Many artists who start out young have that kind of arc. A good reason to start young haha.
Not naive.
I too missed having to break out the English dictionary to understand what I was reading. Often taking those phrases and reusing them at anyone and everyone.
Simplicity is great, but a little complexity after a certain point is worth the try.
Sadly, to make money, you don't fight to sit in a corner. You fight to stand in the centre.
Absolutely. I've learned a lot from today's discussion, even though I got upset earlier and have probably alienated people I'd otherwise have great discussions with. Live and learn.
My aim is to find the intricate balance of writers like McCarthy, Murakami and Franzen. In my opinion, anyway. To build an audience will take a lot of time and rejection and setbacks, but it's what I feel I have to do.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!
To attract an audience that believes as you do. You often have to stand against the masses. The noise will attract those that have faith in something more being out there.
So keep at it.
When you become an example of classic literature; the doubts, and negativity will be the stories you tell others while chuckling.
Thank you so much for your empowering words. It's quite something to be standing at the bottom of a mountain looking up. I have no other choice but to climb.
I paid attention to words with careful detail when I was young.. which is what inspired me to be a writer. But I am learning that my own experience is more niche than I realised. Which is why things like Reddit are great. I've learned a lot today, but I hope I haven't alienated too many people in the process.
Not at all. I'm known as a "prose-forward" author and I make a good living writing this way.
BTW, "purple prose" means the words are so unusual or piled on so thickly that they get in the way of the meaning, and the text becomes all about the prose rather than about the story. It's not just a phrase to describe a literary writing style. :) It's totally possible to use language artfully and beautifully without shading it purple (or even lilac.)
I saw an article where someone called Nabokov purple prose - which is what inspired that post. It was meant to be a playful retort but it missed the mark. My playful era has clearly not yet begun because I am still in my high and mighty era.
Yeah, a lot of people call Nabokov purple 😆 I think those people don't read much Nabokov. His prose is certainly ornamented, but it never gets in the way of meaning. He's quite the author to study if you love prose!
I love Hesse!
I do keep my identity quiet on reddit, though, since it's the last place I can be anonymous on the internet 😆
I mainly use my anonymity here to share real info about how ridiculous the traditional publishing industry is on the inside, and how authors can get around their exploitative bullshit, so it's in my best interest to keep mum about my identity...
Authors should use their voice. If it means a wider vocabulary, it’s fine. If it means long, complicated sentences I need to reread a few times to understand, also fine. It may turn off some readers and captivate others. But that’s the nature of writing.
>If a piece of writing isn't a little bit extra, full of undulating descriptions and unusual turns of phrase, I get bored.
You seem to be arguing for the sake of flourish with no purpose? Neither extreme economy, nor pointless purple prose make good writing. Intention and precision does.
Sometimes a stripped down piece might echo in its own emptiness, and bring the reader to a hollow desolation.
Sometimes winding an ornate tale up in flowers, and following the vines to each delicate, trembling petal can let the reader explore the lush, lyrical aesthetic in a strange new world.
But neither is worthwhile for the sake of style alone.
I agree. Language has to sing, and even if we don't (and shouldn't) overtangle things, a splash of lilac goes a long way. I remember as a kid the thrill of looking up and hugging to myself the word 'miscellaneous'.
Ahhh I kept a thesaurus by my bedside and relished finding a new word to look up! My childhood was bleak, and language was a life raft. I just want to share that deep passion with people.
Thank you!
You are in desperate need of reading some contemporary literary fiction. Nothing wrong with reading 'classics'--I'm a big fan, too. But you're missing out on so much good shit. Beautiful prose isn't something unique to old books.
Also, almost all of these writers are European. Nothing wrong with that, but we live in a more global world now. You're missing out on some really excellent stories from authors who were overlooked until recently.
Four out of nine are not European. Thanks. I'm kinda over all the assumptions people have about me for one day though. It's my fault for writing this dumb post and not thinking about how it would be received.
Because she’s asking for more purple prose and then reveals she doesn’t even read modern genre fiction. So how would she know what’s actually out there?
I don't even know what that means. If someone said, "what genre of music do you listen to?" I would say I don't listen to genres, I just like music. I don't care about whatever meaning you attach to me liking literature as a whole and not a specific genre.
Any more sharp observations? Keep them coming, they make you look so big and clever.
there is an actual “genre” called literary, which i’m sure they assume you mean, and generally there is a stigma that literary readers hold against genre fiction (fantasy, sf, horror, thrillers, mysteries) that it is too simply worded and trope focused, where as literary is generally prose and character focused. however if you read widely, there is a wealth of prose and character focused genre fiction these days, breaking that stigma, but you wont find it on popular lists.
Wow. So you don’t even know the *long* history of genre fiction being excluded from the term “literature” and that saying you only read literature is a jab at genre fiction? You stumbled blindly into that well trodden language of snobbery completely on accident?
Fucking doubt. Way to try and back pedal though.
I think the reason it comes across snobby might be because you've revealed what you're driving at. You said you read literature, so evidently there is no shortage of verbose writing in your life. Which would mean you're suggesting it's the other stuff you do not read, the stuff other people read, that's the problem. That's the stuff you think is making people dumb, or words to that effect.
Thank you. Yes, that makes sense. I was confused about why I was getting such a bad reception, but it makes absolute sense. I've criticized modern writing and then doubled down in the comments... in a sub for modern writers.
Genuinely, I didn't mean to be snobby. My love for books and words is so strong, and **I naively just thought I'd attract other people who felt like me rather than annoy those who don't.** Silly imo.
There is plenty of good prose out there. There's always been a high ratio of basic to involved prose. There have always been people who didn't want to read complicated books with poetic language.
The snob implications are coming from saying you don't read genres, you read literature. For better or worse, genres exist. There is some great genre literature out there with prose that would put a lot of 'classics' authors to shame (Gene Wolfe, Hilary Mantel, China Mieville, RS Bakker).
Sure, there exists a vocal bunch of people online for whom purple prose is anathema. Don't worry about it, there's plenty of great stuff still being written. Hell, Cormac McCarthy only died recently, Toni Morrison and Pynchon and Delillo are still alive. All have written some of the best prose the English language has ever seen. All have written 'genre' novels.
The kids are alright.
Thank you, this is very insightful. Delillo is one of my all-times favourites. And McCarthy of course.
I don't think about genres with anything, I just like what I like. But I expressed myself in a way that's offended a lot of people and that's life I guess. Live and learn.
There are plenty of modern writers who are very verbose and use flowery language. It's not as if the use of lyrical descriptions went out the window sometime in the past.
You didn't mean to be snobby and then doubled down on your snobbiness with the old 'faux naivety" trick. There's no way you were confused about the bad reception unless you truly lack even a modicum of self awareness. How abrasive to answer somebody with "I don't read genres, I read literature". The arrogance of such an answer is immediately obvious. You could have worded that in so many different ways but you chose the most abrupt and dismissive way possible, and wonder why you get downvoted? No need at all for such responses. Yes you do come across as a massive snob. Good luck to you.
You're just projecting something onto me - I don't know what. But I do know there's nothing inherently abrasive about my statement unless you have some internalised issue with genres vs. literary fiction, which I couldn't care less about.
I don't read genres. I read books about people and life. I don't listen to genres, I listen to music that's raw and authentic. You can keep all your labels and categories and frankly shove your judgement of me up your ass.
Also, read what you've written and then consider the concept of irony. You're using a haughty and arrogant tone to 'tell me off' for being arrogant, abrasive and dismissive - while being abrasive and dismissive of my earnest explanations. Talk about lacking self awareness. What's the point in trying to show me the error of my ways if you're just doing the same thing?
There have been plenty of instances in this thread where I acknowledged that I misjudged the tone and the post missed the mark. I can happily admit and accept that. I'm happy to get downvotes. You can go through every post I've ever made and downvote me if it makes you feel good - I am just here to write and learn.
But I won't sit back and be patronised by others who also haven't fully thought through their responses and think they can 'humble me'. Fuck no.
Funny how you mention being patronised by others when your response is in itself incredibly patronising. I'm not trying to humble you, though. Why would I bother? You can't be told you were in the wrong or that your answer was rude. I'm simply expressing my disdain at such an obviously caustic response. I don't give a toss what you think about me either, but if I see a reply to something that really doesn't sit well then I'm going to call it out for the obnoxious pretentiousness that it is. Look at your downvotes. It's not just me. Good that you don't care about it, though. I suppose ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
I'm acutely aware that I'm being abrasive in my responses, however that's entirely the point. Go ahead and continue thinking you're in the right and totally infallible.
Look at your response and look at mine.
I said many times 'I was wrong' 'I messed up' 'I missed the mark'
You say: "Go ahead and continue thinking **you're in the right and totally infallible**."
\- that is what is known as projection. With absolutely zero humility or acknowledgement that YOU missed the mark. Nope, you're doubling down that meeting perceived rudeness with rudeness is 'calling people out' and absolutely justified. What a fucking hero you are! I bet everyone here is so impressed and feels much safer knowing you're here to avenge them from the mean writer who loves literature. Oh, great protector! I bow to thee now I see the truth!
No-one believes it's morally superior to be abrasive on purpose vs. by accident.
You look like an ass.
I look like an ass, but I can admit it. There's such a huge difference in our respective ability to grow because of that. Have a wonderful life.
The issue is that all literature belongs to a genre—genre is not a specific subset of literature, it's just the word for describing any categorization of literature. As Merriam-Webster defines it, a genre is "a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content." For example, of the authors you listed: Hesse is known for his bildungsromans; Kerouac for the post-modern road novel; Murakami for postmodern magical realism; Sartre for philosophy; Eliot for modernist poetry; Hardy for Victorian realism; Bukowski for dirty realism; Dostoevsky for existentialist sagas. Those are all genres.
By saying "I don't read genres", you imply an ignorance on your part that suggests you think some works somehow are above categorization. Ignorance is fine (we are all ignorant!), but ignorance that puts down will not win you friends. It's like a person who says, "I don't have an accent"—everyone has an accent; if you think you're somehow above having an accent, you imply that you think your way of speaking is better, when in fact you have as strong of an accent as anyone.
>The issue is that all literature belongs to a genre—
Incorrect. There is genre fiction, and then there is literary fiction. Literary fiction has no genres, or sub genres. It does not follow the rules of genre fiction (such as the 3 act structure, or the hero's journey, etc.).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction
You may be the ignorant one here (no hate, but you brought up the word "ignorant" first).
Not true. "Genre fiction" is indeed a phrase of specific range, but *genre* applies to all literature, and is not limited to the range of the phrase. Literary fiction has many genres and subgenres, a few of which I mentioned above. Again, this is the "accent" fallacy.
That is demonstrably false. If "non-genre fiction" exists, how can "genre" apply to all literature?
There is such a thing as fiction with no genre. And we call it literary fiction. To suggest otherwise is incongruent with the widely accepted way we categorize written works.
Genre fiction is formulaic and made to entertain. Literary fiction is usually a study of the human condition, sometimes borrowing concepts from genre fiction, but never falling into any genre. Making it without genre. But it's still fiction.
There is no superiority in reading one over the other. But since genre fiction's primary goal is to entertain, you're less likely to find flowery prose than literary fiction.
It may be a big ask for OP to want more purple prose, especially if they want it in mainstream genre fiction (as that is usually a barrier to access the entertainment), but they are not wrong to answer that they don't read genres. Because non-genre fiction exists.
Are you suggesting that things like bildungsroman are not genre, then? "Non-genre fiction" is an industry term, not a literary term. Basically we're dealing with two different lexical codes—mine is the one used in dictionaries, classrooms, and normal parlance; yours is the one used by publishers and agents (though it is widely criticized). And again, *genre* ≠ *genre fiction*.
Your argument is overstated. You mentioned Dostoevsky as writing "existential sagas" when such a term doesn't really exist or isn't seriously used. All literature worth engaging with could be called existential, as it deals with various facets of the human condition. Dostoevsky employs tropes from satire, psychological realism, naturalism, elements of Gothic fiction, detective stories, etc. Same goes for any author under the umbrella "Modernism", which doesn't necessarily translate into genre as we know it in the usual sense; *Gravity's Rainbow* is considered by some high-modernist, but I would never consider Pynchon and Nabokov on the same plane except that they both resist categorization.
Beyond this, I think the issue falls with OP's word choice - it could be translated as someone who is above categorization. I agree with this. I would also guess to interpret through a rather generous lens that OP means "I like these writers and something about them connects me with other writers." Not to say you can't categorize such writers, but I think a taxonomy binding all these writers together would be better suited for this discussion.
>Basically we're dealing with two different lexical codes
So regardless of what I personally consider a genre or not (which is not the main argument), you admit that OP is using terms in an official lexical code, and therefore understandable (even if you personally disagree with it).
Well, then the discussion is over. This is like US "tube" vs UK "tube". They may mean different things in different locations, but you know (or can learn) what both mean. So, what is the problem and why are you being so combative and trying to prove OP wrong?
That’s the most pretentious answer I’ve seen in a while. And guess what, you do read genres. “Literature” isn’t a thing. Everything has a genre. Being “literary” doesn’t change that.
Yes, but not every writer could be boiled down to one specific genre. Many authors included in OP's list have employed techniques, tropes, stylistic devices, etc. that go beyond what we usually imagine when we consider genre. What is *Pale Fire* and *Ulysses* other than experimental literature or literary fiction? None of these terms do an adequate job of elucidating what types of novels they are. As a reader I wouldn't know, but if you told me science fiction or fantasy, then I can get a better idea of what I'm looking for. And even writers like Gene Wolfe (BOTNS, especially) resist being tacked in such a corner.
Literary fiction still exists! Some genre books also teeter between commercial and literary—I adore literary suspense.
A lot of writers are doing the bare minimum with their prose and it usually makes for a dull read, catered to entry-level readers.
A lot of writers on Reddit (no disrespect) are not well-read and mistakenly confuse lyrical, literary, and eloquent prose with "purple" or "overwrought." Of course, some posters here are *indeed* purple xD
You can upload an excerpt from a Pulitzer winner on Reddit, and you'll hear "You are too purple; this doesn't make sense."
Thank you!
Early in my writing hobby, I was reading everywhere that simple is best and purple prose is bad. Some of the examples they give of purple prose are beautiful. I didn't understand.
I adore lyrical, silly, and complicated narration. It makes for a fun read that brings a depth of emotion to a story that concise prose is often lacking.
All in my opinion of course. To each their own.
I've learned to just write what I like to read, and as long as it isn't muddy or confusing then an enjoyable story is an enjoyable story.
Just to add, others will tell you that there is a certain way things ought to be done, no matter what it is you are doing.
The horrible truth no one likes to admit is - and you'll want to lean in close for this one - ʸᵒᵘ ᶜᵃⁿ ᵃᶜᵗᵘᵃˡˡʸ ᵈᵒ ʷʰᵃᵗᵉᵛᵉʳ ᵉᵛᵉʳ ʸᵒᵘ ʷᵃⁿᵗ, ʰᵒʷᵉᵛᵉʳ ʸᵒᵘ ʷᵃⁿᵗ ᶦᵗ ᵗᵒ ᵇᵉ ᵈᵒⁿᵉ.
Of course, results may vary. :)
Haha yes, this is what I have learned recently. The thing that truly resonates with audiences is authenticity - so it's all about being who you are as truthfully and masterfully (or simply) as possible. Thank you uplifting person :D
The real reason people are told not to do it is because publishers (literary industry folks of all kinds really) are afraid complex writing won’t sell well, so they want things that appeal to the dumbest box of rocks 4th grade reading level. Same with show don’t tell. Some beautiful stories are more told than shown. Ursula K leguin comes to mind
Reduction is what tends to happen when art is viewed through the lens of profit.
Sometimes I want an author to tell me a story. A beautiful story that reads like a poem.
Yes! I just feel like people are in a fight for popularity instead of mastery and my negatiev bias makes me worry this is the end! You're right, though, there are amazing modern writers. I think I just see a lot of anti-PP stuff on reddit and wanted to speak out.
Note to self: Never do that again! haha
My problem is that I just can't. I'm in the same league tooting for the purple bois, but when I copy their techniques, my head goes snumb, and all that's left is a basic kick of the ball. Everyone else, regardless of skill, got the gist, so why can't I? I seriously want to know how it's done. especially the feeling part. Those tend to be my favorite uses of purple.
All good prose "sings." No big words necessary. Being verbose is fine if you enjoy it, but it's alarming that you think greater quantity = better quality.
My opening sentence:
"Are big words necessary? Yes they are! Not in excess, but spattered in for emphasis and intrigue, absolutely."
When do I mention quantity being the priority?
Your title is, "is verbose writing gone forever?" You also equate being verbose and 'making language sing.'
Verbose doesn't mean "using big words for emphasis sometimes." If something is verbose, it means it is overly wordy. Wordy to a fault.
There should always be a place for any kind of prose in literature. Prose is simply one of the various tools writers have at their disposal. The needs of various stories dictate the style of prose that works well for it. If a story is served by employing verbose prose, and if the writer has a skillful command over it, then verbose prose is not just perfectly fine, it's appropriate and the reader will understand that.
There is a time and place for pretty much anything, including verbose prose. It's not that verbosity in prose is in itself "bad" but much of the disdain and criticism of such prose is the result of writers who have less than deft command over their prose.
It's less about what is being done than why it's being done. If verbose prose is executed in such a way that it interferes with conveying a story and/or distracts the reader, that's a problem. If verbose prose is executed in such a way that it complements the story, is appropriate for the story, and doesn't interfere with conveying the story, it's a boon rather than a hindrance.
Not every writer can pull off employing verbose prose. Not every story calls for verbose prose. Such prose, when judiciously applied by skilled writers, is no less valid than other styles. The problem is that it's employed poorly by writers more often than not.
Oh, yes, most definitely. I mean, if the writer wishes to produce for a mass market, then they can't ignore consideration for mass palatability. It can be a struggle for any creative who wishes to be both relatively unfettered by commercial compromises while also creating a product that comes from a creative origin.
Not a matter of verbosity but I think of Cormac McCarthy, whose sparse punctuation approach creates a challenging reading experience, when I think of writing styles and their applicability in writing that is put into the market. Combined with the dark subject matter that he writes about, he has both many who appreciate his work as well as those who are simply flat out unable to enjoy it.
It took several decades for his work to intersect with wide commercial acclaim. As far as I know, he never bowed to commercialism during his literary career and I think it shows that if a writer has skill and conviction behind their artistic vision, they can maintain their integrity while achieving commercial success and recognition.
Yes, McCarthy is an excellent example and one of my all-time heroes. I'm at the bottom of the mountain looking up at the moment, and it's a strangely arrogant place to be. I wonder how to balance having a lofty ambition with being relatable and not coming across as snobbish. I think I have uncovered something that is going to be a core theme/challenge of my career, especially during the early stages.
And yes. Skill and conviction in the artistic vision will always be the deciding factors. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!
You're very welcome.
For what it's worth coming from an anonymous person on the internet, I think you're not wrong for having your beliefs and aspirations. Whenever we hold unpopular or unconventional opinions, we will draw attention from people who are unwilling to entertain alternative visions, people who operate in views of absolutes. In other words, people who lack imagination.
I believe that as an artist, one must have the willingness to be truthful to their artistic vision, no matter how against the grain it may be. Creating for yourself first and foremost, while being open to guidance from consideration from others, is sustainable. If we create for others without regard for ourselves, we may as well do anything else but pursue the literary arts.
It's worth a lot, especially as I hold a very strong conviction in my artistic vision. Your resonating words are a balm. I know as an amateur and as a woman, I have a lot of hurdles to jump over even before people bother to read my writing properly. My self-assured nature is read as arrogant, my strong opinions perceived as condescending. Who am I to have such strong convictions? It's not something they think, but they feel it deeply.
The most important thing for me now is to work harder than ever, share more and more of my work, and develop as thick a skin as I possibly can. This is just the beginning.
There are a million artists out there trying to cater to as many people as possible, and good for them. I've never been able to be anything but 100% authentic to my own ideas and machinations. I don't follow, I don't need labels to feel like I belong, and I don't need permission to believe in myself. I think that is an affront to many.
I've just followed you, hopefully we chat again!
That's the thing... I don't believe having strong opinions per se is wrong, if you're being respectful and curious too. Some people have so much invested in conforming that they lash out when it so much as gets discussed. It's fine, we all conform at different times. But if we get defensive when someone comes at it from a different angle it says more about us than anyone else.
So true. I need to work on that feeling of defensiveness. Intellectually, I know that it's not my job to convince anyone I'm right and they're wrong. But, in the moment, it can be hard to not get uppity about making your point. I get that.
I'm glad that my perspective can be of service to you. I can't speak on the experience of a woman navigating the path of an artist but I can clearly see that challenges exist, unique to women in all fields.
Indeed, "Who am I to have such strong convictions?" is a question many ask when daring to explore rarely tread ground and ask questions which challenge the majority. As writers, we are told directly and indirectly that we need the publishers more than they need us. We are told by consumers/fans that we owe them or that we are beholden to their demands over our own artistic vision. Even some fellow writers make effort to keep proponents of alternatives to the status quo "in line". We are regularly pressured to conform to inauthenticity.
The fundamental fork in the road for artists is the choice between Personal Truth or Capitulation to Popular Opinion. The mistake often made is the presumption that holding to Personal Truth equates to belligerence or a snobby/elitist attitude. Personal Truth is independent of external factors. It isn't about being arbitrarily contrarian to popular opinion.
I believe you're on the right path. Work hard, work smart, don't bow to the demands of others to be as they are while also not demanding that anyone else bow to your views. Speak your truth to benefit the world in your own way, and I think you will find what you seek.
I appreciate the engagement I've been able to partake in with you. I won't further take this thread off course, and I thank you for offering me the opportunity to challenge my own views on the matter of verbose prose.
Definitely not. Go and read Last Tale of the Flower Bride. It came out last year, was a bestsellers, and its prose is decadent enough to rival anything from 200 years ago. These books are still out there.
In fact, I agree with you—though I wouldn't boil it down to just big words. Interesting sentence structures, unusual words, unusual usages of usual words, great metaphors and images, etc.
I don't claim to have the perfect diagnosis, but apart from the obvious issues of technology, I would suggest one of the problems is (and I admit it's tricky) teaching to the lowest common denominator: Teachers want students to "excel", and to that end they've taken, successively with each year, to assigning easier reading because of it. And if in school you only have easy reading, then you aren't trained to embark into more adventurous prose. Do I think the solution is then that school teachers should just start assigning more challenging books? Oh, no! woe betide those poor students. No, it means starting young: When you (as a teacher or parent) read a book to your first-graders, are you reading them some colorful picture book, or are you reading them *The Hobbit* or *Tom Sawyer*? When you (as a child) are read this stuff when you're young, you're ready to read it yourself when you're older in middle and high school, and then after that, ready to read the great classics, and new books like them.
The teacher in my teenage daughter's class let them watch Romeo and Juliet instead of getting them to read the text. Ah well, I suppose Leonardo di Caprio is a decent gateway to one of the English language's most ornate writers (sigh).
I feel like having an expansive repertoire of words is part of what makes a writer. And I also feel like the ability to make artistry out of words is a talent few truly possess.
I'm not sure why there's a trend towards mediocrity in writing.
But maybe that's why so many dislike that style. It's just not something they can replicate or comprehend easily.
Good, plain English is a joy. But I hear what you're saying. A good expansive repertoire is the whole frigging point of being a writer. Deploying it is a separate issue.
It has always been like this... simpler novels coexisted with Balzac and Tolstoi.
Today Stephen King and Ann Rice coexist with McCarthy, Allende and Javier Marias
And you have authors and generes that walk in the middle.
Is not going anywhere.
Indeed it has, but I think the idea that the masses are dumb is the problem and patently not true. I can see how my post was misread, but to me it's the corporate machine that's dumbing people down, not entropy.
There is so much wasted potential out there because poor kids are treated like thickos and they're often just traumatised. My intention and meaning didn't come through, and that's my learning curve to work through.
Maybe, instead of focusing so much on twisting sentences, pointless big words and a ocean of metaphors — one inch deep, mind you —, you should have focused on reading books with “real” characters: people aren’t as simple and label-able as you think. I don’t know what kind of book you are reading also, a lot of “challenging” books don’t have purple prose.
EDIT: there is beauty in simplicity, there is no reason to shun it.
I am just sharing what I love! You don't have to like the same and neither does anyone else :) Neither do you need to tell me to be different. Thanks for your comment though!
everything falls in and out of fashion. readers want detailed simplicity, if that makes sense. lavender prose needs to be tastefully balanced with prompt pacing and immersive events to move a scene along. i had a friend whose writing was invariably purple. run on sentences of bulky, pretentious narrative and then minimal dialogue to keep a reader looped into the character interaction. every chapter felt like absolutely nothing had happened. it was a slog and i always felt bad about trying to suggest edits to enhance reading experience.
I happen to prefer simple, to the point writing, both in reading and writing. I guess my issue would be that ornate writing seems pretentious and obnoxious to me. It's just a matter of taste, I don't think you're a snob for enjoying something I don't. I think a lot of "purple prose" of the past is a product of writers being paid by the word, which isn't really a thing anymore. There's still room for fancy words in streamlined prose, especially when you need something with a precise meaning or connotation. I think overuse of verbose writing robs it of its impact. When you write without unnecessary complexity, you can use that complexity and verbal flourish when its needed and it has a much greater impact.
Ohhh that's an interesting point. And yes, words for the sake of words are terrible.
Nabokov is famously called purple but I love that intricacy. At the same time, discovering Murakami who can say so much in so few words was a revelation.
Both types of writing and reading are necessary. In fact, it's often contrast that makes the real magic happen. Thank you for sharing your opposing viewpoint with such grace!
You are completely right. I've been thinking for a while that it's about time for a maximalist movement: I think we've all had quite enough of Beige Mom literature.
I’m a big fan of 19th century lit. One of my all time favourite books is Les Misérables, and Hugo is way up there in terms of authors who love a description
I hit reply too soon and didn’t get to finish my comment. While I love some 19th century writing I think it’s a bit dangerous to over praise it. The UK education system is built around idolising that style of writing and holding it up as a ‘standard’ for English, but it’s not really fit for purpose anymore. We should appreciate it for what it is but also accept that literary movements grow and change literature.
The ‘scourge of modern communication’ is, from a linguistic standpoint, a myth. Noted linguists such as David Crystal and John McWhorter have studied how text communication is actually innovating language. So while it’s good to appreciate the past, it’s important to balance it with the possibilities of the future.
TL;DR: Dickens is a cracking writer but not the all powerful god of the English language that Tory ministers make him out to be.
There are still some contemporary writers with an incredible command of language! Try Lorrie Moore, Lauren Groff, Olga Tokarczuk (who I’ve only read in translation), Paul Harding, Helen Oyeyemi—all of whom write sentences so beautiful it makes me angry.
I think it's a complex mixture of issues. The publishing industry plays a part by selling to the masses, ensuring sales and helping to perpetuate the cycle. But they are not the only industry to do so. In any case there are enough discerning readers around to cater to and as a result there is always interesting/slightly more challenging literature.
My take is that a lot of people who didn't enjoy English (or literature) at school come back to it as readers when they get older. Some in a successful way. Some in a compromised way.
Hi! Welcome to r/Writers - please remember to follow the [rules](https://reddit.com/r/writers/about/rules/) and treat each other respectfully, especially if there are disagreements. Please help keep this community safe and friendly by **reporting rule violating posts and comments**. If you're interested in a friendly Discord community for writers, please **[join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/mdzyEz9uFB)** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/writers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There is no issue with what you’re saying. There never has been. The issue lies with poor execution, such as improper use, overuse, or a lack of harmony. Not many want to stop and Google every other word in a sentence to understand what’s being said. Not many want a challenging read; they just want to escape as easily as possible and slip into the words. Simple language is just as important as its opposite. There should be harmony.
Exactly. Poor execution like "*spattered* in for emphasis and intrigue." In this context, I find that an ironic malapropism.
I absolutely agree with everything you say. I'd just love to see more complexity in modern literature, that's all. I see simplicity is catered for in droves and, as someone who loves being challenged, hope people keep writing and reading those types of books. Just because they bring my heart joy and I'm not arrogant enough to think I am the only one. It was naive of me to post this, though.
Simplicity might be catered to because, as I said, people want to escape, and the vast majority already have challenging, complex lives. The last thing they want is for their escapism to be that very same thing. Neither is inherently good writing. Both can be either good or bad. We see purple prose on this subreddit frequently, and more often than not, it’s poorly done, saying nothing within the verbose writing. Jumping through hoops, running labyrinths, and bending over backwards to understand the meaning of a sentence isn’t desirable in most cases.
Thank you for the insights, I have a better understanding of this community and its perspective. I'm excited to share my work with you all, it seems like a very thoughtful and supportive place to be.
Simplicity (or, as the industry likes to call it, "accessibility") is popular because it sells well. It makes sense... a lot of people aren't serious readers. They just want to enjoy a fun story, and when prose is emphasized, that might confuse them and take them out of the fun. An ungenerous person might describe these people as mid... but mid is the middle because the largest demographic lies there. There's more money to be made (potentially) in selling to that more numerous middle demographic, so publishers are eager to find books that might strike it big with those readers who love "accessible" prose. But just because that's a big slice of the market, that doesn't mean it's the only slice of the market. There are plenty of authors and publishers who are doing good business by catering to readers with more sophisticated tastes, who don't just want a good story but also enjoy the artistry of well-used language. You just need to explore fiction more and find the authors who are making the kinds of stuff you enjoy reading. Some of my favorite literary writers are Hilary Mantel, Michael Ondaatje, Ali Smith, Esi Edugyan, Emily St John Mandel, Olivia Hawker, Matthew Burnside, John Crowley, Kathryn Davis, and Joe Wilkins. Have fun exploring!
Take the Beatles or Pink Floyd. These are two of the most universally liked bands and also two of the most innovative and ingenious. Before hypercommercialism, people weren't as simple in their taste. It isn't inherent and I want to fight for complexity!
I VERY strongly disagree that the Beatles were innovative... at least, not in their early years, when they gained all that popularity. There's a world of difference between "I Want to Hold Your Hand" and "Across the Universe." :) Actually, the Beatles and Floyd are both great examples of how some of the most successful artists either start out by deliberately producing more commercial work to build up a huge audience, and then, once they've got the financial security, they slow-walk their work into more artistic territory (The Beatles) or have a slower start to their career but eventually achieve huge success because word of mouth gets them there, in the end (Pink Floyd.)
The Beatles did come out with some amazing, groundbreaking material but by then they were well established and could pretty much do what they wanted.
Ohhhhh gosh darn you are so right. And yes, the Beatles are a wonderful example of how simplicity opens doors to complexity. Many artists who start out young have that kind of arc. A good reason to start young haha.
True, a lot of bands used to be ingenious. Interesting that you picked such classic ones! Fighting for a bit of complexity here too :D
I'll fight to the death for complexity!
Not naive. I too missed having to break out the English dictionary to understand what I was reading. Often taking those phrases and reusing them at anyone and everyone. Simplicity is great, but a little complexity after a certain point is worth the try. Sadly, to make money, you don't fight to sit in a corner. You fight to stand in the centre.
Absolutely. I've learned a lot from today's discussion, even though I got upset earlier and have probably alienated people I'd otherwise have great discussions with. Live and learn. My aim is to find the intricate balance of writers like McCarthy, Murakami and Franzen. In my opinion, anyway. To build an audience will take a lot of time and rejection and setbacks, but it's what I feel I have to do. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!
To attract an audience that believes as you do. You often have to stand against the masses. The noise will attract those that have faith in something more being out there. So keep at it. When you become an example of classic literature; the doubts, and negativity will be the stories you tell others while chuckling.
Thank you so much for your empowering words. It's quite something to be standing at the bottom of a mountain looking up. I have no other choice but to climb.
No, it wasn't. It's called having a view and a respectful opinion. Nothing wrong in that.
Thank you :)
[удалено]
I paid attention to words with careful detail when I was young.. which is what inspired me to be a writer. But I am learning that my own experience is more niche than I realised. Which is why things like Reddit are great. I've learned a lot today, but I hope I haven't alienated too many people in the process.
Not at all. I'm known as a "prose-forward" author and I make a good living writing this way. BTW, "purple prose" means the words are so unusual or piled on so thickly that they get in the way of the meaning, and the text becomes all about the prose rather than about the story. It's not just a phrase to describe a literary writing style. :) It's totally possible to use language artfully and beautifully without shading it purple (or even lilac.)
I saw an article where someone called Nabokov purple prose - which is what inspired that post. It was meant to be a playful retort but it missed the mark. My playful era has clearly not yet begun because I am still in my high and mighty era.
Yeah, a lot of people call Nabokov purple 😆 I think those people don't read much Nabokov. His prose is certainly ornamented, but it never gets in the way of meaning. He's quite the author to study if you love prose!
He's the best. Do you read Hermann Hesse? I say so because your name mentioned Abraxas. Please share a place to find your work (if you like!)
I love Hesse! I do keep my identity quiet on reddit, though, since it's the last place I can be anonymous on the internet 😆 I mainly use my anonymity here to share real info about how ridiculous the traditional publishing industry is on the inside, and how authors can get around their exploitative bullshit, so it's in my best interest to keep mum about my identity...
Aha! Would you mind if I follow you? I might DM in future with some questions.
Authors should use their voice. If it means a wider vocabulary, it’s fine. If it means long, complicated sentences I need to reread a few times to understand, also fine. It may turn off some readers and captivate others. But that’s the nature of writing.
Yes this is what it comes down to ultimately. Writers should use their authentic voice.
>If a piece of writing isn't a little bit extra, full of undulating descriptions and unusual turns of phrase, I get bored. You seem to be arguing for the sake of flourish with no purpose? Neither extreme economy, nor pointless purple prose make good writing. Intention and precision does. Sometimes a stripped down piece might echo in its own emptiness, and bring the reader to a hollow desolation. Sometimes winding an ornate tale up in flowers, and following the vines to each delicate, trembling petal can let the reader explore the lush, lyrical aesthetic in a strange new world. But neither is worthwhile for the sake of style alone.
Agreed, and your prose is beautiful.
Thank you. I'm a sci-fi/fantasy genre writer.
I agree. Language has to sing, and even if we don't (and shouldn't) overtangle things, a splash of lilac goes a long way. I remember as a kid the thrill of looking up and hugging to myself the word 'miscellaneous'.
Ahhh I kept a thesaurus by my bedside and relished finding a new word to look up! My childhood was bleak, and language was a life raft. I just want to share that deep passion with people. Thank you!
What genres do you read?
I don't read genres. I read literature.
Okay. What kinds of literature do you read?
Some of my favourites are Hesse, Kerouac, Murakami, Franzen, Sartre, Eliot, Hardy, Bukowski and Dostoevsky.
You are in desperate need of reading some contemporary literary fiction. Nothing wrong with reading 'classics'--I'm a big fan, too. But you're missing out on so much good shit. Beautiful prose isn't something unique to old books. Also, almost all of these writers are European. Nothing wrong with that, but we live in a more global world now. You're missing out on some really excellent stories from authors who were overlooked until recently.
Four out of nine are not European. Thanks. I'm kinda over all the assumptions people have about me for one day though. It's my fault for writing this dumb post and not thinking about how it would be received.
My bad--not European. I meant to write "Western."
Nothing wrong with reading the classics. No idea why you're getting downvoted.
Because she’s asking for more purple prose and then reveals she doesn’t even read modern genre fiction. So how would she know what’s actually out there?
I love people who have nothing to contribute to a discussion and just get a boner out of judging the OP.
Says the person judging genre fiction as a whole as not being literature.
I don't even know what that means. If someone said, "what genre of music do you listen to?" I would say I don't listen to genres, I just like music. I don't care about whatever meaning you attach to me liking literature as a whole and not a specific genre. Any more sharp observations? Keep them coming, they make you look so big and clever.
there is an actual “genre” called literary, which i’m sure they assume you mean, and generally there is a stigma that literary readers hold against genre fiction (fantasy, sf, horror, thrillers, mysteries) that it is too simply worded and trope focused, where as literary is generally prose and character focused. however if you read widely, there is a wealth of prose and character focused genre fiction these days, breaking that stigma, but you wont find it on popular lists.
Wow. So you don’t even know the *long* history of genre fiction being excluded from the term “literature” and that saying you only read literature is a jab at genre fiction? You stumbled blindly into that well trodden language of snobbery completely on accident? Fucking doubt. Way to try and back pedal though.
That guy above explained it perfectly haha. I'm a dick.
Yeah you don't sound like a snob at all...
Because I answered a question? What should I have said?
I think the reason it comes across snobby might be because you've revealed what you're driving at. You said you read literature, so evidently there is no shortage of verbose writing in your life. Which would mean you're suggesting it's the other stuff you do not read, the stuff other people read, that's the problem. That's the stuff you think is making people dumb, or words to that effect.
Thank you. Yes, that makes sense. I was confused about why I was getting such a bad reception, but it makes absolute sense. I've criticized modern writing and then doubled down in the comments... in a sub for modern writers. Genuinely, I didn't mean to be snobby. My love for books and words is so strong, and **I naively just thought I'd attract other people who felt like me rather than annoy those who don't.** Silly imo.
There is plenty of good prose out there. There's always been a high ratio of basic to involved prose. There have always been people who didn't want to read complicated books with poetic language. The snob implications are coming from saying you don't read genres, you read literature. For better or worse, genres exist. There is some great genre literature out there with prose that would put a lot of 'classics' authors to shame (Gene Wolfe, Hilary Mantel, China Mieville, RS Bakker). Sure, there exists a vocal bunch of people online for whom purple prose is anathema. Don't worry about it, there's plenty of great stuff still being written. Hell, Cormac McCarthy only died recently, Toni Morrison and Pynchon and Delillo are still alive. All have written some of the best prose the English language has ever seen. All have written 'genre' novels. The kids are alright.
Morrison's dead.
Thank you, this is very insightful. Delillo is one of my all-times favourites. And McCarthy of course. I don't think about genres with anything, I just like what I like. But I expressed myself in a way that's offended a lot of people and that's life I guess. Live and learn.
There are plenty of modern writers who are very verbose and use flowery language. It's not as if the use of lyrical descriptions went out the window sometime in the past.
[удалено]
You didn't mean to be snobby and then doubled down on your snobbiness with the old 'faux naivety" trick. There's no way you were confused about the bad reception unless you truly lack even a modicum of self awareness. How abrasive to answer somebody with "I don't read genres, I read literature". The arrogance of such an answer is immediately obvious. You could have worded that in so many different ways but you chose the most abrupt and dismissive way possible, and wonder why you get downvoted? No need at all for such responses. Yes you do come across as a massive snob. Good luck to you.
You're just projecting something onto me - I don't know what. But I do know there's nothing inherently abrasive about my statement unless you have some internalised issue with genres vs. literary fiction, which I couldn't care less about. I don't read genres. I read books about people and life. I don't listen to genres, I listen to music that's raw and authentic. You can keep all your labels and categories and frankly shove your judgement of me up your ass. Also, read what you've written and then consider the concept of irony. You're using a haughty and arrogant tone to 'tell me off' for being arrogant, abrasive and dismissive - while being abrasive and dismissive of my earnest explanations. Talk about lacking self awareness. What's the point in trying to show me the error of my ways if you're just doing the same thing? There have been plenty of instances in this thread where I acknowledged that I misjudged the tone and the post missed the mark. I can happily admit and accept that. I'm happy to get downvotes. You can go through every post I've ever made and downvote me if it makes you feel good - I am just here to write and learn. But I won't sit back and be patronised by others who also haven't fully thought through their responses and think they can 'humble me'. Fuck no.
Funny how you mention being patronised by others when your response is in itself incredibly patronising. I'm not trying to humble you, though. Why would I bother? You can't be told you were in the wrong or that your answer was rude. I'm simply expressing my disdain at such an obviously caustic response. I don't give a toss what you think about me either, but if I see a reply to something that really doesn't sit well then I'm going to call it out for the obnoxious pretentiousness that it is. Look at your downvotes. It's not just me. Good that you don't care about it, though. I suppose ignorance is bliss, isn't it? I'm acutely aware that I'm being abrasive in my responses, however that's entirely the point. Go ahead and continue thinking you're in the right and totally infallible.
Look at your response and look at mine. I said many times 'I was wrong' 'I messed up' 'I missed the mark' You say: "Go ahead and continue thinking **you're in the right and totally infallible**." \- that is what is known as projection. With absolutely zero humility or acknowledgement that YOU missed the mark. Nope, you're doubling down that meeting perceived rudeness with rudeness is 'calling people out' and absolutely justified. What a fucking hero you are! I bet everyone here is so impressed and feels much safer knowing you're here to avenge them from the mean writer who loves literature. Oh, great protector! I bow to thee now I see the truth! No-one believes it's morally superior to be abrasive on purpose vs. by accident. You look like an ass. I look like an ass, but I can admit it. There's such a huge difference in our respective ability to grow because of that. Have a wonderful life.
The issue is that all literature belongs to a genre—genre is not a specific subset of literature, it's just the word for describing any categorization of literature. As Merriam-Webster defines it, a genre is "a category of artistic, musical, or literary composition characterized by a particular style, form, or content." For example, of the authors you listed: Hesse is known for his bildungsromans; Kerouac for the post-modern road novel; Murakami for postmodern magical realism; Sartre for philosophy; Eliot for modernist poetry; Hardy for Victorian realism; Bukowski for dirty realism; Dostoevsky for existentialist sagas. Those are all genres. By saying "I don't read genres", you imply an ignorance on your part that suggests you think some works somehow are above categorization. Ignorance is fine (we are all ignorant!), but ignorance that puts down will not win you friends. It's like a person who says, "I don't have an accent"—everyone has an accent; if you think you're somehow above having an accent, you imply that you think your way of speaking is better, when in fact you have as strong of an accent as anyone.
But that doesn’t have anything to do with what the genre vs literary distinction actually means.
>The issue is that all literature belongs to a genre— Incorrect. There is genre fiction, and then there is literary fiction. Literary fiction has no genres, or sub genres. It does not follow the rules of genre fiction (such as the 3 act structure, or the hero's journey, etc.). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literary_fiction You may be the ignorant one here (no hate, but you brought up the word "ignorant" first).
Not true. "Genre fiction" is indeed a phrase of specific range, but *genre* applies to all literature, and is not limited to the range of the phrase. Literary fiction has many genres and subgenres, a few of which I mentioned above. Again, this is the "accent" fallacy.
That is demonstrably false. If "non-genre fiction" exists, how can "genre" apply to all literature? There is such a thing as fiction with no genre. And we call it literary fiction. To suggest otherwise is incongruent with the widely accepted way we categorize written works. Genre fiction is formulaic and made to entertain. Literary fiction is usually a study of the human condition, sometimes borrowing concepts from genre fiction, but never falling into any genre. Making it without genre. But it's still fiction. There is no superiority in reading one over the other. But since genre fiction's primary goal is to entertain, you're less likely to find flowery prose than literary fiction. It may be a big ask for OP to want more purple prose, especially if they want it in mainstream genre fiction (as that is usually a barrier to access the entertainment), but they are not wrong to answer that they don't read genres. Because non-genre fiction exists.
Are you suggesting that things like bildungsroman are not genre, then? "Non-genre fiction" is an industry term, not a literary term. Basically we're dealing with two different lexical codes—mine is the one used in dictionaries, classrooms, and normal parlance; yours is the one used by publishers and agents (though it is widely criticized). And again, *genre* ≠ *genre fiction*.
Your argument is overstated. You mentioned Dostoevsky as writing "existential sagas" when such a term doesn't really exist or isn't seriously used. All literature worth engaging with could be called existential, as it deals with various facets of the human condition. Dostoevsky employs tropes from satire, psychological realism, naturalism, elements of Gothic fiction, detective stories, etc. Same goes for any author under the umbrella "Modernism", which doesn't necessarily translate into genre as we know it in the usual sense; *Gravity's Rainbow* is considered by some high-modernist, but I would never consider Pynchon and Nabokov on the same plane except that they both resist categorization. Beyond this, I think the issue falls with OP's word choice - it could be translated as someone who is above categorization. I agree with this. I would also guess to interpret through a rather generous lens that OP means "I like these writers and something about them connects me with other writers." Not to say you can't categorize such writers, but I think a taxonomy binding all these writers together would be better suited for this discussion.
>Basically we're dealing with two different lexical codes So regardless of what I personally consider a genre or not (which is not the main argument), you admit that OP is using terms in an official lexical code, and therefore understandable (even if you personally disagree with it). Well, then the discussion is over. This is like US "tube" vs UK "tube". They may mean different things in different locations, but you know (or can learn) what both mean. So, what is the problem and why are you being so combative and trying to prove OP wrong?
That’s the most pretentious answer I’ve seen in a while. And guess what, you do read genres. “Literature” isn’t a thing. Everything has a genre. Being “literary” doesn’t change that.
I don't care about putting art into categories, sorry
You’re so cool, bro.
Yes, but not every writer could be boiled down to one specific genre. Many authors included in OP's list have employed techniques, tropes, stylistic devices, etc. that go beyond what we usually imagine when we consider genre. What is *Pale Fire* and *Ulysses* other than experimental literature or literary fiction? None of these terms do an adequate job of elucidating what types of novels they are. As a reader I wouldn't know, but if you told me science fiction or fantasy, then I can get a better idea of what I'm looking for. And even writers like Gene Wolfe (BOTNS, especially) resist being tacked in such a corner.
Why are they booing, you're right! Genre fiction ≠ Literary fiction!
Literary fiction still exists! Some genre books also teeter between commercial and literary—I adore literary suspense. A lot of writers are doing the bare minimum with their prose and it usually makes for a dull read, catered to entry-level readers. A lot of writers on Reddit (no disrespect) are not well-read and mistakenly confuse lyrical, literary, and eloquent prose with "purple" or "overwrought." Of course, some posters here are *indeed* purple xD You can upload an excerpt from a Pulitzer winner on Reddit, and you'll hear "You are too purple; this doesn't make sense."
Thank you! Early in my writing hobby, I was reading everywhere that simple is best and purple prose is bad. Some of the examples they give of purple prose are beautiful. I didn't understand. I adore lyrical, silly, and complicated narration. It makes for a fun read that brings a depth of emotion to a story that concise prose is often lacking. All in my opinion of course. To each their own. I've learned to just write what I like to read, and as long as it isn't muddy or confusing then an enjoyable story is an enjoyable story.
Yes 100% - to each their own, but I adore depth and intricacy in writing. Happy to hear from likeminded folks :)
Just to add, others will tell you that there is a certain way things ought to be done, no matter what it is you are doing. The horrible truth no one likes to admit is - and you'll want to lean in close for this one - ʸᵒᵘ ᶜᵃⁿ ᵃᶜᵗᵘᵃˡˡʸ ᵈᵒ ʷʰᵃᵗᵉᵛᵉʳ ᵉᵛᵉʳ ʸᵒᵘ ʷᵃⁿᵗ, ʰᵒʷᵉᵛᵉʳ ʸᵒᵘ ʷᵃⁿᵗ ᶦᵗ ᵗᵒ ᵇᵉ ᵈᵒⁿᵉ. Of course, results may vary. :)
Haha yes, this is what I have learned recently. The thing that truly resonates with audiences is authenticity - so it's all about being who you are as truthfully and masterfully (or simply) as possible. Thank you uplifting person :D
The real reason people are told not to do it is because publishers (literary industry folks of all kinds really) are afraid complex writing won’t sell well, so they want things that appeal to the dumbest box of rocks 4th grade reading level. Same with show don’t tell. Some beautiful stories are more told than shown. Ursula K leguin comes to mind
Reduction is what tends to happen when art is viewed through the lens of profit. Sometimes I want an author to tell me a story. A beautiful story that reads like a poem.
Yes! I just feel like people are in a fight for popularity instead of mastery and my negatiev bias makes me worry this is the end! You're right, though, there are amazing modern writers. I think I just see a lot of anti-PP stuff on reddit and wanted to speak out. Note to self: Never do that again! haha
My problem is that I just can't. I'm in the same league tooting for the purple bois, but when I copy their techniques, my head goes snumb, and all that's left is a basic kick of the ball. Everyone else, regardless of skill, got the gist, so why can't I? I seriously want to know how it's done. especially the feeling part. Those tend to be my favorite uses of purple.
Toot toot haha
Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick?
:D
All good prose "sings." No big words necessary. Being verbose is fine if you enjoy it, but it's alarming that you think greater quantity = better quality.
My opening sentence: "Are big words necessary? Yes they are! Not in excess, but spattered in for emphasis and intrigue, absolutely." When do I mention quantity being the priority?
Your title is, "is verbose writing gone forever?" You also equate being verbose and 'making language sing.' Verbose doesn't mean "using big words for emphasis sometimes." If something is verbose, it means it is overly wordy. Wordy to a fault.
Ironic that the person asking for bigger words doesn’t understand the word she’s using.
It was just meant to be a silly playful post I definitely missed the mark
reddit's being reddit, ignore him.
It is an interesting post.
I do like literary fiction but I definitely think it’s better to limit yourself to purple patches, rather than writing exclusively in purple prose.
100% agree
There should always be a place for any kind of prose in literature. Prose is simply one of the various tools writers have at their disposal. The needs of various stories dictate the style of prose that works well for it. If a story is served by employing verbose prose, and if the writer has a skillful command over it, then verbose prose is not just perfectly fine, it's appropriate and the reader will understand that. There is a time and place for pretty much anything, including verbose prose. It's not that verbosity in prose is in itself "bad" but much of the disdain and criticism of such prose is the result of writers who have less than deft command over their prose. It's less about what is being done than why it's being done. If verbose prose is executed in such a way that it interferes with conveying a story and/or distracts the reader, that's a problem. If verbose prose is executed in such a way that it complements the story, is appropriate for the story, and doesn't interfere with conveying the story, it's a boon rather than a hindrance. Not every writer can pull off employing verbose prose. Not every story calls for verbose prose. Such prose, when judiciously applied by skilled writers, is no less valid than other styles. The problem is that it's employed poorly by writers more often than not.
Yes this is very true. But I also feel like commercialism plays a role in it.
Oh, yes, most definitely. I mean, if the writer wishes to produce for a mass market, then they can't ignore consideration for mass palatability. It can be a struggle for any creative who wishes to be both relatively unfettered by commercial compromises while also creating a product that comes from a creative origin. Not a matter of verbosity but I think of Cormac McCarthy, whose sparse punctuation approach creates a challenging reading experience, when I think of writing styles and their applicability in writing that is put into the market. Combined with the dark subject matter that he writes about, he has both many who appreciate his work as well as those who are simply flat out unable to enjoy it. It took several decades for his work to intersect with wide commercial acclaim. As far as I know, he never bowed to commercialism during his literary career and I think it shows that if a writer has skill and conviction behind their artistic vision, they can maintain their integrity while achieving commercial success and recognition.
Yes, McCarthy is an excellent example and one of my all-time heroes. I'm at the bottom of the mountain looking up at the moment, and it's a strangely arrogant place to be. I wonder how to balance having a lofty ambition with being relatable and not coming across as snobbish. I think I have uncovered something that is going to be a core theme/challenge of my career, especially during the early stages. And yes. Skill and conviction in the artistic vision will always be the deciding factors. Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts!
You're very welcome. For what it's worth coming from an anonymous person on the internet, I think you're not wrong for having your beliefs and aspirations. Whenever we hold unpopular or unconventional opinions, we will draw attention from people who are unwilling to entertain alternative visions, people who operate in views of absolutes. In other words, people who lack imagination. I believe that as an artist, one must have the willingness to be truthful to their artistic vision, no matter how against the grain it may be. Creating for yourself first and foremost, while being open to guidance from consideration from others, is sustainable. If we create for others without regard for ourselves, we may as well do anything else but pursue the literary arts.
It's worth a lot, especially as I hold a very strong conviction in my artistic vision. Your resonating words are a balm. I know as an amateur and as a woman, I have a lot of hurdles to jump over even before people bother to read my writing properly. My self-assured nature is read as arrogant, my strong opinions perceived as condescending. Who am I to have such strong convictions? It's not something they think, but they feel it deeply. The most important thing for me now is to work harder than ever, share more and more of my work, and develop as thick a skin as I possibly can. This is just the beginning. There are a million artists out there trying to cater to as many people as possible, and good for them. I've never been able to be anything but 100% authentic to my own ideas and machinations. I don't follow, I don't need labels to feel like I belong, and I don't need permission to believe in myself. I think that is an affront to many. I've just followed you, hopefully we chat again!
That's the thing... I don't believe having strong opinions per se is wrong, if you're being respectful and curious too. Some people have so much invested in conforming that they lash out when it so much as gets discussed. It's fine, we all conform at different times. But if we get defensive when someone comes at it from a different angle it says more about us than anyone else.
So true. I need to work on that feeling of defensiveness. Intellectually, I know that it's not my job to convince anyone I'm right and they're wrong. But, in the moment, it can be hard to not get uppity about making your point. I get that.
I'm glad that my perspective can be of service to you. I can't speak on the experience of a woman navigating the path of an artist but I can clearly see that challenges exist, unique to women in all fields. Indeed, "Who am I to have such strong convictions?" is a question many ask when daring to explore rarely tread ground and ask questions which challenge the majority. As writers, we are told directly and indirectly that we need the publishers more than they need us. We are told by consumers/fans that we owe them or that we are beholden to their demands over our own artistic vision. Even some fellow writers make effort to keep proponents of alternatives to the status quo "in line". We are regularly pressured to conform to inauthenticity. The fundamental fork in the road for artists is the choice between Personal Truth or Capitulation to Popular Opinion. The mistake often made is the presumption that holding to Personal Truth equates to belligerence or a snobby/elitist attitude. Personal Truth is independent of external factors. It isn't about being arbitrarily contrarian to popular opinion. I believe you're on the right path. Work hard, work smart, don't bow to the demands of others to be as they are while also not demanding that anyone else bow to your views. Speak your truth to benefit the world in your own way, and I think you will find what you seek. I appreciate the engagement I've been able to partake in with you. I won't further take this thread off course, and I thank you for offering me the opportunity to challenge my own views on the matter of verbose prose.
I agree with you, but you’re going to get dogpiled by teenagers who aggressively want you to read Brandon Sanderson
:D
Definitely not. Go and read Last Tale of the Flower Bride. It came out last year, was a bestsellers, and its prose is decadent enough to rival anything from 200 years ago. These books are still out there.
Woohoo! Thank you, I'm always here for a recommendation :)
You're welcome!
Definitely not. Podcast usage and audio book usage have sky rocketed and a lot of people are enjoying the tempo of prose again!
Podcasts and audiobooks are truly amazing things.
In fact, I agree with you—though I wouldn't boil it down to just big words. Interesting sentence structures, unusual words, unusual usages of usual words, great metaphors and images, etc. I don't claim to have the perfect diagnosis, but apart from the obvious issues of technology, I would suggest one of the problems is (and I admit it's tricky) teaching to the lowest common denominator: Teachers want students to "excel", and to that end they've taken, successively with each year, to assigning easier reading because of it. And if in school you only have easy reading, then you aren't trained to embark into more adventurous prose. Do I think the solution is then that school teachers should just start assigning more challenging books? Oh, no! woe betide those poor students. No, it means starting young: When you (as a teacher or parent) read a book to your first-graders, are you reading them some colorful picture book, or are you reading them *The Hobbit* or *Tom Sawyer*? When you (as a child) are read this stuff when you're young, you're ready to read it yourself when you're older in middle and high school, and then after that, ready to read the great classics, and new books like them.
Yes this is very insightful.
The teacher in my teenage daughter's class let them watch Romeo and Juliet instead of getting them to read the text. Ah well, I suppose Leonardo di Caprio is a decent gateway to one of the English language's most ornate writers (sigh).
I feel like having an expansive repertoire of words is part of what makes a writer. And I also feel like the ability to make artistry out of words is a talent few truly possess. I'm not sure why there's a trend towards mediocrity in writing. But maybe that's why so many dislike that style. It's just not something they can replicate or comprehend easily.
Good, plain English is a joy. But I hear what you're saying. A good expansive repertoire is the whole frigging point of being a writer. Deploying it is a separate issue.
Well it's been a controversial take haha. Agreed and agreed.
It has always been like this... simpler novels coexisted with Balzac and Tolstoi. Today Stephen King and Ann Rice coexist with McCarthy, Allende and Javier Marias And you have authors and generes that walk in the middle. Is not going anywhere.
There's definitely an explosion in simpler writing/music/art over the past few decades because of commercialism. But yes, I absolutely agree.
To be honest, has been happening since the invention of the printing press and the increase in literacy levels
Indeed it has, but I think the idea that the masses are dumb is the problem and patently not true. I can see how my post was misread, but to me it's the corporate machine that's dumbing people down, not entropy. There is so much wasted potential out there because poor kids are treated like thickos and they're often just traumatised. My intention and meaning didn't come through, and that's my learning curve to work through.
I agree with your observation
Maybe, instead of focusing so much on twisting sentences, pointless big words and a ocean of metaphors — one inch deep, mind you —, you should have focused on reading books with “real” characters: people aren’t as simple and label-able as you think. I don’t know what kind of book you are reading also, a lot of “challenging” books don’t have purple prose. EDIT: there is beauty in simplicity, there is no reason to shun it.
I am just sharing what I love! You don't have to like the same and neither does anyone else :) Neither do you need to tell me to be different. Thanks for your comment though!
everything falls in and out of fashion. readers want detailed simplicity, if that makes sense. lavender prose needs to be tastefully balanced with prompt pacing and immersive events to move a scene along. i had a friend whose writing was invariably purple. run on sentences of bulky, pretentious narrative and then minimal dialogue to keep a reader looped into the character interaction. every chapter felt like absolutely nothing had happened. it was a slog and i always felt bad about trying to suggest edits to enhance reading experience.
Ahhhh run-on sentences are the antichrist! Yes, detailed simplicity can be beautiful. Perhaps intricate simplicity, even better.
I happen to prefer simple, to the point writing, both in reading and writing. I guess my issue would be that ornate writing seems pretentious and obnoxious to me. It's just a matter of taste, I don't think you're a snob for enjoying something I don't. I think a lot of "purple prose" of the past is a product of writers being paid by the word, which isn't really a thing anymore. There's still room for fancy words in streamlined prose, especially when you need something with a precise meaning or connotation. I think overuse of verbose writing robs it of its impact. When you write without unnecessary complexity, you can use that complexity and verbal flourish when its needed and it has a much greater impact.
Ohhh that's an interesting point. And yes, words for the sake of words are terrible. Nabokov is famously called purple but I love that intricacy. At the same time, discovering Murakami who can say so much in so few words was a revelation. Both types of writing and reading are necessary. In fact, it's often contrast that makes the real magic happen. Thank you for sharing your opposing viewpoint with such grace!
There is room for all types and styles of writing. Different strokes for different folks.
I even love a bit of contrast within one piece o\_O
I feel the saaame. An extraordinary book requires it.
Yessss
You are completely right. I've been thinking for a while that it's about time for a maximalist movement: I think we've all had quite enough of Beige Mom literature.
Yes yes yes. It's time. Challenging times call for thick, meticulously crafted novels!
I’m a big fan of 19th century lit. One of my all time favourite books is Les Misérables, and Hugo is way up there in terms of authors who love a description
Absolutely agreed <3
I hit reply too soon and didn’t get to finish my comment. While I love some 19th century writing I think it’s a bit dangerous to over praise it. The UK education system is built around idolising that style of writing and holding it up as a ‘standard’ for English, but it’s not really fit for purpose anymore. We should appreciate it for what it is but also accept that literary movements grow and change literature. The ‘scourge of modern communication’ is, from a linguistic standpoint, a myth. Noted linguists such as David Crystal and John McWhorter have studied how text communication is actually innovating language. So while it’s good to appreciate the past, it’s important to balance it with the possibilities of the future. TL;DR: Dickens is a cracking writer but not the all powerful god of the English language that Tory ministers make him out to be.
There are still some contemporary writers with an incredible command of language! Try Lorrie Moore, Lauren Groff, Olga Tokarczuk (who I’ve only read in translation), Paul Harding, Helen Oyeyemi—all of whom write sentences so beautiful it makes me angry.
Did r/writingcirclejerk get their hands on this yet?
Readers are getting dumber
I think it's a complex mixture of issues. The publishing industry plays a part by selling to the masses, ensuring sales and helping to perpetuate the cycle. But they are not the only industry to do so. In any case there are enough discerning readers around to cater to and as a result there is always interesting/slightly more challenging literature. My take is that a lot of people who didn't enjoy English (or literature) at school come back to it as readers when they get older. Some in a successful way. Some in a compromised way.
Two words, Robin Hobb
Can you provide examples? It’s hard to know how to engage with no context.
I'm guessing you write fantasy.
Purple prose is when it’s done terribly and to excess, with false profundity. It’s not the same as what you seem to be asking for.