3 ms·

Actually, poetry frowns on purple prose too. Hence the “prose” part. But you can’t call adjectives and similes and metaphors all purple prose.

fossuser 6y ago
Sure - and there's some subjectivity to 'write simply'. The idea is good though, bias towards clarity and be aware of how complex your writing is. Don't use big words to try and seem smart or fancy because they obscure meaning - there are rare exceptions to this, but they should be intentional and rare.
- ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
  I agree about jargon and such but PG writes without any literary devices at all. Don’t you think that’s going too far? “That dude is sneaky” “That dude is sneakier than a fox” Why cut out fox?
  - fossuser 6y ago
    I think most of the time it should be cut out, the times you leave it in should be intentional and rare. If you read stuff that's doing that kind of thing all of the time it makes it harder to read and the writing is often worse. It's something newer writers tend to do for some reason, I'm not sure why.
    - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
      “It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes“ Removing the simile reduces the meaning of “sentimental archaism”. Similes clarify meaning. That’s what all imagery is for.
      - fossuser 6y ago
        Sometimes it clarifies meaning, most of the time it adds nothing. "Sneakier than a fox" doesn't help. That quote is from Orwell's Politics and the English Language: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... While the one sentence out of context seems unnecessarily complex, most of Orwell's writing is pretty simple to read. Another bit from that essay: "The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house." Arguably, Orwell would probably agree with PG. Using imagery to clarify meaning can be done well, but part of doing it well is using the tools sparingly and intentionally with an eye towards clarity. Another relevant bit from that Orwell essay: "As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier – even quicker, once you have the habit – to say 'In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption' that than to say 'I think'." I'd argue 'sneakier than a fox' is an example of what he's talking about. A lame pre-existing set of words that does little to explain or clarify anything.
        ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
        Well those two paragraphs you quoted have similes in them, hyperbole, slang, and characterization. Sure, my off the top example is lame but that’s not my point. You’re saying that they’re rarely used, almost never, yet those paragraph you quoted have plenty of similes and other literary devices. I’d argue that you can’t recognize literary devices so that’s why you’re confusing what these people are trying to say. Yes, you do need to make an effort to come up with original and interesting similes and metaphors, but they are not to be avoided

fossuser 6y ago

Sure - and there's some subjectivity to 'write simply'. The idea is good though, bias towards clarity and be aware of how complex your writing is. Don't use big words to try and seem smart or fancy because they obscure meaning - there are rare exceptions to this, but they should be intentional and rare.

ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
I agree about jargon and such but PG writes without any literary devices at all. Don’t you think that’s going too far? “That dude is sneaky” “That dude is sneakier than a fox” Why cut out fox?
- fossuser 6y ago
  I think most of the time it should be cut out, the times you leave it in should be intentional and rare. If you read stuff that's doing that kind of thing all of the time it makes it harder to read and the writing is often worse. It's something newer writers tend to do for some reason, I'm not sure why.
  - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
    “It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes“ Removing the simile reduces the meaning of “sentimental archaism”. Similes clarify meaning. That’s what all imagery is for.
    - fossuser 6y ago
      Sometimes it clarifies meaning, most of the time it adds nothing. "Sneakier than a fox" doesn't help. That quote is from Orwell's Politics and the English Language: https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/politics-and-the-english-language/ https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel... While the one sentence out of context seems unnecessarily complex, most of Orwell's writing is pretty simple to read. Another bit from that essay: "The writer either has a meaning and cannot express it, or he inadvertently says something else, or he is almost indifferent as to whether his words mean anything or not. This mixture of vagueness and sheer incompetence is the most marked characteristic of modern English prose, and especially of any kind of political writing. As soon as certain topics are raised, the concrete melts into the abstract and no one seems able to think of turns of speech that are not hackneyed: prose consists less and less of words chosen for the sake of their meaning, and more and more of phrases tacked together like the sections of a prefabricated hen-house." Arguably, Orwell would probably agree with PG. Using imagery to clarify meaning can be done well, but part of doing it well is using the tools sparingly and intentionally with an eye towards clarity. Another relevant bit from that Orwell essay: "As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is easy. It is easier – even quicker, once you have the habit – to say 'In my opinion it is not an unjustifiable assumption' that than to say 'I think'." I'd argue 'sneakier than a fox' is an example of what he's talking about. A lame pre-existing set of words that does little to explain or clarify anything.
      - ulisesrmzroche 6y ago
        Well those two paragraphs you quoted have similes in them, hyperbole, slang, and characterization. Sure, my off the top example is lame but that’s not my point. You’re saying that they’re rarely used, almost never, yet those paragraph you quoted have plenty of similes and other literary devices. I’d argue that you can’t recognize literary devices so that’s why you’re confusing what these people are trying to say. Yes, you do need to make an effort to come up with original and interesting similes and metaphors, but they are not to be avoided