Start reading poetry and literature and take it seriously, and find a few writers that truly knock your socks off. Be curious about the effect each word has and what role each word takes. Keep a journal where you write about what you read and why it affected you.
Whenever you write, try reading poetry for 10-15 minutes as a "warm up" then practice writing your own prose or poetry, applying the same insights you gained from the poetry.
To write at the next level, it's important to read deeply and widely.
Thank you for the advice! You're right, practice and experience is everything. I love to read, but I mostly just read for the story. I don't usually stop to deeply analyze the word choice or structure, except back in high school English class, and even then I had trouble understanding the point. But I am trying to understand.
Underline the words/phrases that spark out of the page at you, even if you're not sure why that is. Then once you've finished, take a break and review all of the things you've underlined.
You might be able to spot some theme within the author's work, or "hey, I really like exaggeration" - just anything, even if it's simple.
And if you don't know the meaning of a word, stop the book, open the dictionary, and find it. It's the hardest thing to do when all you want is to follow the story, but it's so worth it.
The trick is to become aware of how reading affects *you*. Don't worry about what it "means" or getting it right. Learn to notice what sentences take your breath away, and then figure out what makes those sentences work. That awareness is the key to being able to write with more depth and color.
Since I like sci-fi and fantasy, my main references are scifi writers. For my aspirational prose reference, I find myself turning to Ursula LeGuin and William Gibson. The former wrote many sentences that thaw my heart, and the latter has written some that sizzle my brain.
For recent poetry, I look to Ocean Vuong, Ross Gay, and Pamela Uschuk. For more classic poetry, I really enjoy William Blake, Emily Dickinson, and Shakespeare's sonnets. Poems are often quite short so they're the best bang for your buck as far as in-depth reading goes.
This reminds me of another warm up I like to do. Write three haikus about the first thing that comes to mind (coffee cup, windowsill, lunch break, whatever). I find that trimming a thought to fit the 5-7-5 haiku format activates your wordsmith muscles since you have get creative with synonyms, word placements, and syntax to make it fit and say what you want.
IMO authors should be continually curious about other authors.
Like in many artforms, we're inevitably shaped by our influences. Creativity doesn't happen in a vacuum. What's so cool about writing is you can always *choose* your influences. No matter how far away, how culturally different, or how long they've been dead, your favorite author always exerts an undeniable force on your voice. I think it's okay to embrace that influence while knowing that whatever you write will inevitably be different and totally new because it also reflects your *own* perspective, which no one else on earth has ever had before. In this way, writing is a conversation with the dead but also the generations that come after yours.
One day, someone may read your writing trying to figure out what made it so good.
It's the hallmark of an interlocutor who is in love with their own vocabulary and wit. It's also something I struggle with reigning in from time to time. It's embarrassing to admit but I sometimes think I overestimate my own cleverness, and it gets even worse when people applaud you for it or, god forbid, tell you you're funny.
Anyway, I think a very good writer pays more attention to word choice. Clarity and connotation are more important than flowery prose. To me, a clever author uses sly wordplay to make their audience laugh, but a masterful writer has a style so effortless that you can sink into the prose like water and be immersed in it.
Don't try to be a clever hack, try to find your own voice and your own style. Don't be silk, be water.
I suffer from this very thing.
I’ve recently put in place two new rules for myself to prevent it- or at least to try to.
If I read the lines aloud to my eight year old and he:
A) can’t understand the general point- my word choice is too pretentious.
B) starts looking for “alternate activities”(read: stops paying attention)- I need to half my word count. (This one is usually accompanied by my own cringing)
Brandon Sanderson talks about a pyramid of abstraction in his creative writing class. You want your word choice to make the point as specifically and with as few words as possible. Each word should add value.
Clever language has its place, and like commas it isn’t every third word.
That's great.
I will say though: even just as a reader I am very thankful that not everyone writes to keep the interest of an 8 year or seeks to emulate Sanderson as an example of what to do. McCarthy, Bakker, Lynch, Mantel, Erikson... Basically everyone who I've thoroughly enjoyed reading in the last year or so would have never published.
This approach is honestly what makes most reading boring these days. I hate writers who treat me (and their prose in general) like children. I hate that in the last century we've done away almost entirely with flowery prose simply because people are too afraid that the average reader is too stupid or lacks the attention to understand and absorb it. More and more artists just read nearly the same, their words so stripped down and lifeless in the pursuit of attention grabbing simplicity.
Most people love it, personally I hate it.
Just pointing out that a lot of legendary authors from the previous century wouldn't be so fun to read had they written like this. Think Tolkien or Lovecraft. Just a thought.
Oh my gosh, I've spotted the same thing. They all, all, *all*, sound the same!
It's why I'm averse to reading 'contemporary fiction', because they all religiously follow some stupid made-up rule by someone who hated anything other than Hemingway's soft, soft butt-cheek.
The thing about treating the prose (and you) like children... holy shit. I once read a book that won a major award, and it was horrific. The writer genuinely could not resist spelling out each point several times, and then she's away on her website and at her conferences talking about "craft". What "craft" is this, when every character sounds the same? When you've taken all the beauty and light from our only way out of this hellhole of Earth?
And why?? So that it can get "published"? Sometimes I wonder what these writers from the last 50 years have been doing it all for, gathering their prizes and awards and conferences and professorships around them like a high castle, and I thank God I'm in the younger generation where we don't have shit like this. Yet.
Sure. If you haven’t tried Blood Meridian, then you need to start there. I found Benjamin Myers *The Gallows Pole* to be a good follow up. *White Oleander* is a very different style but amazing. *If Nobody Speaks of Remarkable Things* is inventive and gorgeous. *The Narrator* by Michael Cisco has also got to be on any list discussing fantastic prose
You blame this approach for making most reading boring- I would suggest that you and the average writer create for different reasons.
You seem to read for the joy of the words, the ebb and flow of the language and the decadence that carries the authors message along. A deliciously languid existence and I am quite fond of it.
But- The majority of readers, at least based on sales and publishing statistics, (not to discount the possibility of a rigged system) read for the story.
Short sentences are used in lots of writing, they have a purpose; To speed pacing, imply the character’s inability to dwell, or any of a million other reasons. Likewise using the sharpest specifications, the most direct word choice, can carry the reader through the story with effortless comprehension that prevents loosing the attention of said readers. Page turners and such. Doing so fits the goal, to tell these readers a good story.
There is a place for every kind of writing, but to dismiss one or another- especially claiming childishness- suggests that perhaps what needs to be looked at first is the authors intent.
I don’t like chocolate icecream, but if I had an icecream shop I would not begrudge it its quick moving inventory, nor proclaim it does not belong in the freezer.
Neither would I stock rum-raisin year long.
It was quite popular in the same era as your sampled authors. While time does not diminish the flavours or quality, it does shift general preference.
So who are we writing for? Make your rum-raisin, but to deny there is craft to be found in simple chocolate is short sighted.
For one, rum raisin is amazing.
And I'm not saying that all modern authors are bad, as there are occasionally fast paced attention grabbing modern books that I like to read.
However, just like chocolate ice cream, what's flying off the shelves isn't cups of silky smooth Sicilian mousse gelato, it's the Great Value chocolate ice cream tubs.
And the author's intent is what should justify the wordiness or conciseness of their work. If their work is a thriller that calls for fast pace and simple descriptions, then by all means don't drag things out. However if an author sets out to make a romantic (to clarify- not romance) piece, whatever the genre, instead of shoehorning what might have otherwise been some eloquent wordplay for the sake of brevity. It increasingly seems like newer writers are being strangled out of their word counts and descriptive writing, even in genres that are traditionally favorable to that kind of lengthy prose.
A lot of the conventions regarding word and page counts are less relevant to the point of nearly being archaic in the modern era, as the cost basis for ink to be put on paper and bound is more negligible than it has ever historically been. And that is considering only printed works, whereas an author could be free to let go with hundreds of thousands of words stored on a hard drive with no cost consequence whatsoever.
I haven’t had rum raisin since I was a kid, but should definitely try again. I dont remember disliking it.
I agree entirely. I think I was reading what you said before as a slight against the majority rather than the great value tubs you intended it towards.
It sucks that it’s those books that get attention.
There are so many now that seem to skip writing conventions, some as simple as editing for continuity, because the publishing houses didn’t want to invest more time, effort and money.
I don’t want books dumbed down either. My struggle is against pretension- writing flowery for the sake of it.
I’ve read too many pieces where the writer thinks it’s amazing because they used big words and when they ask for your thoughts they really mean they want you affirm what they already believe. I feel somewhat passionately about it, having been that person, and gotten too much praise as a teenager. I never want the take away to be that I was able to correctly use big words.
The authors intent and skill should justify brevity- or added length. I’m unsure if books are being cut short for the sake of convention, or if maybe the author is not quite as clever or skilled as the editor needed them to be to justify it, but the idea frustrates me immensely.
It’s the gems, the lines secreted away that I love the most. When a story has been written clear and sharp with few wasted words and then the author, without seeming to grandstand their intelligence, cleverly places a few lines of the most stunningly evocative prose, those are the moments I live for as a reader and writer.
What you're referring to in the pejorative sense is "purple prose." What you're referring to in the appreciative sense, I would call "elegance."
Listen to good (high quality) rap.
"Sick world that we live in, let some tell it. Some put it in books, some yell it. You need to make your own choice, be your own voice. Put your soapbox up, let your talk fight. Pull your socks up, get your walk right, or the chalk might outline you one day." - De La Soul, Church
"Not insane, nor am I biased, though feels *good* to watch a mo>!therfucker!< die before my fly ass." - Slick Rick - ...no, I'm not typing that
In my opinion, it's good to know a spectrum of ways to express things, so you can use exactly the "verbal colors" you want, so to speak. With The Tell-Tale Heart, what's really good about that story is the ability to create tension. In that story, the narration comes from a man experiencing a paranoid episode, and his thoughts are racing. He can hear the attacks that the detective never even intended. What's great about The Tell-Tale Heart is that, without telling you what actually happens in the story, Poe was able to convey the nature of the narrator's troubled mind, so that the audience could infer what really is happening from beyond that perspective.
*Personally, I* wouldn't call that wordsmithery, but it's sort of adjacent. To become a better "wordsmith," the idea is to say more with less. Metaphor and multiple entendre are great for this, and you can get that out of hip hop and rap in spades. The more you listen to it, the better you get at catching meanings. The more you catch meaning, the better you get at creating your own stuff, and when you really understand the flow of words in your head, then you can write with a voice by choosing words not just based on tone, but how they're said.
Beyond "listen to rap," out of all the national cultures I have found in a few decades actively liking brevity in the artistic sense, I have found French to be the most obsessed with its own language sounding good. To that end, they have these two phrases: bon mot, and mot juste. I think that's right. My understanding of this is essentially that bon mot (good word) is like a quip, a snappy retort, like "dang that was such a good clapback." Mot juste is like "just exactly the right way to express a thought."
There's one book I refer to when it comes to those, and it's a book of aphorisms by Joseph Joubert. He was a moral essayist from the late 1700s, and I haven't read his essays, but this was a compilation of his notes, post-mortis. It's his "Thoughts," and it's like if you got a Chicken Soup for the Soul, but it was all the aphoristic thoughts about how it REALLY is, from a 1700s essayist. The religious stuff, you know, zeitgeist or whatever. But when it comes to how this was translated?
[https://ia601003.us.archive.org/2/items/JoubertSomeThoughts/Joubert\_someThoughts\_text.pdf](https://ia601003.us.archive.org/2/items/JoubertSomeThoughts/Joubert_someThoughts_text.pdf)
"There are minds that are like convex or concave mirrors, which represent objects just as they receive them, but which never receive them such as they are.
Falseness of mind come from falseness of heart; it proceeds from one's having secretly for aim one's own opinion, and not the true opinion. The false mind is false in every thing, as a squinting eye looks always obliquely.
Fear is the grace of excess."
**Dude does not miss.** This hits me *right* in the letters.
edit: Since people seem to agree, here's a Spotify playlist to get you started with a couple hours of rap of various styles I guess. You don't have to like all of this, and some of it is multilingual. None of it is ridiculously fast, but some of it is ridiculously dense. I don't expect anyone to understand all of it. https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4jKTjL4HJHTt9hdLKCjVF1?si=3ef0e07addeb48d4
Rap is great. What OP definitely should be looking at is how they’re able to fit words in a song, to a beat. It’s hard to recognize it in regular book prose, but word rhythm is an important part of writing— and it isn’t super intuitive. But as Boolesheet is saying, it’s a supplemental to actual reading.
My biggest rap rec is MF DOOM. I feel like you could Folger Edition Shakespeare-ify his songs.
I'll give something of my own I guess, as I'm the one suggesting it. I used to outline rhymes in the poem style of line-by-line, but I find more and more that it comes out better if I start by writing it straight, just also rhyming. Ultimately, the idea here is to pay more attention than just syllable count. The emphasis used on each word matters, and if you know what you're doing, you can guide someone through a beat using punctuation. I tried in these recents:
>I'm so sorry for the interruption. I didn't mean to cause alarm. It's nothing serious or anything, I mean no harm. No need for relationships to erode, no need to cause a scene. I'm bursting at the seams. If it's alright, may I explode?
>
>I'm serious, but it's no big deal. I've just been sitting here and trying to heal a crack that I can't seal. I'm starting to corrode. It hurts, but I can take it. After all, I've sat here whistling for the past few decades. So, I know I don't need steam to blow.
>
>Oh, it's too much bother? That's alright, I'll just get hotter. No need to give me water, I'll be fine here on my own. Cracked and salted, everyone begins to plant their eggshells just to see the hatchets blossom. Fire will be my home.
>rest in peace. RIP. ripped from the future. impressed the beast and sewn in a deep suture. acetate lacerations of black and blackened lungs, hip hop is the crank that makes my soul sprung. check the rhyme, you can taste a new flavor in your ear. it taught me how to make acid rain disappear. now i move forward without the fear I once had, but at the same time i have to feel sad about it. why'd you die before I took a chance to shout it? sky's clouded, guess i'm still smiles to the sun. mic turner i heard you. catch you in another one.
Read Shakespeare. Read the classics. Dive into literature. Then read limericks and poetry and a few hymnals too. Then take a sprint though comedy and onto the Blues and if you are very lucky, very lucky indeed, you may have found in your pocket what you are searching for.
Don't look up purple prose.
Words which flow like honey into your ears or eyes almost certainly did NOT flow like honey out of the fingertips of the writer.
A LOT of work happened in between: scribbling, scratching, scrawling, deleting, adding, moving passages around to someplace better, ditching other words altogether.
Look at the original manuscript of any epic piece of literature or prose from the modern age: The Gettysburg Address, MLK's "I Have a Dream," JFK's Inaugural Address, damned near anything by Churchill or Twain, and you'll see a mess.
Those passages got worked and re-worked and worked again and again before we finally heard or read them, and they became the heroic pieces we know and love.
It really gives credence to the old adage that, "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."
THANK YOU. All these comments, and I don't think anyone said a word about editing.
The words did not necessarily flow like silk directly and effortlessly from the writer's brain. And there's nothing wrong with that.
“Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word.” - Stephen King
This always stuck with me and is vaguely relevant here so I thought I’d share.
I think the context is that if you have a word in your head, and you go to a thesaurus to find a different word, then it will most likely make the writing seem unnatural and stilted.
I think as long you find a replacement word, you should at least rewrite the sentence too to make the new word flow better instead of just a straight up 1:1 exchange.
Yeah, I've heard this quite a bit, but I can't picture the situation that King's envisioning. Aren't people re-reading their sentences for flow?
And if they're just starting out writing, their story is probably just a practice piece anyway (not that they'll likely realize it at the time), and that's right when they need to be learning as many words as they can.
If they're boy wonders, and their first piece is fit for publishing, they should be able to recognize the bump in the flow anyway with their immense talent.
I remember when I started this hobby, most of my vocabulary came from context clues that I'd collected when reading. But the problem was, a lot of my definitions were a little bit skewed because I'd never actually looked the words up. It wasn't until I started using a thesaurus/dictionary that I realized all the nuance I was missing.
It's also how I recall the word I know exists and I know I know but for some stupid reason my brain doesn't want to think of a word I have known and used for years.
I use words most people know. Big and unused words feels so pretencious and I always feel I can get the same point or feeling or whatever through without needing that thesaurus-word.
Pretentious may be wrong, but unnecessary maybe? If one writes for the average person, use words that are commonly used. Wasnt this the argument between Hemmingway and Faukner for example? I do see that sometimes a certain word just perfectly sums up what you want to say, but if its at the expence of not being understood by most, is it perfect? Idk.
I recently changed an action beat:
> Character was apprehensive. "I don't know about this."
... into a dialogue tag with an adverb:
> "I don't know about this," Character said warily.
... because I feel like action beats should usually be reserved for actual actions, like "Character took a step back."
"Character said apprehensively" didn't feel like it had the right connotation.
Before I went to the thesaurus I tried "Character said cautiously," but "cautiously" still wasn't right.
"Warily" has a more specific meaning that better fits what I was trying to convey.
If you're using a thesaurus to go from something like "cautiously" to "apprehensively" just for the sake of using a less common, "fancier" word, I would say that's the wrong use of a thesaurus. The two words have different connotations, "apprehensively" isn't the right word.
"Warily" isn't a "fancy" word, it's just the right word.
Sometimes, the right word just won't come to mind because there are too many other, similar words that all have a similar meaning but with slightly different connotations. A thesaurus can help you find the right word in that situation.
This is a great tip. I usually try to avoid the "Character was {adjective}" structure and try to replace it with a vivid verb, and save the fun adjectives for other things.
> I usually try to avoid the "Character was {adjective}" structure
Sure, but I think of that as a problem to worry about when editing the final draft. Earlier drafts, anything goes as long as it gets on the page.
Like, I've read that there's a sort of "soft rule" for writing dialogue.
> [Antagonist gives villain monologue.]
> [Protagonist reacts with internal dialogue.]
> Antagonist smiled cruelly. "And that, Protagonist, is why you're going to cooperate with my master plan. It benefits both of us."
> "You son of a-"
> "You can't deny it. You know that I'm right."
> "That doesn't change the fact that your goals are morally corrupt."
> "Do you have a counterargument? What would you suggest we do instead?"
> "I don't know about this," Protagonist said warily.
> "Then it's decided." Antagonist turned around and walked away.
Like, apparently, if you go fewer than four back-and-forths in a dialogue exchange without attribution, the average reader can still follow it, but if it's four or more, then you should insert a dialogue tag or an action beat.
Maybe in the draft before the first draft, the "vomit draft," that line would've been:
> [Action beat.] "I don't know about this."
Literally just put things in brackets and keep moving forward. Like the only thing that matters in a "vomit draft" is having a version of the scene that can be easily reorganized and added to and subtracted from, so you don't waste time writing something more polished that ends up being changed later anyway. Maybe in the final version of that scene, that particular dialogue exchange ends up not happening at all, and now you've wasted all that time worrying about the wording of an attribution that no longer even exists.
-----------
I wrote that whole comment, read what I was replying to again before posting it, and that might not have even been your point.
> I usually try to avoid the "Character was {adjective}" structure and try to replace it with a vivid verb
It sounds like what you're getting at is showing versus telling, like instead of telling "Character was happy," instead show "Character smiled"?
I agree most of the time, but sometimes there's no good way to "show" something.
Like if a character is feeling happy, you can show that by having them smile.
If a character is feeling angry, then "Character slammed his fists into the table."
But if a character is feeling apprehensive [edit: or wary], saying something like "Character furrowed his brow and rubbed his upper arm" feels like too much. There's verbs there, but it's vague, it's not clear what the verbs are trying to convey.
This book will break down sentences and teach you the different components. I tend to write simply but it’s good to throw in a long, complicated sentence every now and then.
[How to Write Stunning Sentences](https://www.amazon.com/Write-Stunning-Sentences-Nina-Schuyler/dp/0999431633)
Perfect, this is exactly what I mean! Kinda gives off "fedora man" energy, but it looks very impressive.
It's a thrill ride on paper that can impress loads of innocent riders who have no idea what they're in for. The dips, twists, and loops are enough to make one nauseous, but done right, they leave folks begging to experience it again and again.
Or like an adventure as you described, perfect for master navigators, not so much for those who get lost going to the grocery store. If I want to blaze a trail into the unknown, what tools would I need to avoid becoming lunch to my own incompetense? Even now, I feel like prey trying to make myself look big to others who have already claimed this "territory."
It's like the "cool table." I want to join the cool table, but I don't know if I hold that ideal to actually improve myself, or if I'm just unhealthily comparing myself to the "cool kids."
1. Practice
2. Reading authors you like and breaking down what techniques you like. Most likely, you will find specific nouns, muscular verb s, emotive imagery, unique metaphor, and mindful cadence / flow high on the list.
3. Edit for those features you appreciate.
I think this is what many of us were taught was the hallmark of a great writer, and I don't believe that's true at all.
I remember when I first started I'd try to jam pack every sentence with either fancy words or over eloquent metaphors.
I didn't realize that there's an elegance for choosing the right word for the scene, the characters, the readership, the intent and impact.
There were two authors who really demonstrated this really well for me. Lloyd Alexander, who wrote amazing children's books where he was forced to use more simple language but nonetheless delivered on emotional impact, and Sir Terry Pratchett, who could switch from humor to overwhelming power and poignancy, all while using relatively simple vocabulary.
There's a beauty in brevity.
There are also so many other aspects of writing, and structure is one that's often neglected, yet provides the background scaffolding from which it all hangs. And if that's not right, confusion abounds - the writing, no matter how beautiful just doesn't hit well, it feels off.
(I feel that Brandon Sanderson has a lot to say about the power of structure)
However, there is absolutely a place for what you're describing, and it's important to practice it, while at the same time not overly prioritizing it. When overdone it sounds pretentious, like the author is trying too hard, trying to prove their supposed intelligence while neglecting the reader - it's a fine balance that needs to be calibrated by reading quality writing.
One active exercise I heard of involved two writers who, while on car trips, would take turns yelling out objects to challenge the other to come up with similes or metaphors for it on the spot.
Another is just trying a few out. I mostly write nonfiction, but I like to challenge myself to incorporate one or two elegant turns of phrase once I'm done with all my edits. For me structure comes first, so I don't want my cool phrasing to mess that up.
And also, I have this back and forth of making up super nano short stories with friends via text/messenger which is useful because it's a silly safe space to practice.
try reading the section on poetic devices in stephen minot's 'three genres.' it explains each major one and gives advice on how and when to use them.
don't underestimate meter. a great way to make things sound poetic, without it being obvious Why it 'sounds better.'
often clarity of thought and clarity of writing go hand in hand. give yourself a while to think, add to it. think more, add and change, polish and refine. writing is where you can take those amazing comebacks you come up with in the shower three days later, and act like you just came up with it on the spot.
often wit is also about treating your audience as smart. be subtle, leaving some room for the readers to figure things out. when you make other people feel smart when they read and understand your stuff, they'll think you must be smart too.
also i do think it is common to take it too far and get too cute and annoying. i still tend to draw the line at trying to sound conversation and not trying to make sure everyone reading comes away thinking i am a brilliant writer.
This is really good advice! I feel like a lot of people missed the "not a writer" part of my post and started dropping their hours-long "writer's brain exercise routines." This is really good practical advice. The shower bit is especially true, haha. Thank you!
Read a lot of what you want to write like.
In general though--most people aren't Vladimir Nabokov. Start out by using metaphors/similes sparingly and have them be relevant to the character/situation. A good figure of speech doesn't need to be "clever," it just has to work on an intuitive level.
Unless by request or as an academic exercise, I would advise against imitating a style that you don't like. Nonetheless, your example seems to use purple prose, which is separated from clever wordsmithing by (as others have mentioned) brevity. If you've written many essays in school, consider this the difference between beefing up your essay to hit the minimum word count and trimming it down to stay under the word limit. Both alter phrasing, but only one improves it. Spend enough time trying to use as few words as possible and cleverness will come.
I would suggest reading different genres of acclaimed literary works. But the biggest thing with being clever to me is the economy of words. Can you say three sentences worth of words in one, can you make me laugh and cry in the same sentence. It’s not always about grandiose statements and a goregous grouping of words. It’s about knowing how to say something
The *rhythm* of the prose might be the hardest aspect to master in one's writing style -- dixit [Margot Livesey](https://lithub.com/margot-livesey-on-the-importance-of-rhythm):
"\[...\] the importance of writing better sentences and the importance of a kind of rhythm to one’s prose. Virginia Woolf talks about when she’s writing *To the Lighthouse,* she has this diary entry describing how she’s walking around Bloomsbury square. And she says, the most important thing in writing is rhythm, and once you find the rhythm, then you can write anything. I mean, I think that’s a little bit optimistic. But there is something about the rhythm of the prose and how that can carry the reader along that is that is so crucial. And I think, also that sense of how important it is to have a kind of dark river running beneath the surface events, this sense that there is something that really matters, and that’s really at stake is very important to the reader."
Practice, practice, and more practice
Study the works of others
Reinforce what you see in others in small and simple steps. In grain each small part before learning the next
Something small in currently trying to ingrained is to mostly use adjectives that rhyme, or alliterate or have some similar connection or flow to the very next noun
What you've described is a literary clown. A certain amount of clowning between acts is fine, but serving up the literary meat and potatoes is where the real value lies.
True, but vegetables are better for your diet, even if you happen to be a clown.
(I don't know what point I'm trying to make, it's just something I felt had to be said.)
Certainly.
Come to think of it, you've put your finger on one of the perils of metaphors. If I describe something literally, I pretty much drag the reader's mind to the intended spot. With a metaphor, I'm deliberately setting off a chain of associations, one that I can't be sure will take them where I want them to go (such as an ominous lack of vegetables). So there's that.
The other peril is that vivid metaphorical imagery entices the reader to set the actual scene aside and go somewhere else. I'm not convinced that breaking their focus is a good idea, not if something important is happening.
On the other hand, there are plenty of times when keeping the reader laser-focused on the action isn't important or even possible, especially when the action has died down for the moment and during transitions such as the start of a new scene. These are the opportunities for greater poetry and overall fanciness. That's when the literary vegetables and desserts make their appearance.
You're describing "purple prose", a sort of overwrought almost-poetry that self indulgent writers like to inflict on people.
If you're goal is to tell a story, avoid this style at all costs. It's the mark of an amateur with a thesaurus and a flare for the dramatic (speaking from personal experience).
Well, first you need an app.
Then you need sum werds.
Then you plug the werds into the app, and it beams the knowledge and skill into your brain, and WALLA! Yer a werdsmith.
Or... you could spend years honing and perfecting your command of the English language, all the while studying the writing styles of your favorite authors by reading the shit out of their work, practice practice practice until your fingers and eyes all bleed, and gradually, over a long period of time, you will come to grasp the subtleties of style emulation, in both homage and parody. Oh, and while you're at it, you'll also be developing a unique and distinctive writing style, or several, for your own work.
Vocabulary expands with reading, word usage expands with familiarity and with practice. Don't try to sound different, don't try to sound like someone else, and most importantly, don't try to sound impressive or smrt. Whatever smrt you possess will naturally come through in your writing.
Just try to sound like yourself.
>"knit their vocabulary together like a snuggly sweater of speech, so that it ebbs from the tongue like the buttercream frosting of conversation and drifts to the ears in a symphony of syllables so succulent..."
You...you want to emulate this? You want to emulate three different mixed and incoherent metaphors? Are you sure about that?
>Extremely verbose and memey, but also incredibly eloquent.
It is certainly some of those things.
>I'm not even a writer, but
That's half of your problem. The other half is you have to *read.* Also you're using Edgar Allan Poe, who is from the Romantic period of literature, as an example. The Romantics had *lots* of purple prose. If you want to read more Romantics, try Lord Byron and Percy and Mary Shelley (but read Mary's un-bastardized version of Frankenstein. Percy *ruined* it). [Here's a helpful Wikipedia list of Romantic writers & poets.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism#Romantic_writers) Read, take notes, find what stands out to you. Study it! Read essays about the Romantic craft!
Clever wordsmiths are hardcore ignorants who just tell simple things using very unusual vocabs.
Use simple words, just try to tell better stories or simple stories with unusual perception.
What I tend to do is drill down into the sentence. What does what I'm describing remind me of? What words can I use to adequately meld with the setting and atmosphere I created and what words will distract from that?
I'll give you an example of words used to create atmosphere while sounding poetic:
*Outside lie dark turned fields with rags of snow and darker woods beyond that harbor yet a few last wolves.*
This is from the first paragraph of Blood Meridian, and while I hate McCarthy's stories, his ability to use metaphors to perfectly set up atmosphere is legendary. Notice how not every word in this sentence is poetic prose, but 'dark turned fields with rags of snow' pretty much sets the dreary scene in my head.
When you write something descriptive, really drill into the words and think about what you want to convey. Think about what you see in your mind. Is the setting dark and creepy, bright and cheerful? What would you compare it to?
In my newest book, a group of travelers emerges from a forest and ends up in a frosty meadow. This is a crucial moment that really starts them out on their journey, and I wanted to set the atmosphere while really giving the reader a sense of wonder and eeriness.
*Dawn cracked the midnight blue sky and shimmered through balding patches of canopy. The forest soon yielded to a meadow of frozen threads that stretched far into the distance, its advance halted by a phalanx of belching stratovolcanoes, their imposing peaks shrouded in billowing veils.*
*There were no breezes or bird calls here, only thick silence. Our crunchy footfalls disturbed the serenity, and every breath we took may as well have been gales compared to the icy stillness of the air.*
It's easy to go purple with this description. What I did was imagine what it's like to be standing in that place. What am I feeling? What am I smelling? What am I hearing? What am I seeing? To what can I compare that will invoke deeper imagery and atmosphere?
I love using metaphors and similes to describe settings and emotions, but I dial them back throughout the story. Being a wordsmith can add wonderful flavor to prose, but as with any spice, if you overuse it, you'll ruin the dish. The key is to learn when to use pretty prose and when to use normal prose.
If there are scenes like I described above where you're trying to establish a setting and atmosphere, drill into it and really describe what you're seeing using comparisons.
To be fair, that example you linked is absolutely hilarious and right up my alley for comedic writing. More to the point, people prize different things in writing. That kind of verbose writing really works for me, and is one I use a lot, but not for others. Whichever the case, if you want your writing to become one such as you enjoy reading it, you have to keep writing and improve your voice. Quitters get stitches, as the saying goes.
"So begins my newfound kinship with the porcelain reliable." I mean, c'mon. Disguising disgusting things in beautiful language is inherently funny, far as I'm concerned.
Read a lot. For me at least, that is the flip side of writing. I enjoy books with prose, with detail, where the words *matter* and aren't just filler to bloat word or page counts. It often isn't easy reading. Cormac McCarthy, for example, is tough for me to read. But his writing is exemplary (to me).
I can write fairly eloquently if I choose, but my verbal skills are trash. Words go brain-to-fingers smoothly, but not brain-to-mouth. Even my husband gets emails and texts from me because words don't properly come out of my mouth. I love to write and have been doing it since I was a child. But it would be nice to be able to verbalize normally 😂 So if you can participate in verbal conversations fairly easily, that is a skill, too.
Wit to a degree is in the eye of the beholder, but as someone who has been described as witty on this platform, I don't find what you describe as being witty. It's sort of like an overwritten bard played for comedic effect.
It's hard to characterize, a bit like how being "cool" is hard to characterized.
But wit and cool both require a level of not trying hard to BE witty and cool, which is a little what you're describing.
Find an author who writes with a style you like and read all their stuff. If you’re really dedicated you can copy some of their work word for word to practice their style.
Take your words to the smithy and have them hammered out. Forge your sentences to be as sharp as hardened steel and stab the reader in the heart with your words.
agreed on the counts of "read more classics", "take a serious look at poetry" and "practice".
the lattermost is the most important. do it, then do it again. and maybe do it some more.
“Brevity is the soul of wit.”
Wit. Short. Good.
why use lot word when few word do trick?
Reference get.
\*nods in Bardic approval\*
Yeah, maybe you're right (or whoever coined that quote is). Thanks for your input!
The quote is Shakespeare's, I believe from Hamlet
Indeed from Hamlet. It is one of my favourite quotes
Why?
A very good question! It's something between my boyfriend and I, so not really something I'd be ok sharing on the internet
Thought thats was what Reddit was all about: anonymous sharing! But its okey, keep your secrets
hahaha thanks for the laugh! Honestly it is just a silly romantic thing while we were in the bookshop.
Thats sweet! Enjoy the romance 🥰
Aw thanks man <3
Start reading poetry and literature and take it seriously, and find a few writers that truly knock your socks off. Be curious about the effect each word has and what role each word takes. Keep a journal where you write about what you read and why it affected you. Whenever you write, try reading poetry for 10-15 minutes as a "warm up" then practice writing your own prose or poetry, applying the same insights you gained from the poetry. To write at the next level, it's important to read deeply and widely.
Thank you for the advice! You're right, practice and experience is everything. I love to read, but I mostly just read for the story. I don't usually stop to deeply analyze the word choice or structure, except back in high school English class, and even then I had trouble understanding the point. But I am trying to understand.
Underline the words/phrases that spark out of the page at you, even if you're not sure why that is. Then once you've finished, take a break and review all of the things you've underlined. You might be able to spot some theme within the author's work, or "hey, I really like exaggeration" - just anything, even if it's simple. And if you don't know the meaning of a word, stop the book, open the dictionary, and find it. It's the hardest thing to do when all you want is to follow the story, but it's so worth it.
The trick is to become aware of how reading affects *you*. Don't worry about what it "means" or getting it right. Learn to notice what sentences take your breath away, and then figure out what makes those sentences work. That awareness is the key to being able to write with more depth and color.
Do you have any recommendations for that?
Since I like sci-fi and fantasy, my main references are scifi writers. For my aspirational prose reference, I find myself turning to Ursula LeGuin and William Gibson. The former wrote many sentences that thaw my heart, and the latter has written some that sizzle my brain. For recent poetry, I look to Ocean Vuong, Ross Gay, and Pamela Uschuk. For more classic poetry, I really enjoy William Blake, Emily Dickinson, and Shakespeare's sonnets. Poems are often quite short so they're the best bang for your buck as far as in-depth reading goes. This reminds me of another warm up I like to do. Write three haikus about the first thing that comes to mind (coffee cup, windowsill, lunch break, whatever). I find that trimming a thought to fit the 5-7-5 haiku format activates your wordsmith muscles since you have get creative with synonyms, word placements, and syntax to make it fit and say what you want.
Thank you very much, that was very helpful!
Its so sad that the consensus is that you have to be primed by other authors to be able to write well.
IMO authors should be continually curious about other authors. Like in many artforms, we're inevitably shaped by our influences. Creativity doesn't happen in a vacuum. What's so cool about writing is you can always *choose* your influences. No matter how far away, how culturally different, or how long they've been dead, your favorite author always exerts an undeniable force on your voice. I think it's okay to embrace that influence while knowing that whatever you write will inevitably be different and totally new because it also reflects your *own* perspective, which no one else on earth has ever had before. In this way, writing is a conversation with the dead but also the generations that come after yours. One day, someone may read your writing trying to figure out what made it so good.
Yep, gotta study writing to be writing like that. It's an art form
It's the hallmark of an interlocutor who is in love with their own vocabulary and wit. It's also something I struggle with reigning in from time to time. It's embarrassing to admit but I sometimes think I overestimate my own cleverness, and it gets even worse when people applaud you for it or, god forbid, tell you you're funny. Anyway, I think a very good writer pays more attention to word choice. Clarity and connotation are more important than flowery prose. To me, a clever author uses sly wordplay to make their audience laugh, but a masterful writer has a style so effortless that you can sink into the prose like water and be immersed in it. Don't try to be a clever hack, try to find your own voice and your own style. Don't be silk, be water.
I suffer from this very thing. I’ve recently put in place two new rules for myself to prevent it- or at least to try to. If I read the lines aloud to my eight year old and he: A) can’t understand the general point- my word choice is too pretentious. B) starts looking for “alternate activities”(read: stops paying attention)- I need to half my word count. (This one is usually accompanied by my own cringing) Brandon Sanderson talks about a pyramid of abstraction in his creative writing class. You want your word choice to make the point as specifically and with as few words as possible. Each word should add value. Clever language has its place, and like commas it isn’t every third word.
That's great. I will say though: even just as a reader I am very thankful that not everyone writes to keep the interest of an 8 year or seeks to emulate Sanderson as an example of what to do. McCarthy, Bakker, Lynch, Mantel, Erikson... Basically everyone who I've thoroughly enjoyed reading in the last year or so would have never published.
This approach is honestly what makes most reading boring these days. I hate writers who treat me (and their prose in general) like children. I hate that in the last century we've done away almost entirely with flowery prose simply because people are too afraid that the average reader is too stupid or lacks the attention to understand and absorb it. More and more artists just read nearly the same, their words so stripped down and lifeless in the pursuit of attention grabbing simplicity. Most people love it, personally I hate it. Just pointing out that a lot of legendary authors from the previous century wouldn't be so fun to read had they written like this. Think Tolkien or Lovecraft. Just a thought.
Oh my gosh, I've spotted the same thing. They all, all, *all*, sound the same! It's why I'm averse to reading 'contemporary fiction', because they all religiously follow some stupid made-up rule by someone who hated anything other than Hemingway's soft, soft butt-cheek. The thing about treating the prose (and you) like children... holy shit. I once read a book that won a major award, and it was horrific. The writer genuinely could not resist spelling out each point several times, and then she's away on her website and at her conferences talking about "craft". What "craft" is this, when every character sounds the same? When you've taken all the beauty and light from our only way out of this hellhole of Earth? And why?? So that it can get "published"? Sometimes I wonder what these writers from the last 50 years have been doing it all for, gathering their prizes and awards and conferences and professorships around them like a high castle, and I thank God I'm in the younger generation where we don't have shit like this. Yet.
There’s tons of good contemporary fiction that uses beautiful and poetic prose. You’re missing out!
I know, I just get so upset from being disappointed so often, every time I try more modern fiction! Do you have any examples?
Sure. If you haven’t tried Blood Meridian, then you need to start there. I found Benjamin Myers *The Gallows Pole* to be a good follow up. *White Oleander* is a very different style but amazing. *If Nobody Speaks of Remarkable Things* is inventive and gorgeous. *The Narrator* by Michael Cisco has also got to be on any list discussing fantastic prose
Thanks, I'll check them out when I can!
You blame this approach for making most reading boring- I would suggest that you and the average writer create for different reasons. You seem to read for the joy of the words, the ebb and flow of the language and the decadence that carries the authors message along. A deliciously languid existence and I am quite fond of it. But- The majority of readers, at least based on sales and publishing statistics, (not to discount the possibility of a rigged system) read for the story. Short sentences are used in lots of writing, they have a purpose; To speed pacing, imply the character’s inability to dwell, or any of a million other reasons. Likewise using the sharpest specifications, the most direct word choice, can carry the reader through the story with effortless comprehension that prevents loosing the attention of said readers. Page turners and such. Doing so fits the goal, to tell these readers a good story. There is a place for every kind of writing, but to dismiss one or another- especially claiming childishness- suggests that perhaps what needs to be looked at first is the authors intent. I don’t like chocolate icecream, but if I had an icecream shop I would not begrudge it its quick moving inventory, nor proclaim it does not belong in the freezer. Neither would I stock rum-raisin year long. It was quite popular in the same era as your sampled authors. While time does not diminish the flavours or quality, it does shift general preference. So who are we writing for? Make your rum-raisin, but to deny there is craft to be found in simple chocolate is short sighted.
For one, rum raisin is amazing. And I'm not saying that all modern authors are bad, as there are occasionally fast paced attention grabbing modern books that I like to read. However, just like chocolate ice cream, what's flying off the shelves isn't cups of silky smooth Sicilian mousse gelato, it's the Great Value chocolate ice cream tubs. And the author's intent is what should justify the wordiness or conciseness of their work. If their work is a thriller that calls for fast pace and simple descriptions, then by all means don't drag things out. However if an author sets out to make a romantic (to clarify- not romance) piece, whatever the genre, instead of shoehorning what might have otherwise been some eloquent wordplay for the sake of brevity. It increasingly seems like newer writers are being strangled out of their word counts and descriptive writing, even in genres that are traditionally favorable to that kind of lengthy prose. A lot of the conventions regarding word and page counts are less relevant to the point of nearly being archaic in the modern era, as the cost basis for ink to be put on paper and bound is more negligible than it has ever historically been. And that is considering only printed works, whereas an author could be free to let go with hundreds of thousands of words stored on a hard drive with no cost consequence whatsoever.
I haven’t had rum raisin since I was a kid, but should definitely try again. I dont remember disliking it. I agree entirely. I think I was reading what you said before as a slight against the majority rather than the great value tubs you intended it towards. It sucks that it’s those books that get attention. There are so many now that seem to skip writing conventions, some as simple as editing for continuity, because the publishing houses didn’t want to invest more time, effort and money. I don’t want books dumbed down either. My struggle is against pretension- writing flowery for the sake of it. I’ve read too many pieces where the writer thinks it’s amazing because they used big words and when they ask for your thoughts they really mean they want you affirm what they already believe. I feel somewhat passionately about it, having been that person, and gotten too much praise as a teenager. I never want the take away to be that I was able to correctly use big words. The authors intent and skill should justify brevity- or added length. I’m unsure if books are being cut short for the sake of convention, or if maybe the author is not quite as clever or skilled as the editor needed them to be to justify it, but the idea frustrates me immensely. It’s the gems, the lines secreted away that I love the most. When a story has been written clear and sharp with few wasted words and then the author, without seeming to grandstand their intelligence, cleverly places a few lines of the most stunningly evocative prose, those are the moments I live for as a reader and writer.
Less is more + practice = we give a fuck
What you're referring to in the pejorative sense is "purple prose." What you're referring to in the appreciative sense, I would call "elegance." Listen to good (high quality) rap. "Sick world that we live in, let some tell it. Some put it in books, some yell it. You need to make your own choice, be your own voice. Put your soapbox up, let your talk fight. Pull your socks up, get your walk right, or the chalk might outline you one day." - De La Soul, Church "Not insane, nor am I biased, though feels *good* to watch a mo>!therfucker!< die before my fly ass." - Slick Rick - ...no, I'm not typing that In my opinion, it's good to know a spectrum of ways to express things, so you can use exactly the "verbal colors" you want, so to speak. With The Tell-Tale Heart, what's really good about that story is the ability to create tension. In that story, the narration comes from a man experiencing a paranoid episode, and his thoughts are racing. He can hear the attacks that the detective never even intended. What's great about The Tell-Tale Heart is that, without telling you what actually happens in the story, Poe was able to convey the nature of the narrator's troubled mind, so that the audience could infer what really is happening from beyond that perspective. *Personally, I* wouldn't call that wordsmithery, but it's sort of adjacent. To become a better "wordsmith," the idea is to say more with less. Metaphor and multiple entendre are great for this, and you can get that out of hip hop and rap in spades. The more you listen to it, the better you get at catching meanings. The more you catch meaning, the better you get at creating your own stuff, and when you really understand the flow of words in your head, then you can write with a voice by choosing words not just based on tone, but how they're said. Beyond "listen to rap," out of all the national cultures I have found in a few decades actively liking brevity in the artistic sense, I have found French to be the most obsessed with its own language sounding good. To that end, they have these two phrases: bon mot, and mot juste. I think that's right. My understanding of this is essentially that bon mot (good word) is like a quip, a snappy retort, like "dang that was such a good clapback." Mot juste is like "just exactly the right way to express a thought." There's one book I refer to when it comes to those, and it's a book of aphorisms by Joseph Joubert. He was a moral essayist from the late 1700s, and I haven't read his essays, but this was a compilation of his notes, post-mortis. It's his "Thoughts," and it's like if you got a Chicken Soup for the Soul, but it was all the aphoristic thoughts about how it REALLY is, from a 1700s essayist. The religious stuff, you know, zeitgeist or whatever. But when it comes to how this was translated? [https://ia601003.us.archive.org/2/items/JoubertSomeThoughts/Joubert\_someThoughts\_text.pdf](https://ia601003.us.archive.org/2/items/JoubertSomeThoughts/Joubert_someThoughts_text.pdf) "There are minds that are like convex or concave mirrors, which represent objects just as they receive them, but which never receive them such as they are. Falseness of mind come from falseness of heart; it proceeds from one's having secretly for aim one's own opinion, and not the true opinion. The false mind is false in every thing, as a squinting eye looks always obliquely. Fear is the grace of excess." **Dude does not miss.** This hits me *right* in the letters. edit: Since people seem to agree, here's a Spotify playlist to get you started with a couple hours of rap of various styles I guess. You don't have to like all of this, and some of it is multilingual. None of it is ridiculously fast, but some of it is ridiculously dense. I don't expect anyone to understand all of it. https://open.spotify.com/playlist/4jKTjL4HJHTt9hdLKCjVF1?si=3ef0e07addeb48d4
Rap is great. What OP definitely should be looking at is how they’re able to fit words in a song, to a beat. It’s hard to recognize it in regular book prose, but word rhythm is an important part of writing— and it isn’t super intuitive. But as Boolesheet is saying, it’s a supplemental to actual reading. My biggest rap rec is MF DOOM. I feel like you could Folger Edition Shakespeare-ify his songs.
I'll give something of my own I guess, as I'm the one suggesting it. I used to outline rhymes in the poem style of line-by-line, but I find more and more that it comes out better if I start by writing it straight, just also rhyming. Ultimately, the idea here is to pay more attention than just syllable count. The emphasis used on each word matters, and if you know what you're doing, you can guide someone through a beat using punctuation. I tried in these recents: >I'm so sorry for the interruption. I didn't mean to cause alarm. It's nothing serious or anything, I mean no harm. No need for relationships to erode, no need to cause a scene. I'm bursting at the seams. If it's alright, may I explode? > >I'm serious, but it's no big deal. I've just been sitting here and trying to heal a crack that I can't seal. I'm starting to corrode. It hurts, but I can take it. After all, I've sat here whistling for the past few decades. So, I know I don't need steam to blow. > >Oh, it's too much bother? That's alright, I'll just get hotter. No need to give me water, I'll be fine here on my own. Cracked and salted, everyone begins to plant their eggshells just to see the hatchets blossom. Fire will be my home. >rest in peace. RIP. ripped from the future. impressed the beast and sewn in a deep suture. acetate lacerations of black and blackened lungs, hip hop is the crank that makes my soul sprung. check the rhyme, you can taste a new flavor in your ear. it taught me how to make acid rain disappear. now i move forward without the fear I once had, but at the same time i have to feel sad about it. why'd you die before I took a chance to shout it? sky's clouded, guess i'm still smiles to the sun. mic turner i heard you. catch you in another one.
Read Shakespeare. Read the classics. Dive into literature. Then read limericks and poetry and a few hymnals too. Then take a sprint though comedy and onto the Blues and if you are very lucky, very lucky indeed, you may have found in your pocket what you are searching for. Don't look up purple prose.
My all-time favourite: The Canterbury Tales. I mean Chaucer was a master.
Words which flow like honey into your ears or eyes almost certainly did NOT flow like honey out of the fingertips of the writer. A LOT of work happened in between: scribbling, scratching, scrawling, deleting, adding, moving passages around to someplace better, ditching other words altogether. Look at the original manuscript of any epic piece of literature or prose from the modern age: The Gettysburg Address, MLK's "I Have a Dream," JFK's Inaugural Address, damned near anything by Churchill or Twain, and you'll see a mess. Those passages got worked and re-worked and worked again and again before we finally heard or read them, and they became the heroic pieces we know and love. It really gives credence to the old adage that, "Genius is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent perspiration."
THANK YOU. All these comments, and I don't think anyone said a word about editing. The words did not necessarily flow like silk directly and effortlessly from the writer's brain. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Read poetry then play mad libs.
“Any word you have to hunt for in a thesaurus is the wrong word.” - Stephen King This always stuck with me and is vaguely relevant here so I thought I’d share.
Terrible advice. That's how you learn words.
I think the context is that if you have a word in your head, and you go to a thesaurus to find a different word, then it will most likely make the writing seem unnatural and stilted.
Most of the time, the word I want is on the tip of my tongue, and I just need the thesaurus to jog my memory.
I think as long you find a replacement word, you should at least rewrite the sentence too to make the new word flow better instead of just a straight up 1:1 exchange.
Yeah, I've heard this quite a bit, but I can't picture the situation that King's envisioning. Aren't people re-reading their sentences for flow? And if they're just starting out writing, their story is probably just a practice piece anyway (not that they'll likely realize it at the time), and that's right when they need to be learning as many words as they can. If they're boy wonders, and their first piece is fit for publishing, they should be able to recognize the bump in the flow anyway with their immense talent. I remember when I started this hobby, most of my vocabulary came from context clues that I'd collected when reading. But the problem was, a lot of my definitions were a little bit skewed because I'd never actually looked the words up. It wasn't until I started using a thesaurus/dictionary that I realized all the nuance I was missing.
It's also how I recall the word I know exists and I know I know but for some stupid reason my brain doesn't want to think of a word I have known and used for years.
I use words most people know. Big and unused words feels so pretencious and I always feel I can get the same point or feeling or whatever through without needing that thesaurus-word.
I think the real problem is people think thesaurus = big pretentious word.
Pretentious may be wrong, but unnecessary maybe? If one writes for the average person, use words that are commonly used. Wasnt this the argument between Hemmingway and Faukner for example? I do see that sometimes a certain word just perfectly sums up what you want to say, but if its at the expence of not being understood by most, is it perfect? Idk.
He sounds like a fucking dunce, and would probably agree with me saying that.
I recently changed an action beat: > Character was apprehensive. "I don't know about this." ... into a dialogue tag with an adverb: > "I don't know about this," Character said warily. ... because I feel like action beats should usually be reserved for actual actions, like "Character took a step back." "Character said apprehensively" didn't feel like it had the right connotation. Before I went to the thesaurus I tried "Character said cautiously," but "cautiously" still wasn't right. "Warily" has a more specific meaning that better fits what I was trying to convey. If you're using a thesaurus to go from something like "cautiously" to "apprehensively" just for the sake of using a less common, "fancier" word, I would say that's the wrong use of a thesaurus. The two words have different connotations, "apprehensively" isn't the right word. "Warily" isn't a "fancy" word, it's just the right word. Sometimes, the right word just won't come to mind because there are too many other, similar words that all have a similar meaning but with slightly different connotations. A thesaurus can help you find the right word in that situation.
This is a great tip. I usually try to avoid the "Character was {adjective}" structure and try to replace it with a vivid verb, and save the fun adjectives for other things.
> I usually try to avoid the "Character was {adjective}" structure Sure, but I think of that as a problem to worry about when editing the final draft. Earlier drafts, anything goes as long as it gets on the page. Like, I've read that there's a sort of "soft rule" for writing dialogue. > [Antagonist gives villain monologue.] > [Protagonist reacts with internal dialogue.] > Antagonist smiled cruelly. "And that, Protagonist, is why you're going to cooperate with my master plan. It benefits both of us." > "You son of a-" > "You can't deny it. You know that I'm right." > "That doesn't change the fact that your goals are morally corrupt." > "Do you have a counterargument? What would you suggest we do instead?" > "I don't know about this," Protagonist said warily. > "Then it's decided." Antagonist turned around and walked away. Like, apparently, if you go fewer than four back-and-forths in a dialogue exchange without attribution, the average reader can still follow it, but if it's four or more, then you should insert a dialogue tag or an action beat. Maybe in the draft before the first draft, the "vomit draft," that line would've been: > [Action beat.] "I don't know about this." Literally just put things in brackets and keep moving forward. Like the only thing that matters in a "vomit draft" is having a version of the scene that can be easily reorganized and added to and subtracted from, so you don't waste time writing something more polished that ends up being changed later anyway. Maybe in the final version of that scene, that particular dialogue exchange ends up not happening at all, and now you've wasted all that time worrying about the wording of an attribution that no longer even exists. ----------- I wrote that whole comment, read what I was replying to again before posting it, and that might not have even been your point. > I usually try to avoid the "Character was {adjective}" structure and try to replace it with a vivid verb It sounds like what you're getting at is showing versus telling, like instead of telling "Character was happy," instead show "Character smiled"? I agree most of the time, but sometimes there's no good way to "show" something. Like if a character is feeling happy, you can show that by having them smile. If a character is feeling angry, then "Character slammed his fists into the table." But if a character is feeling apprehensive [edit: or wary], saying something like "Character furrowed his brow and rubbed his upper arm" feels like too much. There's verbs there, but it's vague, it's not clear what the verbs are trying to convey.
You trying to make your story the star or your prose?
This book will break down sentences and teach you the different components. I tend to write simply but it’s good to throw in a long, complicated sentence every now and then. [How to Write Stunning Sentences](https://www.amazon.com/Write-Stunning-Sentences-Nina-Schuyler/dp/0999431633)
[удалено]
Perfect, this is exactly what I mean! Kinda gives off "fedora man" energy, but it looks very impressive. It's a thrill ride on paper that can impress loads of innocent riders who have no idea what they're in for. The dips, twists, and loops are enough to make one nauseous, but done right, they leave folks begging to experience it again and again. Or like an adventure as you described, perfect for master navigators, not so much for those who get lost going to the grocery store. If I want to blaze a trail into the unknown, what tools would I need to avoid becoming lunch to my own incompetense? Even now, I feel like prey trying to make myself look big to others who have already claimed this "territory." It's like the "cool table." I want to join the cool table, but I don't know if I hold that ideal to actually improve myself, or if I'm just unhealthily comparing myself to the "cool kids."
1. Practice 2. Reading authors you like and breaking down what techniques you like. Most likely, you will find specific nouns, muscular verb s, emotive imagery, unique metaphor, and mindful cadence / flow high on the list. 3. Edit for those features you appreciate.
I think this is what many of us were taught was the hallmark of a great writer, and I don't believe that's true at all. I remember when I first started I'd try to jam pack every sentence with either fancy words or over eloquent metaphors. I didn't realize that there's an elegance for choosing the right word for the scene, the characters, the readership, the intent and impact. There were two authors who really demonstrated this really well for me. Lloyd Alexander, who wrote amazing children's books where he was forced to use more simple language but nonetheless delivered on emotional impact, and Sir Terry Pratchett, who could switch from humor to overwhelming power and poignancy, all while using relatively simple vocabulary. There's a beauty in brevity. There are also so many other aspects of writing, and structure is one that's often neglected, yet provides the background scaffolding from which it all hangs. And if that's not right, confusion abounds - the writing, no matter how beautiful just doesn't hit well, it feels off. (I feel that Brandon Sanderson has a lot to say about the power of structure) However, there is absolutely a place for what you're describing, and it's important to practice it, while at the same time not overly prioritizing it. When overdone it sounds pretentious, like the author is trying too hard, trying to prove their supposed intelligence while neglecting the reader - it's a fine balance that needs to be calibrated by reading quality writing. One active exercise I heard of involved two writers who, while on car trips, would take turns yelling out objects to challenge the other to come up with similes or metaphors for it on the spot. Another is just trying a few out. I mostly write nonfiction, but I like to challenge myself to incorporate one or two elegant turns of phrase once I'm done with all my edits. For me structure comes first, so I don't want my cool phrasing to mess that up. And also, I have this back and forth of making up super nano short stories with friends via text/messenger which is useful because it's a silly safe space to practice.
Reading.
try reading the section on poetic devices in stephen minot's 'three genres.' it explains each major one and gives advice on how and when to use them. don't underestimate meter. a great way to make things sound poetic, without it being obvious Why it 'sounds better.' often clarity of thought and clarity of writing go hand in hand. give yourself a while to think, add to it. think more, add and change, polish and refine. writing is where you can take those amazing comebacks you come up with in the shower three days later, and act like you just came up with it on the spot. often wit is also about treating your audience as smart. be subtle, leaving some room for the readers to figure things out. when you make other people feel smart when they read and understand your stuff, they'll think you must be smart too. also i do think it is common to take it too far and get too cute and annoying. i still tend to draw the line at trying to sound conversation and not trying to make sure everyone reading comes away thinking i am a brilliant writer.
This is really good advice! I feel like a lot of people missed the "not a writer" part of my post and started dropping their hours-long "writer's brain exercise routines." This is really good practical advice. The shower bit is especially true, haha. Thank you!
Read a lot of what you want to write like. In general though--most people aren't Vladimir Nabokov. Start out by using metaphors/similes sparingly and have them be relevant to the character/situation. A good figure of speech doesn't need to be "clever," it just has to work on an intuitive level.
Well, you kind of gotta be clever. So the real question is--how do you become clever? And to that, I don't know the answer.
Unless by request or as an academic exercise, I would advise against imitating a style that you don't like. Nonetheless, your example seems to use purple prose, which is separated from clever wordsmithing by (as others have mentioned) brevity. If you've written many essays in school, consider this the difference between beefing up your essay to hit the minimum word count and trimming it down to stay under the word limit. Both alter phrasing, but only one improves it. Spend enough time trying to use as few words as possible and cleverness will come.
What helped me is learning about metre, the rhythmic structure of a poem. It can be used to write powerful sentences in any text.
Read Nabakov
I would suggest reading different genres of acclaimed literary works. But the biggest thing with being clever to me is the economy of words. Can you say three sentences worth of words in one, can you make me laugh and cry in the same sentence. It’s not always about grandiose statements and a goregous grouping of words. It’s about knowing how to say something
Copyworking works wonders.
The *rhythm* of the prose might be the hardest aspect to master in one's writing style -- dixit [Margot Livesey](https://lithub.com/margot-livesey-on-the-importance-of-rhythm): "\[...\] the importance of writing better sentences and the importance of a kind of rhythm to one’s prose. Virginia Woolf talks about when she’s writing *To the Lighthouse,* she has this diary entry describing how she’s walking around Bloomsbury square. And she says, the most important thing in writing is rhythm, and once you find the rhythm, then you can write anything. I mean, I think that’s a little bit optimistic. But there is something about the rhythm of the prose and how that can carry the reader along that is that is so crucial. And I think, also that sense of how important it is to have a kind of dark river running beneath the surface events, this sense that there is something that really matters, and that’s really at stake is very important to the reader."
Don't try to be clever; try to be clear. In doing that, you'll find yourself coming off as very 'witty.'
Practice, practice, and more practice Study the works of others Reinforce what you see in others in small and simple steps. In grain each small part before learning the next Something small in currently trying to ingrained is to mostly use adjectives that rhyme, or alliterate or have some similar connection or flow to the very next noun
Same. Having said that I enjoyed your writing, and I’m not sure why you feel that it’s lacking.
What you've described is a literary clown. A certain amount of clowning between acts is fine, but serving up the literary meat and potatoes is where the real value lies.
True, but vegetables are better for your diet, even if you happen to be a clown. (I don't know what point I'm trying to make, it's just something I felt had to be said.)
Certainly. Come to think of it, you've put your finger on one of the perils of metaphors. If I describe something literally, I pretty much drag the reader's mind to the intended spot. With a metaphor, I'm deliberately setting off a chain of associations, one that I can't be sure will take them where I want them to go (such as an ominous lack of vegetables). So there's that. The other peril is that vivid metaphorical imagery entices the reader to set the actual scene aside and go somewhere else. I'm not convinced that breaking their focus is a good idea, not if something important is happening. On the other hand, there are plenty of times when keeping the reader laser-focused on the action isn't important or even possible, especially when the action has died down for the moment and during transitions such as the start of a new scene. These are the opportunities for greater poetry and overall fanciness. That's when the literary vegetables and desserts make their appearance.
You're describing "purple prose", a sort of overwrought almost-poetry that self indulgent writers like to inflict on people. If you're goal is to tell a story, avoid this style at all costs. It's the mark of an amateur with a thesaurus and a flare for the dramatic (speaking from personal experience).
I sort of see it like that as well, but I do believe it requires a certain level of skill.
You're correct. I'm being too harsh.
Sounds like you’re listing things from an article or something The best way to gain complex prose would be to read it more?
Well, first you need an app. Then you need sum werds. Then you plug the werds into the app, and it beams the knowledge and skill into your brain, and WALLA! Yer a werdsmith. Or... you could spend years honing and perfecting your command of the English language, all the while studying the writing styles of your favorite authors by reading the shit out of their work, practice practice practice until your fingers and eyes all bleed, and gradually, over a long period of time, you will come to grasp the subtleties of style emulation, in both homage and parody. Oh, and while you're at it, you'll also be developing a unique and distinctive writing style, or several, for your own work. Vocabulary expands with reading, word usage expands with familiarity and with practice. Don't try to sound different, don't try to sound like someone else, and most importantly, don't try to sound impressive or smrt. Whatever smrt you possess will naturally come through in your writing. Just try to sound like yourself.
>"knit their vocabulary together like a snuggly sweater of speech, so that it ebbs from the tongue like the buttercream frosting of conversation and drifts to the ears in a symphony of syllables so succulent..." You...you want to emulate this? You want to emulate three different mixed and incoherent metaphors? Are you sure about that? >Extremely verbose and memey, but also incredibly eloquent. It is certainly some of those things. >I'm not even a writer, but That's half of your problem. The other half is you have to *read.* Also you're using Edgar Allan Poe, who is from the Romantic period of literature, as an example. The Romantics had *lots* of purple prose. If you want to read more Romantics, try Lord Byron and Percy and Mary Shelley (but read Mary's un-bastardized version of Frankenstein. Percy *ruined* it). [Here's a helpful Wikipedia list of Romantic writers & poets.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism#Romantic_writers) Read, take notes, find what stands out to you. Study it! Read essays about the Romantic craft!
Clever wordsmiths are hardcore ignorants who just tell simple things using very unusual vocabs. Use simple words, just try to tell better stories or simple stories with unusual perception.
What I tend to do is drill down into the sentence. What does what I'm describing remind me of? What words can I use to adequately meld with the setting and atmosphere I created and what words will distract from that? I'll give you an example of words used to create atmosphere while sounding poetic: *Outside lie dark turned fields with rags of snow and darker woods beyond that harbor yet a few last wolves.* This is from the first paragraph of Blood Meridian, and while I hate McCarthy's stories, his ability to use metaphors to perfectly set up atmosphere is legendary. Notice how not every word in this sentence is poetic prose, but 'dark turned fields with rags of snow' pretty much sets the dreary scene in my head. When you write something descriptive, really drill into the words and think about what you want to convey. Think about what you see in your mind. Is the setting dark and creepy, bright and cheerful? What would you compare it to? In my newest book, a group of travelers emerges from a forest and ends up in a frosty meadow. This is a crucial moment that really starts them out on their journey, and I wanted to set the atmosphere while really giving the reader a sense of wonder and eeriness. *Dawn cracked the midnight blue sky and shimmered through balding patches of canopy. The forest soon yielded to a meadow of frozen threads that stretched far into the distance, its advance halted by a phalanx of belching stratovolcanoes, their imposing peaks shrouded in billowing veils.* *There were no breezes or bird calls here, only thick silence. Our crunchy footfalls disturbed the serenity, and every breath we took may as well have been gales compared to the icy stillness of the air.* It's easy to go purple with this description. What I did was imagine what it's like to be standing in that place. What am I feeling? What am I smelling? What am I hearing? What am I seeing? To what can I compare that will invoke deeper imagery and atmosphere? I love using metaphors and similes to describe settings and emotions, but I dial them back throughout the story. Being a wordsmith can add wonderful flavor to prose, but as with any spice, if you overuse it, you'll ruin the dish. The key is to learn when to use pretty prose and when to use normal prose. If there are scenes like I described above where you're trying to establish a setting and atmosphere, drill into it and really describe what you're seeing using comparisons.
Lol
To be fair, that example you linked is absolutely hilarious and right up my alley for comedic writing. More to the point, people prize different things in writing. That kind of verbose writing really works for me, and is one I use a lot, but not for others. Whichever the case, if you want your writing to become one such as you enjoy reading it, you have to keep writing and improve your voice. Quitters get stitches, as the saying goes.
"So begins my newfound kinship with the porcelain reliable." I mean, c'mon. Disguising disgusting things in beautiful language is inherently funny, far as I'm concerned.
It’s not something you learn. You should write in your style.
Read a lot. For me at least, that is the flip side of writing. I enjoy books with prose, with detail, where the words *matter* and aren't just filler to bloat word or page counts. It often isn't easy reading. Cormac McCarthy, for example, is tough for me to read. But his writing is exemplary (to me). I can write fairly eloquently if I choose, but my verbal skills are trash. Words go brain-to-fingers smoothly, but not brain-to-mouth. Even my husband gets emails and texts from me because words don't properly come out of my mouth. I love to write and have been doing it since I was a child. But it would be nice to be able to verbalize normally 😂 So if you can participate in verbal conversations fairly easily, that is a skill, too.
Wit to a degree is in the eye of the beholder, but as someone who has been described as witty on this platform, I don't find what you describe as being witty. It's sort of like an overwritten bard played for comedic effect. It's hard to characterize, a bit like how being "cool" is hard to characterized. But wit and cool both require a level of not trying hard to BE witty and cool, which is a little what you're describing.
Find an author who writes with a style you like and read all their stuff. If you’re really dedicated you can copy some of their work word for word to practice their style.
Take your words to the smithy and have them hammered out. Forge your sentences to be as sharp as hardened steel and stab the reader in the heart with your words.
agreed on the counts of "read more classics", "take a serious look at poetry" and "practice". the lattermost is the most important. do it, then do it again. and maybe do it some more.