Big no no's?

Denerick

I like to dabble in a little writing for my personal amusement. What are the big no-no's of writing? Long drawn out monologues? excessive internal dialogue? Banal introspection? Ludicrous narrative parpagraphs detailing every inch of social and cultural context? excessive description?

My favourite kinds of novels deal with ideas in a strictly personal setting; people like Sinclair Lewis and Aldous Huxley excell at this, but I also notice that they're guilty of some of the excesses mentioned above. In your experience, whats the best equilibrium?

miec

I think it all depends on how those things are done. The thing is some readers like excessive monologues and navel gazing, as for me it largely bores me, but I have come across writers who do it in an expert manner. I think if it is your style then go for it but I personally think what is a hit with all good writing in a fictional sense is the story, you need a story because that is what compels the reader to carry on. Two examples I can give of where it worked in one novel and didn't in another (by the same author) is Annie Dunne and the Sacred Scripture by Sebastian Barry. The first has a lot of excessive monologues, introspection and nature scenes that go on for pages, it was pretty boring and the story underneath it was weighed down by the above but his later book the Sacred Scripture combined the story with the above in excellent balance, I personally believe that every word has to have a purpose or function, whether that is a psychological insight to the character or place, poetic, such as the imagery adding to the tone and mood of the story or it furthers the plot / story. Having a lot of waffling words just to fill the pages is the biggest turn off as a reader, for example I have just given up on a novel that has pages and pages of scenes on the house etc (it was chosen for a book club and I would never have chosen this myself). Another excellent writer who combines story with introspection/ nature is John McGahern, amongst many others.

PurpleBee

Over simplification of language is generally a huge no no, though Raymond Carver didn't think so. Over elaborate language should be avoided, though Thomas Hardy would disagree. Digressions are fatal unless you happen to think like James Joyce. Avoid excessive introspection, Edgar Allan Poe didn't but then again he didn't worry about finding "equilibrium" in his sentences. Great writers are never great mathematicians.

DarkRaven

The main big no no's that I gathered from running a writing forum this year are:

Excessive exposition (often called infodumping).
Purple prose.
Mary Sues and Garry Stus.
Two dimensional characters.
Derrivatives and clichés.

If I think of more I'll tell you.

bigsmokewriting

You can get away with a lot of things that are traditionally considered 'no no's as long as you do them well. Go with your strengths and interests to figure out personal no-nos rather than generic ones.

miec

Purple prose.
Mary Sues and Garry Stus.

What do they mean?

Teferi

A Mary Sue is basically that character that is too idealised etc.

This explains it better!

seahorse

PurpleBee wrote: »

Great writers are never great mathematicians.

I disagree with this completely. I think great writers (like great composers) are always great mathematicians; they just don't know it.

PurpleBee

Whereas mathematicians are constrained by the unalterable rules within which they work, great writers either disregard the formulaic or subvert it.

I think you're abstracting my comment a little more than I originally intended to include anyone who organises forms relatively, which when posited in such a way, I would tend to agree with.

DarkRaven

miec wrote: »

What do they mean?

Purple prose is another word for overwrought prose. Basically if you fill your prose with big words and use over-descriptive adjectives. It comes across as very pretentious - almost like you've had a thesaurus beside you all along.

Adjectives are your friend, but at the same time don't use too many of them and make sure the ones you use sound natural.

Denerick

DarkRaven wrote: »

Purple prose is another word for overwrought prose. Basically if you fill your prose with big words and use over-descriptive adjectives. It comes across as very pretentious - almost like you've had a thesaurus beside you all along.

Adjectives are your friend, but at the same time don't use too many of them and make sure the ones you use sound natural.

In my dabblings I think I am particularly guilty of this. But then I'm not so sure. I think sometimes that 'grandiose' words are necessary to convey a complex point quickly. And it looks smarter. But again, too many of these words make one look like quite the plonker

Eliot Rosewater

One must separate the two kinds of "big words" writing. The first is where the author uses the big words because that is the best way to convey his meaning accurately. I think a sign of this is if an author uses the big words exactly as their supposed to be used. Simply swapping words in your piece with related words in a thesaurus wont really work. "Big words" makes sense, "large words" less so.

I would put most of your short story into this category Denerick, because you were using "big words" to describe social conventions/standards which are better described accurately.

I would identify "purple prose" as the use of big words where saying it in little words would clearly have been better. As has been said, its usually an attempt by the author to flex their vocabulary and may often be assisted by a thesaurus.

EDIT: An excellent example of the first type would be Earthly Powers by Anthony Burgess. A dictionary is needed at times. This is because of Burgess' intellectuality and the nature of the book. It opens with "It was the afternoon of my eighty-first birthday, and I was in bed with my catamite..." where catamite is "the younger, passive (anal recipient) partner in a relationship between a man and a boy."

EileenG

Denerick wrote: »

In my dabblings I think I am particularly guilty of this. But then I'm not so sure. I think sometimes that 'grandiose' words are necessary to convey a complex point quickly. And it looks smarter. But again, too many of these words make one look like quite the plonker

Read it out loud, preferably to someone else, and see how it sounds. If your reader is interested and following along, you've got a winner. If not, you need to keep the language simpler.

By the way "quite the...." the one of the most misused phrases around. "Quite an actor" means someone who is a good actor. "Quite the actor" means someone who is putting on a show of being an actor.