# Where to look when something's "on the nose"...?



## Heliotrope (Apr 15, 2016)

Ok, I'll make the post.... 

Fifthview brought up "on the nose" a while back and I want to talk about it a bit more. 

Only because I'm wondering how you scribes avoid being "on the nose"? 

Bare with me while I explain this as best I can:

When I think of "on the nose" I think of that glaringly obvious dialogue, the cliche metaphors, the stereotypical scene we've seen a thousand times... 

But what exactly is "on the nose" and how do you avoid it?

I can admit I'm struggling with a few scenes in my current wip because they are too glaringly obvious... The growth of the character needs to be slightly more subtle and graceful and poignant in a not so "this is what is happening... See? See how she is learning from the experience how to be a better person?"

I feel a bit like Bam Bam with my stone hammer. 

Thoughts?

*edit... Omg I have a typo in my title! So embarrassing


----------



## Incanus (Apr 15, 2016)

I'm not certain about it, but I mostly think of 'on the nose' as pertaining to dialogue.  Like having two people responding to each others questions and statements directly and sequentially; systematically even.  As if they were two robots of the same make, simply exchanging info.

But I can see extending the concept to other narration, or to whole scenes as well.  No matter what, it is something to avoid, or at least tone down.

I'm thinking Bam Bam might not make a very good writer.  His potential might be better suited to construction work, or soldiering.  Something along those lines--


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 15, 2016)

Incanus said:


> I'm thinking Bam Bam might not make a very good writer.  His potential might be better suited to construction work, or soldiering.  Something along those lines--[/QUOT
> 
> What exactly are you implying? Lol


----------



## FifthView (Apr 15, 2016)

Didn't Bam Bam become an exotic dancer?


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 15, 2016)

For me, it's really hard to figure out if something is too on the nose without getting a lot of distance from it. I tend to think of them like puns. Sometimes they can make you groan. Other times, they can bring a smile or a cocked eyebrow. 

On the nose isn't always bad. It can be used to just make things clear to the reader, and sometimes you want the audience to groan.

The strategy I use is if I'm not sure, I tend to leave it in. I figure there aren't too many of those things, so it won't prevent an agent or editor from seeing the potential in a story. If the manuscript gets picked up either by agent or editor, I'll have someone to help me decide if that stuff should go or stay.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 15, 2016)

FifthView said:


> Didn't Bam Bam become an exotic dancer?



Ummm... I seemed to have walked into a completely different conversation. I'm walking back out before the innocence of my childhood gets damaged. I refuse to take this to the next logical step and see Pebbles as a pole dancer and-- awww crap too late.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 15, 2016)

Fifthview and his lack of commitment is terribly distracting....


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 15, 2016)

What you are thinking of as on-the-nose is a bit off.

Traditionally, as stated, on-the-nose specifically refers to dialogue and is a nail in the coffin of any screenplay, and frankly, probably most stories in general when looking at traditional publishing. Novels are more able to get away with it because of the volume of writing, and because they aren't 95% dialogue like a screenplay.

And of course, on-the-nose is still allowed to exist anywhere, but it should be kept to a minimum... classic bad example...

Tom says, "You sure look mad, Maggie."

Maggie says, "I am mad, Tom. I can't believe you said that about me."

Tom says, "You deserved it, after what you did to me and Joe."

One typical way to identify on-the-nose is to ask: what is the subtext of what is being said? If there is none, you might be staring at on-the-nose dialogue.

Talking Head syndrome also tends to leap into these situations, as well as info-dumps.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 15, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> But what exactly is "on the nose" and how do you avoid it?
> 
> I can admit I'm struggling with a few scenes in my current wip because they are too glaringly obvious... The growth of the character needs to be slightly more subtle and graceful and poignant in a not so "this is what is happening... See? See how she is learning from the experience how to be a better person?"


Since English is my second language I had to ask my husband what "on the nose" means, cause I've never heard the expression before. He said that it means "on the point" (and now I feel dumb ha).

Anyway, here's my answer to your question, Helio, and I fully expect it to stir disagreement as with everything I say lately BUT:

You're not going to get it right the first time, or the second, maybe the third. Writing books requires us to do an amazingly stupid amount of things ALL AT ONCE, balance is a must. But we learn how to write good characters, good prose, and etc through practice and time. My thought is that avoiding on the nose is not something we want to do. We want to be clear as clear as possible. Using cliches is okay sometimes, but I'm totally in the avoiding cliches at all costs camp.

Personally, I think we struggle in our writing because we're taught that we have to do things a certain way. Helio, you have a literary background. You were trained to think and write in a certain way. SO when you try to apply all of that to your stories, you realize how much harder it is to actually write according to how you were taught. Why? Because English school doesn't  teach writers how to write deep characters with growth, or plot points that make readers jump, etc.

You're struggling  because you're still learning how to apply all the baking elements at once. We learn how to do this by writing and finishing. Then we read a book we like and notice what works for us in that book. We copycat/apply the things we learn to what we write next. And on the cycle goes. 

You can outline and put the character growth into that outline as plot points. So for you that may take some brainstorming prior to writing the outline. For us pantsers, well, more naps is all I can think of. ;D But back to the point, I think you struggle because you're trying to get it perfect and get stuck. It's never going to be perfect. There's no such thing as perfect. Chasing perfection is stopping you dead in your tracks. My suggestion is to stop trying to do things a certain way and just freaking write. Write! And now I'm going to follow my own advice lol.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 15, 2016)

Okay, I had to get this one out there, my brain is being strange today...

On the nose--

Killer: Ah, my most hated and annoying enemy, Detective Columbo. Here to question me again?

Columbo: Yes, you sleazy rich creep who thinks they can get away with murder because they are rich.

Killer: You know me well, and I will get away with it too.

Off the Nose (subtext)--

Killer: Why, if it isn't my favorite detective again. (Good lord this little bugger annoys the snot out of me)

Columbo: Yeah yeah, I just had a few questions you know, not that I mean to bug... I mean if your busy, I could come back another time. Not that important really, just a couple things about your story confusing me. (I'm going to nail you sucker!)

Killer: Of course, of course! I don't have all day, but since you drove all this way, it's fine. (This little twit with a $5 overcoat from the Salvation Army will never catch me.)


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 15, 2016)

Incanus: Yeah, I think about it mostly about dialogue too… but I sort of think of it as well if I see something like a character musing at how small the tip of an iceberg is compared to everything underneath… 

Penpilot, I agree. Distance seems to be the key for me too… which is why I'm writing this post I think. Last night I worked until 11:30… this morning I read what I wrote and wanted to die. 

Dem: Omg, you are hilarious. 

Chesterama: I like your posts  Renegade makes me happy, and anyone who just does their own thing makes me especially happy, and you are absolutely right. I'm struggling not so much with dialogue, but with descriptions. 

Anyway, this is my issue right now. Here is an example: 

_One March Thursday the gypsy’s returned and new masks of rose, gold and periwinkle adorned the faces of Rome. The cold night air *hung thick* with musk and rose. Villagers stumbled through the streets in mottled dress, laughing, collapsing and pulling up, only to collapse again. Throughout the Piazza glass clinked, bottles poured and music rolled down the cobbled stones like spilled beads. Antonia, heavy with her first child, reeled through the patchwork city of ragged tents, clinging to her hardening belly, determined to speak to the Pope. _

OMG! "hung thick" makes me want to throw something. Seriously? How cliche is that? I feel like descriptions and phrasing like that is so over used by now it has become "on the nose."… eye rolling. So obvious you can't help but notice the obviousness of it. 

Then I want to rip everything apart. 

*sigh*


----------



## Chessie (Apr 15, 2016)

I like it. You had me a gypsies.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 15, 2016)

You are my hero. If I wasn't out of thanks I would be thanks-ing you. Instead I will give you a virtual hug


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 15, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Incanus: Yeah, I think about it mostly about dialogue too… but I sort of think of it as well if I see something like a character musing at how small the tip of an iceberg is compared to everything underneath…
> 
> Penpilot, I agree. Distance seems to be the key for me too… which is why I'm writing this post I think. Last night I worked until 11:30… this morning I read what I wrote and wanted to die.
> 
> ...



Cough, gypsies... There think of little errors such as that instead of hung thick... heh heh. 

That said, I agree with hung thick being off, but not necessarily for the reason's you are thinking. First: when reading that my mind snapped to "cold air isn't thick" then "oh, musk and rose" so I think the order of the sentence is off... and thick with musk and rose? hmmm. Perfumes of musk and rose lingered in the chilly night air. That sort of thing might work better unless there is some importance to the phrase hung thick.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 15, 2016)

Wait… what's wrong with "gypsies?"


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 15, 2016)

You've got "the gypsy's returned", not gypsies.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 15, 2016)

Oh. Lol… oh my god. I'm on a role this week for humiliating myself. 

I need to take more naps.

Here I was typing a big long response about how: 

"I know, I know, they were really the Roma people, and Gypsies was a derogatory term because people thought they were from Egypt, but they weren't… and I'm not trying to be politically correct because for the time frame… blah blah blah"….


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 15, 2016)

You're in good company with Garfield for napping. Sadly, I usually feel worse after a nap, LOL.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 15, 2016)

One of the reasons I felt commitment-phobic about inaugurating such a thread:  Beyond the simpler, and common, association of "on the nose" with dialogue, for which quick and easy examples could be created on the spot, good examples for anything like on-the-nose description, exposition, action, plot, would be harder to create and I didn't want to pull in another discussion of something appearing on Amazon (or my Kindle, from Amazon).  I'd said I was thinking about some  reading experiences; I don't want to bash my very hard head into the stomachs of those writers.

I think that on-the-nose dialogue is pretty easy to spot, but that on-the-nose description, etc., isn't necessarily so apparent.  But I've also been thinking that it's not so bad unless it appears throughout the story—or, in large quantities. 

So.  Where to begin?  Helio, I'm going to pull in something you said in that Random Thoughts thread:



Heliotrope said:


> Randomness is the key to off the nose success.



This followed an example of on the nose dialogue.  But I think it's wrong.

Why is on the nose dialogue bad, anyway?  Because the characters are reduced to cardboard cutouts.  They are there only to fulfill some need the author has for dumping info, or to thinly veil the author herself by using different names and pseudo-characters (mouthpieces for the author), or to move a plot along while pretending to "show" a real conversation.

But _real_ characters (Hah! They are all fictional!) have real motivations, real histories that are vast and full of experiences, real desires, real obsessions.  So what may appear "random" to a reader at first, or even to another character, really should flow from within the character that is speaking.  If that Fifthview in your example doesn't answer some question about what he wants for dinner but instead mentions a lamp he bought earlier, this is because something in the buying of that lamp is important to him; his attention is focused on it.  If that Kenny mentions the effect pineapple has on him, before pineapple has been mentioned by anyone else, it's because he has a history with pineapple and pizza always brings up that history; plus, he probably has a ready-made correlation between pineapple and "the human condition and how it relates to technology" that he wants to share.

Ok.  So.  Why is _not_-on-the-nose dialogue a good thing?  Demesnedenoir has already mentioned subtext.  But really, that's included in what I said above.  I.e., people are not flat cardboard cutouts but are _vast_.  Call it multidimensional, complex/complicated, whatever you like.  And using dialogue that is not on the nose allows for that implication of hidden depths, of real people, of peculiar motivations and goals, or subjectivity.

So. When I think about description, plot, exposition, action...in terms of being on-the-nose, I also think about this flatness vs vastness.  At least, the sort of negative reading experience I have from time to time that made me think of "on the nose" in this larger sense could be vaguely characterized as relating to this flatness vs vastness.  But I'm still feeling my way on this, so...


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 15, 2016)

Thank you FV  I'm so happy you joined in! 

Ok, so I want to talk about "on the nose" in terms of plot and exposition, like you. 

I find when I write poetry, I guess because it is shorter, I can be much more direct in my word choice and say things exactly how I feel them and I don't come off "on the nose"…. 

An Example I sent to KennyC (my poet critic) recently: 

*Brain Freeze*

They have my brain
locked in the freezer. 
Wrapped in bloody brown paper, 
resting next to the ground beef 
and mixed corn and peas. 

They will take it out and 
slice it into strips and 
serve it on individual 
plates with salad. 

I will lay here watching. 
Smiling with an apple mouth
and honey glazed eyes, 

starving. 

The message is there, all in the subtext. 

When I try to write a story, I'm missing it. Instead of writing "true" I'm trying to write "pretty"… which I know doesn't work in poetry, so why the hell am I trying to do that in my prose? And what I end up with is crap with the same descriptions and sentences and phrasing that everyone else uses… 

_She turned to face the man… _

_The scent of perfume hung heavy in the air… _

_She tried to breath but the air wouldn't' come_

Ugh! Instead of writing true I'm writing tired cliches… which feel too me "on the nose."… too deliberate. Too exactly what everyone else is writing with no hint of 'truth' to them anymore… does that make sense? 

When I write _figuratively_ I feel like I'm getting closer to truth: 

_Women in silk gowns and feathered wigs twirled with golden gods, falling stars or the sun in rich brocade. And masks. Too close and too bright. Masks that split faces in half. Masks that looked of death and masks that hinted at folly. _

The above feels more "real" to me… 

I know I'm not articulating myself well… 

Can you delve deeper into what you mean about "on the nose" exposition?


----------



## Incanus (Apr 15, 2016)

Hey Helio, I just wanted to point something out in the example you provided.  (If you'll allow me to be a bit off-topic for a moment.)

The way I see it, it is much harder to come up with a nice line like this:  _Throughout the Piazza glass clinked, bottles poured and music rolled down the cobbled stones like spilled beads._

...than it is to remove (or even rephrase) something like 'hung thick'.  (Or to fix "gypsy's", for that matter.)

As long as you're hitting those nice lines from time to time in your first draft, you've got a good thing going (as I think you do!).  Because in the future, you will edit, edit, edit!  Build on that nice material, add more of it, cut back on the mediocre.  Slowly--ever so slowly--the thing starts to take on a nice shine.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 15, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> When I try to write a story, I'm missing it. Instead of writing "true" I'm trying to write "pretty"… which I know doesn't work in poetry, so why the hell am I trying to do that in my prose? And what I end up with is crap with the same descriptions and sentences and phrasing that everyone else uses…
> 
> _She turned to face the man… _
> 
> ...



Ok, I'll have to return to this.  But I want to throw out there something that has flitted across my mind that might also kind of  approach your issue...?

In light of what I already wrote above about on the nose dialogue and characters, consider the narrator as being another character.

So maybe it's something like this:


Author
Narrator-Character
Characters

So. If on the nose dialogue is creating cardboard cutout characters merely to advance some goal of the author, an on the nose narrator might be the same sort of thing.  The exposition (and description within the exposition) is utilitarian; the author's advancing some goal.  In a flat, direct sort of way, a mechanical way. 

BTW, "utilitarian" has been a word popping into my head when I try to wrap my mind around this.

BUT (and following upon what I wrote earlier), a narrator is "vast" also, as a character.

Now, you can see this sort of thing when you clearly have a "storyteller" in a story; remember I once mentioned using bias/opinions to signal that there is a storyteller?  So such a narrator might break into an odd consideration about the merits of English pixies vs Spanish pixies, even if the plot doesn't really require that knowledge be put before the reader.  That's one of those "random" things a character might do in the middle of a conversation.  And this can expand the world, also, or make it more vast by implication.

You can also see this when an intimate 3rd-person approach is used, so that the character almost (but not really) becomes the narrator, as in an example I recently gave elsewhere from GRRM:

There were pine and linden shields to be had for pennies, but Brienne rode past them. She meant to keep the heavy oaken shield Jaime had given her, the one he'd borne himself from Harrenhal to King's Landing. A pine shield had its advantages. It was lighter, and therefore easier to bear, and the soft wood was more like to trap a foeman's axe or sword. But oak gave more protection, if you were strong enough to bear its weight.​
OK, GRRM did not need to go into a drawn-out consideration on the merits of pine shields vs oak shields.  He could have merely written that Brienne passed through a market that included X, Y, Z, and a variety of shields.  But this is on Brienne's mind.  Now, this is a little cheating, because there is in fact a narrator that is not Brienne; but that narrator is stepping back and letting Brienne's vastness pseudo-narrate.



> And masks. Too close and too bright. Masks that split faces in half. Masks that looked of death and masks that hinted at folly.



The above are subjective opinions, observations, bias.  Also, incomplete sentences, and a certain way of "speaking" that implies a peculiar, subjective attention or focus.



> The scent of perfume hung heavy in the air…



This is somewhat utilitarian.  Sure, it might accurately represent a POV character's experience.  But it's to-the-point, and I even think (relating this to the recent "literary" or "old" voice thread discussion) that sometimes miscellaneous info can be put into exposition merely to show that, "Hey, the POV character has senses" or "Hey, the POV character is experiencing something."  "The POV character is not now walking through a vacuum, an emptiness."  (Maybe I'm dancing around this too much, however.)

Now, obviously an author has information to get out there, an author knows she's going to have to travel from point A to point B to point C, and sometimes a simple, utilitarian insertion works just fine.*  I'd said before that on the nose exposition, description, and so forth are really bad (in my own personal reading experience) when it's all throughout a book or in large quantities.  (And generally, dominant.)

*Edit:  Maybe I should have made clearer, because I want to be clear, that I'm not really pointing a finger at direct statements or direct exposition.  But splitting those hairs will require a little more contemplation.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 15, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> And what I end up with is crap with the same descriptions and sentences and phrasing that everyone else uses…



By the way, off the cuff, maybe this means that you are using _someone else's_ cardboard cutout narrator?

Philosophically...this could go too deep maybe.   We often learn our patterns of speech, habits of communication, from others, or pick those things up without realizing we have.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 15, 2016)

I like deep. I'm at dinner now do I'm being super rude but I have lots of responses on the way...


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 15, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> T
> 
> _She turned to face the man… _
> 
> ...



Since these are the working examples... I think you have 3 different sorts of phrases here, in order: Standard, Cliche, and Ugh. 

I have one problem with #1 (I'll note that at the end) but in general it's a line that nobody needs avoid, Cormac McCarthy I'm sure has said this and variants numerous times, pretty much every writer has (outside of my upcoming point), it's just common language. Long form writers can not avoid standards, there's basically no point in trying. What matters is what comes after that line. They are a bit like he said, she said, we just buzz over them. Now for the potential bad: it could be considered redundant, which I could take issue with... She turned to face him, She faced him, the other part is unnecessary. I think when a person finds themselves in these situations, sometimes it's just best to say things in the most straight forward, concise, simple way. McCarthy is very good about that, amongst of course, many other things.

#2 is a cliche with alliteration to highlight its cliche-ness. This particular example is bad because of cliche and it's vague... hung heavy, alliteration that really means, well, not much. If it's important enough to mention, its important enough for some specificity... although depending on genre and TA, most folks would blow right by it.

#3 I can't even call cliche or tired or over-used, I've never heard it before (to my knowledge, maybe I just don't read the right bad stuff, heh heh) it's just flat clunky. It's a line that is good to have in a first draft because it jumps out and says CHANGE ME! I'd much rather have these obvious lines to change than borderline ones.

Do they constitute on-the-nose in any way? Not to me, since cliche already has a designation, and the other two have identifiable issues. So far to me, I don't really see anything that needs defined as on-the-nose, it sounds like your subconscious identifying problems without clarifying why, heh heh.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 15, 2016)

Incanus said:


> Hey Helio, I just wanted to point something out in the example you provided.  (If you'll allow me to be a bit off-topic for a moment.)
> 
> The way I see it, it is much harder to come up with a nice line like this:  _Throughout the Piazza glass clinked, bottles poured and music rolled down the cobbled stones like spilled beads._
> 
> ...



Thanks Incanus, that is very kind of you. And, you sort of answered my question, actually… so is that what you do? You include the crappy bits and then search and destroy later?


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 15, 2016)

FifthView said:


> This followed an example of on the nose dialogue.  But I think it's wrong.
> 
> Why is on the nose dialogue bad, anyway?  Because the characters are reduced to cardboard cutouts.  They are there only to fulfill some need the author has for dumping info, or to thinly veil the author herself by using different names and pseudo-characters (mouthpieces for the author), or to move a plot along while pretending to "show" a real conversation.
> 
> ...



Yeah, and I think that's what I was getting at with my randomness piece… the fact that everyone is all over the place at the same time, thinking about a thousand different things and being pulled in a thousand different directions. Everyone has their own goals and thoughts and needs… so a conversation at any given time will make no sense and be seen as totally 'random' to a by-stander, while it will make perfect sense within the context of the people having the conversion… Does that make sense? 

So with my example with FifthView and the lamp, I was getting at exactly what you just described… Fifthveiw could care less about dinner, plus he was too commitment-phobic to make a suggestion . He didn't care whether it was sushi or pizza or vegan lasagna… he was dodging the subject while at the same time excited about his recent steal. 

And I'm so glad you picked up on the fact that KennyC mentioned pineapple when pineapple was not previously mentioned! That was exactly it… to a bystander it would be random. Why Pineapple? But within context it would work. 

Which I hope highlights the vastness of the human experience. Everyone is bringing their own experiences to the conversation… 

? Does that make more sense?


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 16, 2016)

FifthView said:


> O
> 
> In light of what I already wrote above about on the nose dialogue and characters, consider the narrator as being another character.
> 
> ...



Ahhhhhhhhh, now _this_ is an important thought I think, and a very valuable piece of information. Yes. I see what you mean. I see the difference between simply moving from point a to point b in a shallow sort of _utilitarian_ way, vs. using that deep POV, even if it a narrator POV. This is where I think I may be having my issues. Pulling out of the story myself… 

Utilitarian feels "on the nose" to me because it is too obvious. What is the point of it even being there if it adds nothing other than filler? To me, an obvious description is the same as an obvious dialogue strand. 

"I hate you because you are mean to me." 

Feels the same as: 

The cold air smelled sweet like roses and musk… (or hung heavy.) 

If there is no opinions, no subtext, no purpose behind the statement, then what is the point?


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 16, 2016)

FifthView said:


> By the way, off the cuff, maybe this means that you are using _someone else's_ cardboard cutout narrator?
> 
> Philosophically...this could go too deep maybe.   We often learn our patterns of speech, habits of communication, from others, or pick those things up without realizing we have.



Again. I like deep. 

Yes, I think you are right. I think I'm picking and choosing instead of letting it come from me. Probably a confidence issue (if you want to get deep.) Other narrators are better than me because what the hell do I think I'm doing trying to write a story anyway?


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 16, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Since these are the working examples... I think you have 3 different sorts of phrases here, in order: Standard, Cliche, and Ugh.
> 
> I have one problem with #1 (I'll note that at the end) but in general it's a line that nobody needs avoid, Cormac McCarthy I'm sure has said this and variants numerous times, pretty much every writer has (outside of my upcoming point), it's just common language. Long form writers can not avoid standards, there's basically no point in trying. What matters is what comes after that line. They are a bit like he said, she said, we just buzz over them. Now for the potential bad: it could be considered redundant, which I could take issue with... She turned to face him, She faced him, the other part is unnecessary. I think when a person finds themselves in these situations, sometimes it's just best to say things in the most straight forward, concise, simple way. McCarthy is very good about that, amongst of course, many other things.
> 
> ...



Thanks Dem  

Yeah,  I may be getting cliche confused with on-the-nose… or maybe I have it clear in my head but it is so figurative that I'm having trouble explaining it… 

Like, when I think of on-the-nose dialogue I think of exactly what you said… it is too obvious. It is exactly what the person is thinking… But people never know exactly what they are thinking!! That's why we pay thousands of dollars to therapists. 

"I hate you because you are mean to me." Never happens in real life. There is no subtext. 

And this is why I think I'm seeing obvious descriptions as on-the-nose… 

_The chair was red_ or _the air hung heavy with rose and musk_… doesn't happen in real life. Do people stand around thinking things like that? "The air hung heavy with rose and musk." 

"The chair was red." Really? Just red? It didn't stir any connections to you at all of all the other hundreds of thousands of red things you have ever seen? Was it fire engine red? How about SnowBirds red? How were you feeling when you saw these red chairs? 

People have pasts, values, goals, experiences… all that junk they carry around with them every minute of every day… every thing we see carries some sort of background or value judgement on it… _That_ is the subtext, I think, in narrative… Only I was having trouble getting it, and now I think I get it… 

_The piazza stunk with the vintage rose perfume used by the nobility to mask the stench of their sin. Nauseated, Antonia took shallow breaths to keep herself from gagging._

_Macintosh red and shining from fresh lacquer, the chair looked delicious enough to bite into._ (Yes, I have red kitchen chairs, and I'm feeling slightly peckish)… 

Does that make sense? Like there should be some sort of opinion, or human connection attached to it? The chairs aren't just red, they remind the narrator of macintosh apples and how hungry she is. The air didn't just "hang heavy" with perfume, it stunk and the pregnant, pious character had to keep herself from gagging… 

Am I on to it FifthView?

*Edit, which brings be back to my _random_ comment from earlier - 

Chairs = MacIntosh Apples. 

Perfume = Covering Sin 

Random connections that only make sense when shown through the human experience?


----------



## evolution_rex (Apr 16, 2016)

My current WIP has a ton of symbolism and metaphors. I don't think I'll have any way of knowing if it's too on the nose, but it is something I've worried about. I know I want the main character's growth to be noticeable, because it's the main focal point of the story. But I have been afraid that I'm going overboard with describing my character as depressed. 

However, the story is a bit of a puzzle (but not that complicated of a puzzle, I'm hoping), and if you 'solve' the puzzle, you can get the themes of the story. To make it a little difficult, and because I love surrealism and writing down the weird odd visions I have in my head even if they don't make sense, I've placed things that I call 'distraction symbols'. which are little false hints, little uses of creative language or surreal events that might make a reader think it's about one then when it's really another thing. But it also allows the reader to interpret it in their own way, which is something I'd like them to do. My main inspiration for this sort of thing are the Coen Brothers, who are brothers, directors, and writers. Particularly their film Barton Fink, which include many of these sort of symbols. I'm not sure if it's a good idea, but I'm taking the risk on it. I'm hoping that these things sort of even it all out, and make it a head turning but enjoyable experience.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 16, 2016)

Thanks ER... Is this your pizza man story? I've been intregued by it ever since you mentioned it a while back. I love surrealist weird. I'd love to read it when you are finished.  I'm going for a Pan's Lybrinth feel with my wip, but it was feeling so shallow... So utilitarian. So "on the nose"... 

I think now I've figured out where my prose was betraying me...


----------



## Chessie (Apr 16, 2016)

Hi, Helio. I'm not sure that I completely understand the entirety of your problem, but I want to help. Descriptions and dialogue aren't something I think deeply about when I write. Not sure how much I change afterward, but my guess is that it's very little because I'm hella lazy. Imo, dialogue should be prompt, natural, with people avoiding what they really want to say most of the time. Write what comes out naturally. Organic. Don't dwell on every word.

I have a couple of samples from my WIP to share with you. Now, I'm not very descriptive. I like to say what I mean and move on to the next thing that needs saying. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But maybe something in it might help you since a lot of this learning comes from us reading the work of others and seeing what we can absorb. 

T_he trail led to a deeper part of the forest, gradually uphill, and ended in a grassy pasture. Aged remnants of the former silver mine remained. Abandoned cabins, which housed the miners at one point, barely stood upright with caved in roofs and the weathered signs of mother nature. The wooden posts used to hitch horses had more splinters than she could count, and the area had an eerie vibe to it encased by who-the-hell-knows-what’s-out-there wilderness. _

_


Spoiler: excerpt 2



“I’m thinking of turning in,” Una said and yawned. “Pa wants us back early so we’ll break camp after sunrise.”
“Whatever.” Audie made her resentment known with a quick grumble. Pa left for work early and needed a good breakfast before he left. That task kept Ma in the kitchen while she and Una cleaned horse stalls, milked the cow, and harvested eggs from the coop. Why the old man’s hunger meant she had to wake up at an ungodly hour to scoop horseshit fueled her bitterness on the daily.
“Baby.” Una’s response seemed directed at Audie’s unspoken thoughts. She wiped her greasy hands with a rag and picked at her teeth with her finger. “But before I go to bed...you still haven’t told me how your date with Chancy went.”
Audie groaned internally. She’d been kissed for the first time ever but why would she share that with Una? “He’s a bore,” she said, rolling up the fabric of her skirt with the nugget hidden away. “There’s nothing more to be said about it.”
“I thought you liked him.” Una’s teasing tone was more irritating than her smirk and unwelcome questions. “I see how he looks at you. My experience with men has been such that they only get a flicker of desire in their eyes for women that make them feel something.”
Just go to bed already, Audie thought. “Your habits with men rival those of the whores at the saloon hall, too,” she said, fully meaning to sound insulting. 
Una scowled, eyes narrowed with a poisonous tone aching to wound back. “At least men like what they see when I come around. Can’t say there’s much for the eye to linger on with a chest as flat as Ma’s washing board.”


_


----------



## evolution_rex (Apr 16, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Thanks ER... Is this your pizza man story? I've been intregued by it ever since you mentioned it a while back. I love surrealist weird. I'd love to read it when you are finished.  I'm going for a Pan's Lybrinth feel with my wip, but it was feeling so shallow... So utilitarian. So "on the nose"...
> 
> I think now I've figured out where my prose was betraying me...


Once I'm finished with my first draft, I'd love to hear what you have to say about it.

And honestly, I wouldn't get caught up on whether or not it's shallow. Even if it only has tiny hints of something under the surface of the story, people will love it.  Often small amounts of depth are far more effective. Besides, surrealism doesn't need to be complicated. Some of my favorite examples of surrealism are completely abstract works. The only issue I could say is that if there is a twist in your story that you've foreshadowed too often or too obviously. If that's the case, I think it relies on what beta readers think.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 16, 2016)

Hi Chesterama, thanks for posting your samples  

For me, right now, my issue is a personal growing pains issue I think…. developing my style and figuring out _why_ I want to write the things I want to write… and how to write them. 

I don't have an issue with dialogue. That seems to be Ok for me… 

Right now the issue I'm having is with utilitarian descriptions or narrative… struggling with the "so what" of the lines… why are they there? What purpose do they serve? Do they pull any weight? 

When I read your first sample the entire thing is obviously there for a reason. The history is built into the subtext, as well as the way the narrator feels frightened of the surrounding forest. 

I find myself writing stuff, descriptions, that are there because I feel they should be there… but for what purpose? Usually none. Usually they have no subtext. They carry no weight. This might be an editing issue as well, obviously… 

_The sculptor glistened from eyebrow to ankle in a thick blue powder.

“Pardon, SigÃ±or Buonarroti -,” Antonia started, but stopped when the man raised his blue arm toward the raucous in the square. 

“I can't work like this.” He bellowed. “You see me?”  He opened his arms, lowered his blue beard to her face, and widened his eyes. “This is lapis lazuli, Signora. This paint costs more than gold.” *She raised her dark eyes to meet his blue ones.*

“Paint, SeÃ±or? I thought you were a sculptor?” 

“Sculptor. Painter. Candlestick maker. What is it to them? They know nothing.” He spat at Cardinal de Cesena.  “They know figs. Figs. They know nothing.” 

“Figs, Signor?” 
_

It's lines like that that bug me. What is their purpose? None. I can just as well take it out because it doesn't matter. It holds no weight. Do we really need to be told that her dark eyes met his? 

Bah! 

"The air hung heavy with rose and musk"… My writing is full of these terrible random lines that hold no weight. That serve no purpose. That are just description for the sake of description with no voice behind them. It gives the entire thing this very shallow, utilitarian feel that drives me insane. 

So, I'm thinking it's a voice issue, for sure. Just like how dialogue needs to have subtext… not being exactly what the speaking is thinking, I think _narrative_ also needs to have subtext. It needs to be there for a reason. If I'm going to show the masks of carnival, or tell of the smell in the air, I personally feel it needs to carry more weight than just being a simple description… 

Does that make sense?


----------



## Chessie (Apr 16, 2016)

Yes, it does make sense and to which my answer is: then take them out.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 16, 2016)

Helio, I have a lot to say—too much, really.  So I might hop around a little.



Heliotrope said:


> Yeah, and I think that's what I was getting at with my randomness piece… the fact that everyone is all over the place at the same time, thinking about a thousand different things and being pulled in a thousand different directions. Everyone has their own goals and thoughts and needs… so a conversation at any given time will make no sense and be seen as totally 'random' to a by-stander, while it will make perfect sense within the context of the people having the conversion… Does that make sense?



I think it's important to point out that there are different degrees of this.  On one extreme, yes, an outsider or in-story interlocutor might be confronted by apparently random responses that make little sense.  But on another, there might be much more subtle shading, perhaps a sensible but odd turn of phrase that hints at underlying motives or peculiar focus.  I think that in either case, the best use of this will still leave the reader feeling that the speech is not at all random but must spring from some hidden context; so, one might go too far in the "randomness" and end up with something no better than on-the-nose dialogue.

This is a little funny, actually, because if the author goes too far in using randomness, her intention—introducing true randomness in order to make a seemingly not on-the-nose exchange—would become on-the-nose!  I.e., merely utilitarian, the result of an author thinking, "Hmmm.  I need to make these seem like real people.  So I'm going to make the responses of these speakers to each other's speech totally random."



Heliotrope said:


> Again. I like deep.



What I was trying to approach, in my comment about the deeply philosophical question...*Demesnedenoir* addressed rather well.  Language is commonly shared; in fact, our understanding of one another depends on this!  So some ways of speaking are rather standard, basic, and, as D. said, are as unobtrusive as "he said" or "she said."  But then, at the other extreme, clichÃ© is essentially the same.  I'd wager that some readers would float over certain clichÃ©d approaches as easily as everyone floats over "he said"—although not all would.

So, when I have mentioned not being against direct statement or direct exposition, while also mentioning the fact that quantity or degree makes a difference in my enjoyment or lack thereof re: on-the-nose approaches...well, I rarely find a book that doesn't cause a single stumble or irritation while I'm reading it.  I might float over a phrase or two, an occasional paragraph that is rather blunt and to-the-point.  My problem is when that's all there is in the book (or mostly). 

So I'm not sure that obsessing over every phrase in order to make sure _nothing_ is on-the-nose will be helpful.   Normal communication (what we all share) is probably littered with on-the-nose-ish phrasing.  But, importantly, that is not all we do.  If you are trying to get someone's attention, wanting them to focus on you and stop running through whatever's going on in their own mind, you're likely to throw out there something that makes them pause and think, "Huh?"  An odd turn of phrase.  A seemingly (but not really) random observation.  And so forth.

A lot of the online reading I've been doing over the last few days re: "on the nose" has focused on dialogue and action.  It's a fairly common term in the theater and movie industry, and these are two areas that greatly affect those mediums.  They don't have to worry about exposition—at least, not the type of exposition novelists and short story writers use.  During my reading, I came across one site that did mention the importance of avoiding on-the-nose writing in prose, and it included these two examples:

On the nose dialogue (and activity) robs characters of their complexity, bores readers, and signals “amateur” to editors and agents. To wit: 

_Sam knocked on the door, let himself in, crossed the room to one of two leather chairs and sat down. He looked across the desk to his boss. “Good morning. You wanted to see me?”_

 vs.

_There was a knock on the door. Before Turnbull could answer, Sam walked in and sank into one of two leather chairs facing the desk. He ran his fingers through dark hair that had grown considerably since his ouster from Corporate America, then clasped his hands on top of his head. “The furrow in your brow, it’s as deep as anything on June’s face. What’s up?”_​
Which of these examples has nuance and mystery? Which has an inner life, something going on between the lines?​
Now, I could be fine with either of these—for a short span.  But imagine carrying on and on in the one style versus the other?

_Sam knocked on the door, let himself in, crossed the room to one of two leather chairs and sat down. He looked across the desk to his boss. “Good morning. You wanted to see me?”

"Yes, Sam.  There's an anomaly in last quarter's financial report.  Our shipping expenses have raised 75% despite an increase in output of only 5%.  Can you look into that?"  Mr. Lewis shoved a report across the desk toward Sam.

Sam took the report and glanced at its cover, then smiled at his boss.  "Sure thing, boss.  I'll get right on it."  He stood and left the office.

The hallway traffic had thinned; most people were taking their lunch.  He hoped Abigail was still at her cubical.  She could look over the report for him, in no time..._​


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 16, 2016)

I think it really depends on what you mean, which of course is the tricky part with any human discussion, LOL.

I've got a sense of what you are saying, but it's a tricky slope. "The chair was red" does happen in real life, except in present tense, and I might not even really think of the chair or its color at all. What reaches the page is a narrative version of the subtle things that we as humans often don't think of. I may have sat in a red chair yesterday, but in my memoirs it might be a chair so candy-apple red I'd swear they ripped the paint off a Ferrari... This could have the same subtext as a red chair really... eluding to the tastes of the owners, while the Ferrari red could point out the family who owns the chair is really rich, is into cars/ formula racing, or what have you. In addition, it will matter what is around it, context not simply subtext... 

The walls of the library were egg-white, the curtains a drab brown. Every piece of furniture in the room was oak stained golden except where Lord Tannenbaum pointed and told me to sit. The chair was red. 

But really, whatever you want to call it, on-the-nose or whatever, the main thing is being able to identify what you don't like. The real trouble comes when nobody else likes the parts we do like, LOL. 



Heliotrope said:


> Thanks Dem
> 
> Yeah,  I may be getting cliche confused with on-the-nose… or maybe I have it clear in my head but it is so figurative that I'm having trouble explaining it…
> 
> ...


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 16, 2016)

FifthView - Excellent examples. Exactly what I was talking about. That "inner life" piece… 

*sigh* 

Dem - Yeah, I guess it's really finding the balance? For me right now it's finding those key details that serve the story. 

_He ran his fingers through dark hair that had grown considerably since his ouster from Corporate America,_

Serves the story. It says something about the character and his past. The fact that he burst into to room before the other guy could answer… all those descriptions say something about the character. Who he is. Who he was… 

Using details that matter and carry weight… even in your description the "drab" curtains give an opinion. 

I see now, I think, where I was struggling… I was describing without knowing why.. what the purpose was to the descriptions. Every now and again I would nail it with voice… but there were those sections in between that had no direction. 

I think I may understand now what my issue was and why I needed to talk about it so much… 

*PS… for anyone else reading this thread, I hope my total incompetence in there area was helpful for you  I have no problem looking a fool in the name of education.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 16, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> FifthView - Excellent examples. Exactly what I was talking about. That "inner life" piece…



Well...In my haste I might have accidentally included a _Huh?_ moment, since Sam/Bob* went from saying "Good morning" to walking through the hall during lunchtime.....lol.

*Fixed the name confusion.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 16, 2016)

He was obviously contemplating something… he's a deep guy.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 16, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> I see now, I think, where I was struggling… I was describing without knowing why.. what the purpose was to the descriptions. Every now and again I would nail it with voice… but there were those sections in between that had no direction.


Voice takes years to develop. It's good that you're on the lookout for it, but it also sounds like you're trying to forceably bring it about. Is it there? Do I have it? Yea? Yeaaaa? <--- Chillax. Let the words flow. 

Description brings mood to the setting. You want them in the narrative as a way of setting up the story. For example (back to what I know, my story lol), the history of Spriggan Mine is fed to the reader in bits by the character. Slowly, surely, the creepiness factor is raised about the place. At the same time, the relationships between characters escalates and they turn on one another. 

At the same time I'm describing the mine, strange things happening around it which have fed rumors, and also driving story by turning up the heat between characters, the readers are getting STORY. They know something outside the norm lives in that mine but what is it? From the title they can guess what that monster is. But from the first word, descriptions set tone.

Your line about matching gazes...it does say something. It tells me that the characters are connecting, that they're seeing eye to eye on something. Sure, it can be written more powerfully and it sounds like you want to do that. Whenever you sit down to write, think of the mood and theme of your work. Keep those in mind while you write out descriptions and that's how you're able to make them count. I agree with you about hating "filler" scenes or narrative. That shit should count for something. Hopefully this helps.

(man I need to stop talking so much and get to work on my writing lol. procrastination)


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 16, 2016)

No, thank you so much for taking the time away from your work to help me  I really appreciate it so much. I know you understand how it is in the early stages… you are plugging along when all of a sudden you realize… wait… this isn't right. There should be something _more_… what am I doing wrong here? It's like a lightbulb goes off. 

I'm a talker. I usually can't make sense of what's going on in my head until I talk it out, and even then it might take me a few tries to really understand what I'm feeling. So I just really appreciate the time that you, Fifthview, and Dem have invested in me the past few days.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 16, 2016)

No problem. We'd be fine friends irl then because I'm a real gabber.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 16, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Yes, it does make sense and to which my answer is: then take them out.



Ding Ding! That is an excellent answer. I would not call this line utilitarian, I would call it fluff. As is, it just does nothing. 

There is an answer #2, and it comes in the form of a question...

Is this a flag stuck in your prose by your subconscious, or perhaps your muse, saying "should there be something of depth here?" I would treat this line a bit like I treat adverbs... I would ask myself, was this just stuck in by habit, or was it really meant to mean something? If it's habitual, give it the axe... If it was really meant to add some depth, some emotion, then rewrite that sucker and give it that emotion. And I usually always look for the emotional tie in, that's the depth.

So, does her eyes Mean something? Is this a timid girl, totally intimidated by the man, maybe its the first time she's ever had the guts to look him in the eyes... you know, whatever. This sort of move begs for emotion, or the axe. Swing one of them, heh heh.

Now if this sentence were an indicator of who was speaking, then it would become utilitarian, although it could still be made better. Utilitarian lines are necessary, can't do prose without them.


----------



## Miskatonic (Apr 16, 2016)

I've always had a kind of built in radar for that sort of thing, and a lower tolerance for it when it comes to books, film, TV, etc.


----------



## psychotick (Apr 16, 2016)

Hi,

Sorry, I'm possibly going to derail the thread a little here. "On the nose" has two meanings in the comman vernacular as far as I know. The first is as has already been mentioned, a sort of boxing metaphor to indicate that you are exactly on target. Ie you punch somebody on the nose you hit them exactly where you wanted to.

This meaning as far as describing any bit of prose / dialogue would surely imply that you got things exactly right.

However there is a second meaning of the phrase, which is embodied in the question - "isn't that a bit on the nose?" In this case what is being asked is if whatever was said or done was a bit brutal / blunt. A criticism in short.

Now as to the OP I have never heard the phrase used in relation to any aspect of writing. But I would suggest going back to the source, and finding out how exactly the phrase was used and what was meant by it. Did they mean it was bang on? Or did they mean it was brutal and lacking in subtlety?

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Reilith (Apr 16, 2016)

I've read through the first three pages of posts and then had to add my two cents in.  Reading your examples and what you are actually struggling with actually reminds me of how my first attempts at writing were (not that I am any good now, I just have more knowledge and try to apply it better ). What I would recommend is to try and use a synonym thesaurus and use it when you are in you editing stage. First let the words flow, get the point across and then try to fix the odds and embellish later. I find this way of working very good and useful, especially if I am trying to avoid the usual terms/verbs/nouns etc. I type it down how it comes to me(mind that English is not my first language) and when I revise the scene/chapter I do the tweaks I want so it doesn't sound bland/boring/cliche or as you've put it, on the nose. I hope this helps, even a little bit.


----------



## kennyc (Apr 16, 2016)

Chesterama said:


> Since English is my second language I had to ask my husband what "on the nose" means, cause I've never heard the expression before. He said that it means "on the point" (and now I feel dumb ha).
> 
> ....



Well, don't feel bad, I'm an English speaker all my life and while I've heard and used the phrase 'on the nose' I've never heard it used in a negative manner as is being described. I've always heard it being used as a positive description of something that WORKS VERY WELL.

Methinks someone is confused.


----------



## kennyc (Apr 16, 2016)

It may be that this is a screenwriting phrase (I don't do screenwriting)....but really I've never heard it used in this manner.

Great Brain Freeze poem BTW Helio ... now that I've noticed this thread.


----------



## kennyc (Apr 16, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> ....
> 
> But really, whatever you want to call it, on-the-nose or whatever, the main thing is being able to identify what you don't like. The real trouble comes when nobody else likes the parts we do like, LOL.



Yes, truth! (and great examples btw!)
....and I'm out of thanks to give.


----------



## kennyc (Apr 16, 2016)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> Sorry, I'm possibly going to derail the thread a little here. "On the nose" has two meanings in the comman vernacular as far as I know. The first is as has already been mentioned, a sort of boxing metaphor to indicate that you are exactly on target. Ie you punch somebody on the nose you hit them exactly where you wanted to.
> 
> ...



Yes! This!


----------



## FifthView (Apr 18, 2016)

psychotick said:


> However there is a second meaning of the phrase, which is embodied in the question - "isn't that a bit on the nose?" In this case what is being asked is if whatever was said or done was a bit brutal / blunt. A criticism in short.
> 
> Now as to the OP I have never heard the phrase used in relation to any aspect of writing. But I would suggest going back to the source, and finding out how exactly the phrase was used and what was meant by it. Did they mean it was bang on? Or did they mean it was brutal and lacking in subtlety?
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



I recently did a Frasier marathon, watching every episode of the 11 seasons, so the term had been on my mind....lol.

Of course Frasier (and his brother) fancy themselves as literature, music, and art critics, and have a certain way of speaking.  So it's no wonder Frasier will use the phrase during commentary.  Rather than meaning brutal/blunt, the meaning is typically that it is "bang on" but in the way that bang on can be bad.  I.e., no subtlety, nuance, subtext, etc.; or, rather obvious and too "head on the nail."  (But at least one of the examples below is ironic—the one about Gil, who if you don't know is an extremely effeminate coworker always going overboard when describing his relations/effect on women.) 


```
[SIZE=3]Frasier: So?

    Roz: Well, his name is Roger, and we've been kinda goin' out for
         the last couple of weeks.

Frasier: All right, tell us about him.

    Roz: He's very sweet - and he's a garbage man, so go ahead and make
         your jokes.

Frasier: What jokes?  Why does everyone assume I look down on the
         common man?

  Niles: Oh, I've got a good one: So, even in his off time, he's
         taking out the trash.

[I]Roz laughs along with him.[/I]

Frasier: Technically, that's really more about Roz.  Now if I were to
         make a joke about him, which of course I wouldn't, I'd say
         he has a thing for Roz's can.

    Roz: You two finished?

[I]They nod as she gets up.[/I]

    Roz: And don't worry, I won't get dumped.

[I]She turns and goes to the counter.[/I]

  Niles: I'd already passed on that.

Frasier: [B]Yes, it's a bit on the nose.[/B]

[I]They laugh.  FADE OUT.[/I]

—S9 Ep5 “Love Stinks”

_____________


   Roz: Well, that should certainly comfort the woman who called in
         about her paranoia.  Listen, do we have a leading man yet?

Frasier: No.

    Roz: Well, you could do it.

Frasier: Oh don't be silly, Roz.  It is a juicy part, it does call 
         for a strong voice, but believe me, my hands are full.

    Gil: [I][enters][/I] Oh, Frasier, I've had a quick peek at your script
         and I think I'd be perfect as Bull Kragen, the brutish
         gamekeeper.

Frasier: [I][looks at Roz in disbelief][/I] [B]You know Gil, I think that's
         just a bit too on the nose.[/B] [I][Gil agrees][/I] But you know who
         you could play?  Mr. Nigel Fairservice, drummed out of the
         Royal Air Force under mysterious circumstances.

    Roz: [I][to Frasier:][/I] With him playing it, they might not seem so
         mysterious. [I][Frasier hits her][/I]

—S4 Ep18 “Ham Radio”

____________________


Ferguson: Quite right.  However, a well-chosen gift might draw the eye 
          of Mr. Murchie as he considers a replacement for his now-
          vacant seat on the board.

[I]Martin gives Frasier a "not bad" look.[/I]

 Frasier: Well, if it'll make you happy, Ferguson, let's send him a 
          bottle of Chateau Belle Veux.

Ferguson: If I may, sir, I'm overheard Mr. Murchie speak fondly of the 
          family villa in Umbria.  He may consider a wine from that 
          region especially thoughtful.

[I]Martin gives Frasier another look.[/I]

Frasier: [B]It's a little on the nose, but fine.[/B]

—S8 Ep5, “Taking Liberties”

__________________

[Episode is about a creating a radio story on the space program.]


  Roz: Frasier, let's move on, shall we?  OK, let's talk music.

   B.K.: What if we lead off the program with the music from "2001: A 
         Space Odyssey"?

    Roz: Home run, B.K.!

[I]Frasier starts uhm-ing and ah-ing, shaking his head and clenching 
his fists.[/I]

    Roz: What is it, Frasier?

Frasier: Well, it - not to belittle your suggestion, B.K., which I love —
         it's just that particular piece of music, uh, has been a bit, 
         ah, I don't know, a bit... overused.  And it occurs to me that 
         perhaps an equally evocative, but less familiar piece of music 
         might better serve.  Thank you.

     Ed: You mean something like "The Planets" by Holst?

Frasier:[B] Exactly, it's a little less on the nose.[/B]

—S8 Ep16, “Docu Drama”[/SIZE]
```


----------



## psychotick (Apr 18, 2016)

Hi,

So essentially blunt then?! A criticism?! Just sayin!

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 18, 2016)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> So essentially blunt then?! A criticism?! Just sayin!
> 
> Cheers, Greg.



I think, more like unerring precision; the easy route—at least sometimes.

The funny thing about the show Frasier is that he and Niles prided themselves on their precision in everything, but they were often oblivious of subtext and/or had tunnel vision which often led them into trouble.  So Frasier might spot 1000 cases of something being "too on the nose" but couldn't look past the tip of his own nose.  The show's own humor could be on the nose while mocking such faith in precision.


----------



## Incanus (Apr 18, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> … so is that what you do? You include the crappy bits and then search and destroy later?



Sorry to go this far back, but this thread grew quickly and I was out of town (and everything else for that matter) this last weekend.

Just wanted to answer this quick-like:  I don't _intend_ to do it this way--I try to write the best that I can, no matter which draft.  Invariably, when looking it over, I find that many portions just weren't written that well.  That's when I roll up my sleeves and rephrase sentences, and quite often, whole paragraphs.  That said, EVERY one of my stories needs more polishing and improving.  And that is something I do intend to do.


----------



## Incanus (Apr 18, 2016)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> So essentially blunt then?! A criticism?! Just sayin!
> 
> Cheers, Greg.




Maybe I'm missing something, but a novel that was 'all blunt, all the time," would be something to criticize.

Story-arc-wise, and abstractly speaking, I try to establish a sort of story pattern, but then leave out a thing here or there for the reader to complete.  So I might have something that comes across like this:

A - B - _ - D - E - F - _ - H

Once you notice the pattern, the blanks shouldn't be very difficult to fill in.


----------



## psychotick (Apr 18, 2016)

Hi,

Actually bluntness has its place. We all know people in life who are like this. People who seem to have no conception of polite conversation. Who would never use a euphamism or leave something unsaid. And while it can be offensive because of the very brutality of what they say, it can be useful. I had a colleague who was exactly like this and while he was often annoying and rubbed people the wrong way, occasionally he said something that no one else would say which could be useful.

In the same way, bluntness in a book can be refreshing I would guess. No euphamisms, no beating around the bush, no leaving things to the imagination, just going straight to the point. A friend of mine at school - I can't remember how many years ago - used to love war stories by a particular author - can't remember who - Sven sombody I think. I read a bit of one, and that was my impression of his work. He just went straight for the direct, a slice to the jugular, especially when it came to violence. And while that isn't my sort of thing, it obviously works for some.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 18, 2016)

Hi Psychotick, 

We don't' really mean blunt as in "no beating around the bush"… Many authors are wonderful like that. I LOVE Hemmingway for that… and many characters are wonderful because they cut right to the chase. But there is still subtext… …. here is an example of "on the nose" dialogue: 

_“You’re a terrible boyfriend,” Melissa sniffed.

I shrugged. “I know, and I’m sorry. But just think about the horrible example my father set me. He was gone all the time when I was a kid.”

“That doesn’t matter to me. I can’t stand it anymore. I’m breaking up with you.”

My heart fractured. “I understand where you’re coming from. But I still love you.”_

And why is that a bad thing? Because it’s two-dimensional, because it’s obvious, because it’s boring, because it’s unrealistic.

Here is an example of _Good_ dialogue (From Gladiator) 

_Marcus: If only you had been born a man. What a Caesar you would have made.

Lucilla: Father.

Marcus: You would have been strong. I wonder, would you have been just.

Lucilla: I would have been what you taught me to be.

Marcus: Oh. How was your journey?

Lucilla: Long–uncomfortable. Why have I come?

Marcus: I need your help… with your brother.

Lucilla: Of course.

Marcus: He loves you, he always has and… he will need you now, more than ever. Enough of politics. Let us pretend that you are a loving daughter and I a good father.

Lucilla: This is a pleasant fiction, isn’t it?_

Note everything that _isnt'_ said? There is subtext. There is reading between the lines? This feels more real. 

What FifthView and I are trying to address is _on the nose_ narrative: 

On the nose dialogue (and activity) robs characters of their complexity, bores readers, and signals “amateur” to editors and agents. To wit: 

_Sam knocked on the door, let himself in, crossed the room to one of two leather chairs and sat down. He looked across the desk to his boss. “Good morning. You wanted to see me?”_

vs.

_There was a knock on the door. Before Turnbull could answer, Sam walked in and sank into one of two leather chairs facing the desk. He ran his fingers through dark hair that had grown considerably since his ouster from Corporate America, then clasped his hands on top of his head. “The furrow in your brow, it’s as deep as anything on June’s face. What’s up?”_

Which of these examples has nuance and mystery? Which has an inner life, something going on between the lines?

Does that make sense?


----------



## FifthView (Apr 18, 2016)

The use of the word _blunt_ is throwing me off.

On the surface, blunt speech and on-the-nose speech seem to be cases where the speaker speaks her mind directly.

But a) what comes out of the mouth (the _content_), and b) how the speech fits within a conversation seem different.

Earlier, I was thinking about the _A Few Good Men_ diatribe given by Col. Jessup that begins with "You can't handle the truth!"  What follows is a blunt laying out of his mind.  But it's not part of an on-the-nose dialogue. If anything, Jessup is trying to reframe the question he's been given, to make the question about more than what the prosecutors believe it to be.  In the end, it's only a direct communication of part of what's on his mind, and he and his interlocutors are on different wavelengths.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 18, 2016)

After reading through this thread, I'm thinking it's less about bluntness but more about subtly. Though, they can be antonyms of each other. The word subtle is more of how I think of things.

To use an analogy, I'd think of it as flavoring in food, where subtly is less in your face with the flavor.

There are times where you want a flavor to stand out, and other times where you want it to take a back seat. But too much flavor in the wrong recipe, and everything gets ruined.

For example, say your villain is making their entrance. Now the description has them wearing a black cape. 

Villain wearing black, not exactly subtly but it's not too-too much.

Now add they have a handlebar moustache. Even less subtle. 
Add they like to twirl that moustache.
Add they have an evil laugh.
Add them kicking a dog.
Have their name be Lord Evilton, married to Lady Villainess, from the town of Demonspawn.

Each element is an indicator that this is your villain, but with each one added, it becomes less and less subtle and more and more on the nose. It's like OK we get it. The flavor is burning the inside of my mouth.

But depending on type of story, this on the nose description could work. The Fraiser excerpts are great examples of how one can play with being on the nose and have it work.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 18, 2016)

Awesome example PenPilot! Thanks so much for that. It's exactly right.


----------

