What is This I Don't Even

[saellys]

That doesn't mean the sentence itself has any meaning. It could mean that you're reading into the sentence. Reading into a sentence on the scale you did to squeeze some meaning out of it (though I'm not convinced you succeeded) shouldn't be necessary, especially in a modern fantasy novel.

Everybody reads into everything they read, in that everyone has certain associations, the combination of which is completely unique to each of them, which they ascribe to any passage that uses less-than-completely-transparent word choices. The fact that you don't have any associations to ascribe to these passages, and other readers do, does not mean those who do are reading into anything excessively to derive meaning. It means our associations are stronger. A couple people have mentioned a background in Shakespeare and Homer and various other classics, which means those passages had much stronger associations than they did even for me, since I don't have that background.

Every piece of literature means something different to each reader, so why is it so hard to accept that some readers will quickly and easily derive meaning from a particular sentence while others won't?

 

[Mindfire]

Everybody reads into everything they read, in that everyone has certain associations, the combination of which is completely unique to each of them, which they ascribe to any passage that uses less-than-completely-transparent word choices. The fact that you don't have any associations to ascribe to these passages, and other readers do, does not mean those who do are reading into anything excessively to derive meaning. It means our associations are stronger. A couple people have mentioned a background in Shakespeare and Homer and various other classics, which means those passages had much stronger associations than they did even for me, since I don't have that background.

Every piece of literature means something different to each reader, so why is it so hard to accept that some readers will quickly and easily derive meaning from a particular sentence while others won't?

It's not hard to accept per ce, but it is hard to understand why anyone would defend the sequel to Eragon.

 

[saellys]

It's not hard to accept per ce, but it is hard to understand why anyone would defend the sequel to Eragon.

I didn't. I defended the example sentences you posted, without any knowledge of who wrote them. Since this was supposed to be a thread about the trope in general and not Paolini's abuse of it, that seemed like the thing to do.

 

[Mindfire]

I didn't. I defended the example sentences you posted, without any knowledge of who wrote them. Since this was supposed to be a thread about the trope in general and not Paolini's abuse of it, that seemed like the thing to do.

Yes, but I used Paolini because his writing was (or so I thought) an instance where we could all agree the trope had been abused, since his writing is rather infamous for doing just that. I mean, it's okay if you like Eragon. I enjoyed the GI Joe movie. Who am I to judge? But surely you admit it isn't good?

 

[saellys]

I haven't read Eragon, apart from those three examples, each of which are workable.

 

[Mindfire]

I haven't read Eragon, apart from those three examples, each of which are workable.

Maybe you should. It's surprisingly enjoyable with the right mindset. And you'll see how egregious the purple prose gets. (I think he squeezes the word "surreptitiously" in where it doesn't belong at least twenty times.)

 

[tlbodine]

(I think he squeezes the word "surreptitiously" in where it doesn't belong at least twenty times.)

How very sneaky of him *boom tish*

 

[Mindfire]

How very sneaky of him *boom tish*

What an awful play on words. Lol

 

[Shockley]

That doesn't mean the sentence itself has any meaning. It could mean that you're reading into the sentence. Reading into a sentence on the scale you did to squeeze some meaning out of it (though I'm not convinced you succeeded) shouldn't be necessary, especially in a modern fantasy novel.

Good luck reading something and not reading anything into it. That's how the mind tends to work.

Furthermore, I have no intention of defending Paolini - I just think that's a poor example of how bad the work is. This, for example, is a paragraph from Eldest (found with a simple google search, even) that I think was pulled off poorly.

Eragon rose and strapped on Zar'roc and his bow, then bent and lifted Snowfire's saddle. A line of pain sheared through his torso, driving him to the floor, where he writhed, scrabbling at his back. It felt like he was being sawed in half. Saphira growled as the ripping sensation reached her. She tried to soothe him with her own mind but was unable to alleviate his suffering. Her tail instinctually lifted, as if to fight.

 

[Mindfire]

That is pretty bad. While sort of melodramatic, it doesn't feel as bad to me as the ones I quoted. I tend to have a knee-jerk reaction against the purple stuff.

 

[Shockley]

Well, there are some great pure purple writers, too:

Ships did not put unasked into this port, where dusky sorcerers wove awful spells in the murk of sacrificial smoke mounting eternally from blood-stained altars where naked women screamed, and where Set, the Old Serpent, arch-demon of the Hyborians but god of the Stygians, was said to writhe his shining coils among his worshipers.

That's the passage that made me decide to write fantasy, for example.

 

[Graylorne]

But that's not purple prose, Shockley. It's old-fashioned, but every word is in the right place. I wouldn't mind writing a piece like that. I've no problem with dusky sorcerers, but I object to gray-eyed Destiny. That's the difference between the real thing and a wannabe.

 

[Mindfire]

Now see Shockley, THAT passage is poetic. And it has meaning and substance. I got what it was saying on the first try and it said it in a beautiful manner. That is archaic done write. (pun!)

 

[Steerpike]

I think that is right - that is not 'purple' prose, to me, which has the connotation of poorly done or overwrought prose. You can find good examples of highly descriptive writing, and even very dense and descriptive writing, much of which breaks the so-called 'rules' of writing we hear about now. Think of Howard and Leiber, for example. Peake is about as dense and descriptive as you can get, but it's brilliant. None of those authors deal in purple prose, in my view.

 

[Shockley]

If you guys don't consider that purple prose, then that's great and I'm glad that Howard is finally getting some credit. He took a lot of crap for 'purple prose' during his lifetime, which fueled his suicide at thirty.

I'm just saying, we'll view Paolini's writing as different eighty years on.

 

[Steerpike]

I thought he killed himself as part of a suicide pact with his father upon the death of his mother; except his father didn't go through with it. He was a strange person. I really enjoy his writing, though.

 

[Sheilawisz]

I am sorry, but I have locked this thread.

Reasons:

While discussing the works of Fantasy authors is positive for our Community, focusing on how bad some works are supposed to be (which was the original purpose of this thread) is something aggressive and negative to do.

We have to treat the works of authors respectfully when discussing them, and avoid trying to bash any of them.