- Thread starter
- #41
He was obviously contemplating something… he's a deep guy.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Where to look when something's "on the nose"...?
- Thread starter Heliotrope
- Start date
C
Chessie
Guest
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)
Last edited by a moderator:
- Thread starter
- #43
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.
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.
C
Chessie
Guest
No problem. We'd be fine friends irl then because I'm a real gabber.
Demesnedenoir
Myth Weaver
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
Auror
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
Auror
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.
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
Sage
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.
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
Inkling
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
Inkling
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.
Great Brain Freeze poem BTW Helio ... now that I've noticed this thread.
kennyc
Inkling
kennyc
Inkling
Yes! This!
FifthView
Vala
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.)
Code:
[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]
Last edited:
psychotick
Auror
Hi,
So essentially blunt then?! A criticism?! Just sayin!
Cheers, Greg.
So essentially blunt then?! A criticism?! Just sayin!
Cheers, Greg.
FifthView
Vala
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
Auror
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.
Last edited by a moderator:
Incanus
Auror
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
Auror
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.
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.
- Thread starter
- #59
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?
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
Vala
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.
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.
