Who says modern novels can't employ descriptive writing

[ThinkerX]

I think I'd leave it. Whether I know all of the plants or not (I don't), the recitation of them really sets the image and tone of that sentence. Take it out, and you have something completely different. I suspect Wallace spent a lot of time on it.

You are probably right.

I did try to read that book twice, but kept getting lost in the wordage. That happens sometimes.

BWFoster is probably right that the sentence would work better for most people if about two thirds of it was hacked out.

 

[Jabrosky]

I don't particularly like the excerpt quoted in the OP, but descriptive paragraphs do have their place, especially when introducing a character or setting for the first time or creating an atmosphere. That said, it really helps to weave descriptions into the action whenever you can.

The oft-abused phrase "purple prose" doesn't capture the problem with bad descriptions very well. "Amethyst prose", though less alliterative, would work better because it provides an example of description that truly sounds pretentious and merely confuses people. Good description enhances rather than obscures the message one wants to get across.

 

[Philip Overby]

This novel won a Pulitzer right? It must be do something right then. Even if it's not your taste (not directed at anyone particularly), it won awards. So it must be good in someone's book. That's often the problem that I think faces writers in general. Your writing is being judged on how good it is depending on other people's tastes. While some may love 50 Shade of Grey, others hate it. Others must have loved The Pale King. If an editor or panel or whoever gives something an award, then there's obviously a reason for it.

For what it is, I think the excerpt is fine. I can't reasonably critique someone's writing when I haven't been widely published myself. I just find that somehow...funny? If someone else is "on my level" (meaning probably unpublished) then I feel more comfortable finding fault with it. It doesn't mean my opinion is any better than the next person's though.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I get what you're saying Phil & agree for the most part. Obviously the writer is doing something right.

However, a critique is largely a matter of opinion anyway (most grammar rules excluded). So if people can have an opinion towards an author's writing I see no reason why they can't also critique that writing. Just because someone is published or not doesn't mean people stop having valid opinions on their writing style.

 

[Steerpike]

This novel won a Pulitzer right? It must be do something right then.

No. There was no Pulitzer given out this year, as I understand it. This novel was one of three finalists unanimously recommended to the Pulitzer committee. That puts it in rare company, alone, prize or not. I think you're right in that it comes down to tastes. I am hopeful people will remember that when critiquing. I hate to see a new writer who hasn't found her voice yet discouraged because someone who is critiquing can't tell the difference between their subjective opinion and an objective standard of writing. I've seen people tell others the way they write is "wrong" because it is too descriptive. That is incorrect. It may be that the description doesn't work, but that's a separate issue.

The anecdote I like to tell relates to my first fiction sale, back in 2001 or so. I posted it for a critique on a writing forum, and the unanimous decision was that it was way too descriptive and I needed to change it. I re-read the piece again and decided no, it was in the style I was going for, and I was leaving it (and it was very heavy on what you might call 'flowery' language and description). I kept submitting it and lo and behold it was my first sale.

At that time, I'd already been on the editorial board of a journal and done a lot of non-fiction freelancing, so I was confident enough in my writing that I didn't let the critiques sway me. I considered them - the people making comments were, by and large, good writers and it was worth giving thought to their comments - but ultimately I decided changing the story to a more lean prose style would ruin it, and so I stuck with it.

Had I written that same piece at age 19 and been told by everyone that I was doing it wrong and had to change it, who knows...I might have actually believed them. Bad advice (or at least the inability of a critiquer to distinguish his opinion from objective reality) can have a detrimental impact on beginning writers. When critiques go to style, I think it is wise for critiquers to stay away from absolute language. Give the advice, but acknowledge it for what it is.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

That's a good point Steerpike and nicely put.

I agree with everything but with a small caveat. When you ,as the writer, put a piece out to be critiqued you're asking for people's opinions. If you're going to do that you need to realize that sometimes its going to touch on style (whether appropriate or not). Furthermore, people often talk in absolutes when giving opinions. This is especially true when it pertains to their personal perceptions of something.

It's easier (and more valuable in my opinion) for the writer to develop a thick hide than it is to change the way people critique. I'm not saying this isn't worth consideration (it is). It's just opinions though. Throw away those that don't work.

 

[Philip Overby]

I get what you're saying Phil & agree for the most part. Obviously the writer is doing something right.

However, a critique is largely a matter of opinion anyway (most grammar rules excluded). So if people can have an opinion towards an author's writing I see no reason why they can't also critique that writing. Just because someone is published or not doesn't mean people stop having valid opinions on their writing style.

I think you're right in that just because someone is published, doesn't mean it should stop people from critiquing them. However, I think it should be done more of in a review way than a critique way. If that makes sense. Reviews often point out what did and didn't work, where I feel like a critique seems to be suggesting changes. If someone reviews the book, then fine. But critiquing the way someone, who is published, writes seems kind of bizarre to me. Maybe it's just me though.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I think there's a good chance the Pulitzer judges would not have thought much of that initial paragraph if DFW's name wasn't attached to it. (I'd like to see them go a year locked in a room, not exposed to any hype or publicity, reading books that have been stripped of author information, and then pick which ones they liked the most.)

Not that there's anything wrong with DFW's paragraph if that's the sort of thing you like; for me, a little of that goes a long way. I tend to get bored of the lengthy descriptives. Listing twenty grass species doesn't interest or impress me. I don't need that much mood-setting.

This is the main reason why I don't care about other people's opinions of my stylistic choices. I don't go in much for lengthy descriptions (in fact in my exploratory writing there tend to be virtually none; I have to go back in and add some or it's too dry), but I've got no interest in writing to please other people. Plot holes, character inconsistencies, thematic confusion; sure, that's feedback I'm willing to take. I'd never post a piece and ask for comments about whether people thought it was too wordy or too terse. That's style, and my style is mine.

 

[Steerpike]

It's easier (and more valuable in my opinion) for the writer to develop a thick hide than it is to change the way people critique. I'm not saying this isn't worth consideration (it is). It's just opinions though. Throw away those that don't work.

Yes, that is true, and it may be that my concerns are overblown. I have seen, many times, writers (particularly those just beginning) get really down on their own work over critiques presented in this manner. I absolutely agree that writers need a thick skin, however. And you need to develop the ability to stick to your guns in the face of criticism, as well as to realize when a critiquer is right and make a change to your work. If I see a comment presented as an absolute when it really is not (not much is after all) I try to jump in and make the counterpoint, however

 

[Steerpike]

But critiquing the way someone, who is published, writes seems kind of bizarre to me. Maybe it's just me though.

I've read some really, really BAD published books!

 

[Steerpike]

I'd never post a piece and ask for comments about whether people thought it was too wordy or too terse. That's style, and my style is mine.

I agree. And I generally ignore such advice when given because I've already thought through the style I want to use.

 

[J.P. Reedman]

I prefer a descriptive style, and, apparently 'visual imagery' and a feel for the landscape it what I've been told are my writing strong points. I'm not keen on very sparse novels, with short broken sentences throughout. (I read one thrilled recently, that had me in stitches. Something like 'The train went over the cliff. It landed on a ledge. They made to escape. A Nazi jumped out! They shot the Nazi...' I'm being facetious here but it was written in such short sentences in this deliberately 'breathless' way, it was almost comical.)
I think in fantasy, in particular, you can get away with a bit more description; in fact, might even need it to build a complete world. But as other's have said, there is an art to it--it's no good writing paragraphs full of cliche and overblown descriptions.

 

[Saigonnus]

Just because a book has won a pulitzer prize, doesn't mean i'd pick it up and read it... most of those that I have read that won a pulitzer have bored the s%$t out of me truth be told. I think the commitee are bunch of dusty old men and woman who may have a doctorate in literature from Cambridge or Harvard, and may even be authors themselves, but even that doesn't mean they know what good writing is.

"Excrement! That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard! We're not laying pipe! We're talking about poetry. How can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? "I like Byron, I give him a 42 but I can't dance to it!" John Keating in Dead Poet's Society commenting about the "scale" used to rate poetry.

I feel that likely the commitee uses a similar scale or process when "rating" a book.

 

[Steerpike]

Just because a book has won a pulitzer prize, doesn't mean i'd pick it up and read it... most of those that I have read that won a pulitzer have bored the s%$t out of me truth be told. I think the commitee are bunch of dusty old men and woman who may have a doctorate in literature from Cambridge or Harvard, and may even be authors themselves, but even that doesn't mean they know what good writing is.

I think this just underscores how subjective it is. They may think it is good writing and you may not. Neither is wrong, in my view.

 

[Saigonnus]

Precisely... I do wonder though how they judge a book good enough to win the prize. I looked it up and most of the members of the judging commitee are in the NEWS business, whether editors, columnists or CEOs etc... writing for a newspaper is a bit different than a fantasy fiction or science fiction novel. How can they have people like that judge works of fiction or books in general?

 

[Steerpike]

Precisely... I do wonder though how they judge a book good enough to win the prize.

That's a good question. The guy i mentioned who was a member of this group nominating books did a couple of pieces in the New Yorker explaining his thought processes and a bit of how things work. But the actual committee that makes the final determination doesn't divulge much as far as I know.