Getting away with metaphor and simile murder!

The "one subsuming the other like those cannibalistic Russian nesting dolls, the parts of them mixed together into a Frankenstein monster of local history" simile strikes me as mixed. It leaps from a double identifier (cannibalistic) and (nesting dolls) to another (Frankenstein monster) and the three seem to me to be inconsistent. I'm not even sure what she's trying to say there. (Edit: I think this one edges right into the purple-writing area)

To some extent, I like the voice but she is trying WAY too hard with her metaphors. Similes tend to leap out at you. I much prefer metaphors and prefer not one every couple of sentences. Saying to avoid them is going too far but like any seasoning, they should be used with care.

Of course, James Joyce could get away with "The sea, the snotgreen sea, the scrotumtightening sea." But the rest of us ain't James Joyce.

randywrite said:

Yep this novel kind of baffles me. I'm 120 pages in and the story is still very very good. I don't want to put it down. But the similes never cease...how can such a great story be littered like this, and yet still be a great story? AND what kind of agent, editor or publisher would let her get away with so much fluff.

Oh well, story's good, I'll give her that.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting question. What makes a story good when you're not crazy about the writing? One is content, and the other is execution, but shouldn't they intertwine? Or can one exist without the other?

Personally I can't get into a story if I'm bogged down by the writing. They go hand in hand for me. I don't like great writing without a good story either. But it may just be me.

If I were an editor, I'd have chopped "like an otter's" from that line, and "what seemed like" from the line about lowering him in (leaving it as "settled with a lonely thump at the bottom of the world"), that's really it.

The Russian nesting dolls/Frankenstein's monster bit seemed strange to me because it took a couple readings to figure out what she was saying, mainly because it seems odd to me that there were that many doctors with the same name in that cemetery. I don't know the book, but the details described in the prologue say pre-1920's to me for some reason, which makes the number feel high for me.

However, to answer some of the criticism of the Frankenstein's monster line, the narrator is discussing corpses, so to me, it flowed perfectly well. The part that bothered me was actually the Russian nesting dolls part of the line.
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

It reads very, very well to me.

Jamesaritchie said:

It reads very, very well to me.

Click to expand...

Me too. I use plenty of similes and metaphors myself, frankly. It's my voice, my style, and that's part of it. I've read some beautiful literary novels--Pulitzer-Prize winning novels--that use plenty of simile and metaphor, too.

I'm not crazy about the "This is the way we write our books" mode, as if novels aren't about stories and expression but are instead some sort of paint-by-numbers kit we all must follow diligently, discounting any sort of personality, or declaring a novel "awful" if the author fails to follow a set of arbitrary rules. The only rule we MUST follow is to be understood. The goal is to make the reader see and feel the story. However that's accomplished is acceptable, IMO, even if it's "fluff," which it isn't if it's helping the reader see and feel the story.

And I honestly dislike the "If this crap got published, I can!" threads; they feel disrespectful to me, and they're tiresome. We all have books we think are bad, or badly written. There's nothing wrong with discussing a piece of writing, either, and/or analyzing it. What bothers me is the "Look at this garbage, I'm so much better than this shit!" sort of glee. I get that you're using it as inspiration here, but not everyone does; in fact it's pretty rare.

Nor do I like the "What stupid agent and editor didn't fix this?" attitude. Everyone has different tastes. Personally I found the excerpt you posted fairly captivating, and loved the voice, so the implication that I'm automatically stupid with bad taste because of that is a bit hurtful. I'm sure that wasn't your actual intention in starting this thread, which is why I'm pointing out what one of the consequences can be; you end up inadvertently hurting other people and being disrespectful to them.

So, yeah, that's my 2p.

What Stacia said.

Yep.

What Old Hack said.

Yep.

Horses for courses and all that. I can't stand minimalist prose with no metaphor and simile...That doesn't make it bad, or that it needed a good edit. It means it's not my cup of tea (though if the story grabs me, I'll read it anyway)

Jamesaritchie said:

It reads very, very well to me.

Click to expand...

Me, too. I like metaphors and similes. They add texture to the story for me.

Linda Adams said:

Me, too. I like metaphors and similes. They add texture to the story for me.

Click to expand...

I love metaphors especially, but I thought similes were overdone in that sample. However, it's one of those YMMV things. It seems to be working for the author.

Devil Ledbetter said:

I love metaphors especially, but I thought similes were overdone in that sample. However, it's one of those YMMV things. It seems to be working for the author.

Click to expand...

That's my thought. I use similes and metaphors and love them if they're great. I just thought -- as I mentioned in earlier posts -- they were overdone and a bit all over the place in this example. NINE similes in 1 page is a bit too much for me.

Just a nit pick, as others have mentioned but not really explained, all that stuff with like is actually simile, not metaphor. Both are examples of figurative language.

I write a 90K first draft with only two or three examples of similes in there, then I go back and add it in, being very careful not to be too repetitive. I want them to really pop for the reader. For my taste, there is too much figurative language in the passage you shared, but there is no simple answer for how much is too much. It depends on the genre and the author's voice.

I liked that opening, maybe even enough to go find that book. The first paragraph is irresistible. Any agent/editor reading that would know they've got a contender, at the very least.

And I agree with Job about metaphors and similes. There are no rules about how many to use (and if there were, who'd enforce them?) It's simply a matter of what works for each book and the narrator's voice.

Devil Ledbetter said:

I love metaphors especially, but I thought similes were overdone in that sample. However, it's one of those YMMV things. It seems to be working for the author.

Click to expand...

YMMV means...?

Stacia Kane said:

Personally I found the excerpt you posted fairly captivating, and loved the voice, so the implication that I'm automatically stupid with bad taste because of that is a bit hurtful.

Click to expand...

You're entitled to like crap. Heck, I like me some silly stuff too, and I don't care a hoot about what other people think of that. People can only insult you if you let them. I got me some pretty strong shoulders by shrugging them so often

Barbara R. said:

YMMV means...?

Click to expand...

Your mileage may vary.

The author is like a writer desperate to display her skills to gain the favor of a librarianesque reader who is like a child ordering ice cream which tastes like a frozen lake of milk hugging a mountain of sugar dominating the ingredients like a heavy weight boxer pummeling an ant-size fighter with ping-pong-shaped biceps and toes curled like the talons of a starving hawk, which is about to pounce on an author who is like . . . .

Barbara R. said:

There are no rules about how many to use (and if there were, who'd enforce them?) It's simply a matter of what works for each book and the narrator's voice.

Click to expand...

Right. And what Stacia said.

Not looking at the whole, "I like/dislike this particular writer's work," which I don't do lightly, but speaking in general;

Precise, careful and intentional writing does not mean sparse realistic writing. Ya don't have ta rake all the figurative language out of yer work. You got yer HP Lovecraft and you got yer Hemingway. Your got yer Faulkner and you got yer Jonathan Swift. Dree your own weird.

Moreover, each character POV carries its own distinct freight of figurative-ness. Some characters are dead literal. Some are artsy-fartsy colorful and imaginative. This is one of the defining parameters of character voice.

It's probably oversimplistic to speak of using a lot of or very little metaphor and simile -- as if all the voices in the manuscript were necessarily figuratived to the same extent.

randywrite said:

It's official: being published doesn't mean you write well ...

But my point is, I've read two novels recently that made me really happy because they were so poorly written, and yet got published, it makes me really start to believe that I can get published.[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

It's never been a secret that bad books and bad writing get published. (This is not a comment on the excerpt of this particular book.) And while I hear where you're coming from, this is really no excuse to believe "if this crap can get published, then surely I can!"

Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way.

I recently read a newly released novel in my genre that had some glaring and painful problems (the writing itself was good, though). I couldn't even finish the book, which is quite rare for me, and I admit I did think -- "How in the world did this debut novelist get away with this stuff? I know that I'd never be able to get away with it!"

Sometimes it's a mystery, I think, of what gets published and what doesn't. But no matter how many bad books you come across, that doesn't mean squat for your chances of getting your own book published. All you can do is make it the best it absolutely can be.

Greeble said:

You're entitled to like crap. Heck, I like me some silly stuff too, and I don't care a hoot about what other people think of that. People can only insult you if you let them. I got me some pretty strong shoulders by shrugging them so often

Click to expand...

I think you might be veering beyond the AW mantra of "respect your fellow writer" by calling this writing crap. Be careful.

Frankly, I think this whole thread is dangerously close to unacceptable. Just because some people don't like one sort of writing doesn't mean that it's ok to sneer at the writing or writers concerned. By all means discuss why metaphor and simile can be difficult to do well, or why you prefer not to use them in your own writing: but don't point fingers and say that the writing under examination is bad JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

Old Hack said:

I think you might be veering beyond the AW mantra of "respect your fellow writer" by calling this writing crap. Be careful.

Frankly, I think this whole thread is dangerously close to unacceptable. Just because some people don't like one sort of writing doesn't mean that it's ok to sneer at the writing or writers concerned. By all means discuss why metaphor and simile can be difficult to do well, or why you prefer not to use them in your own writing: but don't point fingers and say that the writing under examination is bad JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

Click to expand...

I agree and disagree. I think we have the right as readers to critique a piece of writing, as long as we're not saying "it's utter crap" without backing it up with reasons. Critical analysis is important for a writer's life.

That said, if you say "the writer is an idiot for using so many metaphors" then you've crossed the line. But I don't see why it's a problem if we say "I don't like this writing because she overused similes." We're entitled to state our likes or dislikes (and others are entitled to agree or disagree), as long as we do it reasonably without personal attacks. Just because something is published doesn't mean we all will have to say "I like it" or "it's good." The point of this thread, IMO, isn't to say the author is awful or not, but to examine the use of metaphors and similes and why some may find them overused or misused. It's a valid discussion.

maestrowork said:

I agree and disagree. I think we have the right as readers to critique a piece of writing, as long as we're not saying "it's utter crap" without backing it up with reasons. Critical analysis is important for a writer's life.

That said, if you say "the writer is an idiot for using so many metaphors" then you've crossed the line. But I don't see why it's a problem if we say "I don't like this writing because she overused similes." We're entitled to state our likes or dislikes (and others are entitled to agree or disagree), as long as we do it reasonably without personal attacks. Just because something is published doesn't mean we all will have to say "I like it" or "it's good." The point of this thread, IMO, isn't to say the author is awful or not, but to examine the use of metaphors and similes and why some may find them overused or misused. It's a valid discussion.

Click to expand...

Actually, the point of this thread was exactly to say the author was awful; go read the first post again. And Old Hack specifically said it's fine to critique the writing or say why it does/doesn't work for you. What we dislike is the former, not the latter. Of course being published doesn't automatically = good, and of course just because it's published doesn't mean everyone has to love it. All I'd expect is that we refrain from the "Wow, this author sucks because her writing doesn't follow the set standards that exist solely in my head," sort of discussion. Feel free to think it; we all have our personal taste. But to say it here is a bit disrespectful. Criticize the writing, not the writer.

Greeble said:

You're entitled to like crap. Heck, I like me some silly stuff too, and I don't care a hoot about what other people think of that. People can only insult you if you let them. I got me some pretty strong shoulders by shrugging them so often

Click to expand...

Thank you for the personal encouragement, but it wasn't necessary. When I said the implication was hurtful I was speaking in a larger sense of possible consequences, not of myself personally. I'm perfectly capable of telling people to go to hell if they want to tell me what I can or cannot enjoy, and I'm well aware that I'm entitled to like whatever I like. Just clearing that up. But I do appreciate the sentiment.

Agreed. And I have never even implied that "the author sucks." In fact, I repeatedly said I liked her voice, just not the nine similes on one page, and I offered some critical analysis of why I thought some of the similes worked for me, and some didn't. See, writing vs. writer

But yes, folks, please keep from calling each other or people's work "crap."

maestrowork said:

Agreed. And I have never even implied that "the author sucks." In fact, I repeatedly said I liked her voice, just not the nine similes on one page, and I offered some critical analysis of why I thought some of the similes worked, and some didn't. See, writing vs. writer

Click to expand...

I didn't say you personally had; I read your posts, they were fine. I just feel that this thread seemed to be aimed in that direction, and I dislike it.