WHAT WORKS FOR ME AS A READER.
My column Purple Prose—a Bum Rap, posted this month at Romancing the Blog, provoked quite a bit of nice discussion. Whether they agreed or disagreed, I think most of those who commented understood the various points I was trying to make.
In response to my column, Alison Kent said: "I had several [romances] over the past few years in my RITA batches that were nothing but talking heads. I couldn’t see a single thing. Couldn’t smell or taste or hear a single thing beyond the dialogue and the internal thoughts. These books SO did not work for me! It was like reading in a vacuum. Not a thing about the stories compelled me to read them - and I wouldn’t have had they not been assigned!!"
One of my points exactly. I couldn’t agree more about the talking heads. Several different points of view in a novel can and frequently does work for me as a reader. But dialogue-driven books usually don’t—for the very reasons Alison listed. As I explained in my column A Place for Everything, posted last month at Romancing the Blog, when I read a novel, one of the things I want as a reader is to feel as though I’ve somehow been transported into the book’s place setting. That just doesn’t happen for me with pages of nothing but talking heads. Further, to draw me into his/her story, the author has to make not just the place setting, but also everything else come alive for me. Like Alison, I want to see, hear, smell, and taste all aspects of whatever’s taking place in the story.
Larissa Ione said: "I think we’ve just grown so used to instant gratification, more sparsely written, fast-paced books, that anything that’s a little more ‘elaborate and ornate,’ comes across as purple."
Also one of my points exactly. By today's standards, many classic works of fiction would qualify as purple prose---yet, conversely, these are the same books that are invariably pointed to as the greatest novels ever written. Further, as a reader, one of things I don’t need from a novel is instant gratification. What I do need is a good story that completely engrosses me and comes to an appropriate and satisfying conclusion (whether that’s happy or sad). I don’t have any objections per se to sparsely written prose. Some authors I adore are masters of it. The trouble is that the more sparsely written something is, the better and more effective it has to be in all its word choices in order to make anything come alive for me as a reader.
Let me give you some contrasts. Let’s use the sentence "The dog begged for a bone." That’s clean and sparse, yes. But what, exactly, does that tell me as a reader? Well, not much. I don’t know all the things I want to know: what the dog looks like, its gender, why it’s begging for the bone, whether it’s happy or excited, etc. Maybe I’ll get additional information from the story’s context, but then again, maybe I won’t. Changing the sentence to "The flop-earred dog sadly begged for a bone" begins to put me on the right track, perhaps, by giving me a little more information, but again, not much. For all I know, I may going down the wrong path entirely. This dog may be sad merely because it's greedy, already stuffed full of treats, and disappointed at not getting still more, despite all its conniving. But what if we change the sentence to "After fetching his master’s slippers, the flop-earred dog begged for a bone, his sleek red forehead wrinkled with sadness, his dark brown eyes anxious at the thought that, instead, he would receive a sharp word and an even sharper kick, as usual." Well, then, I don’t need any more information from the story’s context to know that: this dog is male; his fur’s not fluffy but sleek; that in addition to floppy ears, he’s got a red forehead and loose skin that’s capable of wrinkling, brown eyes, and that, sadly, despite the fact that he’s clearly intelligent and obedient enough to fetch his master’s slippers, instead of being praised and rewarded, he’s regularly denied treats and abused. As a reader, which sentence made the dog come alive for you? I know which one worked for me. Based on a single sentence, I've already personalized this last poor dog and feel very sorry for him.
Today, in addition to the sparse prose that’s currently the trend, fast-paced action also appears to be de rigueur, as Larissa noted. But just like instant gratification, this, too, is something I don’t require as a reader. If, from its very beginning, a novel straps a crash helmet onto my head, inserts me into a cannon, then launches me from it, rather than the book being filled with enough excitement to keep me turning the pages, I find that just the opposite occurs: I’m frequently left wondering "Who are these characters; why is all this happening to them; and why should I even care?" For me, breakneck pacing invariably steadily loses effect—for the simple reason that there’s no contrast; there are no lulls that make the storms all the more gripping.
All these various points are just some of the things that make novels work or not work for me as a reader. This is just my own opinion as a reader, mind you. Every reader’s taste is different, so what works for me as a reader might not work for you. Variety is indeed the spice of life. So my own personal hope is that the romance genre continues to offer something for everyone, that the so-called Rules don’t begin to dictate one particular style to the exclusion of all others. Because if that happens, then there will be a lot of readers who stop reading romances altogether, simply because their own expectations for a good read are no longer being met.






