The problem is that when it works, it's usually because the description works in tandem with the story.
You see, when this Muir dude described the forest he had a theme and a goal in mind. In writing the Yosemite his entire objective is basically to "describe nature", hence making it less of a story and more of a reference book for anyone who wants to learn on how to incorporate tone and thematic elements into descriptions so as to build an atmosphere.
However, half of these stories with "purple prose" are described as such because their descriptions aren't building anything at all; they're just vomiting adjectives after adjectives and cramming it into simple sentences as much as possible. Most of the time, these authors don't have a set goal in mind on how they're gonna describe the setting; they're just showing off the cool new thesaurus they found.
The reason the term "purpose prose" exist is because some authors get so caught up in trying to infuse "atmosphere" into everything that they forgot if the story truly needed it. Say you're in a common marketplace in a fantasy setting. Chances are, it's not as different as any other marketplace in any fantasy settings. You don't need to spend 5 paragraphs detailing the "soothing whiffs of fresh produce crashing with the hardened stench from the butchers' stalls, infusing into a unique funk one could only find on the wee hours in the Town Hall" if you're just gonna have a few character interactions that will only last as long as a few pages. You're just wasting both your writing time and the readers' time if you're intricately describing places that aren't major to the plot or relevant in the grand scheme of things. A hectic marketplace filled with the sound of heckling customers and stingy peddlers will be sufficient enough.
My point is that most of these authors don't realize that as effective as descriptions go, they can be detrimental to both the reading experience AND the pacing. I've fallen victim to this before myself and am still trying to crawl out of my past mistakes as I'm typing this. The pot may be calling the kettle black but at least this pot knows its black.
Descriptions can work both ways. They could enhance the tone and theme of your story if used correctly. It can also turn your intricate, ultra-detailed and deeply thought out story into a god damn slog to go through.
Books aren't movies or shows. They don't have the advantage of having the merit to being "at least visually appealing". They have to be on point to the author's desired effect with as much dead-weight cut off from it as possible. Anyone with a half-baked knowledge im English and a copy of Harry Potter by their side can come up with descriptive writing. It is those who understand the power descriptions hold that could work it to their stories' strength.
That's a valid point. The writing should be more of a Gestalt where it just works (all of it, as a whole), or it doesn't. If the overly-flowery description goes on for paragraphs at a time yet nothing of note happens and there is no visible point to it, that is obviously a very bad case of "purple". But then again, I almost never see such examples in real life. Only in "examples of how not to write" in author-help sites which are written to be
bad on purpose.
A lot of times, the descriptions are not needed (and we should learn when it is and when it isn't -- a constant struggle!), but the issue is -- that many authors do start relying too much on templates. Especially when their audience hounds them to do it. Everything becomes dismissible generic "description" because no one cares, then a generic "character" because no one would notice anyway, then a generic "plot point" because why not if it works, etc. It's easy to slippery slope into writing the most generic stuff just because that's also the most accessible stuff. But it has its drawbacks.
The drawback of using only templates of "generic descriptions" or none at all is that the setting and the world of the book is likely going to be the most forgettable part of it. It's okay when there are
other parts that are more memorable, of course.
I.e. your point only works for books and authors who CAN substitute the lack of descriptive/immersive prose with something else. Unfortunately, the Venn's diagram of those who rely almost exclusively on lack of descriptions and those who cannot make their book shine in other ways often looks like the same circle.
In my original post, I wasn't talking about true "purple" writing, tbh. But more about a situation when book really is NOT purple prose (I was referencing a book by a friend here on SH that got a "purple criticism" when the author's writing NEVER really goes into purple), but for some reason gets labeled as such. Why? Because some readers have zero patience for anything outside their comfort zone.
And instead of just going somewhere else and reading some other book they consider "non-purple", they would rather go down and whack-a-mole any other type of writing to mold it to fit their demands.
It's getting tiring when people become so entitled, they would flog anything that's not their preferred taste even though they actually might not be the target audience: too beta-cuck MC? Bad review, this book automatically sucks. NTR? 1 star, go to hell, author. You used two adjectives one after the other? How dare you purple-prose us? Bad review, learn to write, pleb!
I can take any kind of style. Purple, pink, workman-like, MFA, pedestrian, generic, flowery, MTL, bad grammar -- as long as there is GOOD content. But if there is no good content, the book better try its hardest to impress me in some other ways! Relying on style and immersiveness can help, because
come on, a LOT of most generic books out there would benefit so much from
at least attempting to immerse their readers. (Not only with descriptions but with lore as well).
The question for me, hence, is what I consider
good content. Usually, it's the themes, the characters, and if the story can support and explore both. I tend to not like stories that have bland characters or no explored themes whatsoever. Thus,
If I can have GOOD content + style = great, wonderful! I will remember the book for the content and will also fall in love with the setting or atmosphere.
If I can have GOOD content + sparse style that works only to highlight other things and not overdo it with descriptions = great, wonderful. I will remember the content even if I might not remember the world that well, but again -- that's not a requirement if the content is
good.
Descriptive and atmospheric prose might be a bad idea when one's book is overloaded with content (I agree there), but when there's not much -- that's the only way it can distinguish itself. "Pink prose" YA books are perfect examples of that. They are EXTREMELY light on content, but at least they can provide some other escapism for their readers in the form of flowery imagery, and thus, succeed.
___________________
Oh, and ditto on unique settings. +_+ Personally, I don't like writing generic fantasy or historical settings and like to spice them up at least a little. Therefore, I NEED to describe them, otherwise most people would not be able to tell what's going on and why with all my different types of flying cities, giant turtle-cities, castles made of refracted rainbows, multi-dimensional spaces, forests that grow randomly, buildings that change rooms at will, and sentient trains that manifest railroads wherever they want -- and all that shit. Also, some of my longer descriptions in one chapter will become useful later when a fighting scene happens in that unique setting -- because I won't have time to describe it then, so I better do it preemptively ^^.
(I.e. if I describe a setting for more than one paragraph that's 99% because I will have a major fight scene there later and want the reader to be able to picture it without being too confused ^^. Writing with purpose =
).
I can bet I'm not the only writer like that, and thus, I appreciate everyone's work on unique settings.
That takes a lot of effort most of which is invisible (not needed in the actual story but necessary to define the limits and rules of a setting nonetheless). So there is a reason Mervyn Peake and China Mieville have cult followings. They do what almost no one else does and so beautifully! *__*
pastebin.com
