What would you say if I asked you to name the most glorious colour in history? Purple, of course, is the symbol of nobility, royalty, wealth, splendour, pleasure, exaggeration, ostentation and uniqueness. It is for this very reason that literature has its own term for it: Purple Prose.
It is actually an expression used by the Roman poet Horace in his work “Ars Poetica”. In Latin, it is called “purpureus panna” (purple patch or purple passage) and describes the ornate and extravagant side of the narrative. As is well known, the patch on a dress (whether looks nice or not) is a candidate for being the first thing to attract attention. It has an unusual shape and colour. It is likely to create disharmony.
It was influential in the 19th century, the Classical Period of world literature. It is also abundant in romantic works with emotionally intense descriptions.
So what exactly is this purple prose? The truth lies in the crowded sentences and the abundant use of adjectives, adverbs and metaphors to describe them.
Suppose you're writing about a landscape. The following might be a simple, appropriate and clear way of describing it.
“The sky was full of stars and the peaks of the mountains were rising on the horizon.”
But there is a way to make this sentence more elegant. You could write it like this.
“The sky, like a veil adorned with the golden threads of an army of winged fireflies, flickered with the glittering sparkle of the stars, and the peaks of the mountains on the horizon rose proudly like the pillars of a divine temple opening into eternity.”
It's clearly been restored to its former glory. We have flattered the landscape, but we have also done something else important. We got away from the story itself. It was just about what we saw in the landscape, but we exaggerated it and tried to take it to different points.
There is no need to lie, it may have increased the pleasure of reading, and I am not trying to present an article that denigrates or negates this form. However, it is necessary to recognise that it is a literary tool that can be taken out of context.
Many famous writers like to use this form. Victor Hugo or Charles Dickens are just two of them. In the modern sense, Tolkien and Lovecraft certainly used it a lot.
In my opinion, writers who are more familiar with poetry are much more likely to present such chapters. I attribute this to the emotional weight of the metaphors that tend to emerge in grand narratives. Emotional and romantic narrative seems to me to be a part of writers who adopt the poetic style. If you think I am wrong, I would like to hear your opinion.
Photo by Georgii Eletskikh on Unsplash
Why do authors feel the need to use this kind of literary device? Let us evaluate its positive and negative aspects.
First of all, as I said, it seems to be ideal for adding emotional intensity to whatever the subject of the story is. It is a style that can make the horrible and the grotesque sickening, or the sweet and the cute dazzling.
But it is important to remember that this is not the art of exaggeration. It is the art of drowning in detail and losing sight of the main narrative. On the negative side, it can cause confusion. It can create breaks in the flow of the story and disrupt the plot.
Nevertheless, it has to be said that it has a literary aesthetic. I think the most important thing is to use it appropriately and consistently. At the beginning, such an introduction can be effective. It can enliven the narrative in the section where a character finally reveals his feelings and thoughts. This is why it is called a “patch” or “passage”. If it interferes with the whole, it can become chaotic, like an abstract salad. A reader would not prefer that.
Another negative aspect that comes to mind, of course, is that it would expose the work (especially when overused) to criticism*.* Stories are meant to convey real or fictional events. If the author keeps turning the narrative round and round, we get bored. At that point it becomes nothing more than an unnecessary attempt to make art.
You know that many well-known authors have their own routines and advice. While there are similarities between many of them, we can also learn surprising and unexpected aspects.
One of them was Ernest Hemingway, one of the first writers I think of when I think of writing short and clear. He liked to write short stories, short sentences, and he made many comments in favour of this kind of writing.
But even he, at the end of the day, resorted to this style from time to time. This is because, as we have said, pompous writing does not necessarily affect the whole story. Using it where necessary adds variety and can change the course of the story.
The main thing is to know what to leave out. The way you tell whether you’re going good is by what you can throw away.
Personally, I am not good at this short writing thing. I usually start with a framework that is (in my opinion) short enough. Only at the end do I feel the need to embellish it with descriptions. From the reader's point of view, I also find that reading at length can be boring.
On the other hand, there is nothing more painful for me than to shorten my writing when I am sure it is finished. The word "summarise" is a torture. But Hemingway is right: the hardest and most instructive thing is to cut things out. Afterwards, however, you realise that you (usually) do not feel sorry for the parts you have removed. You feel a sense of relief.
At the end of the day, I'm in no way denigrating ornate language, I'm even in favour of using it where I think it's necessary. Maybe it's not just a literary thing, it's also about a person's character. If I don't hesitate to speak, it usually takes me a while to shut up, I often wander off topic unintentionally, and I don't hesitate (even unconsciously) to drag on. (I know how frustrating this can be at times). Just as it's natural for us to project parts of our emotions into our fictions and characters, isn't it normal for our instinctive behaviour to act in this way and offer a rambling narrative?
Comentarios