Lush and overwritten

[pjthompson]

So, what is the difference for you between lush prose and overwritten prose?

I’m not asking to be a smart aleck or because I have an ax to grind (I don’t), I’m genuinely curious what the breaking point is for any of you who would care to comment.

I know that one person’s lush is another’s overwritten and vice versa, so some of it is a matter of taste, but I’d still like to hear your thoughts on this if you’re willing.

For myself, yeah, I do sometimes hit a wall with some lush prose where I want very badly for the author to tone it down several notches. Usually for me it involves the use of a lot of two dollar words when simpler ones would flow better, but it can also involve a great deal of artery-clogging images piled one on top of another. Still, other people lap that kind of thing up like cream—arteries be damned.

There probably isn’t a consensus. But, please, discuss…

Mirrored from Better Than Dead.

Comments

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Lush prose for me has a pleasing rhythm, and evokes the senses. If there are too many metaphors--if an image has to have two poetical phrases because one just isn't good enough--I tend to begin skimming.

There are certain words that show up too often to interest me, and also adverbs modifying adjectives will cause me to skim.

Words I'm tired of: vulnerable, (especially when it's aching), lyrical, ethereal, haunting, shattered, piercing (unless something is actually being pierced), nuanced.

[pjthompson]

Lush prose for me has a pleasing rhythm, and evokes the senses.

Yes, exactly, that evocation and rhythm. Language that pulls you along toward a goal, or toward understanding, rather than being merely about itself.

I liked your list of overused words, too. I agree with them.

[safewrite.livejournal.com]

"...adverbs modifying adjectives." *twitch*