So, over at Romance University, we had a little fun with romance cliches for Valentine's Day. In the run-up to the game, we talked about doing bios or other samples in the spirit of what we intended. So this is the one I came up with that was meant to be a self-mocking bio:
Unaware of the effect her hazel eyes were having on the contest entry, her auburn locks floated on the summer breeze. What powerful, strong, throbbing prose, she thought silently to herself. But only one entry could dominate this vixen judge. She stomped her foot for no apparent reason. How dare all these other entries make her read them? Just because she's an editor doesn't mean...mean...mean...something or other.
We didn't use it at RU, so I thought it would be fun to use it here instead as a pop quiz of sorts. What wrong with this paragraph? Some are to do with style, and some with content, but all are things I've seen so often I hope never to see them again. Post your answers in the comments, and let's see if as a group you can catch them all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Hi, Alicia! I can only comment on actual howlers here, as I don't know all the things that are considered wrong with MY style that I wouldn't recognize *(GRIN)*
But we start off here with a misplaced modifier and wandering body parts.
"Unaware of the effect her hazel eyes were having on the contest entry, her auburn locks floated on the summer breeze."
It has to be "she" or "Serita" who is unaware of whatever. As written, the adjective "unaware" followed by prepositional phrase refers to something inanimate--a no-no. A classic howler.
Next, her hair floats on the breeze by itself. Wandering body parts. You could use this phrase, but it has to be in a different context wherein we've already mentioned Serita.
"What powerful, strong, throbbing prose, she thought silently to herself."
One of my personal pet peeves! Never "think to yourself," especially "silently." Either "think out loud" (as one of my bosses loved to announce that he was about to do!) or think it to yourself, in which case you just think it. The adverb "silently" is frowned upon, but I find it useful occasionally. If you were in an intimate POV, you wouldn't even have to say "she thought," but could have her thoughts interspersed and still understood.
"But only one entry could dominate this vixen judge. She stomped her foot for no apparent reason."
I suppose the entry can "dominate" her rather than charm her. (grin) And in romance, people are always stomping (their feet--what else would they stomp, their heads?) for no apparent reason!
"How dare all these other entries make her read them? Just because she's an editor doesn't mean...mean...mean...something or other."
The classic scatterbrained heroine who can't remember what it was she was stomping about!
I look forward to seeing what everyone says about the entry.
Unaware of the effect her hazel eyes were having on the contest entry, her auburn locks floated on the summer breeze. ## Why should auburn locks be sentient enough to be aware of anything? Aside from that, if the locks were able to be aware, but were unaware of the effect of the hazel eyes, then it is head hopping from the auburn locks to omni….
What powerful, strong, throbbing prose, ## Prose doesn’t throb. Incorrect word choice.
she thought silently to herself. ## If she thinks this to herself, it will be silent anyhow. If the thought was silent, then she wouldn’t be aware of it.
But only one entry could dominate this vixen judge. ## I now have a very unfortunate image of a dog fox with a wad of paper in his mouth. Aside from that, very few women would think of themselves as a vixen judge.
She stomped her foot for no apparent reason. ## Apparent to whom? Is this a POV slither? Aside from that, I am beginning to see this character as a very stupid and childish individual. I am losing the ability to care if Stampy is attention seeking or not.
How dare all these other entries make her read them? ## Childish and irrational. She is the judge and could have walked away from the position. And the entries aren’t the ones making her. They are delivered by the contestants.
Just because she's an editor doesn't mean...mean...mean...something or other. ## Given this person’s personality and character flaws, I highly doubt she would ever be in an editor position. This person isn’t impartial, or, it would appear, well-educated, but I don’t know about her auburn locks. Maybe they took in more schooling?
Shouldn't it be 'stamped her foot' instead of 'stomped her foot'? You 'stomp' something else, such as a dropped cigarette.
/houseboatonstyx
The ellipsis has become overused...overused...overused...
Good comments! You are all making excellent points. I do want to point out that "stomp" is a dialectic variant of "stamp," so they're used more or less interchangeable.
And the thing with the hair isn't technically a wandering body part because the breeze can actually make that happen -- it's not like, for example, "her eyes flew to the window." Egad, I hope they stayed in her head. But if you read the sentence to mean that the hair disconnected from her head and floated away, then yes, that might be a problem.
Sometimes we use metaphoric language in ways that result in these issues of wandering body parts. It's not that we can't use a body part as a subject. We can. It's just that we have to be careful to prevent the reader from thinking that those body parts are doing impossible things without any connection to the rest of the body.
Theresa
Pssst! Hang onto that bio or pen a different one because we're having another contest. Would love to have you judge again!
Have a great weekend!
"her eyes flew to the window."
I don't know much about romance conventions, but what strikes me here is a POV jolt.
There's nothing wrong with, for instance, "Ann watched the boy's reaction as she sent his mother away.
The boy kept quiet, but his eyes followed his mother as long as she was in sight." 'His eyes followed' describes the direction of their movement, their focus.
But the problem is, to see the eyes move, you have to be outside the boy's POV. If you're in the boy's POV, then describing the eyes as 'following' is a quick shift to outside POV. From inside, the boy might feel his hands or legs move involuntarily to reach out or to chase, but imo he wouldn't feel or notice his own eyes moving involuntarily, unless they had literally jumped outside his body -- and then he couldn't see them!
"her eyes flew to the window."
I don't know much about romance conventions, but what strikes me here is a POV jolt.
There's nothing wrong with, for instance, "Ann watched the boy's reaction as she sent his mother away.
The boy kept quiet, but his eyes followed his mother as long as she was in sight." 'His eyes followed' describes the direction of their movement, their focus.
But the problem is, to see the eyes move, you have to be outside the boy's POV. If you're in the boy's POV, then describing the eyes as 'following' is a quick shift to outside POV. From inside, the boy might feel his hands or legs move involuntarily to reach out or to chase, but imo he wouldn't feel or notice his own eyes moving involuntarily, unless they had literally jumped outside his body -- and then he couldn't see them!
/houseboat/
Post a Comment