Is 'Strong Prose' Always Better? 

He seemed to be reading the comments at least. 😂

Grimacing with the grimmest grimace...

That is more of a wince...

I agree. There seems to be an increasing view that everything must be reductively certain (often at the expense of nuance) and that makes reading an increasingly passive activity, instead of encouraging active engagement and imagination.

He seemed to enjoy the video, despite the occasional grimace that flashed across his face. 😂

Le Guinn comes to mind for a very economical prose in the sci fi I have read of hers. But her writing also really doesn't inspire feelings for her characters who are more of a vehicle for themes she is exploring.

@@EricMcLuen Huh, I've heard the exact opposite, in terms of her characterization anyway.

It all depends on the specific narrative, the desired effect, and the amount of information to be communicated. Being economical and concise simply means using the fewest possible words to convey the desired amount of information AND create the desired effect. I can probably do a video specifically on this. But the modern obsession with stripping literature back to rudimentary language and framing this as good in all contexts seems to be rooted in a misunderstanding of the variety of purposes and styles that literature as a whole can have.

Again, it all depends on the specific context, the style, the atmosphere being evoked, the type of narrative it is, and the action being depicted in the sequence. So below are some general thoughts, but given in a vacuum they are kind of empty of weight because I don't know the specific context. 1. "He was kneeling" is different to "He knelt". The former describes a continuing position, the latter describes a performed action. "He was kneeling when the guards entered the room" is not the same as "He knelt and then the guards entered the room." So they are actually different things, describing different actions and sequences. They are similar, but not the same. So how it is being used is actually really important. But in general, trying to intuit whether or not the sequence needs to be strong, or needs to be declarative, or needs a certain level of ambiguity, or even works better in terms of passivity, is a better guide than applying a rule. The rule is there to help guide when appropriate, not to be applied without consideration of effect, context, and style. For instance, if it is a wistful dream sequence, it could be strange to have that dreamlike quality evoked in strong, definitive descriptions. A more passive approach would place the character at the whims of the dream and be more reflective of the situation. However a nightmare sequence might want to be more evocative. A combat sequence in which the character is fighting through a horde of evil doers would seem strange to be in the passive. 2. It may depend on where the exposition is falling in that establishing a PoV might require more overt signalling to a reader (similar to the use of dialogue tags in that initially they may be helpful, but can be phased out once the dialogue is established, and occasionally reintroduced to ensure that the reader is keeping up). Or, when the actual act of hearing is the thing that is important not what is heard. So what is the emphasis and context of the usage? Is it being used merely to preface the sound that is heard, or is it trying to emphasise the activity of hearing? "She could see men moving in the distance" is emphasising the character performing the act of seeing and therefore is now in possession of that information. But if the fact that men in the distance is the important thing "Men moved in the distance" implies that she saw them, but this is about that information, not the act of seeing. The issue of redundant verbiage (itself should just be 'verbiage' as the redundant is unnecessary and already contained within the term verbiage) is often over simplified to those principles of reduce adverbs, remove 'filler words', reduce adjectives, be direct, and so on... without any consideration of the fact that redundant means unnecessary, and sometimes those things are very necessary depending on what and why something is being communicated, the desired effect to be created, the point of view and character involved, the type of sequence it is, and where it falls in a scene, chapter, or book, the type of narrative, the genre, and so on. Gothic as a style often luxuriates in the richness of language in a way that is often antithetical to those general rules, but if that is removed then that void needs to be filled with something else in order to address the lack. It is all balance and tension. I am not sure if any of this helps, context is so important for all these things, and the specific narrative and style can upend so many different 'rules' and is right to do so.

I am assuming he was looking at the comments on a terrible writing advice video. 😂

McDonald's add - big fluffy purple thing.

He only grimaced when he had to eat Burger King.