posted
Onomatopoeia has always been one of my favourite words. It sounds great! It is also an interesting literary device that I don't think gets used very often (unless you count all the little "Knock, Knock" jokes that get told).
After coming up with the trigger for MikeMunsil's Liberty Hall Flash Challenge #3, I started to think about some of the compelling uses I've seen.
"The Tell-tale Heart", Edgar Allen Poe "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty", James Thurber
And to a lesser extent in the Adam West Batman TV series.
Onomatopoeia can be used in such a way that makes it seem trite. I was impressed by the flash challenge responses and the way they dealt with this and the other literary devices in the trigger (hyperbole and dichotomy). I was also impressed to see people using devices such as similie and metaphor and alegory.
So I guess the point of that is:
How much do you think about literary devices when you sit down to write? Do you think about them ahead of time or just go with the flow?
posted
If I start worrying about using literary devices instead of worrying about telling my story, I'm not going to get very far. If I happen to be writing and I suddenly realize that "hey, this would be a great spot for a little hyperbole," I'll use it. But I don't consciously decided ahead of time that I'm going to use literary deice X at point W in my story. That distracts me from the story itself.
When I'm reading, well, that depends on what I'm reading and why I'm reading it. If it's for school, I'd better be paying attention to literary devices because there's going to be a test on that! If it's for me, I generally don't notice unless they're poorly done or I've read the book more than once. I tend to think that most of them are most effective when they're all but invisible.
posted
I almost never think about literary devices unless I think that I've done something wrong. It's the same thing with word choice or grammar or spelling or characterization or most other things, I don't sit down and think out what I know unless I sense that I didn't get it right.
Sometimes I check a dictionary for a spelling and find out that I got it right already, it's just the font or something that makes it look odd to me. The same thing happens with other elements of the craft. Sometimes I notice something and decide that it works well. Other times I have no idea what I was thinking when I wrote it (or failed to write it, which also happens).
In the end, you have to rely on your instincts and experience as a writer to get the story down. No amount of playing with theory is going to get the story written, that only helps you identify things that you need to fix.
posted
I'm not advanced enough to keep all that in my head while writing, although I do consciously try to write lyrically.
Posts: 2710 | Registered: Jul 2004
|
posted
I think "literary devices" only exist for the purpose of discussion. When I write, I don't think, "hey, this is a great place for a simile!" It's more like, "Umm, what words will effectively plant an image in someone else's mind?". If it turns into a simile, or hyperbole, or assonance, or whatever, that's cool. But "literary devices" are only relevant when you're reading the piece, not writing it.
And literary devices, like a lot of other things, are only effective if they're not overused. It weakens your writing if you try to force them in just because you want to have literary devices in your writing. If it doesn't flow, it doesn't fit.
[This message has been edited by Jeraliey (edited April 20, 2005).]
posted
I KNOW someone will take this the wrong way but, what is the difference between a 'literary device' and a 'literary contrivance'? Aren't they both 'machines' employed by the writer to move the story along? I mean where do you draw the line? Why avoid some and not others? Fashion? What makes it legitimate? For instance a 'flash-back' is a device, as is a tense-shift, a POV shift etc. The only ones I conciously avoid are those I find cheesy; flash-backs, prologues and especially rhyme and alliteration, (I'd rather eat bark). However, aren't all these devices just tools in a writer's toolbox? Use the right tool for the job at the right time and you can do a better job, quicker. Some tools, of course, take more skill to use well. I'd let my ten-year-old son hammer nails but I wouldn't hand him a nailgun.
I refuse to use allegory.
Perhaps our choices say more about us than about the device.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited April 21, 2005).]
posted
actually. a little bit of properly used metaphor can go quite nicely with some types of stories.
i would definitely agree with the people who said that as long as it doesn't interrupt flow, it's ok. but i'll take it one step further and say that if it AIDS flow, USE it. and a metaphor, when placed just so, and not permitted to go on for too long, can fit excellently into a place where you need to alter that flow, but not do so in a jarring way.
of course, in a humor peice, proper flow is lack of flow. not literally, of course, but i think you should get what i mean.
posted
Metaphor is very useful in spicing up mainstream literature. It allows for fanciful imagery that is not to be taken literally.
However, the fanciful imagery in speculative fiction is generally supposed to be taken literally. Therefore, metaphor use is potentially confusing, and that confusion can break the reader's trust in the author.
Since simile can produce almost the same effect as metaphor without mistakenly being taken literally, in writing speculative fiction it's better to use simile than metaphor.
posted
Some interesting thoughts. Personally, I don't really think about these things as I'm writing, at least not so much in these terms. I'm inclined to agree with Jeraliey, that literary devices serve more of a purpose for discussion of texts rather than the writing of them.
However, I think there are times when thinking about them before writing can be inspirational. If I don't think about using a device, I probably won't use it.
quote:What is the difference between a 'literary device' and a 'literary contrivance'? Aren't they both 'machines' employed by the writer to move the story along?
I'm not sure if I'm understanding, but I think the difference is between calling something a "device" or a "contrivance" is simply a case of semantics.
quote:I mean where do you draw the line? Why avoid some and not others? Fashion? What makes it legitimate?
I think there are probably things that do go in and out of fashion, but as for what makes a particular device legitimate? I think it has to do with writer skill. If you can use a particular device with skill, the effect will be strong. If you don't use it well, the effect will feel false and forced.
It is great that we write what we write, but just as we practice grammar and punctuation and style and POV and tense, there is also room to think about how and when we use certain techniques and to practice using them consciously so their effect is stronger when we just let things flow.
[That may just be a bunch of blathering, so feel free to ignore it. ]
posted
ooo... you people sound WAY too much like my old English teachers, who nearly sucked the joy out of writing for me.
Am I the only one who doesn't care a farthing (what, btw, IS a farthing worth? Is it 25 cents more than a nearthing?) about how the elements in my stories are labeled in English 101?
I write, and I don't ever think about whether it's metaphore, allegory, first person present omnivore omnipotent.
I worry about good grammar, having a balance between dialog, action and description, and whether my story is engaging.
The rest I could care less about. I shall leave it to the pundits to do an autopsy on the physical elements that go into my writing.
posted
> Am I the only one who doesn't care a > farthing (what, btw, IS a farthing worth? > Is it 25 cents more than a nearthing?) > about how the elements in my stories are > labeled in English 101?
I don't care at all how the elements of my stories will be labeled. What I care about is helping readers enjoy reading my stories, same as you.
But even if you don't remember the names of various devices, it's a good idea to know about them. When used properly (and not in excess), they add a lot of flavor to a story.
posted
Yeah, you don't have to know what they're called in order to use 'em. I swear by that in grammar. I may not know that what is wrong with a certain sentence is a comma splice, for example, but I know that something is wrong with it, and I know how to fix it. That's what really counts.
Posts: 437 | Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted
The other reason that it's good to know names of devices is so you can talk about them with other writers.
I just read a quote (but I can't find it now) which went something like, "Why are writer's the only artists who think they don't need training?" I mean, when I'm singing for an audience I don't think about support, or vowal shape, or intonation, vibrato, dynamics (fortissimo or merely forte) or any of the other terms or techniques. But you'd better be darn certain that I think about all of them when I'm practising. Knowing the term means that I can address issues with any of them more precisely with my teacher. For us, that's our fellow writers or critiquers. The goal with both is for the final product to be seamless, but I think knowing which tools you're using is important.
[This message has been edited by MaryRobinette (edited April 21, 2005).]
posted
MaryRobinette, I believe it's a combination of two things:
We mistakenly think we can write without learning about writing because everyone knows the language.
We mistakently think the hardest part about writing is being creative.
The work it takes to write well is a million times harder than the work it takes to learn the jargon of writing.
I've only read one successful writer who wrote poorly but was so darned creative he could hook readers with nothing more than his incredible imagination. That writer was the late Phillip K. Dick. So you should learn to use and talk about the tools of writing.
posted
Being the dunce that I am, I had to look this word up. I then remembered this being explained to me already when I read the subject of the last flash challenge.
I just realised this time around though, that if you listen closely to the beginning of Michael Jacksons Liberian Girl, you'll hear this word spoken twice as the intro.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
]
