Subject: Well...
Author:
Posted on: 2010-06-08 21:40:00 UTC
A character who would coo in that situation could be awesome in a GTKO-of-my-nightmares way, don't you think?
-
Overly critical of figlang? by
on 2010-06-05 22:59:00 UTC
Reply
Something I've noticed in a lot missions I've read is that that the agents are incredibly critical of figurative language. Okay, so so-and-so isn't really a tiger when s/he starts fighting (to give a random example), but metaphor happens.
Also, the use of speech verbs. "Chirped", "warbled", "barked" etc. are normal words used to describe a person's tone of voice when speaking (or singing badly, in the case of "warbled"), but they seem to get a lot of abuse... I guess when a fic is bad enough, you want to point out anything you can find, but it just seems like normal writing to me.
Anyone want to discuss? -
It can seem that way. by
on 2010-06-06 02:51:00 UTC
Reply
There are times when I've felt it was spurious, especially in cases where the expression in question was something in common, every-day use.
However, as others have pointed out, it can be incredibly funny to take figurative language literally, and we ARE a parody society. There are certain times you almost have to laugh at it if you're really paying attention. In the case of speech tags, it may be all well and good to write something like: "'Stop that right now,' he barked." The problem happens when the writer gives us something like: "Stop that right now.' He barked." Improper punctuation takes a perfectly good speech tag and turns it into something laughable because the connection between the speech and the descriptor is lost, forcing the figurative language to stand alone and giving the sensitive reader no choice but to read it as written. Cue people barking like dogs.
Another example is something from one of my newer missions: "A skirt, bright with swirls of emerald, violet and royal blue floated around the floor, stopping at the toes of black boots." Now, you and I know that the writer MEANT to say the skirt floated around the wearer's feet, but the fact is that the writer did not say that. The writer said it floated around the floor. For humor, I took that to mean the skirt actually floated around the floor, leaving the character's lower half uncovered. ^__^ Also, one of my agents picked up the stray skirt, which to this day will always come to a halt if there are black boots in its path. {= )
So, yes, criticizing figurative language can be taken too far, but I say if the writer isn't using it properly it's fair game.
~Neshomeh -
But of course. by
on 2010-06-06 03:35:00 UTC
Reply
Well, if they make an error, it's entirely their fault. I have no sympathy for spelling and grammar mistakes. It happens when you're an editor's kid.
Anyway, that wasn't so much my point as when it's perfectly correct English and even a reasonable bit of figlang. You've made a very good point ^.^ True, it can be overdone, but if it's for the sake of humor, it doesn't really matter. -
My couple of small value coins. by
on 2010-06-06 00:11:00 UTC
Reply
I understand what you are saying. It isn't that we are overly critical of figurative language. I use it often myself. What we may have a problem with is a paragraph that is all about how someone looks or sounds that is so full of figurative language that you aren't even sure what it is about anymore.
Consider, for a moment, that every time a character speaks the word "chirped" is used. Wouldn't a character who only seems to chirp (and they chirp often) become a bird in your mind?
When we make figurative language seem ridiculous in a mission, we are simply saying that the fic has broken the rules of the word world to the point that the world is taking every word literally. It makes a mission funnier, especially if our agents say something that they soon regret.
I hope this helps clear things up.
-Barid -
Re: My couple of small value coins. by
on 2010-06-06 01:23:00 UTC
Reply
I tend to notice it most when it seems especially out of character. For instance, in the mission I'm working on now, the 'Stu is being attacked and has grabbed his attacker's, er, masculine body parts. Being an ice mage, the Stu threatens to freeze said masculine body parts. That's all well and good, except that the actual dialogue tag used is 'cooed.' To me, that doesn't fit at all, and it's annoying. So I have the 'fic take the language literally to emphasize how ridiculous it is.
--anamia -
Well... by
on 2010-06-08 21:40:00 UTC
Reply
A character who would coo in that situation could be awesome in a GTKO-of-my-nightmares way, don't you think?
-
Agreed. OOC is a major factor. by
on 2010-06-06 12:59:00 UTC
Reply
I remember taking figurative language literally when a fangirl-Sue named Shandell had Rumil (from LotR) melting at her feet. For the DTE agents, the Words rendered that visual into Rumil actually melting. The reason being: Rumil is an immortal Elf, a skilled warrior, and centuries if not millennia old. Taking the figurative language at face value would mean a huge character stretch. In that case, taking the metaphor literally was a way I could point out that it was actually more plausible for Rumil to be physically melting into a puddle than it was for him to be going ga-ga over a very insipid fangirl that he just met.
-
Hrn. by
on 2010-06-05 23:34:00 UTC
Reply
The thing with figurative language though is that there is only so much you can squash in. Too much of it, and you end up with purple prose and something that's nigh impossible to read. At the same time, metaphors and similes can also be a bit of a crutch when you're writing when you start to rely on overused ones.
My personal stance on it is 1) Too much figurative language can kill the actual writing, 2) using this sort of thing in missions helps to emphasise to readers that some thought should go into it, and also that 3) missions are supposed to be funny, which is where having someone turn into a tiger temporarily while fighing because the Words Said So comes into play.