I am not a fan of flowery prose and use metaphors sparingly.
Replies
I write as the story requires. What will work perfectly in one story will sound silly in another (and, in novels, needs may vary through the course of the story). I sum my view up as "There is no such thing as bad writing, merely misplaced writing" (although, obviously, truly bad writing, that which cannot convey meaning, will never work anywhere). A 'one size fits all' approach is foolishness.
This question requires some big answers to do it justice, but because of limitations on space, time and medium I feel I can only give a headline of my thoughts on the subject.
I enjoy "flowery", elaborate, prose and metaphores providing, that is, they are part of, and add to, the purpose of the text: as opposed to simply the noise of vanity.
I think that the often seemingly impenetrable styles of the cannonical masters is what puts us off (for example James and Conrad). But if we invest the time and immerse ourselves in the atmospheres and layers of meaning, we are rewarded with a kind of "fuller" revalation of what the artist has to convey and how that relates to us the reader.
I know that sounds a bit tree-huggy, but its not. It is a different way of writing and reading, which is more difficult to engage in, in this era of fast/direct/immediate everthing from food to dating, to forums, to emails etc etc.
The two are quite different. Flowery prose usually equates to long ornate sentences with multiple subordinate clauses while a metaphor, well-chosen and rightly used, can be succinct and to the point. eg John was a Scrooge.
Both have their place. It all depends on the context. You might want to make a character talk in very flowery language to indicate the type of person he is, but keep the rest of your story in more generally acceptable prose.
I write as the story requires. What will work perfectly in one story will sound silly in another (and, in novels, needs may vary through the course of the story). I sum my view up as "There is no such thing as bad writing, merely misplaced writing" (although, obviously, truly bad writing, that which cannot convey meaning, will never work anywhere). A 'one size fits all' approach is foolishness.
This question requires some big answers to do it justice, but because of limitations on space, time and medium I feel I can only give a headline of my thoughts on the subject.
I enjoy "flowery", elaborate, prose and metaphores providing, that is, they are part of, and add to, the purpose of the text: as opposed to simply the noise of vanity.
I think that the often seemingly impenetrable styles of the cannonical masters is what puts us off (for example James and Conrad). But if we invest the time and immerse ourselves in the atmospheres and layers of meaning, we are rewarded with a kind of "fuller" revalation of what the artist has to convey and how that relates to us the reader.
I know that sounds a bit tree-huggy, but its not. It is a different way of writing and reading, which is more difficult to engage in, in this era of fast/direct/immediate everthing from food to dating, to forums, to emails etc etc.
The two are quite different. Flowery prose usually equates to long ornate sentences with multiple subordinate clauses while a metaphor, well-chosen and rightly used, can be succinct and to the point. eg John was a Scrooge.
Both have their place. It all depends on the context. You might want to make a character talk in very flowery language to indicate the type of person he is, but keep the rest of your story in more generally acceptable prose.