“Michael was twenty-one, handsome, polite, tall, and mild-mannered. His eyes, like those of his mother, were clear and white. But while Carolyn Goodson's eyes were vulnerable, Michael's eyes showed determination. When he directed his eyes, it was as though Michael held out two white lights, unblinking, focused, adamant.”
So how is this prose bad? Mwah ha ha—in so many ways. Not even delving into our interviewer’s strangely erotic undertone, the basic flaws are 1) substituting the subjective for the factual, 2) using the wrong terms and 3) sloppy metaphors.
Let’s start with no. 1, declarative substitution. The first sentence starts out factual—Michael is 21. But he only seems handsome, polite, etc. Fussy? Nuh uh—all flaws flow from this first error. Bringing us to no. 2, wrong terms. “Goodson’s eyes were vulnerable…” No doubt! Mine hurt too when you poke them. Eyes can dilate or go cloudy—the rest is expression conveyed by facial muscles. But let’s accept switching the trope eyes for facial subtleties, and move on to no. 3—whoa! These anthropomorphic eyeballs are Disney worthy. They strike bullfighter poses (“show determination”), are from zombie statues (“white…unblinking”) or cavefish (“clear”) and prance around under glaucomaic klieg lights while being “directed” by some Speilberg in a floppy beret. Mr. Ball is interviewing a family of zombie actor cavefish statue eyeballs. Let’s edit him:
“Michael was 21 and seemed one polite hunk. His gaze held mine in hot stasis. He talked smack with his shy mom, his eyes flashing like razors at a Delta blues fest.”
Just as creepy sexy—but it don’t bore you.
0 comments:
Post a Comment