?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Quick post

Okay, too much going on in life for a meaningful post.

So what do I decide to post?

Pure literary WTFery, that's what!
Go, ye readers and writers ye, and look upon that which shall forever be stamped on my brain as The Worst Description EVAR.
(and/ or a cautionary tale about simile and metaphor.)

As I saw in a reply there: CANNOT UNSEE!

I think the best way to describe this would be to say imagine a thesaurus was raped, and the union was fruitful, but oh, so unholy.
This would be that resultant tome.
 


Comments

( 6 comments — Leave a comment )
jackwabbit
Mar. 12th, 2009 03:19 am (UTC)
I have no words. Actually, I have a lot, but no time to type them now. Wow. Just wow. I mean, wow.

Ok, just one...pubes is singular. And describing them is never ok. Especially if you can't decide which way to do so.

Ok, two...a snake-spine? WHAT THE FUCK? That's never good. I think they have surgery for that.
lemonpiefirefly
Mar. 13th, 2009 12:39 am (UTC)
I agree about the "pubes was" thing; it threw a lot of us. I mean, the other stuff is a lot of (REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD UNREADABLE) style, but that's one thing you can hang your hat on and point to and say, "HEY! Your copy editor was not only crazy and had ridiculously horrible taste, she was also WAAAAAY not paying attention!"

The following was my reply to the friends-lister from whom I received this link:

HOLY SIMILE, BATMAN!

Saw in a comment that perfectly sums it up: "CANNOT UNSEE"

I think someone should a) take away that man's thesaurus, for he is obviously in unholy and unclean congress with it,
and b) inform him that "pubes" is about as weird and jarring a way he could have gone with that part of the description, and "pubes was" cannot *possibly* be proper subject/ verb agreement...
oh, and c) *HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW did this get PUBLISHED?????*
jackwabbit
Mar. 14th, 2009 03:33 am (UTC)
It's funny, though. I mean it's actually funny.

Like I literally laughed and laughed funny.

So, I'm glad it exists. I didn't even laugh in a mean way. I laughed in a "OMG this is fucking hysterical" way. It's almost as if it was intentional. But regardless-FUNNY.
maekala
Mar. 12th, 2009 03:34 am (UTC)
I think the best way to describe this would be to say imagine a thesaurus was raped, and the union was fruitful, but oh, so unholy.

Yeah, that's a damn good description. Much better quality than...that. That just makes me cry.
lolmac
Mar. 13th, 2009 12:16 am (UTC)
The only excuse I can imagine for this, um, we'll call it a "style" for want of a better term, would be if the book had been written in another century or in another language, or, ideally, both. There were elements that reminded me of the rich overdescription of bygone eras, and weird juxtapositions that made me think of magical realism. This doesn't mean it was any good; after all, the mind, when confronted with the truly grotesque, will often dash in self-defense to the memory of something wholesome.

Unfortunately, it appears to have been written (I again use the term loosely) by a contemporary American. So at least we can relax in the assurance that the writer does not speak or write in English.

I think the writer should have settled for writing plain ordinary porn; far less pretentious, probably pays better, and you're allowed both to say "pubes" and to describe them. Best of all, it won't ambush the unsuspecting reader and commit acts of gross indecency requiring subsequent therapy.
lemonpiefirefly
Mar. 13th, 2009 12:34 am (UTC)
Well said, and oh-so-politely.
For the less scholarly take, I like the first comment on the original page, from one lizblackdog.

"WHAT THE FUCKING FUCKITY FUCK."

* (and, although, I would have gone for the question mark at the end, I can see how its sheer stunning power may have made the statement version more apt for the poster. *grin*)
( 6 comments — Leave a comment )