Warning against "abstract" metaphors

This can help you understand how to make your writing more concrete with funny examples...

A warning against "abstract" metaphors (Taken from a question posted by a friend) But tell me how stupid does this sound: translucent decodence like hugs from ripe strawberries swirling on our tongues, dancing whipcream made from a churn?

I think the fact that you started with "how stupid does this sound" was really a request for me to affirm what you already knew.   Lines such as "translucent decadence like hugs from ripe strawberries swirling on our tongues, dancing whipcream made from a churn?" are what I might call experimentation. You're playing with words. And you're testing the waters to see how you can put words together.   This is my opinion, taken from years of getting the same message from all the writers I admire -- I've read Hemingway, Stephen King, Virginia Woolf, Stephen Crane, Robert Frost", and others... and each when talking about writing (or you can see it in their writing), will relate the same message I will share with you.   Make this your rule of thumb: Simple is better. Secondly, measure your writing by the question, "What does this mean, literally?" Only when we can see, hear, smell, taste, touch something, can we possibly begin to relate with that sensory experience in a metaphorical way. So, question: what does "translucent decadence" mean literally?  If I say that translucent decadence crossed the street and slapped you in the face, what would you see? What actually slapped you in the face?   Did a pissed off girlfriend break up with you by slapping you in the face with a strawberry cheesecake covered in chocolate mousse, deep fried and glazed with butterscotch and a cherry on top? And what if the strange event happened on the curb under the street light on Valentine's Day. If that were the case, then it wouldn't be far-fetched to say that you were illuminated by a translucent decadence on love's special day. I'm being tongue in cheek here. You knew when you gave me the line that there was something about it that made you uncomfortable. Learn to trust that voice. Good writing makes you feel unrestricted. It makes you feel as if you showed exactly what you wanted to show. Also, good writing is very rarely ambiguous.   Don't trust poets that say that their work is abstract. If you can't show me a leaf on a tree, a pencil in a sharpener, a cloud in the sky that looks like a penis, don't bother to tell me that "the sensuous lines of the iridescent pleasantry combusted upon the little rage with an exclamation of love." Can you tell me what the hell that means? :)   Eventually you'll get sick of your own self indulgence (self indulgence = knowing it doesn't work and keeping it anyway). I got a lot of self indulgence beat out of me when I read a 3 page poem to a girl on a first date about some conversations we'd had when we met. I thought it would be romantic. However, it was filled with nonsense (I couldn't understand it for the life of me even when I wrote it); I justified it as abstract and read it anyway. Big mistake. Oh, and she sat there for the whole grueling 12-15 minutes of it.  You can do it. Keep up the writing. Don't stop. In fact, write more. And more. And more.

Reviews

[Marie]

I do agree that simple is better. My poems rhyme, scan, and can be understood by anyone over the age of 12 (younger sometimes). I also get very few reviews on W/C. I wrote something once that was pure stream-of-consciousness and didn't mean anything, and I immediately got a dozen reviews from people who proceeded to tell me the "deep meaning and symbolism"they had found in it.

I guess that's what abstract means.

I like the term "translucent deca". In fact I'm going to use it if I ever decide to write an abstract poem again.