We Need to Have A Talk About Writing...

Simile’s can be over used and over the top. They can enliven writing that needs it, however. The key is to only use it when you want to offer insight. Even in satire or comedy, a simile’s purpose is often intelligent, and never to show off.

I’ve been reading about word imagery: similes and metaphors, yes, but also allusions and personification and onomatopoeia. It must have stirred something in me, as I can't stop thinking about the nature of imagery, and it's inherent danger and bad reputation, and as such I've developed a few theories.

Now imagine, if you please, that you write a scene that features a dinner party. You can write the scene as a straight description of a party of guests having, you know, dinner.

Or, you can use imagery to associate the dinner party with other things in the mind of the reader. Depending on the imagery used, the reader’s relationship to and experience of said imagery can bring that scene alive for them. The depth is added by their own associations you have aroused.

But, if the reader has limited experience{/b of and no relationship with the imagery you have used to enliven the proceedings, then you may not succeed in adding the required depth to engage them.

If, your intention is to capture the interest of a niche audience then you may pull it off. If, your intention was to capture the interest of a larger audience then you may have been better off just using limited imagery to describe the dinner party.

Is that the secret of blockbuster authors? Straight description gives them access to the minds and attention of wider audiences. Is it the secret to best selling authors? Straight description with just enough imagery used to give the impression of depth and just enough to pander to multiple niche audiences at the one time?

How do you feel about the dangers of purple prose, and in particular it's association with imagery devices like similies?