Writing Tools, Not Rules!
I've put together some thoughts and advice I end up giving out more than once because I figured maybe it'd be useful for other people.
It should help you understand why you're writing what you are, what the PRECISE impact is on the reader, so you know if what you're trying to do is actually going to be effective without the trial and error part.
📌 I want to state ahead of time: I am not giving RULES to follow. Rules are useless. Rules don't help you understand your writing at all, or when/how to break the rules. This is a way to understand the impact of your writing so you know when to use certain things, and when not to.
I'm very much NOT a prescriptivist. You write for YOU, write how you want to, but this is to help you understand how your writing is going to land, so you can make decisions on how you choose your words.
This is for all writers! All ages, all genres, all types of writing. Genre fiction, literary fiction, nonfiction, fanfiction, for people who've been writing for just hours or days or years or decades.
On to the lesson: the first one I call "completing metaphors."
Completing Metaphors
I'll start with an example.
He sliced through it like a butcher slicing through meat.
vs.
He sliced through it like a butcher
Both mean the same thing, right? But they aren't perceived the same. There's a difference between words being synonyms and how the word feels and is processed, and the subconscious effect it has on the reader.
The psychology of writing is something I don't really see a lot of people talking about on a line level, at least in any accessible way, but understanding it is so important to the writing process—both in the initial drafting phase, but also the editing phase.
Writing tends to be instinct and part of the craft is "honing your instincts" which is important, but only part of the formula.
Write on instinct, edit with intentionality, and understand why you're changing things.
SO! On to the explanation.
Completing metaphor isn't bad, it's not wrong inherently, but understanding the impact helps you decide when to do it and when not to.
When you present a reader with the full metaphor, you're doing a few different things. You're:
1) Giving them more words to read and process 2) Giving them additional context that subtly alters the meaning
Both of these things add to the cognitive load—that is, how hard a reader's brain has to work to read the words, to process them, and to understand the message. Every word you add gives them additional information to sift through in a primarily unconscious process. We're pattern matching animals, finding meaning in everything, so the more you give to somebody, the more they have to ask themselves, "Is this meaningful? Is this important?"
With "He sliced through it like a butcher slicing through meat" the reader is processing it like this unconsciously:
He = Person
Sliced = Action
Through it = Context likely already given
Like = Comparison indicator
A butcher = Connecting slicing to what they know of a butcher and how a butcher slices - with precision, efficiency, and sharp knives.
Slicing = Okay this is about how a butcher slices, not just something being sliced through with similar efficiency and precision
Through meat = Do butchers slice other things? Why through meat? Is there some special way they slice through meat? Is this emphasizing the ease, the quickness?
See how 6 and 7 go beyond processing the meaning of your metaphor and into the metaphor itself.
Now, sometimes the additional context of 6 and 7 are necessary and it's intentional. Like if your focus really is on comparing the method of slicing, then yeah, it makes sense to add that. But if your focus is on like, slicing through a person in a fight scene, adding 6 and 7 take the reader out of the action scene and into processing the metaphor again.
If you are writing for people who are newer to English, whether it's a second language, or they're younger, it can also be useful to give the additional information that 6 and 7 provide. They might not know the metaphor, it might be a new concept to them, "Slicing through it like a butcher" might not be enough. Maybe they don't know the word butcher, or what a butcher does.
So it's not wrong to complete the metaphor, but the impact is that your prose will then read as if it's intended for an audience without a really solid grasp on English.
Is this bad? No. It's neutral. There's no bad or good or right or wrong. But most people I talk to are writing for adults, and completing the metaphors sends a subconscious message to the reader that either the writer is new to English in some way, or that what they're reading isn't intended for them.
So you're sending a message unconsciously about yourself and your intent by adding 6 and 7 that is processed by the reader unconsciously.
Now, back to cognitive load—adding 6 and 7 adds extra words, extra words mean extra processing, extra processing means it slows a scene down. The more words, the more metaphors, the more intricate the sentence, the longer it takes to process.
Sometimes you want this! Managing pacing on a line level is important too, and not everything should be quick and punchy, because you'll exhaust the reader that way. But if you're writing an action scene, or a smut scene, or something otherwise fast-paced, you adding extra words slows it down. It cuts the intensity. It changes the impact and impression.
If you're writing a smut scene that's more emotional and cerebral and less hot and heavy, metaphors can be a really great tool! But completing them, during a smut scene, leads to a weird dissonance between your intention and the subconscious way a reader perceives it.
If you're writing a smut scene that's hot and heavy and quick, then the more metaphors you add, the more words you add, the more you slow it down. You do want this sometimes. During emotional moments, or right before a climax, adding a lull, something where the reader can relax just a little, means the intensity of the next moment you ramp it back up hits harder, is more jarring, and for big climaxes (in smut or otherwise) you often want it to land like a punch.
I will add one more thing about metaphors—the word order matters.
Let's make another comparison.
He sliced through it like a butcher
Like the slice of a butcher
Like a butcher's slice
These all mean the same thing, yeah? But the impact is different. The first is the most neutral. You're getting a description of his action.
"Like the slice of a butcher" is fewer words and is processed quicker. It speeds up the scene just a bit. The word order means you process the slice first, then get the additional information after.
"Like a butcher's slice" is even fewer words and gets processed even faster. The word order gives you the description/quality of the action first. It adds build-up and anticipation, even for a moment. You imagine the strength of a butcher, and then you get to "slice" and it adds a satisfying ending to the anticipation immediately.
If I'm writing an action scene and we're focused on the viciousness and efficiency, on the slice, "like a butcher's slice" fits the subconscious emotions I'm trying to get the reader to feel. The word order and connotation matches intention and what's going on.
If I'm writing an action scene and we're focused on how a person slices, I'll use "like the slice of a butcher."
If I want to slow it down even more, if I want you to focus on both the person and how they do something and the quality of their action, I'll use "he sliced through it like a butcher."
If I'm comparing slicing techniques, if I want you to make the association of a butcher slicing through meat—cutting a dead animal—if I'm writing a fight scene and I want to dehumanize the person being sliced, I might even use, "He sliced through it like a butcher slicing through meat."
