Had been thinking about this post (which is a fake excerpt from an imaginary narrative written to mock 'tumblr prose'), and how most "no actually this is good" comments are highlighting how the construction of individual sentences is interesting, how some of the language is evocative, how it Goes Hard. Because that post is written badly in a very thoughtful manner that focuses on core structural issues rather than going for low hanging fruit of poor technical proficiency with the written word, it is not bad in the most "obvious" of ways. So I think this is a legit learning opportunity, but also I don't want to dunk on anyone so instead I will just preach to the choir of My Followers.
But yeah like to be more constructive than just going "lol tumblr prose bad", really the issue in Large part that characterizes "tumblr prose" (which to be clear I don't think is a discrete thing and at most is a combination of several writing tendencies influenced by the medium of Online) comes down to the lack of real contrast in Any aspect of narrative construction, and an obsession with being quotable and constantly being at 100% of Going Hard (which go hand in hand).
In that post, the character voice is indistinct from that of the narration, and the characters quote one-liners that look Meaningful as excerpts and are borderline nonsensical as dialogue. There is no more than the faintest, most generic hints of characterization; these people exist as vague concepts to say deep words for the reader. The sentence length has little variation from its staccato beat, and so it is awkward to read and fails to complement the action or accomplish anything with the pacing (save for the slight slowdown when the torturer feels all that damp animal electricity). The timing is awkward and exaggeratedly dramatic. The description is a flowery kind of tryhard visceral and seems avoidant of describing anything too directly ("something dark and arterial" where there's nothing being accomplished by conveying uncertainty about what is currently gushing out of the injured character and the simple use of "blood splashed across the stones" would actually be 10x more effective), in a way that does disservice to what is supposed to be a torture scene, and leaves it weightless and ungrounded. In fairness to the people saying "this is good", that is MUCH easier to say when reading this fake excerpt as the standalone piece it actually is, but this kind of writing Cannot function in an actual narrative and is not what an excerpt from well constructed narrative fiction is going to look like basically ever.
It reflects a lot of very typical amateur writing issues that just about everyone has to grow out of (the minimal diversity in sentence length, simulated non-attention to scene pacing and timing), and issues common to fanfiction-influenced writing on social media (allergy to paragraph lengths of more than two sentences, little to no description of the characters or setting because, in fanfiction, the reader already knows their physical characteristics and mannerisms and it doesn't need to be lingered upon, Unlike In Original Fiction). But this particularly hits on an issue I think is semi-unique to narrative writing in the social media milieu, which is a focus on being quotable. This may not even be a conscious impulse at all But It's There. This kinda apparent terror of any moment not being as beautiful and hard hitting as possible (or for comedy, any moment not being A Joke). Everything "Goes Hard", so nothing actually does. A lot of "tumblr prose" type writing is less a narrative, more a string of quotes loosely assembled into narrative that vaguely gestures at things like Plot and Character. It substitutes depth for Suggestions of depth by utilizing stock symbolism without building it into the narrative, and by gesturing at weighty contexts without actually engaging with them. There can be little contrast or effective use of tone, pace, description when your story is a series of Hard Hitting Quotes.
I'm reading Watership Down right now and I think it's a great novel overall and can work as an example of how important it is to utilize contrast in your writing.
This segment is the lengthy first description of the titular down, which the rabbits are now encountering for the first time:
Adams is slowing the pace here to introduce us to the setting of the next segment of the book. The average sentence length is very long and keeps us lingering in the sensory detail, while still varied and thus smoothly readable. This new place is introduced by simultaneously conveying its physical description in vivid detail and conveying its feeling and character, and getting the most out of every described feature to do so. The thorn trees are "wind stunted". The air is "scented". The language takes on a very flowery character and heavily utilizes simile and metaphor. Woodland is "tumultuous with evening", sunlight filters through grass "like a wind" to the small creatures below, in contrast to laying "like a gold rind" on the hill when seen from a distance. This grandiose description is heavily functional and conveys both exhaustive physical detail and a feeling that this place is beautiful, awe inspiring to something like a rabbit, and full of life, though not without quiet hints of danger. It hits because Not Everything In The Book Is Described This Way. It means something that we're lingering like this and stopping to get a sense of this place on every possible level, and moving away from more direct, simple prose to convey the feeling of the place in depth.
This segment describes the rabbit Bigwig being found caught in a snare:
The prose here here has the opposite approach of the first excerpt. The language is concise, direct, and brutal. It only veers slightly away from the literal to describe Bigwig's voice as 'bubbling out' from his mouth, both conveying that the saliva and blood in his mouth is literally bubbling as he speaks, and implying the unsettling way his voice sounds as he's being strangled. The sentences are much shorter on the whole, as fit for the pacing of a tense and rapidly changing scene, and the timing closely complements the action - "There was a pause" not only conveys That There Was A Pause but interrupts the rhythm of this segment; the moment of uneasy stillness is echoed in the act of reading itself.
The scene this is excerpted from is extremely effective and does in fact Go Hard, it's well constructed in of itself but its effectiveness mostly lies in its place in the narrative. It's the culmination of a long, tense buildup as the reader becomes more aware that something is deeply Wrong about the place the rabbits are in, and the payoff is effective in being blunt and visceral, which hits because Not Everything In The Book Is Described This Way. Nothing about these excerpts are particularly quotable because that is actually not what good narrative writing is about.
Thank you for breaking it down! Yes, I think it can be hard to convey an overall sense of "bad writing" when everything is done technically correctly as in the excerpt, and when individual lines and quotes can also work very well. And as others have pointed out, there are different styles and different tastes and vast cultural differences that affect what people consider to be "good" art vs "bad" art.
But there is a difference between, "I'm not into this style," and "this appears amateurish or clumsy", which I suspect is where some people are getting hung up. And maybe instead of "functional" or "productive", the better word to use might be, "effective". Is this stylistic trope helping to tell your story, or distracting the reader from your story? Are you successfully telling the story you want to tell, in the way you want to tell it? Can your readers generally understand and appreciate what you're trying to convey, can they get immersed in your story without getting confused or distracted by the writing itself?
My own inner term for a lot of bad writing is, "it takes me out of the story". I lose immersion. This can happen in relatively small ways, such as typos or grammatical errors. It can happen (especially in things like fic) with poor characterization and cases of "he would not fucking say that". This is actually the primary issue with what's called "flowery language" or "purple prose" - it can be very well-used at times, but if it's excessive or in the wrong places, it detracts from the story instead of facilitating it, because your readers are suddenly thinking of your writing instead of the story.
The first Watership Down except is a great example of "purple prose" used effectively, because the author is clearly trying to paint a picture with words. You're supposed to linger in the detail, you're supposed to immerse yourself in the description, and those descriptions, even when unconventional such as "sunlight like wind," are comprehensible. Whereas the infamous "cerulean orbs" often evokes a) "Oh, the author meant 'eyes' there" and b) "Wait, is this gruff, manly character thinking of his partner's eyes as 'cerulean orbs?' Because I don't think he'd fucking say/think that."
(This is also often the problem with "epithets" - the taller man, the blue-eyed man, etc. People want to use them to get around "he" or overusing their names, but if the story is from a specific character POV, for me it quickly turns into, "wait, did that character just think of his own brother as 'the shorter man'?" And that takes me out of the story again.)
So, going back to that except, a lot of what I personally picked up as "bad" was the stuff that took me out of the story they were telling and had me focusing on the writing instead.
First, the hook and whole "metallic sound" description (sorry, I've already forgotten the exact line) - I'm distracted because why would any of that sound metallic?
"Dark and arterial" - this distracted me because for a second I wasn't sure if the author was actually referring to blood, and when I realized they were, I thought, "that sure seems like a tortured workaround for just saying 'blood'".
"Not out of mercy. Out of surprise. Not loudly. Worse than loudly. Softly" - admittedly AI has made this kind of structure stick out to me like a sore thumb more than it used to. "Not X, but Y" works very well when X is an expected reaction and Y is a subversion, but it can be overused where as a reader, the first makes me think, "okay, why is he surprised ?" And the second makes me think, "okay, he laughed softly." What would maintain immersion for the first part would be explaining why he was surprised. For the second, maybe dropping the "not loudly" part and expanding on why the soft laughter is "worse", why it's low and menacing or self-aware or evokes a different mood or whatever, instead of suggesting that "loud laughing" was some expected reaction that got subverted.
The dialogue itself - this gets fuzzy because yes, it's an excerpt and I'm assuming there's missing context. But as others have pointed out, the dialogue doesn't really make sense. It feels like the characters are saying things "at" each other rather than conversing, and it feels like their responses have nothing to do with what the other person just said. Why are we talking about amoeba from Antarctica? And what does that have to do with immortality or mortality? It just reads like a string of non-sequiturs, and sometimes dialogue that makes you stop and think and figure out what they mean can be very effective, but if used ineffectively, you end up with confused and frustrated readers who can't figure out wtf your characters are talking about - and are therefore "taken out of the story."
Apart from individual lines, the except also has some issues with consistency - is the blood red or black? It probably can't be both. One more technical issue I could point out is the repetitiveness of pointing out blood in the one guy's mouth - again, repetition can be very effective, but if used incorrectly, it just feels like "you said that already, are you worried people will forget within three sentences that the guy is bleeding from the mouth?"
Anyway, I hope that helps people, rather than using good or bad (especially when, as established here, all the components are technically good/correct), better phrasing could be, "this is being used ineffectively" or "this isn't telling the story, it's distracting from the story."
