Alliteration: yes or no?

[I Digress]

This is wrong? Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[spaceman]

Call me Smitty. That’s what everybody else called me—the ballplayers, the bankers, the bareback riders, the baritones, the bartenders, the bastards, the best-selling writers (excepting Hem, who dubbed me Frederico), the bicyclists, the big game hunters (Hem the exception again), the billiards champs, the bishops, the blacklisted (myself included), the black marketeers, the blonds, the bloodsuckers, the bluebloods, the bookies, the Bolsheviks (some of my best friends, Mr. Chairman—what of it!), the bombardiers, the bootblacks, the bootlicks, the bosses, the boxers, the Brahmins, the brass hats, the British (Sir Smitty as of ‘36), the broads, the broadcasters, the broncobusters, the brunettes, the black bucks down in Barbados (Meestah Smitty), the Buddhist monks in Burma, one Bulkington, the bullfighters, the bullthrowers, the burlesque comics and the burlesque stars, the bushmen, the bums, and the butlers. And that’s only the letter B, fans, only one of the Big Twenty-Six!

-- Philip Roth
"The Great American Novel," p. 1

 

[I Digress]

He missed the *******....just sayin' ;D

 

[SF_Express]

There's no hard and fast rule. Alliteration works just fine sometimes. Sometimes it's trite. So the right answer is yes, AND no.

This is my answer as well.

 

[UPChip]

I also have a nasty habit of rhyming headlines. Probably for the same reason.

 

[jlee]

He missed the *******....just sayin' ;D

So do I. Wherever they went, I wish them the worst.

 

[Some Guy]

In my opinion, great sportswriting should strive to go above and beyond. It should, to some extent, be poetic.

Even game stories.

Can such poetic license be deadly in the wrong hands? Absolutely. Can such devices make our writing too flowery and/or saccharine? You betcha.

Knowing when and how to use all of the tools at our tool bags is what separates the great ones from the mediocre ones from the out-and-out hacks.

I would never say never about any sort of literary device. What purpose does alliteration serve the reader? If he's advanced above the level of meathead jocksniffer, maybe it gives him a boner. I don't know.

 

[J-School Blue]

Going to go with the "never say never" consensus here.

Like any literary device, alliteration has its place. It wouldn't have become over-used if there wasn't a reason writers were using it in the first place. It can very be handy in developing a certain 'rhythm' in a sentence (I don't know how to describe that, exactly, but there's a certain way things 'sound' in my head when I read them, and alliteration sometimes makes them read-sound better).

Like any literary device, it's also been over-used by hacks to the point where it's gained a certain stigma.

 

[ralph russo]

There is value in the sound that good writers create and good readers hear. Imagine MacGregor's sentence citing "stars and infrastructure, individuals and conglomerates." His version says the same thing, but its sound is more pleasing -- to this reader, at least. In addition, I bet the choice of words there fits the voice that MacGregor brought to the whole piece. Maybe the alliteration was even necessary to sustain that voice. Also: it was done so subtly as to be nearly subliminal, a good thing when the alliteration itself is not the point.

No offense to anyone else, many of whom made good points, but this thread probably could have ended right after this post. Here is your answer, Sir Val.

 

[mike311gd]

Never say never.

Or always.

"Always is just as dangerous a word as never." -- Wilson Wilson.

 

[sirvaliantbrown]

Thanks to all for the thoughts. I still want to hear a more substantial WHY, though. Some of you have mentioned rhythm, some of you have mentioned poetry, some of you have mentioned pleasing sounds. Why, though, are consecutive Ps or Qs pleasing or rhythmic? Is the answer simply "They just are"? Again, I run down the list of devices - onomatopoeia, allusion, simile, hyperbole, whatever - and can logically explain why it should be employed, why its use assists the reader or strengthens the writing. Consecutive consonants? Seems like something we've decided we should do for no reason at all.

I'll quit arguing with you all...guess I remain unconvinced. But thanks for humoring me.

 

[Honesty Kills]

Thanks to all for the thoughts. I still want to hear a more substantial WHY, though. Some of you have mentioned rhythm, some of you have mentioned poetry, some of you have mentioned pleasing sounds. Why, though, are consecutive Ps or Qs pleasing or rhythmic? Is the answer simply "They just are"? Again, I run down the list of devices - onomatopoeia, allusion, simile, hyperbole, whatever - and can logically explain why it should be employed, why its use assists the reader or strengthens the writing. Consecutive consonants? Seems like something we've decided we should do for no reason at all.

I'll quit arguing with you all...guess I remain unconvinced. But thanks for humoring me.

The unfortunate truth is that style speaks in vagaries. A writer may use alliteration because to him it sounds better, and when words strung together sound better they tend to resonate with the reader. Alliteration is just one form or function - one way for an individual writer to make his words feel better to him. Thusly, in his or her mind making them better in the minds of the reader.

Me, when I come across a passage, or a sentence, or a line, or a phrase i like - i tend to repeat it aloud, and maybe even have it carry over into my speech patterns.

Good words become a part of my life.

Pardon me if people aren't pleased with my plain way of putting it. Sometimes you have to dumb it down to good words, good lines, and bad words, and bad lines.

Alliteration is just a curveball, it's just a slant route, it's just a ball-screen: It's not the only way to do something, it's simply a way of getting what you want out of what you're doing. And if it plays to your strength, or it fits your play book, or works into your writing ideology - then that's great.

But if you as a writer don't believe it enhances your writing - then there is a good chance that putting it in there WOULD come across forced: for the simple reason that you don't agree with it in the first place.

I've always enjoyed the writers whom most make me feel as if i'm being spoken with. I think it's influenced the conversational tone of my writing. And, because that' how i envision the writing - i like people that have a talent to both write for text AND the ear.

"Yes or No" in writing doesn't exist. There is only "....for you?"

 

[Johnny Dangerously]

Tom (on air): "George Weln is at the Pentagon and reports that the attack, presumably by a lone Libyan pilot, has resulted in a massive movement of U.S. military might."

Aaron (watching on TV): "A lot of alliteration from anxious anchors placed in powerful posts."

Aaron (later, to Tom): "Pretty peppy party, isn't it, pal?"



(From memory and not guaranteed to be 100 percent accurate)

 

[Honesty Kills]

Anyway.... to the OP, i hope i was able to explain why i use it, even if i don't necessarily believe that your question is framed correctly....