Page 1 of 1

Survey: Nondescript

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 6:25 am
by Viridian
One of the advantages of a visual format is that you can see what the quicksand looks like. From a writing perspective, quicksand can be tough to describe, and a trap is becoming too generic or scientific. A lot of us have personal preferences over the kind of sand encountered. If a written piece mentions quicksand, without any other description, what do you visualise the sand to look like?

Re: Survey: Nondescript

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:30 am
by nachtjaeger
Definitely riverbank sand/slit. Something that straddles the line between soft muddy sand and soft sandy mud. 8-)

Re: Survey: Nondescript

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:48 am
by PM2K
I love it all, but prefer peat. It just looks so evil and bottomless... :twisted:

Re: Survey: Nondescript

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 12:01 pm
by Duncan Edwards
My real answer is "Yeah". Am I odd in thinking certain situations call for certain substances?

Re: Survey: Nondescript

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:41 pm
by Viridian
It makes sense. That said, some situations or environments can have various "kinds" of quicksand (e.g. a walk in the woods). I'm curious what people think of when someone encounters quicksand sans description.

Re: Survey: Nondescript

Posted: Sat Dec 07, 2013 5:55 pm
by nachtjaeger
Could have sworn I replied to this earlier today.

Anyway, you're not odd. For example, in a story or movie set on Dartmoor in the UK, one wouldn't picture sandy quicksand. Peat would be the thing, or one of the closely related swampy muds. Or for a desert scene, the QS would most likely appear to be dry sand. But for me, absent any context the archetypal quicksand is silky river sand and fine silt. 8-)

Duncan Edwards wrote:My real answer is "Yeah". Am I odd in thinking certain situations call for certain substances?

Re: Survey: Nondescript

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 3:03 am
by bart1997
...

Re: Survey: Nondescript

Posted: Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:22 am
by Billie Bonce
bart1997 wrote:Quicksand is sand that has become quick and has nothing to do with mud or clay or peat. So I did vote for the beach sand-option. Reading stories of people sinking in a pit of "quicksand" right in the middle of a forest or even worse a bog feels just odd.
I totally share this opinion, and by the way I voted for the same option.

However, it is not so for the Americans who are in vast majority here. They say 'quicksand' about any stuff in which a human can sink and get stuck, adding to such stuff mystical properties of sucking a victim in it like a vacuum cleaner.

For me, giving a honest answer to this poll was impossible. Quicksand is a foreign word for me. Previously, this word meant a lot for me, feeding my fetish - it meant a rare and dangerous condition of either wet beach sand or dry desert sand. After I discovered this community the word lost any special meaning to me, now it is just virtually anything quicksand-fetish-related. If I try to figure out what they are speaking about in a written text, I first try to understand what kind of text is it. A news report, a scientific article, a mainstream prose, a fetish prose, or just some blogger's blah-blah-blah. In a scientific article I would expect to see real quicksand and nothing else. In a mainstream prose I would expect to see real quicksand, too, most likely - dry desert quicksand. In a news report it can be anything. In the remaining two cases - even worse. If it wasn't described clearly, the overuse of the word 'quicksand' would rather irritate than please me.

A fetish model in a video: "What kind of stuff is it? Is it... a QUICKSAND???"
Me: "No, lady! It is an artificial mud pit in a studio."