Me too, though I seem to recall not too long ago lurking on a thread on "do you have to use names?"...... Good god, I hope not because I don't think I could. Might bring in a new feature (long, limp white hands, for instance) but. Things they wouldn't notice at first. I don't know about anyone else, but I wasn't thinking along the lines of redescribing past the first chapter they're in (with some obvious exceptions, like a minor character who disappears quickly and pops back five chapters later for plot purposes, unless they have a really outstanding and memorable name. Bob isn't going to ring many bells there, and it may not matter if the reader thinks "who???" but then again... it may jolt them out of the story. Just the initial impression is enough, especially if it's vivid. Humans, after all, are very visual creatures (it's genetic, which is why we can and like to differentiate between thousands of faces). I get a feeling we're talking at cross-purposes. You seem to see visual character description as a bit of a chore and a barrier to getting into the personality: I see good descriptions as a thing of beauty and a joy in themselves, fun to read and to write and a way to deepen character. Nothing wrong with either view - I am a very visual/aural person and know too well my 'chores' lie in other directions (plot, oh god plot, do I have to explain this or that point???)
Yeah, that's just so strange to me. Not knocking it, it's just interesting to me how different people's minds work. I read the Artemis Fowl books when I was a kid. I can still remember almost exactly how the characters were described. Bulter was "a mountain of a man" with a diamond tattoo. Holly Short had red hair, hazel eyes, and nut-brown skin, and she was just an inch short for an elf-- which was a lot to her, because an inch is a lot when you're only three and a half feet tall. Artemis was (I think) a pale, dark-haired child with blue eyes. Commander Root was always puffing on a cigar. And later in the series, Artemis and Holly swapped an eye, so from that point onward, they both had one hazel eye and one blue eye. And like... those are very small descriptions, but they've stuck with me for years and years.
But that's not all we know about her when we first meet them. Tess is helped up when she fell on her arse by a girl with red pigtails, green eyes, an Irish accent who we find out is called Connie. When Tess meets her again she's "the redhead who helped me up" and then "the Irish girl" and thenceforth she's Connie, because we know her better by then. But when Tess is looking up on the stage hoping someone will help her we see she's someone that we haven't met at all yet, she's definitely not the girl that tripped her (who is Asian with a long plait), she definitely not the antagonist (who is blonde and short), she's definitely not Tess' friend Charlie (who is dark haired, with brown eyes and freckles). No. No, it's just to get through until they become fully fledged characters. It's just when we meet them the first time until we start to find out more about them. Which doesn't take long, but Tess needs to go and meet her love interest first (who is more athletic than skinny, with mousy hair and grey eyes) and the antagonist and get brooded at by her mother. It's literally just the first scene in the pageant where they are "the Asian girl who tripped me" or "the blonde girl I saw talking to Charlie". Bob and Jo is ok, but the cast of my book is Tess, AJ, Charlie, Flick, Amy, Connie, Hazel, Jasmine, Franki and Jacqui (who are twins, so only count as one). Throwing this out all in one go would be... Problematic. Because they are all skinny little teenagers who are uncomfortably pretty. Tess will take the time to moon over AJ's eyes and the way she moves, but the rest of them don't even get 'pretty' in their descriptions. This lot are all beauty pagent victors, obviously they are pretty. Again, that depends a lot on your plot, doesn't it? Fine, if you have four or five core cast who are all very different then I take your point. But my girls are all driven, all take this way too seriously, all want to be the damn princess and will stab you up to get an extra point. And there's a lot of them. Which is why I don't start throwing names around right off. We meet Charlie right up front, who tells us Flick is the girl to beat. Jasmine trips Tess, and Connie eventually helps her up and slips her some painkillers. AJ we meet by herself so Tess can drool over her. But then the rest of the cast she won't meet until chapter four when they all get together to gossip and bitch and share out their valium. And hopefully it's done such that none of this is just overwhelming, we meet people as they naturally come up and if it takes a while to find out that Connie is a walking pharmacy then so be it, because Tess doesn't know that yet. But let's be clear here; to say "I don't find it interesting" is not the same as "Under no circumstances does this make it into the book". I'm not saying that eye colour is interesting at all, I'm just saying that it's something that helps to give the reader a better picture of who is talking, because the narrator of the book is looking them in the face as they talk. It's so weird to think about writing a first person conversation where the narrator just doesn't notice the colour of someone's hair, you know? And for those who don't find it interesting, is it that big of a sacrifice they are making to let the people who do want to know have a better mental picture of someone? It's two or three words. That's it. And seriously, some people definitely do like that stuff. And it's such a slender sacrifice to make. I doubt even the people who don't like it even notice it; they certainly aren't scoffing at this useless detail you threw at them. ETA - When we ask if people are interested we haven't yet asked how much people care as readers when they see this. So is there anyone here who would put a book down if they saw mention of eye colour? Anyone who is really conscious when they read it? Anyone here who can even say off the top of their head which books do it and which don't?
Lightweight description doesn't bother me, no. I rarely remember it if it isn't plot-relevant, though.
Especially if it's a book or opening chapter which is character-heavy, a line of description is for me a lot more use than a name (unless the writer has Dickensian skill with inventing names, and I speak as someone who adores and critiques fictional names) while I get a handle on these people...
That's pretty much exactly how I feel too. It's just not a big deal and at worst it doesn't sink in but it's not something that pull me out of a book.
Frankly @LostThePlot you seen more interested in proving yourself right than in discussing reading preferences or writing styles, and it's been too long a day for me to engage on that level, so whatever.
I'm not trying to prove anything! I'm just trying to answer the points you brought up. I don't think that's especially bellicose of me to address what was quite a long post with quite a long post. The reference to my own work is because I'm trying to show that I'm not making an obtuse or abstract argument. It could be any setting; a platoon of soldiers, policemen in the squad room, a bus full of school kids or even Reservoir Dogs; anywhere with a reasonably sized cast people are going to have to be introduced by describing them because otherwise you're deluging people in character traits. My point all along has been that it's not a big deal to include minimal amounts of description, and since some people like it and often it's useful, why not include it? And if you think that's being pushy or aggressive in any way I don't know what to tell you.
Eh...I'll agree that it's harmless. And for some readers, readers who prefer or need a visual tag in their minds, it may be useful. But I can't agree with 'have to', if you mean that generally, rather than just in the case of you as a reader or writer. For me, names and an accumulation of traits is enough.
Yes, in general. No, you don't have to but it's not something unique to my work to have a larger cast and be unable to characterize them all within the first chapter.
Which leads us to the question, how do you bring in said traits quickly yet entertainingly enough to give the character a personality before the reader loses interest in them, and at the same time not make it sound like a laundry list? Especially with a large cast. I'm not just being argumentative, because it's a serious question: I think (hey, from feedback I've gotten and critiques of books I've read, I know) that we definitely forget/underestimate the level of blankness our characters are to a reader in those first few pages and quirks and shades of personality invariably need more words and more subtlety of writing to not aggravate. (ps - the physical descriptions also run the risk of 'laundry list' too)
I'm concluding that I'm thinking of more than one kind of physical description. If a bazillion people are unavoidably being presented all at once, I'm not objecting to things like, "The girl in the red sweatshirt". But I see that as purely a tag for when the narrative rolls around to that person again, filling in for a name until we have a name. I'd like to get "the girl in the red sweatshirt" transformed into "Miss Peabody", and "the young man in tweed" transformed into "Mr. Twickenham" as quickly as possible. I think that traits/personality can often most easily come through dialogue, and that it can be useful to set up a slightly stressful situation, to force the dialogue to have some personality.
That's pretty much how I approach character description. I first want the reader to have a visual sense of the character, but one in which they've mostly conjured on their own. I want them to have a visceral reaction too... try to mix in a metaphor or some aspect of the character's personality that links them thematically to the story. The most time I spend on any one paragraph in a chapter is the one in which I introduce a new character to the reader! Even animals get flourishes of purple prose! “You know I would if my hands weren’t busy! I’m so sorry, Valerie. I don’t think anyone saw...” Rosemarie shut the doors behind her and entered the brightly lit apartment. An enormous oak table strewn with the instruments of the tailor’s trade took up the center of the room, on the far corner of which sat an elaborate birdcage, home to the second floor’s most thieving and untidy resident, an acquisitive black and white magpie that welcomed each visitor with the aplomb of a Bombay pickpocket. Rows of lavish fabrics and racks of costumes lined the facing walls. On the back wall, spanning the entire breadth of the room, was painted the most remarkable trompe l’oeil; it was of a sun-dappled forest clearing, where a sisterhood of muses frolicked amongst the ruins of a Roman garden. So absolute was the illusion that one might step into the mural and be inexplicably banished from the natural world. But all Rosemarie saw was her friend standing, statuesque and unashamed and returned to her so unexpectedly. It was as though one of the muses had broken free of the bonds of pigment and brush strokes for a brief sojourn in the musk of flesh and bone.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Just a tag until we know them. Just something so that we can see them right now until we know them well enough to not need to. By a few chapters in we'll all know Miss Peabody's trademark red sweatshirt (obvs ) and that'll come to mind when you say her name, but we need to know about it first. Yes, that's true. We get to know people by seeing them in stressful situations, that's what will lets us see them for who they really are. But I don't like the idea of contorting the plot to push all that characterisation into a specific place, or to avoid describing people. If that happens when people meet then no worries; this is what happens with all my major characters. But I still say what they look like. And second to that; are people ok with me saying that first person is a different beast to third when it comes to description? When you're in third you can just drop characterisation on a character with voice of god. You can have the narration say "Bob was a marine..." but in first you don't have a choice. If Bob doesn't say he was a marine then we can't know. The narrator can see that they are well built, with a military bearing and a buzzcut; they might even see that they have a thousand yard stare and a hand that twitches towards where a holster would be at loud noises; but the narrator can only tell us what they see and Bob has to tell us why.
Oh, this kind of description you've quoted is not the sort that bothers me, because it's unique and very personal to the style of writing. It's the automatic cartoonish physical attributes like 'emerald or azure eyes' that irks me. It's done so much. Of course people are free to write whatever they like, and maybe lots of people love this sort of stock fantasy character look, but I'm not one of them.
It's easy to remember because of the Of Mice and Men connection, but without that, I don't think the height difference would make them easier for me to remember, no. Different strokes!
I've been thinking about this a lot more than I should. I want to give a good answer beyond "I think it should be this way.", and I think I might have come up with MY reasons. One: The value you ascribe to your characters is never as important as the value the reader ascribes to them. I hate descriptions of characters in books because when I read Lord of the Rings as a kid I had this perfect image in my head of what Gandalf looked like. Then the movies come out, and while Ian McKellen did a fantastic job, he'll never be my Gandalf. He's too clean, too human, and too real. Because Gandalf isn't a man. He's an imaginary fantasy creature, as unique and creative as the two orcs arguing in Mordor while Sam and Frodo are cowering behind a rock. Rolling back onto my Ender's Game reference, Asa Butterfield isn't Ender. Furthermore, the description of Ender in the book isn't Ender either. Ender Wiggin will always look exactly like my brother, because he's a younger sibling, and as I read the book I kept thinking of my little brother getting put in these situations. Two: The best books convey a mental state, not visuals If that video didn't survive or you skipped, the scene shows a leader talking to his people about why they're about to go to war, and possibly all die. If you were writing this scene, and you started describing the different hues of armor the different people are wearing, I bet you'd loose most of your readers by the second paragraph. There's some interesting visual stuff going on here, but none of that matters. What matters is what this man is saying. His ideas, vision for the future, and how he conveys it. In movies and TV shows you absolutely need to fill the screen with vibrant imagery, but that's a visual medium. Books are for thoughts. That video snip looks nice, but I have no idea what he's thinking and why. Is he confident as he talks, or is he unsure of line in the sand he's drawing? Is he lying? Is this a trick? As he says all these things about uniting his people, is it all a ploy to weaken them all so his particular group can ascend? Is he so nervous speaking publicly, despite his position as a leader, that he's humming "Wild Thing" by Tone Loc? That's what a book can do. Don't tell me how many ridges the 15th woman from the right shoulder pads have, and that her eyes are the deepest, most intoxication vibrant Emerald Blue-Green Hazel. Tell me if this guy's humming fricking Wild Thing.
I think we can all agree that the right answer to 'How much of that physical description should a character have' would be 'no more, no more, please...' unless it's a deliberate comic effect (and isn't it sad that - if we were reading such a comedy - we'd probably one and all recognise the cliche being sent up?)
If you were writing that scene then you wouldn't jump into it apropos of nothing. If you were writing that scene with no knowledge of the stakes or the people involved then it's not going to work, period. Imagine this; the first page of a book that is that scene. And it focuses just on this big bombastic speech that is, frankly, crap we've seen before. There is nothing interesting in that speech to someone who has read a lot of sci fi. That's just vanilla warrior nonsense. Oh purity, right, great. Yawn. If you wanted to do that scene on stage it would be a soliloquy; spotlight on Lawrence Olivier right at the front of the stage. On TV you can just hurl all these meaningless pictures into it because people are going to go "Ooo shiny". In a book you'd do this totally differently. We would meet his character, we'd learn his motivation, we'd know why this matters to him and then we'd see him walk out there and do it. And, dare I say, we'd probably have mentioned that he's an alien, that he's got some face stuff going on. So when he walks out there we'd have this majestic picture of him as he goes to deliver what is (honestly) not a great speech. The context is what gives it power, not the words. But whose thoughts? And which thoughts? Books are not just cerebral candy. They are supposed to be a representation of reality. Yes, in a form that is less visual. But still a bit visual. There's a reason why we describe stuff at all, you know? And no, it's not just because it's of deep importance to the meaning of the work. It's so that we can feel like we are there. In a very real sense you're arguing for zero description. That because this is a thinkin' mans medium we don't need to say what this room looks like. And mostly, no, we don't. Minimalism matters. But some description? Yeah, it matters.
I think the question that you should be asking yourself is how do I want to present all this information to my readers. Mind you, you can have a shit-ton of descriptions but depending on how it's presented, it doesn't seem like an overload to the reader.
Thank you for saying that. It's true, I reckon. It's not what you do, it's how you do it that matters. If 'description' is something a writer steps outside the story to dish out—via a laundry list, or sundry details that don't actually matter at the time—the glitches will show and likely become tiresome. However, if physical description of people, thoughts, feelings, objects or scenery is seamlessly given to the reader along with everything else, it works. No matter how much or little of these elements there are. It's not the amount—as you say—but how these impressions are presented that counts. I feel that once a reader has fully embarked on a story they should not be noticing writerly tricks at all. At least that's my aim as an author. To disappear. Anyway, all writing is 'description,' isn't it? Even dialogue. You are 'describing' what a character says, and maybe describing how they say it or how it is received. You've got nothing but words in your toolbox, so all impressions (visual and otherwise) need to be evoked via description ...of something or other. I feel the best way to tackle the issue is to forget about 'description' and immerse the reader in your story ...whatever it takes.
Yep and through interactions a detailed description will come together creating a natural flow for the reader as well. Although, it may be good for you to have a character description sheet as a reference for when you write. This way you can jot/type specific to your character points and incorporate them into your story.
Oh yes. A laundry list next to your keyboard is an excellent thing to have. It just doesn't need to creep into the writing itself. Nor does everything on it need to be used.
Yes, but I'm not talking about ignoring setting. I'm talking specifically about excessive characterization. A lot of character descriptions I see seem like the author is trying to describe an image in their head perfectly in a technical sense, instead honing down to a concise written description. No: excessive character descriptions. Although, what's in the room is probably more interesting than what color the room's hair is. I think the character POV matters a lot too. If you're writing from a 1st person perspective about a woman who focuses on eye color because she's looking for someone with a specific hue, that can be interesting. If it's 3rd person omnipresent perspective, and you the author is focusing on eye color, it can be a problem. I did something like this one of my WIPs. In the book's setting there's no animals on the planet the people live, so I made sure never to use similes or metaphors that related to animal actions or traits. No one "Snarls like a wolf" or "Chirps" when they laugh.
You're absolutely right. Because that's exactly the same argument I've been making. I've always said that a line or so of description is where you should be. One sentence. Or as you put it "honing down to a concise written description". That's what I want to see. Not zero. A small number of words. Not a lot, not zero, somewhere between those two. Fifteen words of description to show us what the MC looks like. I've never said that it's interesting. I've always said that some people want it there; that they want to know so they can see what this person looks like. I know you don't see it that way. But seriously, to a good chunk of people it matters to be able to picture the lead character. People keep saying "but it's not interesting" as if you pick through every sentence deciding if this pronoun is interesting enough to deserve it's place. And no-one has really answered the answers I've given to this; just because it's not interesting to you doesn't mean that it's officially not interesting to everyone. Yes, reams of description is boring. But one sentence of description when you know that some people like it? Is saying "she has blue eyes" focusing unduly on eye colour though? Like I've been saying; there really is a middle ground between totally ignoring things and spending a page talking about eyes. There's a golden mean where you can tell the readers things without sounding like you have a fetish.
