A problem I constantly come across in my story is that I think I go overboard with adding details in places that do not need it. I tend to scribble many fantasy settings, and I think it's a good idea to give the reader a clear picture of the surroundings/location, but when does it become too much? Should I allow the reader to use their imagination while I describe the setting with as few words as possible, or is it better to paint the image as clearly as possible so the reader is well aware of the setting? I find this to be particularly difficult when writing fantasy because I want to give the impression that the reader is not on earth, but I tend to use a lot of earthly descriptions. I feel like my problem here is that I repeat many of the same words and I use many real-world examples, making it feel less like another planet. This is the only time I go into detail about the forest's appearance, while every other time it's mostly minor things like "Zenta peered over the bushes." or "He disappeared into the canopy leaves." To give you all a better idea, here's a small excerpt of the story I am making. The forest was thick with trees that barely any sunlight (or moonlight in this case) penetrated the canopy to reach the forest floor. It naturally looked dark and gloomy inside and many of the tree branches were bent over to reach for the ground instead of the sky, similar to a willow tree. The tallest of the trees would only have their incredible trunks visible because all the smaller trees blocked the view to the sky. Vines and mosses dangled between the twigs and bark of the thousands of trees, tangling those unlucky enough to get snared in them. Multicolored bioluminescent fungi grew from the ground and latched themselves onto the lowest branches of the willow trees. Whenever the wind swayed these branches, the glowing fungus would dazzle and amaze all who saw them. The largest of these fungi grew in clusters between leafy shrubs and near the roots of the trees. Although the light from the sun (and moon) was not present, the mushrooms lit up the forest well enough for people to make their way across. What do you guys think? Is it doing a good job describing the forest? Should I continue to talk about the forest in another few paragraphs, or should I allow the reader to build on what was already described? Is there any way this paragraph could be shorter or less redundant, or is it decent enough to pick at the reader's mind? Feel free to edit it, I'm curious to see where changes can be made and enhance my vocabulary!
Is this intended to be a single paragraph, and is this exposition or more like narration when a character enters the forest for the first time? I think it can definitely be trimmed, but you'd probably have more flexibility if it's part of narration. Some of it seems a little passive，although I don't know if most of the sentences are technically considered passive voice.
I think it would behoove you to try and tighten up things a bit. Like the first sentence as an example. The forest was so thick that barely any moonlight could penetrate the canopy. You could use dense in place of thick, but omitting the excess like trees will still paint the same picture for the reader. No need to specify that it is a forest of tress, since most forests are. Flip side if it were a forest of mushrooms or something not naturally described as such. Some may enjoy the more long purple prose, but it can detract from moving the story/plot along if it gets bogged down in descriptions of things if they go on too long. It's up to you on how you want to go about it all though, just offering a bit of food for thought.
In my opinion, if it's the beginning of the book or key to a chapter and you're trying to set up the framework these characters reside in or work with, then it's prolly ok. Like lord of the ring, for example, the scene with the walking trees, it would be expected and appropriate. If the characters are just walking through a forest for a minute, then probably not. How important is this forest? Don't lead the reader into thinking it is important and then drop it because it's not. That confuses people.
I, too, have had (and still have) my struggles with the classic show vs. tell, and in an effort to "show," I used to run into the trap of showing too much. Descriptions are nice and necessary but it's too easy to overdo them. That's where you bore the reader because you're slowing down the plot. (This is especially difficult to navigate during scenes where there isn't much traditional action, or things have to be slow and tense on purpose.) Sometimes, the less is more approach works well, and even if you feel you have a lot to say, maybe you can sprinkle it in in other places instead of just info dumping in one spot. With regard to your paragraph here, I think it can be condensed. Maybe something like this... The forest was so thick with trees that barely any sunlight or moonlight could penetrate the canopy. It was dark and gloomy inside. Like a willow tree, many of the branches were bent downward, reaching for the ground instead of the sky. The incredible trunks of the tallest trees were only visible because the smaller trees blocked the view to the sky. Vines and mosses dangled between the trees, ensnaring those unlucky travelers. Multicolored, bioluminescent fungi grew from the ground, latching onto the lowest branches of the willows. Whenever they swayed, the glowing fungus would dazzle and amaze those who saw them. The largest of these fungi grew in clusters between leafy shrubs near the roots of the trees. As no light from the sun or moon was present, the mushrooms lit up the forest well enough for people to make their way across.
I don’t think the level of detail, in and of itself, is a problem in the example you posted. I think you’ve been given good advice on when and where to use detailed descriptions. For me, I want to experience the forest through the eyes of a character. This feels like an omniscient voice to me, and feels clinical instead of life like
I don’t disagree with this, but do want to add some caution. sprinkling can be choppy if not done well. Also, if the place being described is supposed have a big impact, like the description is metaphorical or it’s an important place, it may lose the impact sprinkled around.
I agree with what @trevorD said, if it is the character's first time seeing a 'forest' then it might warrant some extra attention to detail. If it's someone who lives in the forest though, unless they're a writer themselves I don't think too much detail is needed. Even if it's a forest with magical things like walking trees and talking toads, a newcomer is going to be far and away more bewildered than some faerie who just lives there. I think deciding between too much and too little detail (doubly so for exposition) is something I have trouble with too, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.
Overall, it's not a bad description, but it's a little too long, and a bit redundant. Try this: The forest was so thick that barely any light reached the forest floor. Many of the trees' branches bent over to reach for the ground instead of the sky, similar to a willow tree. Vines and mosses dangled between the trees, tangling those unlucky enough to get snared in them. Multicolored bioluminescent fungi grew in clusters and near the roots of the trees; where the branches reached low enough, the fungi had attached themselves, creating glowing lights that swayed when something brushed against them. As you can see , I cut out a lot - there's no need to mention sunlight or moonlight - "light" covers it all. I also removed the mention of "leafy shrubs" and the wind, since a forest that dense wouldn't have undergrowth (fungi being an exception, since they don't need light), nor would wind penetrate. The rest was simply condensing what you had to make it more succinct. (I'm a fan of the "less is more" school of thought - draw a thumbnail sketch and let the reader fill in the rest.)
I was going to say this. When possible you want the story to flow smoothly through action, description, narration, inner monologue and dialogue. Try not to go too long stuck in one of those. I would try something like combining action with description. For instance: She strolled along the trail beside the massive tall trees, their trunks so thick and so high they disappeared into the foliage of the lower trees overhead. Very little light penetrated all the way down here, so there was no undergrowth aside from colonies of low brown toadstools and some kind of strange lacy fungi, white with frilly red fringe around the edges. The trunks at this lowest level were like massive columns of various sizes, straining skyward to support the unimaginable mass of foliage above, and down from that leafy mass hung thick twisted liannas and shaggy mosses. As she progressed along the trail she came to an area where the fungi were multicolored and bioluminescent, and they clutched the ends of the down-drooping branches that resembled willow fronds. Another approach would be to have several people, at least 2, so they can talk about the surroundings. And best if one of them is a newcomer so they can be fascinated, look around like a tourist in New York, and ask the questions the readers want answered (or that the writer wants to answer ).
I highly disagree with this take. If the narrator is omniscient, it may not make a difference in the immediate paragraph, but since the paragraph will almost certainly be followed up with an actual scene in the forest, it makes a world of difference for the reader experiencing the scene. Even more so from a deep character POV, I think it makes a HUGE difference. I would advise choosing sunlight OR moonlight, but not being vague about which.
I definitely like the first approach. I would note it is NOT choppy. The action is very light and leads us along the narration of the forest. Contrast with this, stealing your words and making it worse: Montoya's saber swished under Neil's throat, missing his jugular by a pubic-hair. They fought along the massive tall trees, their trunks so thick and so high they disappeared into the foliage of the lower trees overhead. Very little light penetrated all the way down here, so there was no undergrowth aside from colonies of low brown toadstools and some kind of strange lacy fungi, white with frilly red fringe around the edges. The trunks at this lowest level were like massive columns of various sizes, straining skyward to support the unimaginable mass of foliage above, and down from that leafy mass hung thick twisted liannas and shaggy mosses. Clink! Clank! One saber notched the other, though the belligerents could hardly see in the dim, dank forest. "My name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father! Prepare to die." As the fighting progressed along the trail they came to an area where the fungi were multicolored and bioluminescent, and they clutched the ends of the down-drooping branches that resembled willow fronds. My version, thought it borrows 100% of the description, is significantly worse because the description simply interrupts an action scene, instead of integrating smoothly like @Xoic 's version
If I may, I'd like to point out the worst mistakes you made below: Far too much mass in one sentence, plus mosses on top of it!! Hey wait, I think I wrote that part...
Yes, I totally agree. If the description isn't filtered through the eyes, mind and heart of a character ...preferably your POV character ...it's likely to appear as a 'list.' You can make the setting come alive if you make it clear what effect these things are having on your character as he/she passes through. This rewrite below obviously, has nothing to do with your actual story, but I've tried to reword it, without leaving out any of the detail. As an example of what you can do with a slightly different approach : And etc. You can make a passage like that do double-duty. You can get the details of the setting across, but also manage a bit of character development as well. And both will be done painlessly, and the reader will stay immersed in the story.
Choosing details and how much detail is something of a struggle. It's that whole thing of placing pictures in the head of the reader, keeping them with you and, above all else, not making it boring. It can be a very difficult juggling act. In the short piece you've posted, it's hard to know if this is too much or not enough. Something that might assist is to post a longer piece in the workshop with specific questions as to whether the reader starts to skim, drift, lose cohesion, get bored, and then whereabouts this started. With regard to the piece you have posted, a couple of things occur to me. Firstly, I'd suggest omitting daylight and only mention the moonlight because that places us in the there and then of the action. It's not daytime so sunlight coming through has no meaning. Secondly, there's a couple of references to things that might happen were someone to come upon the scene (getting tangled in the vines and being amazed by the lightshow). I'd also suggest removing these hypotheticals because that, again, pulls away from the immediacy of your character trekking through the forest. He/she needed to be mindful of not getting tangled, the glowing fungi are just amazing and they lit up the track for your character and not the other people who aren't currently present. Hope that makes sense.
It's a stylistic choice but I wouldn't read past the OP. I'm reading, thinking 'why do I need to know this'. My theory of progressive writing combines the effects of modern media the predictive nature of the human brain. With the advent of TV and Internet everybody in the western world has seen virtually everything. On commencement of a description the brain searches for compatible images. If I begin to describe a skyscraper falling your brain will retrieve a twin-towers image - you can't stop it. So, on reading the commencement of your description my brain says, "Okay, got it, sort of like Avatar. Can we please move this along?" Dependent on your exposition style too much description can be a disaster. What if the mushrooms prove to be important later? What if the natives are hunting the hero and nobody knows why? What if the mushrooms are the sacred food of the Gods? Mushrooms, what mushrooms? I must have missed them buried in all that prose.
Once again @jannert wins the thread! (and of course I don't mean it's a contest. I say this before jannert comes in and says it, as I'm sure she otherwise would ). This rewrite reminds me strongly of Andre Norton, one of my favorite storytellers. I now realize she tends to do exactly this, to filter the entire story and all information in it, including what would otherwise be dry descriptions (lists) through not only the eyes (as I did in my rewrite) but the feelings of the character. That puts the reader right there emotionally into the character, and that's the most powerful way a character can function—as a proxy for the reader through which they receive emotion and feeling as well as information. I'm also struck by the brilliance of making it so dark (weird irony in my wording there). Mine sounded like there was plenty of light and no difficulty in traversing this forest. So in this way as well jannert's is excellent. Not only did the narration present the feelings of poor Jeremy, but so did the action. he stumbled and cursed himself through this frightening, dark place. This is how you combine narration, description, action, and inner monologue in such a way that they work together, holistically, to paint a vivid picture that engages readers emotionally.
Thank you all for the amazing feedback and advice! I am beginning to understand what you all mean and how I can approach this story a lot better. I like some of the revised versions, and I see where I can edit and enhance my previous paragraph. I didn't think about trying to explain the forest through the eyes of the character (He's blind), but it makes a lot of sense now, especially for the future. Another good tip I've seen is mixing the actions of the main character to describe certain aspects of the forest. I never thought of that! I should probably keep the focus more on the main character and his experience going through the forest rather than the forest itself. The forest is not super important. It's only there for the character to pass through. I focused so much on trying to make it a 'unique forest', that I missed the bigger picture I wanted to tell, and ended up making the reader go through a checklist of what I expect them to know. I'll be sure to keep in mind to avoid a 'list' when describing something. Not only that, but I'm happy some of you took the paragraph and edit it to tackle the main issue I was having, they were all awesome to read! Truth be told, I'm a bit jealous I couldn't think up these settings, but honestly, I'm impressed! I still got a lot to learn from you guys.
