Are you big on description? Or are you more minimal when it comes to this. I used to think I was some sort of minimalist writer and because of that could skip over a lot of description. But I have learned that approach really wasn't doing me any favors. I mean even minimalist writing does need some description. This is still something I have to almost force myself to include. Sometimes after a story or chapter is finished I'll open a new document and just think about pieces of description that could fit or be added. I don't look at the original while I am doing this. I'll just write a brief paragraph on what a character looks like or a house or a road or whatever. Then I take my description cheatsheet and go back and see if any of these pieces of description fit and where it add them. I never use all of them, but a few of them can really add a lot and be a big improvement. If you can write in good description while on first draft, how do you do it? What have you found works for you? Or if you are more of a minimalist writer, how do you bring in more description to your writing? Even though I struggle with this I think description can really put life into a story. Do you agree?
I'm a minimalist but make the description count. I prefer to go hard, fast, and specific and then move quickly back on track. The way I see it, most of our world is mundane to us. I've seen a million trees and a million landscapes. Very few of those would catch my eye and warrant a description true to my POV. But a guy walking a cat on a leash? Yeah, I might notice that and process it with more description than a would the other twenty people in my field of view.
As far as physical descriptions are concerned, I think you can leave some of that up to the imagination of the reader. For example, all I say about the home of my MC is that it is a yellow clapboard farmhouse with a dusty yard and a dilapidated barn. Everyone knows what a farmhouse looks like. The reader's imagination would be able to picture the scene from that description. With characters, too, it's more important to focus on the personality/character description rather than the physical description. I read somewhere that all Tolstoy said about Anna Karenina's physical description was that she was very beautiful (everyone knows what a beautiful woman looks like) but yet she was a complicated and multi-layered character.
Place is essential to most of my stories, and while I avoid describing every little details, I am a descriptive writer when it comes to place. Some people don't like it (cut to the chase) and others like it very much (I felt like I was there). Appearance of characters is not as important to me; making an allusion to appearance and letting readers fill in with their own imagination is good for me. Stories that describe the details of clothing make me fall over sideways- yep, don't hand me that historical costume romance because I'm not going to get very far with it. As a general rule, I allow a character's character and personality unfold with the story rather than describing those characteristics in detail. I don't usually know a character's quirks until I start writing about him or her.
It's hard for me to answer this. Some things I describe in some detail, but in a welter of rapid sensory impressions, some things I don't feel any need to describe. And for people I haven't settled on an approach yet. I'm trying giving certain aspects of description when I introduce a character, but I find just one immediately-noticeable trait is usually enough, and then maybe I'll pepper a few more in as the story progresses. But it seems weird to mention details a little ways in after the character has already been introduced, because readers might have an idea of how he looks already in their head that doesn't match. But I've had that experience as a reader and it doesn't bother me. My own idea of what a character looks like will persist despite whatever details the author gives that contradict it, though I can remember those details and don't get confused later in the book. I guess I'd have to say I'm trying out different approaches to description to see what works for me. Ultimately it's up to you to decide what works for you, some people will like it and some people won't.
I generally agree with the idea of letting the reader fill in details for themselves. For characters, I generally limit the description to age, height, and build beyond that the reader has free reign. For setting description, it really depends on the character. My current WIP has a farm boy who has never been more than about 5 miles from home. With that in mind, many of his observations are comparison to what he knows, 'as they passed through the woods, Alon thought they weren't much different than those at home.' A new town gets more description as it is new to the character. I think this approach was inspired by the 'Hunger games series'. I remember in the later books thinking, okay, the fashionista is getting ready for war, skipping several paragraphs because of the complete lack of interest.
Some people think that's too much. But I find it's helpful to have a few details to separate people, because some readers won't remember the names very well (I'm one of those. I have a hard time remembering names, in real life as well as in stories). So I give a few things like hair color, general size, or maybe that one person is blustery while another is quiet. Of course those last two can be shown, but once you've established their personalities you can then use those attributes as a handle to remind them which one you're talking about. Oh yeah, Ronnnie is the skinny tough one with long brown hair who's already out of high school and smokes weed.
I like to stay very general on physical description, so the reader can fill in details. If an Asian reader wants to see the characters as Asian, more power to them. I try to give them that freedom, unless it bears on the story, such as a race in a fantasy setting. Or the five foot nothing kid that tries to make the varsity basketball team.
That's a good point about making the description really count. It can be a way to really introduce something that stands out and gets the reader's attention.
I think that's true to some extent, but physical descriptions are a way to breathe life into characters and stories. It's an opportunity. I don't think it's a matter of physical description vs. character development. I think you want some of both. And there is no reason to use boring details in either. Like I said, adding descriptions can be an opportunity.
I think the problem can be when you're dealing with several characters and the writer hasn't put in enough description to really differentiate what they look like. They don't have to be boring or mundane character descriptions. But I think it's probably better for the writer to add in the details than leaving it up to the reader. When description is lacking, it's quite possible to lose some clarity.
No one wants a block of character description. I think you're thinking along the right lines of peppering it in. I don't think that's weird at all. I think it's a better approach than sticking it all in there when a character is introduced.
I think how you say it is probably just as important if not more important when it comes to description.
How you say something is always important. There needs to be a reason for description, establishing the setting, the impact on the character, and relevance to the plot.
That's the big plus about books, it's that the pictures they are painting aren't limited to the creator's view of what is beautiful. In a movie, the image is static, and the same for everyone. But how someone imagines a world a book is portraying is different, its tailored to the individual's imagination, almost as if its fine-tuned to it. I sometimes compare books to having dreams for this reason, some evoke such vivid imagery I really do feel as if I'm in a dream. That's the power of pages. That's important for creating a gap in order to utilise the power of imagination. If you describe everything and leave no gaps for the mind to fill, then the "dream effect" I was talking about diminishes because you're trying to make the reader see something a certain way. This isn't a bad thing, it really comes down to how you execute it at the end of the day. Some descriptions by the most skilled writers are just pure pleasure to read because they have a mastery of language and words. Both are fine, there's no better or worse, there's only how you execute it. That's execution. Make your descriptions too lacking, and your writing will come across as lazy. Make them too lengthy, and you'll drive away some readers who don't like that. It's hard to please everyone but, surely, there is some kind of sweetspot.
I like describing settings from a characters POV, where the description is more compare/contrast which leaves those little gaps. Little things that hint at bigger ones, like the slope of a roof, which hints at what winter is like in the area.
My point is there needs to be a purpose for it. I have used the example before, but in one of the later books of the Hunger Games series, the author gives about a half page description of what the MC is wearing. It has no bearing on the plot, character, or setting.
For me, how much description I give is quite dependent on context. It's a hard question to broadly answer.
It's like everything else: what works for one person completely throws another one off stride. Perhaps because I'm a visual person, a couple of hints about appearance conjures up a clear image in my mind. I don't need or want more than that, either as a reader or a writer. A description of one of my characters: He was a nice-looking man, even considering he was all hung over and real thin. He had the kind of blond hair that bleaches white in the sun, sort of shaggy over his ears, like he couldn’t decide whether to grow it long and be fashionable or cut it short and be respectable. Considering he was recovering from a bender in an abandoned church, I suspected the length of his hair was a matter of indifference. I could go on about the color of his eyes, the shape of his nose, and the chicken pox scar on his left cheekbone, but why? The basics are there and whoever is reading the story can add the detail... or not.
It depended on the draft. My rough draft, I have hardly any description at all. The purpose of the draft is to get everything on paper. So it usually comes out the other end as an utter mess. But my later drafts are riddled with descriptions. I think descripts are the best way to convey the subtext of the story.
Let me set a scene for you. You're in a pub in Victorian London right smack dab in the middle of Whitehall (where the Jack the Ripper murders took place). There are a lot of these rough and tough characters there. You got two guys arm wrestling and a few gambling. Lots of people are drunk. Swearing like sailors, lots of prostitutes etc. But in the corner there is this gentleman with bowler hat, a tailored vest, a coat, and looking at his watch. What is the subtext of this excerpt? This dude doesn't belong in that setting, right? He's in the roughest part of London. And I could alter the subtext by making him look nervous or calm or alert. That is subtext. The saying without speaking. You, as a reader, are drawn to focus on this unusual character. So what if I added an additional subtext that his shoes are worn out with holes in them? Well, now maybe he does belong there, but he wants to appear, to the best of his ability, as though he doesn't. Again, saying much about the character without using dialogue or narrative. It's all found in the description.
Here's a massive block of description, expertly done, from the book I'm currently reading. It details Arjuna (the wife) and just a touch of Rossmoor (the billionaire husband). It's told from the MC's perspective. “Ross doesn’t eat anything except breakfast,” Arjuna Danzig explained painfully. Rossmoor’s wife seemed designed to compensate for his oddity, dressed with elegant simplicity, black high-necked dress and pearls, hair upswept, eyebrows sculpted into arches as persistently surprised as her eyes were infinitely weary, her olive skin a ghost of the exotic beauty her name had seemed to promise, all the rest of her defeated, folded neatly in its sarcophagus of makeup. Rossmoor was a desiccated toddler, age floating unfixed; Arjuna’s fifty-some years were pinned to her like a police-artist’s sketch, or an archaeologist’s reconstruction of flesh on an unearthed hominid’s skull. Years were all she had. She bore them patiently. Well, years and billions. I’ll admit she was a woman I might be seated beside at a party and flatter with half-assed remarks for hours, then not recognize next time we met. Now, in my state, and with no one to turn to apart from those waiters skittering through the outlying gloom, I felt reliant on Arjuna Danzig to protect me if the gargoyle in pajamas turned feral. I find it really instructive, just the way the description moves and is clustered. It's not simply a laundry list of visuals. It knows when to shift directions. It makes a simple statement and then it elaborates with imagery and clues to character. It bounces from simple statements to assumptions and imaginings. It describes by comparison. Then it shifts more to the MC and places the woman in his context, and it does that with fantasy/imaginings, which is not sensory detail at all. Starts with dialog, which in itself gives a clue to the husband's description as seen by the wife. And look! It deliberately avoids a "said" tag. It realizes that the mannerism should be simply stated. Otherwise it would be lost in the greater description. “Ross doesn’t eat anything except breakfast,” Arjuna Danzig explained painfully. Moves into another simple statement with narrative explanation. Rossmoor’s wife seemed designed to compensate for his oddity, dressed with elegant simplicity . . . . It then elaborates with what looks to be a tricolon inside of another tricolon. Those are built with the traditional short, short, long pattern. The last line should almost have had a colon (elegant simplicity: ) with the way it's set up. The author preferred to just use commas. It's pretty typical for the book's style. The first two are simple statements, the last includes the MC's assumptions in a comparison. Very different from the first two. a) black high-necked dress and pearls b) hair upswept c) eyebrows sculpted into arches as persistently surprised as her eyes were infinitely weary. All of this is how she's dressed and makeupped. It falls under "elegant simplicity." The containing tricolon is: a) the elegant simplicity, b) her skin, and c) her defeated attitude. a) elegant simplicity . . . b) her olive skin a ghost of the exotic beauty her name had seemed to promise c) all the rest of her defeated, folded neatly in its sarcophagus of makeup Which is almost like long, short, short, since the first part was broken into three. Then it does a comparison using a semicolon to link it all. Notice that mechanically the parts are kept unequal. That holds them tighter, IMO. Rossmoor was a desiccated toddler, age floating unfixed; Arjuna’s fifty-some years were pinned to her like a police-artist’s sketch, or an archaeologist’s reconstruction of flesh on an unearthed hominid’s skull. Then it switches to short narrative statements. No showing allowed. Years were all she had. She bore them patiently. Well, years and billions. And then the sensory is completely abanonded. You don't need sensory detail to describe. It can be tedious when it's always relied on. This shifts more to the MC. (imagination: he's picturing talking to her at a party like she was one of his dinner dates. I suppose there's fantasy involved too.) I’ll admit she was a woman I might be seated beside at a party and flatter with half-assed remarks for hours, then not recognize next time we met. (fantasy: MC is imagining the billionaire husband turning on him) Now, in my state, and with no one to turn to apart from those waiters skittering through the outlying gloom, I felt reliant on Arjuna Danzig to protect me if the gargoyle in pajamas turned feral. ----------------------- I'm sure none of these specifics were considered when the paragraph went on the page. The words flow as they're needed. I just found it really interesting how they were joined together and shifted between the characters, even with how the paragraph was ratcheted tight with those short lines in the middle. The point and purpose of the description shifts too. Everything starts with the wife describing the husband's strange behavior, moves into description (and the MC's assumptions) of her dress and bearing, makes some simple declarations about her and then shifts to the MC fully, who is still describing her inwardly by imagining her in different contexts. Then of course the next question is how do you come out of that huge block with so much imagery? Dialog, of course. The husband starts this very earthy talk about how many toilets he has in his house. It's pretty funny. The change in tone is perfect. “We have such a number of toilets in our home, Chase [the MC], that you could go without flushing for a month if you liked. Conversely, my dear wife will frequently flush an empty toilet, just out of nervous energy.” Which is still describing the wife's demeanor, so the description is still not done. It changes how you see her in your mind. This time the direction has shifted to the husband's perspective. Very nicely written book. Many parts of it amaze me. I'm surprised it hasn't raked in awards. (This is all from "Chronic City" by Jonathan Lethem.)
Lots and then more. The more and more. Then the good bits are more noticeable and you can pick out what hits home and cut the rest. Eventually you can begin to write with less and less editing … that is the dream anyway
