I am trying to describe in detail what the world looks like (Buildings, streets, interior, etc.); but I have a severe writers block and I can't seem to start the right way, and when I do it turns out to be jumping from one subject to another (I start describing one city and then I just "jump" to another without any transition). I would be most grateful if someone could help me with this little problem I have. How do I describe these places and structures within the world in immense detail, that still manages to keep attention of the reader and seamlessly transition to another point in the book.
Short answer: You don't. I know I personally tend to skim over long descrptions, I'm not here to know about this building, I'm here to know what happens in it. Scene setting to me should be 'just the relevant details'. It is one of my shortcomings as a writer, but I try to concentrate on scene setting from my character's POV. What do they notice? What impressions do they get? How do they feel about that? Now, if you feel the need to have a detailed layout of your cities, than by all means have one! But I would recommend a map, it's a lot easier to get an overview of what the world is like from that than from the written word.
I would recommend that you pick up a few other books that deal in similar worldbuilding that you have enjoyed reading. Read passages again, paying careful attention to how they handle their worldbuilding and see if you can apply their method to your own writing. I'm not the sort who dislikes detail, etc. I only dislike it if it's dumped on me in a boring way, and reads like a list or an encyclopedia entry. So see what you can do to figure out how other authors bring their settings to life without boring the reader. There is no magic formula. If your worldbuilding is interesting enough, we'll certainly want to read about it. So see what you can do to make the writing about it interesting enough. One of the things that will help immensely is if you start writing your story. Get your characters in there and doing something. It'll give you a focus, and keep you from hopping all over the place. I assume you're writing a novel or short story, not a game or a screenplay? So get the characters in there. The characters are what your story will be about, even if the world they inhabit is also interesting. Don't try to sit and 'describe' the whole world beforehand. Keep a few notes at hand, so you won't make any continuity errors, but get writing the story, not just describing the setting. The setting is likely to take care of itself if your characters are moving through it. I read one time that worldbuilding is a lot like an iceberg. Only about 10% of it will 'show.' The rest is under the surface, and only the writer is aware of it. I think that's a good principle to follow, even if you're writing fantasy or sci-fi. Oh, and welcome to the forum! I see you just joined up. I hope you have fun here, reading what other people are doing and getting to know the ropes. Believe me, you're not the only person here who has struggled with this setting issue. In fact, if you page back through this thread (Setting Development) I think you'll find many other people addressing the same issue from exactly the same perspective as yourself. See if any of those other threads can give you some insight into the problem.
Why do you want to include lots of detail? One of the great things about fiction is how the readers imagination fills things in. If you do need detail then I wouldn't put it in as straight description. Use your characters senses. What are they seeing, hearing, smelling, etc. What is directly given by that and what implied? The sound of the gulls as they swooped around the fish market on the quayside, the stink of paint, etc How does the weather impact on things. the shopkeeper sweeping the snow into the road, the time of day etc. Pull it into the characters experience of place rather than telling the reader directly.
I agree with Unique. You can do a little describing as you set each new scene: Jake entered the narrow alley, which stank of piss and rotting garbage, glanced briefly up the looming brick wall on either side, in case an enemy was lurking in the windows... and intersperse the rest among the characters' actions and speech: He rounded the enormous desk and yanked Cassidy up out of his armchair... If you're stuck, the best thing to do is move along with the action. On second reading, you'll see where props, staging and atmospheric details are needed. Ideally, you will have made maps of the locales and sketches of significant interiors, to which you can refer throughout the writing.
Why do you need to describe two cities in detail in succession? I just can't figure that out. If your characters are walking in City 1, then why do you need to suddenly transit to describing City 2 ? Would't the characters be doing things in between?
Welcome aboard, @SamaelDeAngelis. The kind of detail you are describing sounds like it might be meant more for yourself, to keep track of what's what in the world you are building. Go ahead and write up that detail, because it can be important for continuity. It will keep you from having the headquarters building (example) be a tall red building in one scene, and a squat circular one in another scene. Save it as a separate file but DON'T put all that detail in one place in your story, that is the infamous "data-dumping." Just pull out the relative pieces you need for a particular scene and write around them. OBTW, since you are writing that for yourself, no need to make it look pretty... bullet points and incomplete sentences are perfectly appropriate, even preferable.
I agree with jannert see what other authors are doing, and do not make it an info dump. Lew said maybe you want to keep track and that's kinda of what I do. Although, sometimes I jump around because of my ADHD. That makes me good at cut and paste regrouping the mess into an editable paragraph.
Your main problem, I would guess, is the word "immense". Very few readers want "immense" details and very few authors are able to write that well, and even then, it depends on what sort of detail. For example, describing in every minute detail the fabric and texture and curve of an antique chair will likely not be interesting. But describing the detail behind its history might be interesting. The detail with how the narrator may have acquired the chair and why could also be interesting. The best kind of description would incorporate a little of all of this. A good writer knows when to let go of control - your job is to paint a picture in your reader's head, but that's not the same as making them see exactly what you see. It's more of an emotional journey than a visual one, after all. If you wanted the reader to see exactly every detail you've imagined, go make a painting and forget writing, 'cause you're in the wrong field if that's the case. Give just enough to let your reader imagine the place or objects, and then step back and let them fill in the details. You'll never be able to paint a more vivid picture than the one the reader paints for himself, and the best writers trust their readers to fill in the gaps, I think. If you're skilled enough, you will have guided them to just the right extent that will lead them to imagining what you want them to imagine - but it ain't ever gonna be exact. Visuals in writing is really there to serve the emotional journey you want your reader to go through - it's not the visuals that matter but how the reader feels about them. So whether your chair is red or black and whether it's got a hole in its back or not, whether the bottoms of its legs are shaped like animal paws or they just go straight down - it doesn't really matter. It matters only as much as it tells the readers something about your story and characters, and you don't need very many details at all for that, really. The amount of detail present will be dependent on your writing style - the more of it you have, the harder it is to write because then it depends much more on essential aspects, flow and rhythm and the like so it doesn't sound like a list. So I'd ask myself, "What do I want this description to do?" And then write just enough for it to do that. Better would be select 2-3 details that really sums up the atmosphere you want to convey, and stop there, because 2-3 details described in detail is at least a paragraph's worth of text, and usually that's quite enough unless you're writing historical fiction.
A point to keep in mind... the image the reader forms in his mind from your description is more vivid than your description. Excessive detail forces your image into his mind, and most readers rebel at this. Less is more!
Don't do it. I had a friend many years ago who described everything. Absolutely everything. It took him 13 pages for a character to get out of a car. I wish I was kidding about that. Even the most irrelevant details, he described. Scratches in the leather on the dashboard got explained, even though we'd never see the car again. It was just bad. You want to give the reader enough detail so that they understand the setting, but not so much that they're overwhelmed with it. You might see this magnificent city in your mind's eye but the reader doesn't really care. They want to follow the story and understand what's going on. You can fill in more detail as you go, where it becomes interesting or essential to the plot, but the vast majority of things that you've come up with for your world will never go on the page.
The only detail that is important is that which is relevant to the story/plot, the characters, and the setting. Miscellaneous detail is just frustrating and gets in the way of a well told story. It screams, "Hey, look at me, I'm a writer."
He blew it off and figured he knew better than everyone else, every one of whom told him it was terrible. Some people just don't want to learn.
His loss. I also have a writer friend like this. Any time you object to the writing, she just says, "That's just my character's voice. I can't do anything about that." It takes a practical mind to accept critique, and most artists aren't practical really.
There are writers and there are scribblers. Writers write. Scribblers scribble. He was a scribbler that, so far as I know, gave up on writing because it wasn't easy. Probably better that way.
