That's how I see it too. One of the joys of reading is being able to fill in the blanks, to build your own picture of the characters, setting, events etc. This is the strength of book over film - the story is a more meaningful experience because you are more personally invested by having taken an active role in its creation. The skillful author recognises the collaborative nature of the process and guides the journey with careful prompts that provoke rather than restrict the reader's imagination. You can't describe every detail about a character, so you need some kind of criteria to determine which details should be included. What better than to use relevance to the plot?
No, my point is that Harry Potter is written as a cypher. No matter how much he is physically described he's always a blank and empty character specifically so that the younger readers can see themselves in him. Please describe Harry's personality for me. Brave? Ok, what else? Loyal? Well, sometimes. Is he clever? Funny? Does he tell a good story? Why does Ginny fancy him? In fact, why do Hermione and Ron like him? Why does anyone? Would you want to go for a drink with him? My point is that discussions of Harry Potter as a good, well developed character is a misguided one that's doomed to fail. He's not the kind of character that anyone should be taking lessons from. You can describe a character very fully and make them blank. You can describe a character and have them feel like a real person. Both are entirely possible. But I don't think that you can not describe a character at all and say they are fully developed because their development is cemented on the idea of them being a very specific person who (ostensibly) exists.
I'm not saying you should describe every detail. I'm saying you should make an effort to say if they are tall or short, long hair or short and the shape of their face. I'm saying there's four or five details that you should fill in anyway, because it matters to the reader to see their face instead of a blank oval. To ask the question another way; do you think the characters appearance matters if they are involved in a romance? If they take their time to do their hair to go out does the style they create count as being relevant to the plot? It's certainly relevant to the character, right? It's telling us that this date matters to them. And if they are self conscious about being bit tall for a woman; does that matter to the plot? The image of them all made up to go to prom or on a date or to a wedding does matter. It is important. If you said I chose my favorite dress then don't tell us which dress that is then that sounds a bit weird, no? How about I did my hair in that style that looks great on me? Unless you're going to tell me that the characters can never matter to the plot then it's pretty clear that telling us all the details is something important about them needs to be done. And sure, there's some books where the character doesn't matter so much. But to say that they matter in zero books? No, surely not. And if the character does matter to plot, as is very common in first person books, then clearly we need some details about who they are.
Momma always said I would be a heart breaker. Little did I believe her until my high school years as a running back on the football team. Sophie is cute and all, a bit feisty at times, but I am torn. I love how she plays with the curls in my hair, not always though with her tendency of grabbing long tufts and pulling like I was some wild horse she wanted to ride. Torn because she wants so much more than I can give right now; I know she deserves so much better. I mean, come on, just look at me; I'm just some dumb jock getting a free ride. Good looks and speed won't mean anything after college. How do I tell her? She's going to think I'm just some other surfer guy out for a summer fling. If you only knew how much I love you. Damn this is hard. There, now isn't that better! (Although, even with this, he sounds like a self-obsessed jerk.)
Because with the context of a single paragraph we can definitely tell what details we need or not, right? The prose I can take or leave. But what matters is what is needed. And the details could be needed, they could not be. And if needed it doesn't matter if it makes for worse prose because it's needed by the book. And that's been my point the whole way through this thread. Not that description makes for better prose. My contention is that you need some small amounts of description. Here is a direct quote from me on the first page: It's frankly cheap to say that you can make all prose better and more minimal and more perfect by stripping out description. Fine, sure, obviously. But people don't read books for the quality of the prose; ask Stephanie Myer and Dan Brown. People read books for the characters. And that's why you have to suck up making your beautiful (or in this case fairly average, off the cuff) prose a little less perfect. Because you absolutely must build a bond with your main character, you absolutely must build them up to be a real person who the reader connects with and feels along with them. Otherwise it just won't matter how well your prose is written. Because while it may be wonderfully written if no-one gives a shit who it's happening to then it totally lacks emotional resonance. That is why I've been talking about film language and about making concessions to the form of a book. Because we aren't just trying to write sparkling prose. We are trying to write good books. And we have to make concessions to the way that other people build connections with characters. It's the reason why we don't just write books about writers. Because while we might immediately connect with that that's not something that the reader will see themselves in. Most readers literally don't care about the quality of prose. Most prose is fucking awful. And it doesn't matter because there are compelling characters who they care about. Characters they can see. Characters that they feel are their friends. Taking the time to describe them goes a long way here. Because it makes for a better book, even if that means that four times over the course of a hundred thousand words you have to slightly shoehorn a few words of description.
I like, still have a sense of guy, so no loss on the edit. the character is not built on a single paragraph anyway. as an opening shot at the character good enough.
Your Harry Potter point has become so convoluted I'm not sure what you're arguing. In any case, I disagree that any character description is needed beyond what can be picked up from characterisation and interaction. I don't believe hair colour, eye colour, or any other type of laundry-list description adds to characterisation. It doesn't seem we're going to agree there, but it's been an interesting discussion! So much better. He still sounds like an idiot, as you say, but at least he sounds like a real person and not a character written by an author who wants to give me certain information.
Sorry, I absolutely disagree. You don't NEED description of physical characteristics at all. If it matters, the context will tell us that he's built like a brick outhouse, or that she's drop-dead gorgeous. If - as is generally the case - it doesn't matter one jot, the reader can insert a passable representation of themselves. I don't believe that you NEED description of the non-physical characteristics either. You can tell me all that you like that the MC is a nice guy, but if all I read is him beating up guys - even if those guys need beating up 'cos they're lowlife scum - then I'm not seeing him being nice, and you've got a dichotomy that'll turn me off as a reader. Actually, I'm going to go back on this a little...GoT, first book. It mattered an awful lot that Joffrey was manifestly a Lanister thoroughbred, rather than sired by King Robert, so there the description was essential to the plot. But, generally, it doesn't matter whether your MC is a six-foot blond guy or a two-foot green alien; he does his heroic stuff. OK, Yoda's gonna surprise you more when he does it, but that is an extreme case.
Hang on... Stop a second. Right... So what things matter to characterization? Does how a character wear their hair tell you about who they are? Would you like to take a guess at my taste in music from the fact that I am a man with hair is down to my waist? Do you think that's just a fleeting detail? A lot of people dye their hair and they do it with a reason. It matters to their characterization. Maybe not in huge ways. But it does build up a more complete sense of them as a person, right? And it's showing and not telling. A bright pink mohawk tells you something, even if it's completely irrelevant to the plot. And so does having your natural brown hair in a normal style. Maybe it just tells the reader that this is an average kinda person. But don't you think that matters? Don't you? At all? Clearly some of this stuff matters. And some doesn't. But some does. And while I am willing to retract the idea of keeping a list that doesn't change the fact that to me hair and body shape and face matter to the character.
Dude, we're talking about first person books. Where the narrator is the main characters train of thought. And you are saying with a straight face that you would never have the main character describe how they feel about what's going on? You even give an example of a place where it's hugely important for the audience to know this stuff and you're still saying that you wouldn't bother describing anything at all? I'm all for showing and not telling but that's taking things to an extreme extent, especially for first person characters where that whole style of narration is built on the idea that the MC can tell us things directly; tell us how they see this situation and how they feel and what they want to do. I think you are massively missing the point if you just dismiss the ability of the narrator to tell us things. Asking for the audience to pick up on if a character is good looking simply by how other characters they don't know react to them is asking vastly too much of the audience. Most real people don't immediately drool over gorgeous people. And there's a billion reasons why any character might simply refuse a pretty persons advances and without knowing who's doing it we can't tell that. Go back and look at my example about the guy with the swastika tattooed on his face. How can we tell if he appears to the world as a nazi or if everyone around him is going crazy? Sure we can see everyone screaming at him for being a nazi fuck. But id that because he actually is that? Or because they are mind controlled? We don't know. To say the clues are there is a cop out. No, there is definitely not enough information there. It's the same for pretty vs ugly. I don't know about you, but I make an effort treat all women the same, yes including the less attractive ones. I have bought many a 2/10 girl a drink. And I have looked deeply skeptical at really hot girls who wanted me to spend money on them. Because reality is just not that simple. I like when people surprise me. And I love women I can talk to. It's so facile to ask for the audience to get everything just from context. It totally excludes deep or unexpected motives. It totally excludes the idea of slow burning writing. Edit - An important point here - The concept of 'they can just insert a passable representation of themselves' presumes that the character is in most respects just like the reader. But that makes for a blank character. A character with no character. And that's fine in some books. But it's definitely not the case in all books. Part of what makes great characters is them being different to the average everyman. They share the greater human condition of loss and love and pursuing happiness; but they are unique and different and see the world in their own way that an average person doesn't. They have a unique thought process. That's what makes them compelling. Because they don't do what you expect at all times. They aren't just an 'insert your face here' wish fulfillment hero with nothing to recommend them. People like to laugh at action movies and their charcters. But guys like Rambo and John McClain and Dutch have surprisingly complete characters. We know what they are fighting for. And we know that they are made of sterner stuff than us. We like to think we could be that bad ass but we know they are made of sterner stuff. They are like us, with friends and lives and families, but they are also something more than us. They aren't actually blank every men. McClain especially has a really well fleshed out character with his failed marriage that he's trying to patch up. He's not just a passable facsimile of the audience. And that's why we remember him.
I agree with the "little description necessary" school of thought. I don't think I've ever identified with a character b/c of physical characteristics - I identify with them because of what they do/say/feel. If there's something significant about their appearance that can't be shown through the reactions of other characters, then maybe the feature needs to be explicitly described. But only very briefly. In general, I think it's important for authors to be able to let go of a need to control every detail of the reader's experience. My version of handsome is much different from someone else's. If you describe your version of handsome and it doesn't match my version, it's distracting and annoying. But if you show other characters reacting as if the character in question is handsome, then I can realize he's handsome, fill in my own version of what that means, and read happily on.
To be clear here - I don't want lots of description. I want very little. Very very little. Pertinent details. But some all the same. Not zero. Which is what the other side is saying. Literally zero. No description of anything at all. To answer more directly; doesn't it concern you that all the handsome people in every book look exactly the same to you? Doesn't it matter to you that you never find out what the characters themselves think is handsome? Doesn't that matter to you at all? Don't you think it matters why they think this rough guy with the stubble and tattoos is really hot? Some people love that, some people really don't. And that's the point. Because the character doesn't just agree with your tastes. And in their differences they are interesting, they don't just take the obvious route. Maybe they like the quiet librarian girl or maybe they just don't give a shit about looks and they like the fat girl who makes them laugh. But by this sort of functionalist logic you're setting up a weird dissonance; saying this person is non-specifically unattractive in a way that we are left to ourselves to figure out while showing a character who is clearly into them. What are we supposed to get from that? Are they hideous and this guy doesn't care? Or are they just a bit chubby and don't have a great complexion? We simply don't know. We can't know because we were left to figure out what unattractive (and indeed attractive) means with no further guidance apparently on the grounds that it helps... Something? And that's my point really. That we do need some guidance. No, we shouldn't be trying to control every little detail of every scene. And that's not at all what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that maybe at least we should make the effort to tell the audience things that help them understand our writing. Maybe at least we should control the story instead of leaving these bland waste lands of 'oh well I'm imagining she's pretty so this guy will definitely fuck her'. I think we can afford to take slightly more control than that, no? I'm just saying; if I am left to imagine every guy with an eyepatch, tattoos and a cigar then your books are going read really weird to me, even though that's what I find attractive.
On anything in particular? Do you seriously not think it informs a character to tell us what they find attractive? How do you characterize your characters at all if you won't even tell us the things that matter to them?
I admit my last post I quoted GoT when we were talking 1st person, my bad. But here, we agree. Tell the reader things that matter to the character. His love of wildlife. How he voted on Brexit/Trump. Whether he's a lover of jazz or hip-hop. But, if it's the fact that his eyes are chartreuse-green that matters to him...
I think I was clear in my post. So you're arguing that I should describe Character B b/c it's important to the characterization of Character A? If it's important to a given characterization then it's important, but it certainly has nothing to do with your "eat the fact that it's expository and have them describe what they look like to us over the course of about a page right at the start... I know that it's not elegant to force in description but you need it and that's just the truth of it... if you won't tell them at all what the character looks like then your readers will struggle to engage with your character as a real person...I'm saying you should make an effort to say if they are tall or short, long hair or short and the shape of their face. I'm saying there's four or five details that you should fill in anyway, because it matters to the reader to see their face instead of a blank oval" approach. The things that matter to them? I say we don't need character descriptions and you translate that to not needing to know the things that matter to them? That's a jump way too far for me to follow.
For what it's worth, you don't risk losing me as a reader by pausing the story to describe a character. I would prefer a detailed description upon introduction, rather than snippets along the way. Otherwise I'm visualizing the character my way, and you risk confusing me later. You also risk distraction from the story by inserting information not pertaining to the present action. Upfront or not at all is best for me. And believe me, not at all is not a bad way to go. My imagination can do a lot of the work for you.
Oh, I agree, if you're going to do a detailed description it's best to do it early. But I also agree that not doing it at all can be an excellent choice.
Can't you see how you're answering your own question? I think character descriptions (very very minimalist ones mind you; 20 words over a whole book) are always important because they tell the reader how the character perceives themselves and how they put themselves forward. Certainly in my work this stuff always matters. The main characters psychology and self-esteem is absolutely critical; it both effects and is effected by how they look. I firmly believe it matters to their character. And so, since these details are important then they are important and should be included, no? I'm not saying we should describe every character at all times. I'm not saying we should even describe much at all. I'm saying that I think describing the main character of a first person book (which, by the way, is the only thing this thread is about) is something you must do because it is important both to the reader and to the book generally. Some things are not important and can be left to the readers imagination. To reiterate for the tenth time; I do not describe much if at all. I only describe the things that I think matter. And I think the main character matters. And maybe you disagree on that. But you clearly are happy to say that if a book needs this stuff you include it, right? So why are we arguing over all descriptions all the time? Don't we agree that you include description if it matters? We are only in disagreement over whether it is important or it isn't to describe the MC in a first person book. I think it is. Maybe that it merely anecdotal on my part because I've only written books where the tiny amount of descriptive work I do really does matter. Maybe it has just never mattered in your work. Fine. But clearly it can matter. And if it can matter then we should be talking about if it matters in this case rather than if you should bother describing any characters at all.
It can be an excellent choice. And also describing (again, in very very brief terms) what the main character looks like can be the right choice too. Can we agree on that much? Can we agree that sometimes describing things is the right thing to do?
Sometimes? Sure, maybe. I don't believe in absolutes. But you're still speaking in absolutes, with "I think character descriptions ... are always important," etc. So I disagree with your absolutes. Absolutely.
