I often struggle with wanting vivid imagery, yet attempting to write by the modern notion that that "less is more". How do you deal with this seeming conflict of interest? How do you know when enough is enough?
Good question. I suppose by describing the situation from the character's perspective, as opposed to a broader, less experiential one. The character can view his/her surroundings, equating them with his/her personal experience. The character's view can still be vivid, though pithier due to the story having to move on. I find it more interesting when I know how a character feels about whatever is going on, though I'm not a great fan of lengthy descriptive pieces.
i don't see what pov would have to do with either, as a good writer can create vivid, reader-engaging imagery while still hewing to the 'less is more' axiom... and i've read way too much from not-so-good ones who overwrite anything regardless of pov...
It's all a matter of style. Different authors handle it in different ways. Personally, I hate to see the plot take a backseat to description. I usually break up descriptions to make them less obvious; I try hard not to dump the whole picture on my readers at once. For example, if my MC meets a new person, I won't give that person's full description the moment they meet. I usually open with the basics: general appearance (size/build and a short description of what he's wearing) and one distinct feature that's eye-catching. These two things can give a reader a general idea of who we're dealing with without dumping too much description on them at once. As my MC goes into dialogue with the newcomer, I drop a few more hints of the man's appearance, such as eye color, hairstyle, more details of what he's wearing, facial features, etc. I do the same with scenery. It allows me to paint a vivid picture, but the reader never has to sit back and watch me paint; the story goes on while I slowly develop the picture. It's also more realistic this way. In real life, people don't walk into a room and immediately take in all there is to see. We notice a few outstanding details, but even after being in the room for ten minutes or more, we're still picking up little details we didn't notice at first.
The problem isn't with having descriptive scenes, unless you're breaking the flow of action scenes. The problem is overdescribing. For each detail of descri[tion you need, ask: 1. Does describing this deatil really add to the reader's "presence" in the scene? 2. Have you already described or implied the detail ("the frosty air on a frigid cold morning made him shiver from the chill"). 3. Is it better to describe it now, or wait for another opportunity? 4. Can you replace several descriptive elements with a single, evocative word or short phrase? Following guidelines like these will let you still have vivid decriptions with an economy of words. Also, well-chosen verbs can often do more than several adjectives and adverbs. "The arctic wind howled" tells a tale of biting, blinding, noisy, cold-to-the-bone wind without you having to describe every aspect of the wind.
I recently read a Louis L'Amour story about a gold miner. The entire story had only the one character, a gold miner in search of his fortune. The story began with him discovering a few large nuggets in a stream. Then, L'Amour went into several pages of description of the area in which the goldminer was working and the signifance of the gold nuggets. It was a classic "info dump", but it was fascinating as it explained the signifance of smooth nuggets versus coarse nuggets and the meaning of the veins of quartz inside each chunk of gold. After explaining these things and describing the local environment in considerable detail, the MC began following clues upstream looking for the mother lode. He came to a fork in the stream. One side flowed with crystal clear water, tumbling over and around rows of smooth boulders, visible upstream. The other fork was cloudy and spread across a wide, sandy delta before vanishing between two ragged cliffs high above. The info-dump gave me enough knowledge to understand what I was seeing and to anticipate which way he would choose. I found myself getting excited about the possibilities. Anticipation is the core of all sports and suspense stories. Without the earlier description, the reader would not have been prepared to feel the anxiety and excitement of this discovery. This story prompted my question in this post. How does a writer judge that important division between "info-dumps" and well placed description? Cog's answer begins to offer standards by which such decisions can be made . . . but I'm looking for more specific guidelines. For example: what primary factors would you assess in making such a decision: (using Cog's terms) 1) "Presence" - Cog talked about the value to the present scene. Can "presence" also provide a basis for upcoming scenes, especially in a one-character story where the story might move quickly from scene to scene? (L'Amour's initial details proved to be sufficient that no further interruptions were needed as the action moved quickly thereafter.) 2) "Implied" from verbs. Is it better to use those verbs to imply a scene or might they be better used to directly enhance the action? (L'Amour used his verbs to describe the threats that developed as the miner extracted gold, rather than being forced to use them to describe the scene.) 3) Timing. Is it always better to build a scene over time or are there circumstances when the "info-dump" builds anticipation in a series of fast developing scenes? Interruptions for description can break the tension of a good story. 4) Economy of words. Generally, I would agree that economy is preferrable, but I can also imagine situations where lengthy descriptions might build a better ambiance in the story. Thanks to Cog, we have the following issues to consider in making the Imagery vs Less-is-more decision: "presence", "imply from verbs", "timing" and "economy of words". Can anyone think of more guiding issues in making this decision?
Funny, just last weekend I was talking with my mom and aunt about how I've been mourning the loss of descriptive prose. When the definition of a good book becomes one driven by an airtight plot, you expect every sentence to be A Clue... so, no more describing what they're wearing because that's shallow, no more describing landscapes because that's boring, no more describing food unless it's poisoned or has a note rolled up in it from a mysterious informant or whatever... It's a thrill to read a story that comes together tying everything neatly, but, I sometimes miss just being taken somewhere else. This is a good bit of writing advice: skip writing/publishing the parts that readers will skip reading. But, what people will skip might be a matter of personal preference.
As Cheeno said, and I agree wholeheartedly: imagery is viewed best when it is through the eyes of the character.
Go crazy with your description. Then, when you've finsihed your first draft, read it back and be brutal with the red pen. It's much easier to remove then it is to add and there's no need to get your brain all tied up when you're trying to write with the 'is this too much/little/long/short' question. Good editing will give it a nice balance.
Now the guidelines include editing: 1. "presence" - use description sufficient for the present scene only, 2. "imply from verbs" - in lieu of detailed description, 3. "timing" - introduce info in carefully metered (to borrow Congress's word-of-the-month) tranches, 4. "economy of words" - say more with less, 5. "editing" - write with descriptive abandon; edit with ruthless precision. Any more suggestions?
I think Edi hit the nail right on the head. I know for myself, I used to think more description was better, because more description meant more words and therefore more length, meaning (apparently) that I was a better writer. I'm slowly learning that less is more. However, I would also introduce the element of 'purpose'. How significant is the scene/person/thing you are describing? If it's there and gone in a page, you probably don't need to go into intimate detail However, if, like you said, the scene is incredibly important to the future of the plot, it may merit spending a little more time on it. Of course, this property balances and intertwines with all the others. A necessarily long description can be whittled down by presence, implications, economy, etc. As a practical step, if you have to make a long description, read through it a few times...perhaps the next day. Does the description bore you? Are you anxious to get through it to the action? Does it seem to run on? If the answer is 'yes' to any of these questions, perhaps some editing is in order. There's my two-bit rant.
Did you hear what I said? Through the eyes of the character. If one is a shallow character he will gloss over the details. If he is a lover of nature he will be entrenched in describing the scenery only a naturist can describe. If he is homeless person in a city person, he may not even describe his surrounding. If he is middle income city dweller he may recall tidbits of exposed skyscrapers, for that is where he works. Again, imagery works best through the eyes of the character. A prime example is London's "To Build a Fire."
True enough, and very good point. Though a difficulty can still arise: the character may have a very intimate knowledge of the person/place/thing you are attempting to describe, as in NaCl's example. A description, even as seen from the eyes and mind of the character, could still be long and significant. Often, though, this isn't the case. But yes, you are correct in that every description should come from the eyes of the character being described. No disagreement here!
Good point EyesforYou. Let's call that "relevence". Now the guidelines include: 1. "presence" - use description sufficient for the present scene only, 2. "imply from verbs" - in lieu of detailed description, 3. "timing" - introduce info in carefully metered (to borrow Congress's word-of-the-month) tranches, 4. "economy of words" - say more with less, 5. "editing" - write with descriptive abandon; edit with ruthless precision. 6. "relevence" - description should be relevent to the character development or plot promotion. Any more suggestions?
Relevance should be on top. Then everything should come after that. If, therefore, it is irrevelent to the story, there is no need for "prescence" "imply of verbs" "timing" "ecomony of words" or "editing." One must know if describing the imagery is relevent or not--if it enhances the story or it does not.
Actually, I would say rather, "Through the eyes of the POV observer." That may indeed be a character, or it could be a virtual viewpoint with a specific visual/auditiry/tactile/etc. range relative to the character or the scene setting. Many times with third person limited,you see and hear the story world from half in and half out of a character. You can observe the character's movements, see what he or she sees with no parallax offset, hear selected thoughts, and yet be able to pull back just enough to see something reaching for him or her from behind. Be conscious of your POV, and its perceptual limitations. If your POV is perched on your character's shoulder and looking forward as he does, and paying attention to what the character is paying attention to, don't have him toss back his sleek black hair, unless he is so obsessed with his appearance that that is what is the center of his attention. "Gee, I'm having a great hair day today!" If it's a typical guy watching a girl he likes approaching, he may well notice her golden blonde hair. Maybe he'll even notice her eye color, if it's one of her more noticeable features. But for heaven's sake, he won't be noticing that her dress is cornflower blu and falls just short of her knees! He''s probably far more focused on her legs. If you ask him later what color top she had on, he probably has no clue, just how well she filled it. So leave out the details your POV observer wouldn't pay attention to AT THAT MOMENT IN TIME. That also means that if she is running down the street pursued by snapping Rottweillers, he won't be paying ANY attention to her shiny hair.
I just write however it first comes out. I know that I can go back later and remove irrelevant details (or add important details) to improve the story.
I think also variety is important throughout the book- meaning that not every scene needs a thick layer of description, or a bare bones type. I have found that mixing between the two makes for a better read.
I tend to write in a style with a lot of description, because of that my stories/papers tend to be long. However i recently had to write an english paper with a word limit that i went way over and i was having my mom help me cut it down. SHe said that it was too descriptive and flowery in some places and i was wondering how can i tell if my writing is too flowery or detailed espcially when that is sort of my style? Or is it just fine and its the readers opinion and preferance that says the writing is too much?
Is there any chance you could give us a paragraph or so of the English paper you wrote? We might be more helpful if we see an example of what you think might be too flowery or detailed.
Without the paper at hand, I cannot give you actual suggestions on what needs to be cut from your writing. However, I can give you some vague advice. When you read your paper, pay careful attention to your sentences. If the details are not necessary for a clear understanding of the subject, get rid of those details. You also need to wonder if there is a shorter way to say what you've already said. When you have a limited amount of words, remember to be concise and precise!
Like the others have said, without a look at the paper itself, we can't give you specific advice. But I jumped to give you general advice because I have issues with overworked prose as well. My "free" style--the one I use when I'm not worried about tightness, preciseness, etc.--is flowery. It often borders on purple. So how do you tell when your writing is too flowery? For one, you have adjectives. Lots and lots and lots of adjectives. You might have a lot of adverbs, as well as weasel words (ex: "almost", "sometimes", "somehow", etc.). Where sentences could be written tightly, you have them loose. Look for phrases such as "[blah] of [blah]", sentences that begin with the word "there", and sentences with adjectives, adverbs, or weasel words heaped in them. Just because it's "your style", doesn't mean it's a particularly good style (good being mostly subjective here). However, again, without looking at your work, it's too difficult to tell if you're overboard, or maybe just have a style that pushes the limit, but is overall okay. In general, ask yourself: "Do the readers HAVE to have this detail(s)? Do I need these words exactly, or will something much more simple be just as elegant?"
I can relate to what you are saying, even without seeing an example of your work (although it would indeed be good to see the example). You are, like me and so many others, in love with writing. In my case, my wordiness is simply another facet of my huge, huge, overblown ego. (Notice how I say "huge, huge, overblown"...?) In so-called "real life" I usually won't shut up until someone tells me to. In school, whenever the teacher told the class to "fill up a page" or "write at least three paragraphs" I was the one who would turn in ten pages of closely-spaced writing, usually with stuff written in the margins as well. And my endings sucked, because I would start to think, "Ok, it's 2 a.m. and there's no end in sight to this, and I have to turn it in tomorrow..." so I would just tack on one of those vague pseudo-stopping-points that editors and critics hate and turn the work in. The fact that I would usually get an A++ on the assignment (because most of my classmates were always hard-pressed to come up with even a correctly-spelled paragraph with decent grammar) definitely did not help. (By the time I got to eighth grade, I WAS getting feedback from teachers to the effect that I needed to "work on my endings".) Even now, when I should totally know better, once I get started on a story I literally (haha!) can't stop. My world and characters that I think up acquire an objective existence and become real to me. There are usually one or two that I become infatuated with, and even when I simply can't write or type another word, I will fantasize about them. My stories become endless. Writing a good cohesive short story is something that up until the last couple of years I was completely unable to do. Yes, I know: It's sick. It's like a disease or something--but it can be cured! Learning to edit your own work is a valuable skill that even you, as a kid in school, can learn. And really--the sooner you learn it, the better. As you grow older, people will start to shun you. (Don't ask me how I know that.) Here's my advice--which you can of course totally disregard if you choose, of course--based on my struggle of many years to set limits on myself and especially control my writing habit: Stop thinking about the writing. The problem you have, assuming you're describing it correctly, is bound to be based on a larger problem, which more than likely has something to do with the way you perceive the world and especially as this regards things you do for enjoyment. There's a two-fold habit that you have to acquire: Listening and observing, WITHOUT interaction. Being a good listener is of course a valuable skill to have. When you hear people talking or even when you're just listening to your favorite music, try to cut off the stream of chatter in your own mind that's telling you what to think about what you're hearing, and simply listen. Don't let your mind boss you around in this regard: Just listen. When a family member or friend talks to you, pay attention and simply listen. Wait until that person is done speaking before you reply. Think about what that person is saying; turn it over in your mind before you give input. The same goes for observation. The less you assume about what's going on in your immediate enironment, and the more you observe things that are taking place around you, the better your writing will get. Even something you see many times a day, something you've looked at so many times that you scarcely even see it anymore, will surprise you if you try to observe that thing with new eyes. Say that when you are being driven somewhere, or riding the bus, you always pass a certain park. You've passed it so many times that you don't even look at it anymore. But here's an opportunity to observe! The next time you pass this area, really LOOK at it, and try simply to look and not think. Are the trees changing colors? Is there trash lying on the ground? Do you see people? What are the people doing? When you read your favorite writers, try to think of how this writer or that would describe a particular scene or event that you've observed. They're your favorite authors for a reason, right? You may think that these two faculties--listening and observing--have little to do with your writing problem, but I'm guessing that if you give the above a try, good things will start to happen. Your descriptions will become more concise, and will be more well-integrated into your writing so that they don't stick out so much. I hope this was helpful! yours in Chaos, Scarlett
are you writing for yourself, or for your readers? if the former, you don't have to pay any attention to what anyone else thinks about your writing... if the latter, you do... and if the consensus is that it's too flowery, then it would behoove you to make it less so... the usual cause is reading less than the best quality writing, so that florid stuff gets absorbed into your brain as the way writing 'should' look/read, which isn't how 'good' writing should... to cure it, all you need do is start to read the works of the best writers and toss all that other stuff... constant reading of the good stuff will show results before long and your own writing will become less purple 'naturally'... love and hugs, maia
I think this may be a good place to give advice. This is something I struggle with, as I love details and wonderful descriptions, but not everyone sees the world through my eyes (unfortunately). Over the years, I have had to learn to curve my tendancy towards details for specific places. It isn't always necessary to always describe a character in depth every time they appear in your story. Gradually giving their description and leaving a bit to the imagination of the reader is really a good thing. Even though you are the author, readers really enjoy being able to find a way to make the story theirs as well. Leaving a bit to the imagination will do that for you.
