What I'm talking about is about five or something lines. And just so you have an image of them as you meet them. It's not elaborate.
I see that approach in published writing, so it can work. I tend to provide very little character description myself.
Or something. It depends on the character, and how big one line is. And, as I said, I usually include elements of personality and plot to make it interesting. Which makes it bigger sometimes but gives a sense of it being part of a general introduction beyond appearance. Here's an old example from a book I might not write (but I could still do it); "Major General Alexander West moved into the corridor with a great deal of hesitation. He gripped the top of his bamboo cane firmly. In his late forties, West was getting a bit old, especially for this shit. He had grey hairs now; he didn’t need stress. He was a shortish man, with short black hair and a strong-featured face like a boxer. West wasn’t eager to be wearing his old military uniform again. it felt like wearing a collar and chain." Does that feel too tedious or would you accept that?
A bit much for my taste. I'd be more inclined to something like: "Major General Alexander West gripped the top of his bamboo can as he moved into the corridor. He was getting a bit old for this shit. West had grey hairs now; he didn't need the stress. He was a shortish man in his late forties, with close-cut black hair and a face like a boxer. His old military uniform felt like a collar and chain." I'd play the words to make it flow better, and probably swap out "moved" in the first sentence for a more descriptive word, but you get the general idea. I think moving as he grips his cane tells us he has the sort of hesitant movement one might have when using a cane (unless he's hesitating for other, internal reasons, in which case I'd go back to some of your wording). I wouldn't use "shortish" and "short" so close together, so I changed the hair-cut description. I don't think strong-featured adds anything - just say face like a boxer and let the reader decide what that looks like. I also think just saying his old military uniform felt like a collar and chain tells you that he's back in it after being out of it for a while and that he's not exactly happy about it.
Thank you sir. If I return to that project, I will be sure to use a shorter description like that. Good suggestions.
You're welcome. Of course, it's all down to tastes, and if you prefer longer description - well, the Gormenghast books are among my favorites, and no one beats Peake on description. I also like Angela Carter, Nabokov, and others who write A LOT of description. They're very good at it. I tend not to use much, at least for characters.
It's not so much that you made it shorter. It's that the suggestions get rid of unnecessary tedium. The whole worry with describing your character is whether it feels boring and forced.
Just to add confusion to the stew.... I don't consider that description to be narrative intrusion at all. It's just exposition, and I can easily read it as his own personal view of his physical self and the descriptions of what he is physically feeling are obviously his perceptions. This isn't an example of what I was talking about when I started this thread. There's a difference between the narrator telling us about the characters and their perceptions vs. the narrator going off on a tangent or into a depth that is clearly not tied to the characters. I recently did a private crit for someone where Character A came across Character B and gave a tip to toe description not only of the entire ensemble that Character B was wearing, but the fashion in which it was made. Like a little lecture in "this is what people wore in those days". That's narrative intrusion. Unless Character A is a fashion junkie or looking to get into the pants of Character B, they would never give such a detailed inventory, and under no circumstances would they be giving me (the reader) how this stuff was made. That's not only these thoughts belong to no one, its also the writer info-dumping at me through the eyes of the character, when the character himself would never, ever, ever be thinking about the production and manufacture of the garments in the setting in which it was presented. You don't admire someone's jeans and then engage a train of thought that starts in a cotton field and ends in a sweat-shop somewhere south of Texas.
Now that, if it is genuinely that, is an example of where the phrase "the male gaze" doesn't come off as a symptom of bad feminists.
She doesn't name names in the essay, but commenters figured out she was referencing a scene from A Song of Ice and Fire. Take that in whatever direction you want. (I've had an eyebrow raised at Martin since "Portraits of His Children.")
As in, what you might call "overly PC" or the man-hating ones. Every civil rights movement has issues. And to be honest, I think we tend to assume the movement is near-perfect and don't criticize it enough. Internal review is essential. But let's not discuss that here.
Maybe don't throw around terms like "bad feminists" in unrelated threads and then beg not to be picked up on it?
He is bad for narrative intrusion. I only got partway through the first of his GoT books because of that and because the 3rd person narrator "speaks" in an affected, Renascence Fair, faux old-timie way, which is yet another form of narrative intrusion IMO.
I don't have a problem with being "picked up on it" my problem is it now more than four posts. That's not a side-note anymore. And you're bringing up points that require major discussion. PM or start a new thread if you really want to discuss it. In fact, we could resurrect that old "Is There a Problem With Third Wave Feminism" thread if you really want. But be aware, my positions are evolving. And have actually shifted a little even. So it wouldn't be the same as before.
Actually no, you brought it up. Resurrect or start threads as you wish. I'm still going to pick up anyone who throws out phrases like that.
*shrug* This one is harder for me to argue as genuine N.I., but for me it is. I'm well aware that my opponent in opposition to this point of view will argue that this is just style or voice, and that's fine. I can hear that argument. But Martin's 3rd person narrator, when he (because Martin's 3rd person narrator is defo a he) speaks this way, he's there. He's present. He's almost a character in the story, and he shouldn't be. He's like an extra on the set of a film trying desperately for the director to pay attention to him and maybe get an actual speaking roll, no matter how minor, so he can get that SAG card.
Again, your first comment isn't my worry. My response was an explanation of the idea of "bad feminists" which is simply "bad activists". It's not unique to feminism. It's not even unique to civil rights activism. All activism needs critique. SO there are bad examples you are critiquing. And bad instances from good examples. I think everyone would agree with that. Just like people get picked up on things all the time in other areas. It wasn't exactly about feminism, in the end. Feminism functions as an example.My issue is when you went to a tired, IMO, and sarcastic response that essentially demonizes the critic as being controlling, and it pretty much implies sexism. I really don't like it. And it asks for more in-depth discussion because I have to explain my whole position and then you end up disagreeing with bits and then other people get involved and then it gets wildly too long and before you know it the thread is closed until people shut and get on topic. So yeah. (Please don't take any of this personally.)
Now I'm ever more interested to check out the books properly and have a go. Just to see how I feel about his narration. Something about curiosity and the rat...