I am bad at them, because I have trouble seeing their value. I think it's because I personally never really care about these descriptions as a reader. If an author doesn't describe what a character looks like, I'll imagine something. It's not like I'll be under the impression that the character I'm following is a floating orb of limbs and wishes. If the author does describe them, also cool, but I still don't care. The only time I do care is is the description comes in way too late, after I've already imagine the character running her hand through her brown hair as a blonde. 99% of the times when I read a book, I ignore the author's description and substitute my own. I think a lot of people do that. I have this problem especially when writing opening scenes and/or scenes introducing POV characters, with dozens of important plot and character points fighting for prominence and blank page real estate. On my list of priorities of things to communicate about these people on a first page, what they look like is pretty low. I know how to weave these descriptions into a narrative, mostly. I know the theory. I know not to plop a character in front of a mirror and have them describe themselves like a police sketch. My problem is not with how to do them, it's with the why. I mean, unless there is something remarkable about the character's appearance... doesn't the reader understand that this human character has limbs and a head on top and go from there? If I present them as being a dastardly fiend, won't they imagine the waxed moustache on their own? How important does a character need to be to the plot before they warrant taking valuable time to describe them? (This is putting aside the problem of White Default, which is a very important topic I would prefer to keep separate from this discussion unless it's crucial, thanks.) I guess I kind of trust my readers to imagine this person on their own without much input from me. And I would very much like to be convinced otherwise, because these physical descriptions are an absolute must according to every guide I've ever read. I still don't understand why though. I'd appreciate any and all thoughts.
Not every dastardly fiend has a mandatory moustache to twirl. If I read about a character without any direction as their appearance, they just seem like names to me rather than characters, because I cannot picture them in my head. I think it's very important for the main characters, but you don't need to do the same for every character.
I can't offer much in the way of talking you out of thinking this way because I completely agree with your current stance. I believe you're already operating according to the superior argument -- trust your readers. If you don't care about reading descriptions, I'm betting that writing them might cause your eyes to roll out of your head. What guides are claiming that character descriptions are a must? I'd be wary of believing anyone that espouses hard and fast rules. But the arguments I know for including descriptions are that it increases immersion by grounding the reader in concrete details, and that character appearances are relevant to every-day life and therefore would be relevant to the every-day life of the character.
I think specific features on a character should only really be mentioned if it's relevant to a plot point somewhere (like the Harry Potter scar or him having his mothers eyes) and then it should be introduced early so it doesn't seem like it's been crammed somewhere because lazy writing. I often forget or ignore descriptions, too, so when a character I've imagined as black decides to join the KKK out of the blue, I like being able to go back and see that it's my fault I'm confused and not the author's. Other than that, though, I really don't think that overly describing your characters is a good thing. One thing I hate most in YA is the mirror scene where they introduce the main character and she describes every aspect of her completely unique self that would be perfectly ordinary if not for her purple eyes or something. I like it much better when they weave character description in as it's relevant to other characters in the story that way it's not all police sketch and it flows better. Over description of any kind is my least favourite kind of pace killer.
Never mind the reader or you yourself, the writer. Who in the story cares about the appearance of others? This question is really a facet of point of view (POV). If your story is 3rd person omniscient, then the narrator is free to paint the characters. If it's 3rd person limited or close, then the reasoning has to be more human, more contextual. In my WIP, when Brenn meets Tevin, what he sees (and describes in 3rd person limited) is a mop of carelessly perfect blond hair over huge brown eyes and a flash of smile. Brenn's gay, so his engagement of Tevin is one of attraction and arousal in that moment. No more detail is given than that until later on when clothing hits the floor.
Well, I guess the why is exactly as you say - even you, who don't care about descriptions say you're annoyed when a description comes in too late and contradicts the way you have pictured the character. The presence of character descriptions, then, is obviously to avoid such situations, as well as making the characters more vivid to the imagination. Not everyone nor everything needs to be described. As an extreme example, there's no point telling me the guy has 2 eyes. But if the guy only has ONE eye, then it's a detail worth mentioning. In other words, character descriptions should highlight things that either tell us something about the character, or it should be something we cannot just assume. Example, the soldier has a purple heart pinned to his uniform - this tells us something about his experience and character. Character descriptions could also be used to show another character's feelings towards them - so in romance, a woman might take note of the guy's biceps, he obviously goes to the gym. I don't care for character descriptions either and don't exactly write in that much of it myself. I can never picture characters no matter how authors describe them in any case - I will continue to see them the way I see them regardless of what is written lol. For me, a feeling for the character is more important, and you don't usually convey that through physical descriptions but more through their choices and interactions.
Don't think of yourself as describing a character's body, but rather as describing that character. Take Face, from the A-Team. "Handsome" is not part of Face's physical description; it's part of who he is. When it comes to purely physical items, I find it also helps to think of them almost as tags, or pseudonyms, or... Whatever. You don't always want to call a doctor a doctor, or even Dr. Phil; sometimes he's just "the man in the lab coat." Sure, that's descriptive, but not solely for the purpose of allowing your audience to envision the character. It's the difference between how you would describe your little brother to someone and how you would describe the guy who ran off with your car stereo this afternoon. Unless they are the same person, I guess. Physical description is important in this sense because it allows characters to have something to latch onto for a character. "The guy with the cane," or "the bearded man," or "the woman with those ancient horn-rimmed glasses." These kinds of descriptive characteristics allow you to refer to characters with greater variety, and they allow readers something to visualize without overwhelming the reader with information their imagination would have gladly filled in anyway.
Sorry, I worded that badly. I meant that to be an abstract. As in, I kind of assume that people who habitually consume fiction have a ready-made cast of archetypes in their head to pull from if no description is forthcoming. (I assume that mostly that's because what I do.) For example, if the four things I know about a character is that he's young, white, male and gay, I'm going to imagine he looks like Lucas Haas' character from Johns and nothing the author says will convince me otherwise. He could be a young, white, male, gay Wookie and he'd still look like that. Can't help it, that's the archetype I've got in my stable. So likewise, if I describe a character as being bubbly and extroverted and moving around with a bouncy gait, I just assume my readers will select their bubbly extrovert from their internal cast and put her in that role. It sounds super weird when I type it out like that. I genuinely wonder if this is just me. That's really interesting to me, because that's so different from my experience. How much would you say you need to picture a character? I usually describe the way they move and how they interact with their environment (forceful, gentle, they smirk, they whisper, they make fists or fiddle with their sleeves, that sort of thing) and let that be enough. Would that work for you personally? Or do you need more details to feel comfortable picturing this character going through the plot? Sorry to pry. This subject has been a thorn in my side for ages and I really want to pick other people's brain about this. Actually it's feedback I get periodically in an online workshop. A lot of people pointed out that hey, you didn't describe the main character! And I thought, well, no, should I? So I started looking into that and got a lot of advice on how to do character descriptions, with the why being implied.
Just remember, if you have too little character description you run the chance of having a character like Bella from Twilight.
I don't think there's anything wrong with no or minimal descriptions, and I'm not one to try to convince people to write the way I do. So, no argument. Personally, I use character descriptions to try to inform character. I try to use them for things other than 'just because' I want to describe my characters - although I do want to do that, too. I just look at ways to justify it, instead of saying 'just because', because I think everything in the narrative needs to justify its existence. Examples off the top of my head from my wip: Spoiler MC 2 is described repeatedly as short, and it literally comes up in the climax when they aren't able to reach something important. And in another climactic moment when they aren't able to climb something without help. MC 1 is described repeatedly as tall. He can reach the thing and is able throughout to easily manhandle MC 2 because of the size difference. At one point the impressive/intimidating size of a baddie is implied by having him have to look up at it. MC 2 is dark-skinned and has vitiligo. This comes up as they're hiding / on the run as they specifically have to try to hide their face and hands. MC 1's general appearance 'stats' are recited by MC 2 at one point when they're trying to find him and have to describe him to a stranger. It's useful for communicating how they see him - in bullet points. MC 1 fawningly describes MC 2 when they first meet to drive home how infatuated he is. Another character later gets similar attention to communicate that he's easily infatuated. MC 1's twin is described in much the same way he is, so that the reader will know who she is even when MC 2 fails to put it together. A mother and son duo are described as looking very similar to make it more plausible for MC 1 to assume that a third character is their daughter/sister (she's not actually described herself). After MC 1 mentions his sister and sister-in-law, their differing races are mentioned in the narrative as the way that MC 2 knows which is which. A villainous character is described in very motherly/matronly terms specifically to deter suspicion. Could I communicate all of these things without physical descriptions? Yeah, for sure. And I do, in part. But I choose to utilize descriptions as well, because I like writing and reading them.
I really appreciate all the advice, thanks! Here's another thing that keeps nagging at me; is it fair to assume that if the manuscript is published, there will be a cover that will likely feature the protagonist? I write genre fiction, and the convention seems to be to put the characters on the cover 90% of the time. Or is that lazy on my part? Because very often I find myself thinking, eh, I'm a writer, not a illustrator. The cover artist will get it, whatever. I might be betraying my lack of industry experience here though.
I guess if you don't describe the character, you provide a better avatar for the reader, they can imagine the character as they wish, perhaps even in their own image. Might come in handy if you're writing romance or, say, a power fantasy, especially if written in first person. Another way to look at it would be along the lines of 'hell, I describe everything else, don't I? The settings, the items they use, the car they drive, the clothes they wear, the people they meet, so why make an exception with the POV characters?' As a reader, I might sometimes feel like why am I doing the author's job for him/her? Generally I prefer character descriptions instead of blank slates, but I want them to be short and on point, so the mental image I get is immediate. I also like it when they're naturally implemented in the narration instead of "plastered on" as if the author just remembered he forgot to describe the main character(s).
If you have other symbolism in your book, that can easily go in the cover instead. Just looking at my bookshelf, feathers, clocks, birds and random symbols seem to be more popular than people right now. Most of the ones I have with characters on the cover are romance novels and biographies.
Random thoughts: Some people are visual thinkers and at least like a starting point for building their picture. It doesn't have to be a big detailed starting point, but something. If the description is ever going to matter, get it over with. The visual thinkers who can build a picture with absolutely no cues at all are still going to have a problem if they're given the wrong cues, later. Many elements of appearance do point to character. Someone in a Chanel suit and a few hundred dollars' worth of hair styling and cosmetic products is signaling a lot about themselves. I'm unclear about this part: Are you saying that if the author says that someone is tall, pale, skinny, and red-haired, you will decide that they are instead short, tanned, stocky, and dark-haired? Or...what are you saying, exactly? Maybe you're assuming that they need to be really long descriptions? I assemble a paragraph: An oddly-assorted party entered--two men in featureless but expensive suits that made me think Secret Service, accompanied by a red-haired girl in jeans. She was talking to one of the men, a dark-haired grim type who completed the Secret Service vibe with a pair of dark sunglasses. The other one, taller, with a Marine-style buzz cut that contrasted oddly with the suit, was scanning the room. Is that too much description?
No, it's more like, if the opening sentence of a book is "Susan took the kettle off the stove" I've already cast Susan as looking a certain way in my head. Because if I want to imagine that action, I need to imagine the person doing it. I don't consciously decide to imagine the action, that just happens when I read the sentence. There's obviously a grace period where the author can fill in some details (Susan is 75 and has gray hair) but it's not very long. If I get too many more actions by Susan before the descriptors start appearing (for example if she pours her tea, sits down, opens the newspaper and contemplates current events before I read about her wrinkly hands delicately holding the cup) then, well, too late. The position of Susan has been filled. I suppose I would like to know what that "grace period" is for other people. How long can you go before the first descriptor HAS to appear? (Not that there aren't any in that example. The first sentence tells me that it's fair to assume that Susan is female and was born in a time and place where the name "Susan" was used. That's not not a descriptor, but, you know.) That's borderline for me, but yes, that's just about as much as I can usually stand to read or write. Any more than that starts feeling clunky and forced to me. Sorry if I'm being vague and contradictory, I'm trying to figure out what my deal is on the fly and I just can't quite put my finger on it.
Not a problem. I'm not really looking for paragraph-length descriptions of every character's appearance. Just a few cues mentioned in a non-obtrusive manner, scattered through the first chapters/first few chapters. As others have mentioned, they should be established early so as not to give the reader the wrong impression. Like "long, chestnut-brown hair blew in her face", or "she removed her horn-rimmed glasses and polished them", or something better expressed than that. These small details I can collect over the course of these initial chapters to slowly build up a picture of their appearance. Not too much that I have to refer back to it and think "what did they look like again" but building an image up myself. Somebody rolling up their sleeves doesn't imply any physical trait for me. They still could be anybody, look like anyone. Or I might be at risk of relating that character to people I know who also display those quirks, and that would be distracting.
It sounds like my grace period is longer than yours or, perhaps, my initial image is less stubbornly resilient. I tend to start out inside a character, rather than watching them, though surely that shouldn't affect multi-character scenes. Looking at my descriptive sample, I'm thinking I could lose the men's hair, though for me my sample is (naturally) just about the right amount of description.
I have nothing against thorough physical descriptions. If a writer wants me to see a character exactly one way, fine. But for what it's worth, I don't describe the physical attributes of my characters unless it's pertinent to the story. I give my characters a personality. I'm of the school of thought that the reader becomes more engaged if they can make a contribution to the story. So I grant permission to the reader to imagine my character however they wish: skin tone, hair color, height, whether they are skinny or (not-so-skinny). Go with your instincts on this one. I don't think there's a right or wrong.
What most guides don't mention is those physical descriptions tie into the story. If you have a character that is 400lbs of fat and don't give any physical description, you are cut off from later making reference to thae persons weight/health/etc. If you say 'X charscter is lazy', then later mention they aren't around to help because they had a heart attack, it doesn't make much sense if you pictured them at peak physical condition. If you give that character a physical description leading one to infer they are 400lbs of fat; a heart attack later makes sense. Some authors use the physical description to set up the character. It all depends who and what your character is and does. A very popular series are the Reacher books by Lee Child. Physical descriptions are prominent because Reacher fight s a lot. He is described in each book and his opponents are described. When he handily dispatches ex-Nebraska Cornhusker linemen, it wouldn't make too much sense thinking he is 5 foot nothing and emo. But, Lee Child came from tv writing before novels and is a 'pantser' that takes about 9 onths to write a book which is pretty much the last book and the others.
I think character descriptions are important when it comes to their "function" as a character. If race is an important central concept to a story, then knowing the race of the main character, therefore a general physical description, might be necessary. If they have some sort of physical trait that is important to know, that might also be a very important reason to include a description. As a reader, if a main character is slicing through plate armor with their fingers, and that trait isn't magical, I'd like to know how they're physically able to do that, and not need to guess why they're different from every other character that CAN'T do that. You don't have to use extreme detail, but just enough to give the reader the information they need to know, and let their mind do the rest.
Firstly if the MC or other characters show up on the cover, you kinda imagine them like that in story. So in that case why waste time on physical descriptions. Personally, I like to give just enough info for the reader to see the characters as they want to. Just a few details goes a long way for me. I don't want to have to see Chad-Brad the exact same way that the author does. Chad-Brad can look however the hell I want him to, and he is a doucebag. Why? Because that name screams macho urban asshole with herpighonnasyphitisaids. So basically you decide how much or how little you describe the physical details. At least a bare bones idea of what the reader can imagine is enough for some. And others like to paint with a microscope every last detail down to that one hair growing off the wart on Sally's ass, color, smell, the tiny bend to the right as it pokes through her mesh panties. Those who go overboard are a little strange to me. (It is bad when a weirdo like me calls you strange.)
