I've started noticing something in what little I can bring myself to read. Maybe I'm overreacting. Maybe I'm just not the audience targeted by this thing. And maybe this has been addressed elsewhere. But I'm curious of opinions out there. Whenever an already-established fact or detail is (to me at least) pointlessly invoked again, I feel offended that the author doesn't trust me to remember. And I feel like they're wasting words (and my time) by doing it. Some examples: A character is established to have a deep, authoritative voice. Then later, he says something "in his deep voice." Or a symbol's meaning is overtly stated, and then later it's meaning is again overtly stated. I hope this makes sense. It's 3 am and my coherency is probably not on point (or my judgment thereof). Should something be established once, and thereafter the reader trusted/expected to remember it to the point it's never mentioned again unless there's some good reason? Is it perfectly reasonable to invoke details repeatedly throughout a story, even if they're not necessary? Is there some other option or perspective I'm not considering?
I don't believe there is a definitive answer. However, if the original point gets made strongly enough the first time, it probably doesn't need to be repeated. Of course there will always be folks who will miss it ...if they're skimmers or skippers ...but your job as an author is to make your storytelling so riveting that nobody ever skips. Right? Right. A reader can probably overlook the occasional 'reminder' of something that is important—especially if there is a lot of story in between—but if the reminding becomes a noticeable irritant, then the situation probably needs work. The best way to do this, I reckon, is get some of your beta readers to look for these instances and point them out to you.
Take it as a sign you are becoming a better reader. If you are being annoyed by reiterations, they are most probably wrong, or used by wrong reasons. This has nothing to do with any 'genre'. There is a difference between the face of a building and how the heating system works. We all prefer to keep warm during winters, cool in summertime. You can keep reading those books, if you think you benefit somehow -as in learning from bad example, but I find it more rewarding to read the good ones. They don't get on your nerves that often.
Though I completely agree with you that I personally need the writer to back up and stop trying to hold my frigg'n hand, I have to admit that there are different kinds of readers with different kinds of needs. When it comes to description, some readers need that reiteration. They may also need that tip-to-tow description paragraph, the one that's never contextualized, the one I'm forever lambasting. Their inner CGI and Practical Effects department is lacking or simply doesn't exist. They need that fresh coat of narrative paint every few pages else the MC's face quickly starts to fade. The bit you mention about symbolism - that's not a thing everyone gets. Not everyone is willing or able to scratch past the surface paint to get to a deeper, more abstract meaning, so the writer feels compelled to not only offer but force the use of a scraper to get past the surface gloss. And if you read around in these writerly forums, you'll find that we are currently in a general trend towards a more literalized deployment of stories, stories with a single port of entry, not several. And, of course, there are simply writers who - as you mention - condescend to the reader, assuming there will be no skills of critical analysis brought to bear, or worse, they will be brought to bear and conclusions other than what the writer intended are evinced. Heaven forfend...
I don't think I'd trust many readers to remember details over the course of a novel, especially when they're likely to pick it up and put it down repeatedly. Of course, there's details that you want noticed because you're trying to do Theme and make your old English teacher proud, and details that you add because you're addicted to adjectives and lack imagination. I think the former you can make a case for hammering the detail, the second isn't something your reader should notice. If they have, you've overdone it. Kinda-related-but-not-really tangent: I'm reading The Odyssey at the moment, since I'm a classy bitch, and the introduction was talking about how the original version has adjectives that always accompany certain things: Penelope is always 'intelligent Penelope', the sea is always 'the wine-dark sea', because it started life as an oral piece and that kind of repetition helped the storytellers learn it and gave the listeners anchor points to help them follow it. Part of what the translator - Emily Wilson, in this case - had to do was render these adjectives in a way that captured the spirit of the original without being a frustrating read, since that kind of thing works far better spoken than it does on the page.
Is it reasonable for an author to try compensating for that lot anyway? How often do you think it's reasonable for reminders to be given? I imagine there's no definitive answer here, either, but I can't help wondering if there's some general idea on the subject. I'm at least noticing it happening too frequently. (Maybe I just haven't read enough good books to have pinpointed where the Goldilocks Zone is.) I absolutely agree. As jannert said, "I don't believe there is a definitive answer." 'Cause people are varied and complicated. I will raise my hand as one of those people whose CGI and Practical Effects department is lacking. I can't generate imagery unless it's fed to me, but I like it being well-done, and it's generally set in my mind once that's done. I don't need to keep being reminded superfluously of a character's height or beauty or what have you. Have you experienced these kinds of people, and have they described to you this need for refresher narrative paint? Oh my, I dropped the ball on this one, and I see where I led you astray. Whoops. I was meaning literal symbols. Designs. Shapes. I'm reading Elantris by Brandon Sanderson. On page 75, there's a few paragraphs describing a character drawing a magic symbol, and it more or less culminates in "This was Aon Ashe, the ancient symbol for light." Then on pages 77-78, there are several paragraphs talking about how lamps weren't needed here because of how prevalent magic was, more or less culminating in: This wasn't quite as egregious as I'd remembered (I thought it had overtly stated it was a symbol for light again), but I still find it agonizing. "Um, yeah, I know... I was there... Just a few moments ago..." A reasonable consideration. How often do you think readers should be reminded of details then? Intriguing. I appreciate your inclusion of this. I'd actually just yesterday started reading Elantris as though maybe it's being presented as oration, within the context of the book. (If that makes sense.) To be fair, this was partly due to it being increasingly disappointing in quality. I'm trying desperately to give Sanderson the benefit of the doubt...
@heal41hp - One way to think about this issue might be to pretend you have the author in front of you, in person, and you are giving that person a face-to-face critique. You say to them, "By the way, do you realise you've mentioned this character has a deep voice quite a few times? This repetition is irritating, as I got it the first time." What do you think their response would be? (Assuming they are folks who can take criticism. ) Would they be likely to say, "Oh, shit ...I didn't realise. Thanks!" and then they'd go back, pinpoint the spots you highlighted, and simply change them? Result. Or would they be likely to tell you they had a reason for doing this? And what that reason might be. If you ask yourself those same questions about your own writing, you might get your own take on the issue. If you're repeating ...why? We all know people who have characteristics you tend to notice every time you encounter them. This person always smells of B.O. This person has a voice that grates on the nerves. This person twitches so much it's hard to keep your mind on what he's saying. Just saying a person smells of BO once, at the start of the story, and never mentioning it again—might not quite work. If you're in your POV character's head, and your POV character is aware of these traits in every scene, every time he encounters this smelly beast, there isn't any reason you can't (as a writer) mention the traits more than once. Just try to be imaginative as to how you do it, and don't just repeat the same phrases over and over. If your character has a deep voice, and it's important because later on somebody is going to be listening through a door and will recognise that character's voice ...then make sure the first time the deep voice is mentioned, that the incident is memorable. Let us experience an incident where the deepness of his voice matters. That way we'll remember the voice, when the character turns up again. If you're just repeating descriptions to keep repainting the picture, though—just because you think the reader might have forgotten ...that's another issue. I'd say write the story the way you want to, then let your astute betas point out any instances of this kind that bother them.
I couldn't give you a times per chapter. I think it's just one of those things where if they notice you've done it, you've done it too much.
Yes, sure. My stories are always in 3rd limited. The constraint in that narrative mode is that description must be filtered through whomever is serving as the POV character. The description must make sense as having come from that person. The freedom of 3rd omniscient where the narrator can just wax rhapsodic is not permitted. So the trick is to find the line between what makes sense, what the character would notice and take in, vs getting a decent description across to the reader. I prefer to err to the side of restraint, though I am certainly not always successful. Erring to the side of restraint will always ruffle those who say "I need more; I can't really see it" but satisfy those who say "I actually prefer to paint it in myself; please continue with the plot." I've had people say things like "I get that you want to keep some mystery..." No, I'm not "trying to keep some mystery". Given the topical context, what does that even mean? What I'm actually trying to do is respect the logic of the narrative mode. That's it, that's all. It's the choice I'm making, and I get that this choice has outcomes that I must own. We're always making choices whenever we include something, don't include something, describe to the Nth degree, or restrain and let the reader deploy their own inner descriptive eye. I often say make your choices, own their outcomes, never ask permission and I'm saying that to myself as much as to anyone who cares to hear because it's not an easy code to follow. When GRRM turns Westeros into a fashion parade, every single little outfit described in such detail that you could create a dress pattern from the words alone, he courts the High Fantasy junkies who want to dive crotch first into that kind of fan service, and he loses people like me who skim those kinds of descriptions and since they're happening every third paragraph, I'm skimming so much of these books that I may as well just watch the show. When Arthur C. Clarke slipped the occasional LGBT character quietly between the pages of books he was publishing in the late 50's and early 60's, he was certainly making choices that either hooked new readers or guaranteed some readers never returned to his books. When Clive Barker wrote Imajica and turned it into a Bible Alternate Universe where God is the baddie, Jesus was trying to save us from his dad, not take us to him, and the second coming of Christ is a softly bisexual dude nicknamed Gentle who pals around with his occasional lover, an angel named Pie'oh'pah who doesn't really have a gender because it's a shapeshifter, but spends most of its time as a strikingly handsome muscular black man, Clive was making all kinds of choices in the narrative sand, scooping up some readers and alienating others in a hard-line kind of way. When you mention that you are the kind of person who needs that revisit to the visuals, but that you want it done well, to me that describes the difference between making or not making a choice. When it's done poorly, no choice was made, it was random, deployed without much thought as to why here? why now? why again? When it's "done well", I think it's mostly just that the writer thought about it, gave it a reason for here and now and again, not just randomly stroking the pen to see what erupts.
It sounds like intentionality is at least a key player in this. And isn't that the case with virtually everything in writing? It's not so much a matter of "how often" something should or could be done as it is "why" something is being done. The answer varies so greatly and is so nuanced that maybe it can't even be discussed in such broad terms as were presented here. Ask why. Find an answer. It seems so simple now that I feel a little silly for having brought this up in the first place. But hindsight and all.
Exactly. If you're repeating or over-describing—why? Just make sure you answer the question for yourself. Once you're aware of why YOU are doing it, you might want to find another way to accomplish the same end. Or ...just leave it as it is. Betas are the best way to learn if what you've written works for them, or annoys them.
