I am writing a novel as well as a collection of memoirs about "homesteading" on 10 acres of raw land in my 20s. My background and life has always been on Canada's west coast, with lots of long narrow channels between islands, the forest fragrant with the strong smell of evergreens wafting over the water, rocky shores, kelp beds, seals, whales and seagulls. For me a lot of smells are significant, like the scent of a freshly cut down tree, the stench of rotting salmon on a river bank after spawning and the mixed fragrance of percolated coffee and diesel exhaust on the deck of a fishboat just to name a few. The population I grew up with and I worked with was sometimes rough around the edges and unusually capable of taking on just about any task to survive. But in my writing I include very little of this, sticking in just hints here and there. I am always uncertain if I am describing the setting and people adequately. Am I leaving too much description out assuming the reader will like me, automatically feel the sense of place? I've been corresponding with another writer about this. She said that an English teacher once told her to write the story that needed to be told--no more and no less than what needed to be told. In other words, let the story determine the amount of description that is appropriate.
I think what you're doing with sprinkled bits and pieces here sounds good in general. Give enough to set the reader down the right path. Just enough to make them think about the setting and have a basic understanding of it. Their mind will fill in the details after that, it's part of the joy of reading. If you're more descriptive than that I think there should be a purpose beyond just wanting to. For instance, if it sets the tone or the setting is very important in a specific way to other aspects of the story. Since your story is about homesteading I think it would be appropriate to give more setting details since the focus is the land. Don't however take that to mean big lumps of description. Just sprinkle in more here and there.
Speaking as a consumate memoir reader, I always relish impressions that ground me in the physical setting, whatever details need to be told to make the place 'real'. In memoirs, I like to immerse myself in the experience and if there's a paragraph of description I'd likely be thankful to the writer. A memoir should feel as real as possible, and details are always welcome. Conversely, when I read fiction I often advocate as @marshipan said, Fiction is by definition not real, so I give myself permission to fill in the blanks. But in reading memoirs I want the exact opposite. I want to be told how it was, not what I imagine it was.
I agree with both marshipan and Lifeline. As the setting is nature, I'd go with more description rather than less. You never know how far the reader has travelled, so what may seem obvious to you may be something the reader has never experienced or even thought of. I have never been to Canada, but from your description above, I want to. At the same time, I have never lived in an area with natural salmon spawning grounds, so I wouldn't think of the potential wonders to experience. If you can get a nice balance of the different senses, you should be ok. Having said that, an imagery dump can be off-putting. I saw a film called Into The Wild, and I liked it very much. But I tried to read the book, and I couldn't get into it because there was so much description. You may find that it settles into a more natural balance as you write it though. You can certainly give excerpts to others for opinions on how much detail works, or bogs it down.
i think "write the story that needed to be told--no more and no less than what needed to be told" is either nonsense or too vague to be meaningful, depending on how you define "story". If you mean "story" as just "plot", then of course you will include more than just "what needed to be told". Setting, characterization, vivid language - they're all important elements of storytelling, and shouldn't be left out. If you mean "story" as every element of a successful novel/short story, then "what needed to be told" is totally subjective and therefore too vague. If you're trying to write a story that vividly evokes a specific setting, then you need to spend more time/energy/words on setting elements. If you're trying to write a more spare story in which setting isn't as important, then you'd spend fewer words on setting. I don't think one story is more "needed" than another. So - as always, I think it's important for you to have your writing goals in mind as you're writing. What kind of story are you trying to produce? What level of detail will best serve that story?
From reading the few lines you wrote above, my impression is that the wonderful setting is itself a character in your memoir. Therefore I'd definitely include more setting and description, sounds incredible and I'd like to hear more about it. NC
Thanks for your comments. Please don't get the idea that Canada is heaven on earth. I described the nice things. My experience is mostly west of the Rockies, but in Alberta we have the huge tar sands bitumen extraction industry in Fort Mac, digging huge holes in the ground for many square miles making the entire countryside for miles around stink like hot tar roofing. In British Columbia we have thousands of hectares of dead forest land from pine beetle infestation and forest fires, many other thousands of clear-cut forest, open pit mines, urban sprawl, warehouses and other construction on beautiful estuarine farmland, a massive hydro dam under construction that will flood an entire valley, salmon farms spreading sea lice to wild salmon, political corruption on a scale comparable only to Italy, criminal billions from China laundered in casinos,real estate and other business and the list goes on. My little world I write about from 40 years ago seems almost a fantasy compared to that.
Bookmarking this because I think I have a quote from Hemingway I can share with you that you might find helpful, but I do not have the book with me and won't be home until tonight. But from what little you've described, it's beautiful. It reminds me to look at the good qualities of my home-state. Not much of an outdoors person, but I appreciate the beauty and necessity of nature.
My first draft is very bare. I usually cut scenes and add in details in the second draft. Could be you just need to get the story out first and then decide what needs to be filled out, scraped and adorned.
Writing in two different styles (novel and memoir) on the same subject or setting at the same time could be a struggle within itself. They are approached differently and call for different things. I'm not a fane of bare bone storytelling. I want to prose to feel alive and a lot of that does come from setting. It's true to give a story what it needs, but different stories need different things. Elizabeth Graver is probably the writer who handles setting the best way out of any writer I've come across. She relies heavily on setting, but I would say she is still giving the story what it needs with no more or no less. Stories need to be grounded and setting in probably the easiest way to ground writing. Of course, it's something that can be overdone, but it can also be underdone. Don't be afraid to bring setting to life in your writing. It could be exactly what is needed.
You already gave a few details that will stick with me. I think the more specific your details can be, the better. Those two will make an impact. General description of 'rocky shore, seagulls,' etc maybe less so. Unless you can pinpoint something precise about THAT rocky shore, or exactly what THOSE gulls are doing, etc. Again, these descriptive details don't need to go on and on, any more than the two descriptions I quoted are lengthy info-dumps. But that quality of detail will matter. The story will jump to life because it's about a unique time and place. Not a generic one. I'd say write in any/all description you think will bring your scene to life, but be specific. Don't worry about overdoing it. You can always cut some of it out later on.
I prefer to write (and read) specific details, but not ALL the specific details. A character isn't going to eat "dinner", they're going to eat ...that crisp-skinned chicken that only Susan knew how to make. The chicken was the reason that Jake had lunch at the Dew Drop on Thursdays, Susan’s day in the kitchen. The other reason was Magdalen, behind the counter. Ah, Magdalen... I'm not then going to detail the decor of the Dew Drop Inn, or describe the food on everybody else's plate, or otherwise fill in the rest of the picture. I'm probably going to leave Magdalen's appearance un-described; all we know about her is that she makes Jake light-headed with worship. I select a few details. The hope is that they will shine with enough light to allow the reader to see the rest of the scene, filled in by their own mind. (I'm not a fan of my own metaphor there, but I'm going to leave it.)
Yeah, you've hit on another issue. The details should MATTER to the story as well. Susan is a great cook. Jake fancies Magdalen. So not only do these details help set the scene, but they do double-duty. Excellent example (as usual.)
