To describe or not to describe

[JonSwift]

Recently I've been reading a lot of books (as a writer should) and I've noticed that writers approach describing characters in at least two ways. The first and the one I prefer is to describe characters in detail (hair color, eye color, height, weight, etc.). The second way to describe a character is to not describe them at all and to presumably let the reader assume the responsibility of writer and picture these characters in their own mind.

My question: What's your writing preference? and What's your reader preference?

I won't ask which is better because it clearly is subjective.

[maestrowork]

Unless you have a character with one eye, three nostrils, a big, long scar, and hair the color of grapes, describing the character in minute physical details would not only bog down the pace, but also bore the readers. They're more than likely not remember all the details anyway, and supply their own imagination. Chances are, you readers are going to supply their own idea of how the characters should look...

Read Pride & Prejudice, for example. Austen seldom went into detailed descriptions. She did tell us how handsome or beautiful someone is, but mostly by the reactions of other people (for example, how Bingley was taken by Jane's beauty, or Darcy's looks and stature captured the attention of the assembly). That gives you enough information to draw your own conclusion, but also enough room to use your own imagination.

Now, if you have an alien creature with three nostrils, please do tell us.

[Greenify13]

As a reader I like the first approach, however I do change the characters to look how I think they should. I can't stand it at all if on the cover there is someone who is supposed to be a character, but then the description says they have brown hair and the picture is red hair. I like to go by the pictures, but I love the descriptions. But soemtimes it is just nice to know they are fugly or charming...idk.
In writing, I am trying desperately not to ramble on about details and things that some deem as unimportant. But everyone has their own tastes. Either way this is a great thread. :)

[kikilynn]

I used to go into detail, because that's what was done in the novels I read. Now, I've trimmed the fat, so to speak. I keep it simple, maybe eye and hair color, and if their absurdly tall or muscular.

[NeuroFizz]

Does the hair or eye color matter for the story? Will it have some bearing on characterization or on recognition of a character by others? I prefer to give the reader some input into the story by letting her/him construct those fine details unless the answer to either of the two questions above is yes. A writer should pull the reader into the story not hold them at words-length, and one way to help pull them in is to give them some interpretive space.

And, if hair and eye color is important, why not shoe size, fingernail length. The main reason I don't like to include hair and eye color (unless it is essential for the story) is most novels are way too predictable in having an overabundance of blonds with light colored eyes (either blue or green). I don't want to force that predictability on the reader. But if the reader sees it that way, there it is.

[kikilynn]

A few of the characters it is, like my MC has gray eyes that glow under stress. Another character the first time she sees him, it's only the top of his head she views so his hair color is kind of needed there.

[shokadh]

Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card has always amazed me by its success, despite a total lack of descriptors regarding hair colour, clothing, surroundings, or even age of the MC in the opening chapters. It relies on inferential comments to clue the reader in. Totally amazing. (next to impossible for someone like me, I might add) I guess that's why his work is so well-respected. He pulled it off somehow.

[kct webber]

I'm of the opinion that the reader can imagine something far more vividly than any writer can describe it. I give some 'directions' that are enough to get the reader started, then let them take it from there. :)

[lmz]

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this.

As a reader, I WANT to know what color of hair the characters have, if their eyes are a light or dark shade of blue, whether their lips are full or thin. It puts an image of the character into my head and connects me to the story. I have to see them for them to be real to me, and isn't that what writers want readers to do?

I've read books where there was only one description of the color of the character's hair, and midway through, I had no idea what they looked like, and it frustrated me.

As a writer, I go into great detail with the looks because, like I said up above, as a reader it's what I want to know.

But then, on here, at least, I've been told I'm too repetitive over such things, so in closing, I stand by my first sentence: there is no right or wrong answer to this. Do what feels right to you; not everyone is ever going to like the way you write. Write for yourself.

[selkn.asrai]

I can't count how many times I've been jerked out of a story because an elaborate physical description dropped and shattered the mental image of a character.

I think that the novel is a collaboration between writer and reader. The story, when read, is as much a product of reader's perception and imagination as anything else. Telling them how to picture a character when it is unnecessary, to me, is not only bossy, but alienating as well. And sometimes it just goes way too far, to the point of authorial self-indulgence; physical details need to contribute to the story. Does it matter if they inherently see your protagonist as dark-haired instead of the blond you wish?

Character description is largely useless--not to mention embarrassingly blatant when done with said character indulging vanity before a mirror or still pond. <---See that way too often.

[Chauchat Butterfly]

I can't count how many times I've been jerked out of a story because an elaborate physical description dropped and shattered the mental image of a character.


Whenever that happens, I just ignore it and continue to imagine the characters how I wish. In my version of Anna Karenina, the vast majority of male characters don't have mustaches. :tongue

I honestly hate extensive physical discription as I find it kind of useless for the above reason. But, given the varieties of readers in existence (I've heard testimony from people who don't see images in their heads when they read but ony the text on the page), there's really no universal right or wrong answer for the description problem. So perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle~

As for how I use description, I think nicely placed, minute hair and eye descriptions are a good way to give a base for someone to build an image of a character around; cause that's what we first notice right? When we see a photograph of a face what do we look at first? What color is their hair? What color are their eyes? In description, everything else, unless it's imperative or unusual, is superfluous.

Although sometimes, I don't even bother with discription period, especially when writing in first person.

[RunawayScribe]

I try to give the details that convey the impression I want. This character has black hair and is tall - a day overdue for a shave, too. He's about twenty-eight, my narrator notices. And that's it. The reader can find out he's attractive when women notice him later on. I don't need to say it. That's shoving it down your throat, and it just slows the pace. You'll find him more attractive anyway if you use your own images of what's attractive to you, which might be different than what's attractive to me.

[JonSwift]

Everyone, great comments. Interesting to see what everyone thinks about this. It does seem that most people prefer not to describe characters in too much detail. But I keep being reminded of an author like Jim Butcher of The Dresden Files books (New York Times bestseller btw). He describes each character in detail and I sort of like that he does. I guess I don't mind being led by the author in this respect. But I do see where people who dislike exhaustive description are coming from. I guess at the end of hte day, a good story is a good story and that's all that counts.

[Mumut]

I only describe what is necessary for the plot. I like my readers to create their own characters and, in that way, have some ownership of the story.

[NeuroFizz]

a day overdue for a shave, too.
I've seen this one before in a story, and it tickled me. If we think about it, it means the author can only use that character in alternate days, or the character's shaving habits have to be described multiple times (he can't be a day overdue for a shave every day). Of course, I'm giving an exaggerated response, but it underlines how we have to be careful of exactly what physical traits are given and how they are used.

Ray (Maestro) made an important point. Anyone who insists on telling the reader about multiple physical characteristic in a block of prose should be extremely conscious of what that may be doing to the pace of the story in that scene. And they should be conscious of being overly telling in that scene.

I do enjoy physical description portrayed via unusual word-pictures of a character's appearance. And I (sometimes) like to give appearance quirks this way. In Phoenix, a character is balding with a patch of hair front and center that is separating from the retreating patch on the rest of his head. It was described (paraphrased and out of context) as an island of hair that was about to declare its independence.

[miles]

If you do choose to describe major characters, do so when they first appear. Nothing's more annoying than creating a mental image of a character, only to discover in chapter twenty that she's actually a plump blond with big knockers.

[Nakhlasmoke]

I add a few telling details, just to give the reader a rough sketch to fill in.

I never have my MC's describing themselves in a mirror (although i will have them noticing things in a mirror that normal people will do - like how tired they're looking, or a ginormous zit taking over their face).

Same with clothes. I'll mention something that tells you something about that character's style (docs and a trench-coat, or a torn pink dress that doesn't fit) but the details are sparse. once again, I think the reader fills in many of those details from their own experiences.

A long list of physical attributes and/or clothing just stalls the narrative, in my opinion.

[Samantha's_Song]

I describe my characters through another characters eyes, as we all look at others and take in what they look like like. Even those who say they don't notice colour do; of course you notice it when you look at someone, unless you're blind.

[Sirius]

I think the key point about description is Don't Overdo It. And if you want to see what happens when you do - well, this extract from a book called Silk and Steel has been doing the rounds of the blogosphere: http://vandonovan.livejournal.com/1088311.html#cutid1

Warning: put drinks down before clicking on the link.

[MetalDog]

I think it really depends on who's writing the description (and who's reading it, obviously). I didn't like Jim Butcher's fashion parade every time a character showed up - it was like a shopping list from a clothes store. Yet, Chandler's full description of Moose Malloy at the beginning of Farewell My Lovely is great to read. Other times, all it takes is a sketch to get the feel of a character - and that's the way I lean when I write, I think I do better work sketching than going into pore by pore detail.

@neruofizz
Your complaint about shaving made me think of part of Moose Malloy's description - "He needed a shave. He would always need a shave." =D

[NatJM]

As a writer, I don't describe at all. But as a reader, I appreciate good descriptions. The reason I don't describe my characters at all at the moment is because I haven't found a satisfying way to do so.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

I'm a big fan of the less is more school of description, though like Miles I have to say that if you are going to describe a character in detail, especially a major character it is best to do it when you introduce them. Beyond that I would limit it to only describing the features that are important: the features that everyone notices or that illustrate some aspect of character. I'm more likely to show whether hair is well-groomed than what color it is.

Use detail, put in every detail you need and leave out every detail you don't need. This applies to character appearance too.

[IdiotsRUs]

I like some description - enough to give me an idea of what they look like. I notice hair colour, stature etc. If my POV character would notice, then it gets described at the point they notice. And when they first meet is when they'd notice the most obvious stuff.

I don't like what happened in one book I read, getting to page two hundred imagining a guy has dark hair ( because it's never said, and I like brunettes :D) and then he gets his hair cut and leaves looking 'blond and sleek', which means I should try and revise my imagining, but I couldn't. VERY ANNOYING!

[Exir]

I think one thing you have to keep in mind is that if you decide to write an extensive description of a character, you must do so early, preferably as soon as he/she first appears. The worst thing that can happen is for a reader to assume a character looks a certain way, then suddenly read a description that goes against this mental image.

I also find that if you give too much character description, I start seeing the character as a collage, instead of a real, organic being.

[maestrowork]

Even if you want to describe the characters (and the sooner you do it, the better-- like celina said, you don't want to have the readers making up an image of a short, thin brunette and then shatter that on page 123 that she is actually tall, blond and plump), there are many ways to do it without being obtrusive or stopping the movement. Make the descriptions part of the scene and plot, too.

Again, in P&P, not much description until the dance hall scene. And only a few choice words, we have images that Jane is 3 times as beautiful as any other girls there, Lizzy is handsome but not handsome enough (for Darcy), Bingley is good-looking and amiable (but Mrs. Bringley said he was extremely handsome, obviously jaded), and Darcy is tall and proud, with an air of superiority, and draws all the attention to him even though he doesn't want it. Again, only a few words (although, of course, back in Austen's day, it's more "tell" than "show" but still, you get the idea). And much of it is about how other people REACT to these characters.

The great thing about it is that we can have very different ideas of the characters based on our own backgrounds, cultures, and times. People in 1909 may have a very different image of Jane or Lizzy than people in 2009. And yet, the scene still works perfectly in the context of the story. In fact, I doubt that a laundry list of attributes (hair, eyes, body types, etc.) would have better impact than just a few choice observations.

Not to mention it allows the casting director of your movie a lot of freedom. :)

[Fillanzea]

I think there's a lot of room between giving no description at all and giving a police report -- "Suspect is 6'2" white male, blond hair, scar on right cheek, wearing a pink and white polo shirt." I often prefer a description that's more subjective or impressionistic, with maybe one or two distinguishing characteristics.

In a writing advice book once I read a description of a guy who had a head like an oversized pumpkin starting to go to seed. That's maybe a bit TOO much, but it's vivid, isn't it? It tells you more about the guy than his height and hair color. I like Colin's "jewfro" in "An Abundance of Katherines"; I like descriptions that position a character as a jock or a prep or a nerd or as none of those. I don't do a lot of physical description, but I do clothing, especially if it's part of the way a character expresses herself.

[MetalDog]

There's a Nick Cave song with the line:

He had a face like boiled meat.

I always find myself wishing I'd thought of that one first.

[bonitakale]

I think the key point about description is Don't Overdo It. And if you want to see what happens when you do - well, this extract from a book called Silk and Steel has been doing the rounds of the blogosphere: http://vandonovan.livejournal.com/1088311.html#cutid1

Warning: put drinks down before clicking on the link.

Thank you! I would never have believed it. Never!

What I think about description, or some of it, is here:
http://bkedits.com/characters.html

[scarletpeaches]

I'm sparing with description.

I gave a male friend a few chapters of a WIP to read a couple of years back and he said, "It's great, but...just one thing. I don't know what your character looks like."

My reply? "That's your job."

He took the point, but nowadays I might throw in a few details if they're relevant to the story. If not, I leave them out. Especially now I write in first person.

n.b. If anyone has their characters look in a mirror and describe themselves, I will hunt them down and kill them like the dogs they are.

I recommend the rule of three. No more than three essential details at once and preferably fewer.

[maestrowork]

Like, "Scarlet is tall, blond, and beautiful"?

[SarahMacManus]

I give a brief and general description somewhere in the beginning, and then I don't mention it again unless it's part of the plot. Sometimes it is; a similarity in appearance that's part of the plot, a sign characters are related, etc.

[scarletpeaches]

Like, "Scarlet is tall, blond, and beautiful"?

Two out of three ain't bad.

scarletpeaches, only 5'2". ;)

[gypsyscarlett]

As a reader I don't have a preference. I've read books with detailed physical character descriptions that were like vivid portraits. I've also read books with detailed physical character descriptions that were snooze fests. So like with anything, if you're going to do it- do it well. (no laundry lists)

As a writer I tend to do pencil sketches. Describe a little and allow the reader to imagine the rest.

[DMarie84]

I give only minor description; i.e. hair color, perhaps eye color and stature. I think I made an effort to describe the MC a little more (as viewed by another POV) because she's of mixed heritage and stands out among the Japanese (being taller and with lighter hair color than most). Even then, it was only a sentence or two if that.

[CaroGirl]

The style of description, like everything else, needs to fit the style of the work. It also needs to avoid cliche (again, like everything else).

I prefer description that gives me a sense of the character as a whole, as opposed to just how the character looks. I'd rather know that, "Karen's posture was stoop-shouldered, as if she were always trying to disappear into her own navel." Rather than, "Karen had black hair, brown eyes and bad posture." The second description gives me more about Karen's physical characteristics, but less about Karen's actual character. I feel I get a better sense of "Karen" with the first description.

Your mileage may vary.

[Fade]

As a reader, I don't care whether there is some description or not. There's this fantasy series (which I am currently obsessed with), where they describe every girl down to what freakin' necklace she's wearing, and every guy down to the kind of stilettos he's got stashed up his sleeves. I also love books where there are absolutely no descriptions and I can imagine the MCs however I want. Unlike most people, if I imagine them one way for part of the book, and then the righter corrects me, I don't care; I just spend a moment revising my mental image.

As a writer, I use description very sparingly, except for when something creeps my MC out. For example, when he sees another human, he says, "He was black, very tall and wide, and he walked--no, lumbered; he was that wide--up to me" Well, I don't have my WIP with me, but that's pretty much the extent of the description for my human characters.

When my MC sees the man-made monsters, he can't get over how weird they look, and how their fur grows in patches over their skin...

I think you should describe how your MC would. Just my two cents.

[CaroGirl]

I think you should describe how your MC would.
QFT.

The importance of this can't be underestimated. Describing other characters the way your POV character sees them says as much about the character being described as it does about the character doing the describing. The things we notice about other people are telling and very individual.

[Judg]

I like just enough description for me to be able to anchor the character in my mind. I never, ever describe them in terms like gorgeous, handsome, ugly unless it's in the mouth of another character. In fact, the word "gorgeous" is about enough to make me close a book all on its own.

John LeCarré is a master at describing vividly without spelling out all the details. Read the first chapter or two of Smiley's People for examples. The key thing there is that everything he tells you matters. They are revealing their character and telling you things way beyond hair colour.

Anyway, you did not describe the two way of describing characters, but the two extremes of describing them. And I fall in the middle, both as a reader and as a writer. Given a choice though, too little bothers me much less than too much.

[WKolodzieski]

I've always tended to be short on character-describing-details, although in my current novel I go into (at times) great lengths describing what the characters are wearing, what they look like, etc. My reasoning is just (I believe), because it contributes to the overall story and how my main character views himself, others, and for that matter, the world. Whatever works best in the work you're writing is what matters most - this is all, of course, in my humble opinion.

-Wally

[The Lonely One]

I haven't read the responses to this thread.

Yes, I am that lazy. Or busy. Or both.

My take is this: When I first began writing fiction, I described characters in excruciating detail. But I eventually reached an important understanding of fiction, which applies not only to character description but all aspects of storytelling. That is, stories are homogeneous. That is, what is important to the story is all that goes in.

As for character description, it has to fit with the voice, with the tightly-wound universe where all the elements connect. The reader sees "green eyes" and thinks, the writer wrote it, it must come in later. i.e. a witness describes a green-eyed killer in chapter 4. If it doesn't come back, if it's not part of the fabric, the reader becomes confused, feels abused and belligerent, questions the writer's judgment.

Yeah, you can laundry list police BOLO attributes. Or you can just say "Gregory Fredericks had the sand-worn 'I seen God but it weren't for me' look in his crows-footed eyes, kind of look dulled a razor when it rode his cheek."

I'm more apt for the latter, where description is development. It's about movement, too. Furthering the story is the goal of all the writing, if you're stopping all the movement for an APB it's off-putting.

[Judg]

Or you can just say "Gregory Fredericks had the sand-worn 'I seen God but it weren't for me' look in his crows-footed eyes, kind of look dulled a razor when it rode his cheek."
That is a GREAT description. If you just made this up off-the-cuff I am very impressed. If you took a long time crafting it, I am still very impressed.

[Rushie]

I like very brief description, with a memorable twist. Recently I came across this one by Dean Koontz:

When Roy called the number on the pager, the answering voice was unmistakeably Kleck's. He was in his twenties, thin and gangly, with a huge Adam's apple and a face resembling that of a trout, but his voice was deep, mellifluous, and impressive.
(dialogue)
The words rolled off Kleck's tongue with sonorous splendor:
(more dialogue)
Roy might have been reassured by Kleck's confidence and by the rich timbre of his voice - if he hadn't known that Kleck looked like a fish trying to swallow a cantaloupe.

Here Koontz gives me a very strong impression of the guy. It's all I need to be able to picture him, and he works it in among dialogue so I'm reading the description painlessly.

[IdiotsRUs]

The reader sees "green eyes" and thinks, the writer wrote it, it must come in later. i.e. a witness describes a green-eyed killer in chapter 4. If it doesn't come back, if it's not part of the fabric, the reader becomes confused, feels abused and belligerent, questions the writer's judgment.

Um, actually I just think the writer is painting me a picture. I don't feel abused. That would be silly.

"Gregory Fredericks had the sand-worn 'I seen God but it weren't for me' look in his crows-footed eyes, kind of look dulled a razor when it rode his cheek."

Nice. That is a better sort of description than a list lol. Again it all depends on POV, and how they see the person. If they've only ever seen blond haired, blue eyed people and they bump into Johnny Depp, most people would notice that he's not blond or blue eyed, and your POV might well think 'ooh he looks odd, wow black hair' and look some more. And if they wouldn't think your example, it won't appear in the book.

But telling details always work best.



Too much is too much, whatever it is you're doing

[scarletpeaches]

But telling details always work best.

By Thor's crusty nutsack, what a load of old tosh!

Unless you meant in the sense of, "Ooh, that's very telling, isn't it?" rather than "Not showing." In which case, ignore me.

[IdiotsRUs]

Unless you meant in the sense of, "Ooh, that's very telling, isn't it?" In which case, ignore me.


I shall ignore you, because that is precisely what I meant, by Heimdall's glowing buttocks!

:D

[scarletpeaches]

Well crush my skull with Mjollnir. I thought as much.

[ccarver30]

My characters are always assigned to real people (usually celebrities), so I have a clear idea of who they are and feel the need to convey that to my readers. Not in TOO much detail but enough to get the message across. :)

[Arkie]

If you want to see description, read John Updike's "Rabbit" series. He describes everything under the sun and won two Pulitizers doing it. On page 34 (I think) of Rabbit Redux he lists the entire contents of a Salisbury Steak TV Dinner. He describes his characters in complete detail including the genitals, both men and women, including color of pubic hair and smell. He writes with such detail that finally you realize you're reading pornography. And James Lee Burke is not far behind. And Annie Proulx in her debut novel Postcards makes several page and a half inserts between chapters with the heading "What I See," and describes in great detail people and places.

[2Wheels]

About the only thing I can't stand is detailed descriptions delivered from the first person, when you first meet them, and they clearly consider themselves God's gift. Yeuch. I'll often stop reading right there.

SP: my MC does the self review in mirror thing at one point. It's because she's finally admitted there's a guy she's interested in and for the first time ever is trying to assess herself. She's quite self-critical as it turns out. My beta's don't want the piece cut.

[scarletpeaches]

Well if you want to listen to your betas fair enough, but be warned it's a cliche that leaps off the page. Every writer has an excuse or a reason to keep that sort of thing in their novel but cliches become so because they're done over and over again, usually in a clunky manner.

MCs already know what they look like; there's never any reason for them to study their own face and give a laundry list of features to the reader.

At the very most I personally could stand something like, "I caught sight of my own reflection," but even then I'd get the oogies and the book would have to be otherwise spectacular to keep me reading.

[The Lonely One]

n.b. If anyone has their characters look in a mirror and describe themselves, I will hunt them down and kill them like the dogs they are.


How about a pub window looking over the planet Mars, comparing a man's features to the old, dead landscape behind his reflection?

Same old mirror trick? I know, I know. Cut it. :)

[backslashbaby]

I don't mind not having a physical description of a MC as a reader, and I can usually find no reason to insert it as a writer. From now on, I'll keep in mind that that bothers some folks (cool!).

In my WIP, it matters to the plot that she is a redhead and has dry skin (it's a folkloric thing that becomes pertinent). Redhead I can find a place for, but 'dry skin'? Great! Suggestions welcomed, btw!

[Gynn]

Recently I've been reading a lot of books (as a writer should) and I've noticed that writers approach describing characters in at least two ways. The first and the one I prefer is to describe characters in detail (hair color, eye color, height, weight, etc.). The second way to describe a character is to not describe them at all and to presumably let the reader assume the responsibility of writer and picture these characters in their own mind.

My question: What's your writing preference? and What's your reader preference?

I won't ask which is better because it clearly is subjective.

I leave physical details to the reader's imagination. I'll throw in a tidbit here and there, but in general, it doesn't even matter to me and I'm the one who made the characters!

You'll know my character has long hair when their pursuer grabs them by it!

[ElsaM]

As a reader I don't like detailed descriptions of characters. Unless it's given from the perspective of the point of view character the first time they meet the character being described, it feels clumsy to me.

[Samantha's_Song]

I don't care about vivid detail, but if someone is always alluding to how beautiful their heroine is, I at least want to know the hair and eye colours, but as I said earlier, that can be done via another character's POV.

As for saying, much later on, about a certain aspect of their looks; if I had already built a picture up of the character, I would be jolted out of the story and wondering what other 'clever' surprises the writer would try and pull and that would lead me not to bother reading it. To me, it would be like an afterthought to fit a certain character look into the story.

[MetalDog]

I suspect a lot of the time, the author has a clear idea in their head of what the character looks like and wants to make sure the reader sees the same thing - but I don't think that's possible. I have very clear mental images of my guys and gals, but if I describe them in detail and ask someone to draw them, they won't draw what's in my head - just an approximation.

I always figured that if they're not going to get it *right* anyway (haha), I should just give them the gist and let them fill in the blanks themselves.

[Bufty]

If I feel part of a character's description is relevant to establishing his character or developing the story I mention it, otherwise I say nothing.

The reader has an imagination -let him use it.

Re character descriptions in reading, I prefer those character traits or descriptions that take the character away from the ordinary.

I, and most people, don't need to have Mr or Miss or Mrs Ordinary described.

In many cases the characters' dialogue and actions/reactions lend to my picture of what they look like.

[maestrowork]

if someone is always alluding to how beautiful their heroine is, I at least want to know the hair and eye colours,

Why? What if the character has black hair and brown eyes and you don't particularly find those attractive? What if the character has red hair and green eyes? What if she has violet eyes?

What difference does it make, I wonder? I can show you ten women with the same colors of hair and eyes, and some of them would be considered beautiful and some not, and not by all people or at all times either.

[flamyngo]

I want to know what they look like. If I am reading their story, I want to SEE them.

[scarletpeaches]

That's your job.

Reading isn't entirely passive. The reader enjoys the book an awful lot more if they picture it in their head and you don't need a laundry list of features spoon-fed to you by the author to help you do that. You have an imagination.

[maestrowork]

I want to know what they look like. If I am reading their story, I want to SEE them.

Then see it. Use your own imagination. If the author doesn't tell you the hair and eye colors, supply your own. I like brunettes with blue eyes -- that's what I'd give the heroine.

The reality is, if you tell me she has red hair and green eyes, most likely I'm going to eventually assign brown hair and blue eyes to her anyway. If your readers don't have any preference, then it really doesn't matter.

[flamyngo]

That's your job.

Reading isn't entirely passive. The reader enjoys the book an awful lot more if they picture it in their head and you don't need a laundry list of features spoon-fed to you by the author to help you do that. You have an imagination.

Yes, I have an imagination... but I want to know if her hair is red or brown... it isn't fair to leave me completely blind.

[flamyngo]

Then see it. Use your own imagination. If the author doesn't tell you the hair and eye colors, supply your own. I like brunettes with blue eyes -- that's what I'd give the heroine.

The reality is, if you tell me she has red hair and green eyes, most likely I'm going to eventually assign brown hair and blue eyes to her anyway. If your readers don't have any preference, then it really doesn't matter.

I disagree. The character looked like something to the writer, and I want to connect not only with the heroine, but with the writer who wrote her. I want to see what they saw, and if you don't ever tell me she has blue hair and green freckles, there is no way for me to know that.

[maestrowork]

I disagree. The character looked like something to the writer, and I want to connect not only with the heroine, but with the writer who wrote her. I want to see what they saw, and if you don't ever tell me she has blue hair and green freckles, there is no way for me to know that.

not if it's not important. If these attributes are important, you'd be sure that the author will tell you if they have green freckles. And they won't wait until page 112 to tell you that either.

But if it is not important, why should you have to know if she has brown hair? It doesn't matter if you decide she should have blond hair.

The actress who eventually gets to play the part in the movie will just have to dye her hair. Brown hair, blond hair, black hair... Kate Winslet is still a really beautiful woman. It doesn't matter.

[scarletpeaches]

I disagree. The character looked like something to the writer, and I want to connect not only with the heroine, but with the writer who wrote her. I want to see what they saw, and if you don't ever tell me she has blue hair and green freckles, there is no way for me to know that.

Why on Earth would you want to connect with the writer? The writer has no part in the story, nor any business making him- or herself prominent.

[scarletpeaches]

Yes, I have an imagination... but I want to know if her hair is red or brown... it isn't fair to leave me completely blind.

You wouldn't like my books then. I hardly ever describe someone's physical appearance because it doesn't matter.

[maestrowork]

And if the writer decides the character's hair and eye colors are not important, who are you to disagree with him or her?

:)

Now, if the descriptions are important or they're not the "norm" then the author must reveal them as soon as possible to prevent confusion. Say, the Japanese geisha is actually six feet tall, plump and have green hair, then yes, please let us know as soon as she arrives on the page. Otherwise, we kind of know what a Japanese geisha would generally look like.

[MetalDog]

There seems to be quite an eyeball obsession in fiction. I understand some people pay close attention to them IRL, but I tend not to notice the colour of peoples eyes and it always weirds me out when I'm told a character's eye colour, not once, but multiple times during the course of a story.

Just me?

[IdiotsRUs]

You wouldn't like my books then. I hardly ever describe someone's physical appearance because it doesn't matter.


It does if you describe them in a way that reveals their character. :D

Does seem to be a split between the 'yes please's' and the 'no thanks's' Maybe a preference of style? After all it's all subjective...:D

[maestrowork]

While not every writer goes into great details in describing the characters, most writers use some kind of "typing" at the very least. That makes it relatively easier to place characters in the story without excessively describing them. Or, at the very least, they evoke enough "type information" that the readers can fill in the blanks.

The Japanese geisha -- is a type.

The inner city gang member -- another type.

The handsome corporate executive -- type.

The amiable elementary school teacher -- type.

The more you describe these characters, the more likely they would deviate from the type. Otherwise, it would be so much more economical and effective to leave out the descriptions.

[scarletpeaches]

It does if you describe them in a way that reveals their character. :D

Does seem to be a split between the 'yes please's' and the 'no thanks's' Maybe a preference of style? After all it's all subjective...:D

My characters' looks aren't relevant, though.

You can tell a lot about someone from the way they dress, I suppose, but...meh. In this case it simply doesn't matter that my heroine has black hair and the hero's is dark brown. Or that she has big boobs and he has a large [censored]. ;) What matters is what they do.

They'd behave in the same way if their hair was blond or they were a different height, or they had a beauty spot on their cheek. They find each other attractive and that's all that matters. The reader doesn't have to fancy them. He/she just has to believe my characters fancy each other.

[IdiotsRUs]

The more you describe these characters, the more likely they would deviate from the type. Otherwise, it would be so much more economical and effective to leave out the descriptions.

Just popping in a 'type' seems so lazy though. Are we all just types? I'd rather my characters were a little more complex than that.



Ah well, horses for courses. I write what I like to read.

ETA: actually this reminds me of a crit I gave a while ago. The characters had not been described at all, and I could not picture them in my heads. In my crit I said all I could see were pink amorphous blobs. Yes I have imagination, but it needs a hint of something to work on. If you NEVER describe any aspect of their appearance, I can't see them apart from as blobbies. I prefer to read about people.

[maestrowork]

Just popping in a 'type' seems so lazy though. Are we all just types? I'd rather my characters were a little more complex than that.


Thus my point on "deviation." Like it or not, we humans "type" things. Is it lazy? Most certainly. But it's also economical and effective. We do it all the time. If your character is more complicated than that -- say, an elementary school teacher who wears a mohawk and rides Harleys, then those attributes actually mean something.


Actually this reminds me of a crit I gave a while ago. The characters had not been described at all, and I could not picture them in my heads. In my crit I said all I could see were pink amorphous blobs. Yes I have imagination, but it needs a hint of something to work on. If you NEVER describe any aspect of their appearance, I can't see them apart from as blobbies. I prefer to read about people.

Again, there are types. If the writer does not supply any descriptions, usually there are hints and types to follow. If not, one could argue that people are more defined by what they DO instead of how they look. If I describe someone behaving and speaking exactly in the manners of Paris Hilton, I doubt one would still only see a blob, although, in Paris Hilton's case, a blob is not very far from the truth.

;)

Your problem with that writer probably had more to do with her skills as a storyteller than the fact that she didn't supply any character descriptions.

[Timkin]

I hate FILTHY RICH writers who are too bare with descriptions. For instance, I read a book where the main character hardly gets described then he meets a girl who doesn't get described at all and they go on and on and on and then I find out that they changed places and went somewhere and you wouldn't have known it because they didn't even say they had. Then when they go to a place the guy doesn't even describe the room where something important takes place. I hated it because I kept thinking, this guy is rich and he should know better.

I also hate writers who introduce main characters with like no description and then only later do they add that the guy was an Algerian Dwarf with a handle bar mustache. Here I was picturing a James Bond kind of guy instead of Tattoo.

Then again, I have a character who I never even tell you the name until the end and you never even know the person's gender. But at least I wouldn't trip you up by making you think it was one way or another. It is set up so that the person can be what you need them to be.

[Gynn]

Then see it. Use your own imagination. If the author doesn't tell you the hair and eye colors, supply your own. I like brunettes with blue eyes -- that's what I'd give the heroine.

The reality is, if you tell me she has red hair and green eyes, most likely I'm going to eventually assign brown hair and blue eyes to her anyway. If your readers don't have any preference, then it really doesn't matter.

I hardly ever remember what characters look like unless the author beats me over the head with description. Unless it's relevant, I just don't care about their appearance.

[Fade]

I, and most people, don't need to have Mr or Miss or Mrs Ordinary described.

Once in description, I typed "With nondescript features". It took me a moment to go back and say, "Whoa, that was stupid!"

[Judg]

I've actually got a character that I make a point of describing as nondescript. It matters. ;)

A point has been brought up by different people from different angles which is really worth addressing. If a certain physical trait of a character matters, it should be brought up as soon as possible in the story, so that it becomes part of the reader's mental image of that character. Waiting until somebody grabs the girl by her long hair to mention the fact that it is long is really not a great idea. If I've been picturing her with super-short hair it will pull me right out of the story. Mention of any important attributes should occur early. Of course, if you just include it in a shopping list of features it will make for deathly dull reading and I probably won't remember it anyway. You've got to make it part of the story. You can have her disentangling it from a baby's fingers thinking why this is just another reason why she doesn't want to have children, for example. I've learned a lot more about her than the simple fact she has long hair. And when the critical moment comes, I won't be doing double-takes.

This is sort of a corollary of Chekov's Law, the one that says that if you see a gun over the mantel in Act One, it better go off in Act Three. If you pull it out in Act Three without showing it to us in Act One, it's going to feel contrived.

[The Lonely One]

I dunno if this is what Maestro was saying about typing, but a technique I picked up on while reading "Louisiana Power and Light" was how John Dufresne describes the MC, Billy Wayne Fontana, not in physical attributes (in fact I don't think he's done that at all thus far, 100 pages in). Instead he uses the dialog, the actions, the environment, the character development, to describe Billy.

Christ--no one here sees the name Billy Wayne Fontana and doesn't picture someone right then and there. If you said you didn't I don't believe you.

In another book of his told in first person, Love Warps the Mind a Little, Laffayette Proulx doesn't take the time to describe himself, but focuses in on one physical attribute that he's self conscious about. A tooth that was whiter than the others (I don't remember the reason). That beats the crap out of "x color hair and x color eyes--who gives a damn? Seriously? I'm falling asleep thinking about it--these kinds of clothes etc." every time.

[Samantha's_Song]

It's each to their own, but for myself, I want to see what the writer sees and a good writer will show me.
I see where people don't want any description of the characters because they want to put themselves in the MC's place, I expect that's especially true with romances. If anyone has any imagination at all, they can put their soul into a different vessel; I'm short, blonde and have blue eyes, my character is tall, red-haired and has green eyes, but I can easily be her in my own mind's eye via her emotions etc.

Why? What if the character has black hair and brown eyes and you don't particularly find those attractive? What if the character has red hair and green eyes? What if she has violet eyes?

What difference does it make, I wonder? I can show you ten women with the same colors of hair and eyes, and some of them would be considered beautiful and some not, and not by all people or at all times either.

[maestrowork]

Telling us the character has brown hair and green eyes is not "showing." Writing "Mr. Darcy could not take his eyes off Elizabeth Bennett, and could only pretend to read his book while secretly admiring her" is. Note that after 12 chapters, we still didn't know what hair and eye colors Lizzy Bennett had -- Austen found that unnecessary. Didn't stop Bennett from being one of the most endearing literary characters.

Also, I was replying to the notion that "if you tell me the woman is beautiful, at least tell me her hair and eye colors." To me, the two have no connection. "She's beautiful -- she has green eyes and red hair" and "she's beautiful -- she has brown hair and blue eyes" don't mean a whole lot of difference to me. They have no significance.

Now, if you say "she has blue hair and orange eyes -- she is beautiful" then maybe it's worth noting. Because it's unusual.


p.s. if I have been citing Pride & Prejudice a lot lately, my apologies. I've just been rereading it for inspiration.

[Samantha's_Song]

I beta read a story some months ago, and the woman in it was supposed to be beautiful and sexy etc. But all the way through it, I wanted to know what colour hair she had. Maybe that's just me and I won't change what I want to know out of a story because other people tell me to.

ETA. If I am ever lucky enough to be published, the decision isn't going to be based on if I've left out the description on my main characters.

[IdiotsRUs]

Telling us the character has brown hair and green eyes is not "showing." Writing "Mr. Darcy could not take his eyes off Elizabeth Bennett, and could only pretend to read his book while secretly admiring her" is. Note that after 12 chapters, we still didn't know what hair and eye colors Lizzy Bennett had -- Austen found that unnecessary. Didn't stop Bennett from being one of the most endearing literary characters.



While I agree you don't absolutely HAVE to put in hair / eye colour ( that's not what I've been saying) you have to give the reader something to latch on to. That tooth that is whiter than the others for example. "She's beautiful -- she has green eyes and red hair"

Yes, bad description is not what we are after. Bad description taken out does not mean no description, and citing bad description does not mean that no description is the best way to go.

If you just say : corporate type, they are a blob in a suit. And that's just lazy telling too - it's not showing me anything at all. Telling me he's so handsome he makes your POV tingle is little better - still telling. Give me a really good detail. Not nesc. hair or eye colour. Maybe the fact he's got a wicked glint in his eye that hints he'd be dead naughty in bed. The red-veined nose that gives a hint that booze isn't just a party thing but a problem. Something. Filter it through your pov, and you say as much about them as you do the described.

Esp. with romantic interest ( and erotica) I need to know what it is that the POV character finds attractive about the love interest. Is it the washboard stomach you cold bounce pennies off of? The sexy way he arches one eyebrow? The way his lips curve up slowly into a smile? The langourous way she moves, or the soft lilt of her voice? What? Because I don't know a person alive who has been in love and toally failed to notice what their lover looks like. ( Unless they are blind lol) Not dreamed about one aspect of their intended's appearance, and to not include it is to miss out on a lot of emotion. And sexiness.

I agree don't tell, show. But you have to show something. If you don't describe anything about your characters at all I'll put the book down and probably not bother to pick it up. Because your POV is the most unobservant ever. And too stupid to live.

Basically, what I'm trying to say here is what this thread is ample evidence of:

If you have NO descriptuon of any kind - you'll lose readers
If you have TOO MUCH, or the WRONG KIND of description you'll lose readers.

So write what you like to read, but show show show. Show me your characters, because I want to know them. Or else why would I be reading your book?

[NeuroFizz]

The focus of many of the posts here is on whether writers should give eye and hair color. This is really not the problem with most description. It's when a writer takes a paragraph or two (or more) out of the forward movement of the scene to present a laundry list of physical attributes (which are typically surface features, and always of the utmost beauty and handsomeness, rippling abs and overflowing breasts). Focusing on that one different-colored tooth takes the physical descpription into the unique and creative category. The problem I see is one of blending. I don't want to see a quick physical inventory-like description immediately after each character is introduced. I'd rather see it blended into the action of the scene much like backstory is blended into the writing. Otherwise, it comes out like: Meet Bob. He has blond hair and blue eyes (no surprise there...).

What makes characters memorable, in my reading, comes through in what they do, how they react. In other words, what they are inside is way, way more important than what they are on the outside. This is even more important than that one off-color tooth.

So, I'd like to suggest we pick and choose the physical characteristics we present. If hair and eye color is on your list, so be it. But remember there may be some physical characteristics that are necessary for the story, and these have to be presented. If the description is starting to get laundry list-ish it may be time to just get back to the story.

[Dave.C.Robinson]

Don't describe what someone looks like - describe what the POV character notices about their appearance. Done right, that illuminates both characters.

[The Lonely One]

The focus of many of the posts here is on whether writers should give eye and hair color. This is really not the problem with most description. It's when a writer takes a paragraph or two (or more) out of the forward movement of the scene to present a laundry list of physical attributes (which are typically surface features, and always of the utmost beauty and handsomeness, rippling abs and overflowing breasts). Focusing on that one different-colored tooth takes the physical descpription into the unique and creative category. The problem I see is one of blending. I don't want to see a quick physical inventory-like description immediately after each character is introduced. I'd rather see it blended into the action of the scene much like backstory is blended into the writing. Otherwise, it comes out like: Meet Bob. He has blond hair and blue eyes (no surprise there...).

What makes characters memorable, in my reading, comes through in what they do, how they react. In other words, what they are inside is way, way more important than what they are on the outside. This is even more important than that one off-color tooth.

So, I'd like to suggest we pick and choose the physical characteristics we present. If hair and eye color is on your list, so be it. But remember there may be some physical characteristics that are necessary for the story, and these have to be presented. If the description is starting to get laundry list-ish it may be time to just get back to the story.

QFT, especially the part about "what (characters) are on the inside."

What I found intriguing about the tooth was that the character's decision to hone in on that attribute revealed his inside-character due to the fact he was self-conscious about it, and in many ways reflected how he viewed himself. Laf is going through a lot of changes; his wife recently left him when she found out he was cheating, he's living with the woman he cheated on her with, he doesn't know why and his wife, Martha, is like that tooth, I think. It's something he wants to change but something he sees as part of himself. He brings up getting it fixed dentally on several occasions. And it almost reflects him vainly, like he's obsessed with the tooth i.e. the way he sees himself. It's a flaw.

Maybe it's just me, but I think a writer must be doing something right with character description when I can get all that out of a tooth.

EDIT: if a writer can do that with eyes and hair and clothes, go for it.

[maestrowork]

I beta read a story some months ago, and the woman in it was supposed to be beautiful and sexy etc. But all the way through it, I wanted to know what colour hair she had. Maybe that's just me and I won't change what I want to know out of a story because other people tell me to.

You should know that beautiful women sometimes change their hair colors... a lot. :) So again, does it matter? I don't think so.

[scarletpeaches]

You should know that beautiful women sometimes change their hair colors... a lot. :) So again, does it matter? I don't think so.

Yes, I do. In fact I have an appointment at the salon tomorrow afternoon.

[tilt190]

The first and the one I prefer is to describe characters in detail (hair color, eye color, height, weight, etc.).

The second way to describe a character is to not describe them at all and to presumably let the reader assume the responsibility of writer and picture these characters in their own mind.

My question: What's your writing preference? and What's your reader preference?


My reader preference and my writer preference oddly contradict each other.

I prefer to read description of a character so I can imagine them (and the cover photo helps, too), but preferably not in a huge chunk of description, or described when the character is looking at a mirror.

When I write, the only description I give is the worthwhile descriptions, and they're scattered throughout. For example, in Harry Potter, all you know about Harry is that he has bottle green eyes, untidy black hair, glasses, and a lightning-bolt shaped scar. But you still picture him clearly in your head. So, yes, description is in my writing, but only the basic.

[maestrowork]

I agree don't tell, show. But you have to show something. If you don't describe anything about your characters at all I'll put the book down and probably not bother to pick it up. Because your POV is the most unobservant ever. And too stupid to live.

Absolutely. That's part of the characterization. The action. That glint in his eyes. How your MC would want to lick honey off his abs...

I don't think anyone said anything about just leaving the character as a big blob. That's not writing characters. We all know great novels contain great characters.

What we are talking about, unless I'm mistaken, is the laundry list of unnecessary attributes like hair color and shoe size (unless, of course, the MC loves men with big shoes...) So I think we're all in agreement that good characterization is about the show -- show us how he walks, talks, interacts with others, kisses, makes love... how other characters react to them (Darcy couldn't help but admire Bennett, despite her obvious inferiority...) That's what makes characters come alive on the page, and not because of his black hair.

Again, why does it matter if your beautiful heroine has dark or blond hair, especially you can just buy Clairol at the store? Most of the time I recall that so and so is a beautiful woman (and probably blonde), and then see a picture and she has black hair. Then red in the next. She's still a beautiful woman. I'll supply her hair color in my fantasy, thank you.

Great characterization goes WAY beyond physical attributes. Focus on those instead. Yeah, that glint in his eyes or that wicked, crocked smile on her face. Write that.

[IdiotsRUs]

Absolutely. That's part of the characterization. The action. That glint in his eyes. How your MC would want to lick honey off his abs...

I don't think anyone said anything about just leaving the character as a big blob. That's not writing characters. We all know great novels contain great characters.


A couple of people have said describing any physical attributes is bad / totally unnecessary ( or they seemed to) and I was replying to that - and your take on using types which tell us nothing rather than show us something. Because physical descriptions aren't unnecessary to me enjoying the writing. They are required for my enjoyment. And I'm not alone.


What we are talking about, unless I'm mistaken, is the laundry list of unnecessary attributes like hair color and shoe size (unless, of course, the MC loves men with big shoes...) So I think we're all in agreement that good characterization is about the show -- show us how he walks, talks, interacts with others, kisses, makes love... how other characters react to them (Darcy couldn't help but admire Bennett, despite her obvious inferiority...) That's what makes characters come alive on the page, and not because of his black hair.

Laundry list = bad, yes. But some people seem to take this to mean all description of a character is bad. Which ain't necessarily so.

Again, why does it matter if your beautiful heroine has dark or blond hair, especially you can just buy Clairol at the store? Most of the time I recall that so and so is a beautiful woman (and probably blonde), and then see a picture and she has black hair. Then red in the next. She's still a beautiful woman. I'll supply her hair color in my fantasy, thank you.

It might matter very much if, say, your POV has never seen a brunette before, or has a thing for women who die their head pillar box red or they dream of running various parts of their body through those thick blond curls or any number of reasons. Never say never. ;) It shouldn't be 'They described his hair, oh how passe darling, I shall never read another one of their books!Besides which, in most fantasy they don't have clairol :D

Great characterization goes WAY beyond physical attributes. Focus on those instead. Yeah, that glint in his eyes or that wicked, crocked smile on her face. Write that. Those are physical attributes...

This was what I've been saying - give a few telling physical attributes ( filtered through your POV so we info about them too). If it's hair and eyes, it's hair and eyes. It might be something else. Whatever it is make it un-laundry list. Make it an insight into that character.

[unicornjam]

I prefer minimal descriptions of the character. As a reader and a writer.

[NeuroFizz]

A husband comes home with a long blond hair on his collar. Bingo--you have the opportunity to establish the hair color/length of the wife. And you have a potential emotional sore point in the bank for later use (and the possible makings for a subplot).

The man gets mad when he cracks his knee on the dash of his car after each time his woman drives the car. Bingo--you establish a significant height mismatch between the two and you have a potential physical complication during a tense scene, or evidence for an untruth (yes, she did too drive the car that afternoon...)--in the bank for later use.

I really like to find ways to make description do double duty like this.

[maestrowork]

Those are physical attributes...

This was what I've been saying - give a few telling physical attributes ( filtered through your POV so we info about them too). If it's hair and eyes, it's hair and eyes. It might be something else. Whatever it is make it un-laundry list. Make it an insight into that character.

I would counter to say while the glint in the eye or a crooked smile is physical attribute, they're done in the context of observation -- from the perspective of another character, preferably your pov character. Or circumstances -- she noticed those abs because he just came out of the shower... The character itself is not going to describe their own glint or smile. Thus, it comes back to this: what is the reaction that character evokes from other people? And if the character talks about his abs all the time, it tells us more about his character than his abs themselves.

Meanwhile, straight information such as hair color is just that. They may give you an idea, but I bet you will forget about that 200 pages in: "Did she have brown hair or black?" Nor would you care to remember, I bet, on page 202.

However, if the love interest says, "I can swim in that blue ocean of her eyes all day long" -- this has much better impact.

As for people saying "absolutely leave all descriptions out and keep the character as blank as possible" -- I really don't think people are saying that, not even Scarlet. I think what she meant, or anyone else, is that they'd rather describe the character by way of their actions, reactions, etc. instead of drawing a specific photo sketches of that person because they want the readers to supply whatever they want -- tall, short, blonde, brunette... it just doesn't matter. Because if the readers want to find short, plump, redheads sexy, then they should.... instead of being told she has to be blond, tall and thin.

Some writers do want the readers to picture the characters EXACTLY how they picture them. The reality is, readers rarely picture the characters the way the author does. That's why movie casting is such a bitch.

If it does matter, of course, say so. If the MC is only weak for brunettes but he falls for the first blond woman he sees, say so. Is "typing" lazy? Maybe. What I'm saying is that WE all do that, even in real life. We think of "construction workers" one way and "corporate execs" another. "Hot lingerie models" are different than a nun -- unless, of course, they're not. Then you tell us why they deviate from the type. It may be lazy, but it's highly effective because that's how humans work -- and we write for humans. That's why Jane Austen could get away with as little description as she could with Elizabeth Bennett because of "typing" and then the rest of the characterization (actions, dialogue, etc.). Was it her fault that she didn't want to tell you the color of Lizzy's hair or how exactly tall or thin she was?

[scarletpeaches]

As for people saying "absolutely leave all descriptions out and keep the character as blank as possible" -- I really don't think people are saying that, not even Scarlet. I think what she meant, or anyone else, is that they'd rather describe the character by way of their actions, reactions, etc. instead of drawing a specific photo sketch of that person because they want the readers to supply whatever they want -- tall, short, blonde, brunette... it just doesn't matter.

That's it exactly. I was merely trying to point out that okay, my two main characters fancy each other. But exactly what do they look like? Doesn't matter. The reader doesn't have to fancy them. The characters have to fancy each other.

What they look like doesn't matter one iota. What they do, does.

[scarletpeaches]

A husband comes home with a long blond hair on his collar. Bingo--you have the opportunity to establish the hair color/length of the wife. And you have a potential emotional sore point in the bank for later use.

The man gets mad when he cracks his knee on the dash of his car after each time his woman drives the car. Bingo--you establish a significant height mismatch between the two and you have a physical complication during a tense scene, or evidence for an untruth (yes, she did too drive the car that afternoon...) in the bank for later use.

I really like to find ways to make description do double duty like this.

One indirect description I'm rather proud of is when my female MC feels breath on her neck - so we know she has her hair up (or that it's extra short). Okay, not the kind of 'double duty' you were referrring to, but still...there are indirect ways of describing someone. Death to the laundry list!

[IdiotsRUs]

I would counter to say while the glint in the eye or a crocked smile is physical attribute, they're done in the context of observation -- from the perspective of another character, preferably your pov character.

Which is what I've been saying.


However, if the love interest says, "I can swim in that blue ocean of her eyes all day long" -- this has much better impact.

Again what I've been saying.

As for people saying "absolutely leave all descriptions out and keep the character as blank as possible" -- I really don't think people are saying that, not even Scarlet.

My apologies Scarlett, but you did say you thought physical descriptions were unnecessary. I took you at your word. As I did Ray when he said types were better.

I think what she meant, or anyone else, is that they'd rather describe the character by way of their actions, reactions, etc. instead of drawing a specific photo sketches of that person because they want the readers to supply whatever they want -- tall, short, blonde, brunette... it just doesn't matter. Because if the readers want to find short, plump, redheads sexy, then they should.... instead of being told she has to be blond, tall and thin.

Again, partly what I've been saying Character can be revealed through actions - but physical descriptions can sneak in there and , for me, enhance the whole thing without hitting me over the head with it. If the guy is blond and I like his character, I won't hold the blond hair against him :D I'd rather know hair colour than be presented with your types. 'a corporate type' tells me nothing, even less than hair colour because it conjures up no image for me.

Although I'll hold my hand up to a bit of hammering in my time :D

Some writers do want the readers to picture the characters EXACTLY how they picture them.

I would like them to have a rough idea of maybe colouring, a few distinctive details etc and fill in the blanks themselves. Because that's how I like to read.



If it does matter, of course, say so. If the MC is only weak for brunettes but he falls for the first blond woman he sees, say so. Is "typing" lazy? Maybe. What I'm saying is that WE all do that, even in real life. We think of "construction workers" one way and "corporate execs" another. "Hot lingerie models" are different than a nun -- unless, of course, they're not.

I'd rather not use types but start from scratch and let the reader make up their own mind.


All I've been saying is that I like to have a rough idea of physical characteristics. If your POV doesn't notice hair colour, fine. But he / she would be pretty damned odd if they didn't, ( I can tell you the hair colour of every person I met today, it's often the first thing I notice. Even my hubby, famously disinterested in appearance, notices hair colour )which is why it always reads so odd when you get a vague description of someone without it being mentioned at all. This is when I think they must be too stupid to live.

It's a personal preference. That's all. For me, appaerance is part of a person, it can tell me about who they are, and it anchors my mind where it should be - in the story, not sitting there wondering what the heck all these people look like.

[maestrowork]

Or as Jack Donaughy said on 30 Rock: "The closest I got to throwing up tonight was when was when I saw Ann Coulter's shoulderblades."

[maestrowork]

It's a personal preference. That's all. For me, appaerance is part of a person, it can tell me about who they are, and it anchors my mind where it should be - in the story, not sitting there wondering what the heck all these people look like.

I think that should end this conversation because we're going in circles. Of course, it's a preference. Of course, if you'd rather read or write descriptions, you should do it. But there are people, like Scarlet, who really don't care or need descriptions. And "typing" is a very legit way of describing characters, even if YOU think it's lazy. They're not wrong either.

But we do seem to agree that a laundry list of physical attributes, especially when stopping the story cold, is not something we'd advise people to do...

[scarletpeaches]

My apologies Scarlett, but you did say you thought physical descriptions were unnecessary. I took you at your word. As I did Ray when he said types were better.

By Odin's crusty nutsack, you got me.

If physical appearance was essential to the plot, then go for it. But I've yet to read a book where appearance was vital. Even in stories about twins or doppelgangers...all that matters is that these two people look similar to each other, not that they have brown hair, or are six feet tall, whatever...

I'd rather know hair colour than be presented with your types. 'a corporate type' tells me nothing, even less than hair colour because it conjures up no image for me.

Why be curious about hair colour though, if it doesn't affect what the guy does, how he behaves?

Sure, I'm blonde, but that's nothing to do with my character...unless you emphasise the fact that "scarletpeaches bleached her hair so she didn't look like her mother." That has a story behind it. Saying "scarletpeaches was blonde," is just meaningless detail.

If your POV doesn't notice hair colour, fine. But he / she would be pretty damned odd if they didn't, ( I can tell you the hair colour of every person I met today, it's often the first thing I notice. Even my hubby, famously disinterested in appearance, notices hair colour )which is why it always reads so odd when you get a vague description of someone without it being mentioned at all. This is when I think they must be too stupid to live.

Sure, I notice the hair colour of everyone I meet. I also notice their height, approximate weight, how they dress, gender, approximate age, possible occupation, manner of speaking, how clean/dirty they are, what colour their eyes are, hair length, their smell...but I don't keep those details at the forefront of my mind because they simply don't matter.

If we're going to tell the reader everything about a character, what does that leave for them to figure out themselves? Of course, we're agreed laundry lists are bad, we know that. But when it comes to choosing which details to write and which to leave out, the key is only mentioning that which is relevant and 99 times out of 100, hair colour is just unnecessary detail. I have no idea what the protagonist of the novel I'm currently reading looks like and it doesn't affect my enjoyment one bit.

Actually I'm picturing him as Ralph Fiennes because he was in The Reader and I'm reading another novel by Bernhard Schlink, but there you go...

Which reminds me of people who get miffed when the actor/actress who plays a role looks different to how their character was described in the book. Rather than get annoyed the film-makers didn't stick to what the author wrote, I think it would be better to ask well if so-and-so can pull off the role, doesn't that show their physical appearance is largely irrelevant compared to their actions?

For me, appaerance is part of a person, it can tell me about who they are, and it anchors my mind where it should be - in the story, not sitting there wondering what the heck all these people look like.

Going back to my earlier point - mentioning my hair colour doesn't tell you anything about my character. But if I tell you it's fake and it's fake for a reason, that's when my blondeness becomes part of my character. I choose to be blonde even though I'm not naturally.

But if you were to say, "scarletpeaches is five feet two," well that tells you zip about my personality and nothing more than one boring fact about my genetic makeup.

[maestrowork]

I took you at your word. As I did Ray when he said types were better.

I never said types are better. Let's clarify.

I said "types" are an effective way of getting descriptions across when there's nothing "out of the ordinary." A bunch of construction workers--you're not going to describe them all with hair colors, eye colors, heights and weights... those are the benefits of types. They're neither better or worse, just another way to get the point across. "Mark has twin boys who started kindergarten this year" is sometimes enough, unless "one of the boys weighs 300 pounds." Now if you want to be specific and say the boys have freckles and hair as fine as silk, and both are 3'10" and 49 pounds -- go ahead. But in general, we know what boys look like if there is nothing out of the ordinary.

I kept saying "typing" works by and large because that's how humans work. We assign types. We associate. We categorize. We find patterns. It doesn't mean that all your characters should be types, or that you should use types as crutches. Again, my point is that "types" provide a way to quickly and efficiently describe characters. It can be lazy, but it also works 8 out of 10 times. That's why casting directors find actors to fill the roles! No one EVER lists hair/eye colors, height/weight, etc. in a spec sheet unless they're RELEVANT: meaning, if they want a stocky, bodybuilder military type, they will specify that. But even then, "bodybuilder" "military" are types! You'd be hard-pressed to find a casting spec that says: MAJOR SMITH, 35, 6'-6'2, 180-200 lbs, black cropped hair, blue eyes, 19" biceps, 32" waist, washboard stomach, size 13 shoes.... I've never in all my years going to auditions. :)

[Chrisla]

I think the key point about description is Don't Overdo It. And if you want to see what happens when you do - well, this extract from a book called Silk and Steel has been doing the rounds of the blogosphere: http://vandonovan.livejournal.com/1088311.html#cutid1

Warning: put drinks down before clicking on the link.

OMG! Thanks for the warning; I didn't spill my wine, that deep-purple amrosia nestled in its eight-inch high crystal glass. . .

[Sirius]

OMG! Thanks for the warning; I didn't spill my wine, that deep-purple amrosia nestled in its eight-inch high crystal glass. . .


It was merlot, it was cabernet, it was malbec and tempranillo and those peculiar grape varieties that always, somehow, seemed to fetch up in wine offered in kosher stores, that tasted of raisins, the seedless sort one climbed the storecupboard shelves as a child and ate, stolen, by torchlight under the bedclothes. It was champagne and retsina; lambrusco, lambrini and the lamb's-wool of the Saxons. It carried the spice and citrus fragrance of Christmas parties and the cool gerwutz of elderflowers and Glyndebourne picnics.

It was 13.5% and a very reasonable £3.99 for 75cl at Sainsbury's, at least while stocks lasted.

[Melenka]

I haven't seen any discussion of the expectations of genre readers when it comes to description. In romance novels, it is expected that you have some physical description of your characters, generally right off the bat. I'm not talking about the clothing porn that used to be so prevalent (and thank GOD that trend is on the wane), but if I am writing a tall woman who is attracted to a guy partially because he is so much taller than she, then it matters. In a world where men tend to wear their hair long, a guy who can pull off a short cut without looking odd is going to be noticed. If a woman had a bad experience with a blond and therefore avoids them, then her response to feeling attracted to a blond guy might be important. In a group of slender women, the busty, wide-hipped woman is going to notice her OWN differences because we are taught to compare ourselves to beauty standards of the day, and she doesn't need a laundry list whilst looking in the mirror to be aware of her looks. It's not that she is round that matters, it's how she feels about the fact that she is round. Does she like her curves? Think they make her unattractive? Use the heaving cleavage to her advantage?

I think I have one mirror scene, in my crime novel, where the MC can barely see himself through the steam and acknowledges his monstrosity in that image. When he wipes the mirror clean, all he sees are scars - none of which actually mar his features, but all of which mean something to him, even the ones he can't remember getting. No one else sees him as a monster (much), but it's important that he sees himself that way.

I think there is a place for description - even hair and eye color laid out without greater purpose - but it can depend on the target audience.

[Gynn]

It was merlot, it was cabernet, it was malbec and tempranillo and those peculiar grape varieties that always, somehow, seemed to fetch up in wine offered in kosher stores, that tasted of raisins, the seedless sort one climbed the storecupboard shelves as a child and ate, stolen, by torchlight under the bedclothes. It was champagne and retsina; lambrusco, lambrini and the lamb's-wool of the Saxons. It carried the spice and citrus fragrance of Christmas parties and the cool gerwutz of elderflowers and Glyndebourne picnics.

It was 13.5% and a very reasonable £3.99 for 75cl at Sainsbury's, at least while stocks lasted.

hahahaha

[Judg]

Melenka has some valid points. But still, even she is not defending description for the sake of description. I think if there's any consensus to be gleaned in this thread, it's make your description matter.

[IdiotsRUs]

I don't think anybody was advocating description for the sake of it. But also, different genres do have different requirements

As in, in speculative fiction it might very well be difficult to use types. If I used say the builder type Ray mentioned and gave nothing else, while I could use action to show some of the fact that these builders are 8 foot tall genetic mutants with cyborg attachments and built in spirit levels, without some description, it's probably not going to be clear :D

I also think sometimes description in SFF in particular can be used very effectively for atmosphere and tone, as well as explaining how there's a city floating about in the sky lol.

As long as there is a purpose for your description, even if it's just to show your POV's reaction to something and it's written engagingly, ( and as interaction for preference, rather than static description where possible)Bob is the relative of your choice. It's only when you use it because you feel the reader won't 'get' it otherwise, or other uses that have no real purpose, that it might be a problem.