To describe or not to describe

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

selkn.asrai said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

RunawayScribe said:

a day overdue for a shave, too.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 ) 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!

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.

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.