Is there a thing as too much description?

[Samuel Dark]

Honestly, I think there is. In my opinion, you should only gice enough descrption to get the imagination started. What do u guys think?

[stace001]

I think you're right. In the first draft of my second novel, I went from one extreme to another. My first was 'just the basics' as far as description goes, but one agent i sent it to said it wasn't enough. In the second, i've put in absolutely everything. Every little movement, every breath of wind, every rustle of the leaves. It's made it boring and dull. Only now, 1/3 of the way through my third, and with the help of a development editor, am i finding an interesting mix of description/imagination.

Too much and its too easy to lose the reader in the details. Too little and the reader can't get the picture you're looking for. I think even published authors today, still struggle between what's enough and too much.

[MadScientistMatt]

Yes. As a hot rodder, I'm well aware that I have a few interests that my readers would not share if I were writing fiction. I'll pick up a magazine and enjoy reading articles that span five or six pages to describe a car. But if I ever spend a whole consecutive page describing a character's car in a normal work of fiction, I know I'll deserve reviews as poisonous as antifreeze. And I know that the same thing can apply to anything - future technology, a house, a character's clothes.

[Mistook]

Honestly, I think there is. In my opinion, you should only gice enough descrption to get the imagination started. What do u guys think?


Generally I'd say that's the key. You want to clue them into the general atmosphere, but some well chosen specifics also help. You can say, "suburban neighborhood" and they'll see something generic. If you say, "prewar bungalows... old trees... broken sidewalk" you spark the imagination a little better.

It's a balancing act. I usually try to give a good paragraph to setting a new scene, then ease off and fill in a few blanks after that between actions and dialogue.

If it's a new object, or person, I try to get the picture across in a sentence or two.

But sometimes it's fun to spend a little time with a description - especially if you're emphasising the POV character's take on things.

[Vomaxx]

The later volumes in Robert Jordan's "Wheel of Time" series is often cited as a great example of description gone mad. Read the one- and two-star reviews (i.e., most of them) of vol. 10, "Crossroads of Time," at Amazon to see what this has done to his fan base.

[maestrowork]

Anything more than a few paragraphs is too much.

[James D. Macdonald]

Description is wonderful, but if it isn't moving your book forward it's holding it back.

[Garpy]

if you want an example of too much, check out the first fifty pages of Eco Umberto's Focult's Pendulum.....the first 12 alone are devoted to describing the monotonous swing of a pendulum.....sheesh.

Personally I tend to keep it light. But then I came to novel-writing via screenwriting where word-economy is a vital discipline.

[dawinsor]

I skip passages of description when I read. I try to remember that when I write.

[Inspired]

I do the same - skip it. Or, many times, I'll put the book down. So don't start the book with lots of description. If you've got a good hook and some decent characters with a compelling plot, I can overlook some excess description. Those writers who like to start with a ton of description lose me.

[Bufty]

Is a lengthy description absolutely crucial to the story? Chances are it isn't, unless it's some remote place nobody has ever heard of or can imagine. Even then, I feel all that is needed is sufficient description to let the reader's own imagination take over.

[maestrowork]

Good descriptions, like the details in a movie (such as Titanic), enhance the reading experience. Like Uncle Jim said, descriptions can be wonderful. Vivid descriptions put you in a 3-D space and transport you to that world, whether it's an alien planet or your own hometown. The trick is to find the balance. In a movie, you don't want to let the set and the landscape, cinematography, etc. dominate the story and characters. Same concept in the book -- you don't want to STOP the story cold just to describe some beautiful sceneries. There has to be a reason, and descriptions should support and enhance the story, not overwhelm it.

[Dru]

As a reader, unless description is somehow moving the story forward, I will start skipping the passages almost immediately.

I don't want to know how the gun, car, spaceship, etc. work (especially not down to the part numbers). I don't want a biography/obit infodump of someone the first time that character meets the MC.

When was the last time you woke up in the morning, made your coffee and thought about how your indoor plumbing, coffee maker, car works while you were on your way to work? Replace those with the 'reality' of your story.

I want to know things that will affect the character: setting, mood-alerting events, the MC reaction to the type of people around them (friends or foes), details of action that impacts the story.

Description is like dialog in a novel. You aren't showing every single piece of conversation that passes between people word for word, you summarize and condense to move the story forward.

[ChunkyC]

Indeed, balance is key. Personally, I don't like stories with sparse description. I find them bland and dry. It also depends on the story you're telling, and the audience you're writing it for. Some people like rollercoasters, some like a nice lazy gondola ride in Venice.

Description is like dialog in a novel. You aren't showing every single piece of conversation that passes between people word for word, you summarize and condense to move the story forward.
I like that way of looking at it. If you can't resist, go ahead and put all the description you want in your first draft. But be prepared to go back in revision, identify the salient, evocative detail(s), and cut the rest.

[HapiSofi]

Yes, of course there's such a thing as too much description. "How much detail is enough?" is one of the basic artistic questions.

Most of what your readers experience when they read your story is stuff they make up themselves. The details you give them are their cues for what they should be imagining. You need to know all the details, and have them firmly in mind, but you also need to leave almost all of them out of the story. The few details you do use will be in the right place, and so readers will feel the solidity of that world you're mostly not describing.

Here's a good way to think about rate of exposition: your readers are compiling a movie in their heads as they read. There should be no more detail than someone reading at normal speed can assimilate into that mental movie.

Long incantatory paragraphs, dense with adjectives, that go on about how dark and spooky this cavern is, or how very autumnal this autumnal wood is, or how exotic and wicked this nighttime city is, are generally a complete waste of time. The reader can't assimilate all that superfluous detail. They fall out of the movie, and realize they're looking at words on a page. Once they realize that, they may treacherously reflect that they could be doing something else right now -- checking their e-mail, say, or making a sandwich. You may or may not get them back.

If you're a very good descriptive writer, you can sometimes get away with long descriptive passages. It's still a movie, but the descriptive segment is like footage you'd see on a National Geographic special, or one of those landscapes in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Bear in mind, though, that most people's descriptive writing is nowhere near good enough to pull that off. If you're that good, you already know it. If you cherish the slighest doubts, don't even try it.

(A quick test: what is Melville up to in the first two-thirds of Moby-Dick? If the "unnecessary" explanations drove you crazy, or if you read them contentedly enough but didn't notice their strategic purposes, you're not that kind of descriptive writer.)

A very few details that keep the reader inside the story are worth a thousand details sitting dead on the page when the reader has fallen out of the story.

Here's another major error: "introductory scene setting." Don't do it. Big mistake. The applicable rule here is that you should never explain anything before the reader wants to know it. Instead, get the story started, and toss in whatever exposition's needed along the way. I'm dead serious about this. Exposition is wasted before there's a story to attach it to. If we don't know where the information fits in, we won't remember it.

Once we care about the story, we'll assimilate quite remarkable amounts of related information. Patrick O'Brian's readers come out knowing all sorts of information about sails, mainbraces, knees, firing rates, and other age-of-sail technology. You couldn't pay them to learn all that if it didn't come with a story attached.

[maestrowork]

Here's another major error: "introductory scene setting." Don't do it. Big mistake. The applicable rule here is that you should never explain anything before the reader wants to know it. Instead, get the story started, and toss in whatever exposition's needed along the way. I'm dead serious about this. Exposition is wasted before there's a story to attach it to. If we don't know where the information fits in, we won't remember it.

This is a good point, and many novice writers (me included) do that. I've seen so many stories that open with something like "It was a dark and stormy night..." or "The moon was bright and round and the landscape was serene..." or "It was one of those quaint suburban neighborhood..." Scene settings, like an establishing crane shot during the opening of a movie. Avoid that.

[ChunkyC]

Yes, yes! I'm as guilty as anyone. Especially when you are trying to write an action-packed opening, you have to keep reminding yourself your hero's not likely to expend any of his awareness on contemplating the crumbling masonry of the century old hotel he just ran out of, while he's diving head-first into a dumpster with bullets whizzing past his ear.

[reph]

A quick test: what is Melville up to in the first two-thirds of Moby-Dick?
I'm relieved to see this. I was going to mention M-D. It's full of description, but Melville does it so well, and he doesn't start his first chapter that way.

[HapiSofi]

I'm relieved to see this. I was going to mention M-D. It's full of description, but Melville does it so well, and he doesn't start his first chapter that way.Also, it's all to a purpose. As a writer, Melville's a top, about as laid-back as a border collie. He wants you to see and understand certain things in certain ways. If you put yourself in his hands, amazing things will happen.

Maestro, Chunky: It's not just the opening passage. Newbie novelists will have whole chapters where nothing really happens. They'd do far better to acquaint the readers with their characters by showing them in action.

[maestrowork]

Newbie novelists will have whole chapters where nothing really happens. They'd do far better to acquaint the readers with their characters by showing them in action.

Now, what did Melville do (with chapters where nothing really happens) that a novice writer doesn't?

[sassandgroove]

I have a question, esp. for HapiSofi because your post was so helpful, but also for all.
I am working on my first novel. I have completed a first draft, which is still very rough. I am finding I have a story and I believe the characters are rounded out, but Where they are is bland. I don't have enough description; you can't see where they are. But when I try to add it, it comes off as an info dump. I’m not sure how to fix this.

The other thing I tend to do, and until now thought was wrong, is start a scene with Dialog. I start right in with the discussion, and let the conversation and actions indicate where they are. I thought it was wrong, that I had to set the scene first, but to me the dialog shows action, moves the story along and when I stop to set the scene I lose momentum. Reading this thread I am finding that maybe that it is not wrong to start with conversation, as long as I effectively set the scene as the conversation moves on, or the character starts doing something. Am I crazy?

[TheIT]

I'm also a first-time novelist, and I've got the same problem Sassandgroove describes. My characters talk a good game, but they tend to be moving around on a blank page.

From what I understand, one approach is to deal with it like a stage play. Put the actors on the stage in very broad strokes. The reader at least needs to be given the information of where the characters are and who is present, then as the conversation and action progresses more details can be added to the description of the surroundings. The level of description detail is also used to control pacing of the scene. More description = slower pacing. Fast action scenes would have little detailed description unless it's a detail that would hit the character in the face.

[rowriter]

I've read before that when describing a place or thing, you should pick out the three most important details; the reader will make up the rest. You have to be careful because if you don't make the reader do a little mental imagery work, it will get boring to read.

So...say your character is entering someone else's house: what are the three most important things (the things that make this house different from any other, or what your character notices first)? They might be the high ceiling, the expensive furniture and the annoying yap-yap dog barking from its cage...so describe those things, and the reader can fill in the rest. Or say your character is seeing someone for the first time: the three most important things might be the woman's long, dark hair, the way her eyebrows are raised making her look continually surprised, and the fact that she's six feet tall. Obviously this isn't a hard and fast rule, but it's a good reminder if you think you're doing too much or not enough.

I'm also working on my first novel, and after reading some other novels recently, I noticed my setting is virtually non-existent (as in, the city it's set in..though even my houses and such aren't that descriptive)...I'm more focused on dialogue and conflict right now, so on the rewrite I plan on bringing out the setting a lot more.

[sassandgroove]

I'm also working on my first novel, and after reading some other novels recently, I noticed my setting is virtually non-existent (as in, the city it's set in..though even my houses and such aren't that descriptive)...I'm more focused on dialogue and conflict right now, so on the rewrite I plan on bringing out the setting a lot more.

Exactly my problem, but HOW do you do it after the story is written? That is where i am stumbling.

I'll try the three things rule. suggestion, guidline. whatever....;) THanks!!!!

[Bufty]

All I as a reader want to know is 'Where am I?' - I don't need a paragraph description - just enough to let me know where I am. Mention of a desk would suggest an office; a stethoscope suggests a medical environment of some sort; a smell, a sound - anything to at least point me in the right direction, then build on it.

[NeuroFizz]

One way (but not the only way) to get around this--the reader could experience details of the setting at the same time the character does. That way, they (reader and character) react together and it's the reactions, not the description, that carry the scene.

[TheIT]

In the Uncle Jim thread, UJ talks about "blue-screen" writing. Treat the first draft like a movie being filmed in front of a blue-screen and get the dialog/character interaction/story together. In the revision add in all the special effects.

What I've found when writing is I'll get to a point where I know I need to describe some detail of setting just to fix my characters in a place rather than a blank page, but if I stop to visualize the setting then I lose the momentum in writing the scene. I've taken to inserting comments like <describe room here> or <describe character's reaction> into the draft while I'm composing so I can come back later and add in the setting.

[maestrowork]

Personally, descriptions should always have movements. By that I mean movement with the plot, characters, or the moments. When integrate descriptions with action or movements, you create a vivid picture in your readers' minds without taking them out of the story. To me, words are like water in a river or a creek... they keep moving, and should never stop and become stale.

What kind of movements, you ask? Well, either the setting itself moves (descriptions of a river, a waterfall, wind-blown trees, clouds, etc.) or if they're static, let the characters move through/past them and note the pertinent details, but not everything. Just enough to evoke the readers' imagination. "Evoke" is the key word. You want to use words (nouns and strong verbs) that are vivid and evocative, and try to stay away from useless, vague adjectives like "beautiful" or "quiet" or "incredible." Use all the senses, but you don't have to dwell on them. They're like seasoning... just a tiny pinch goes a long way. You'll be amazed how few words you need to complete a full picture.

[rowriter]

Exactly my problem, but HOW do you do it after the story is written? That is where i am stumbling.

I'll try the three things rule. suggestion, guidline. whatever....;) THanks!!!!

Good question, I'm 2/3 done with my first draft and my story is set in an actual city, real-time...So, I want the characters to sometimes think or remember different places in the city and visit more "landmarks," the goal being to make the story seem more 'real'. (The hard part will be making that kind of stuff move the story forward at the same time.) I also wrote a scene where my main character went to the city library, and I tried to describe the building and atmosphere through her eyes. I also want to describe the neighborhood she's living in a lot better, to add to the realism.

In my draft, there are already TONS of things that I know will need to be cut, altered, changed, completely rewritten...so I'm just lobbing that 'setting' thing in there to do when I get there, though I don't know exactly how I will do that...maybe someone else will chime in and give us some hints. :-) Personally I'm starting to get overwhelmed with the amount of things that will need to change...so I try not to think about it and just write what feels right.

[Bufty]

I also wrote a scene where my main character went to the city library, and I tried to describe the building and atmosphere through her eyes. .

Just wondered - why bother to 'describe' (hopefully not at length) a library building and the atmosphere - anyone who has ever been in a library knows even if it's strange to your character.

And neighbourhoods are neighbourhoods. Run down, well to do, friendly, unfriendly.

In a similar situation I would ask myself on each detail - does this add to the story and/or is it essential for the reader to know this in order to 'get the picture'?

[rowriter]

Just wondered - why bother to 'describe' (hopefully not at length) a library building and the atmosphere - anyone who has ever been in a library knows even if it's strange to your character.

And neighbourhoods are neighbourhoods. Run down, well to do, friendly, unfriendly.

In a similar situation I would ask myself on each detail - does this add to the story and/or is it essential for the reader to know this in order to 'get the picture'?

In the city my story is set in, the library is a pretty unique building, so mostly I want to describe (not at length, no.) its uniqueness as opposed to "just another library" to make the setting more 'grounded', and at the same time it's always been a place the character goes for comfort. Granted, the scene probably won't make it past the first draft, because I'm more trying to get a feel for using that kind of specific description about real places. I guess I just want my story to have more of a 'feel' for the actual city to give it more depth and color (without taking away from the story--which will be/is my challenge).

And I think neighborhoods can be described in more detail than just "run down" or "nice" (which is how I have it right now in the first draft)...what about the types of houses, how close they are together, whether most of them are all alike or if they are all different... instead of just telling the reader a neighborhood is run down, I'd rather give one or two details showing it instead. Obviously not two full paragraphs of description about the block, but enough to make a more specific picture rather than "an old neighborhood" - that can mean different things in different cities, to different people...IMO.

[clotje]

Hmm. OK. Seems like I'm on my own here but have any of you ever read a book by Elizabeth George? I think her descriptions are wonderful, very detailed and I can see exactly the picture she paints. She uses a lot more than 3 words though to describe a marketplace, street, building or whatever. Seeing that she's made a lot of money with her writing must mean that sometimes you can get away with a lot of description.

[Danger Jane]

I work for the happy medium. Not so little that you don't know what the main character looks like, but not so much that you know where every pore on their face is located. And I try to keep description spread out, if it's about a character or a main setting, so that your mental image expands gradually as the book goes on.

[ChunkyC]

I also wrote a scene where my main character went to the city library, and I tried to describe the building and atmosphere through her eyes.
I think the key point here is through her eyes. Especially when writing in limited POV, your reader should experience the setting in the same way your POV character experiences it. If it is a place familiar to your character, for example, then being overly descriptive is not warranted. When you walk into your house, do you consciously consider all the various objects, odours, etc.?

Naturally, you don't want to take this to an extreme, otherwise your characters will be walking around completely unaware of the world they inhabit. But if you can find some telling characteristic, say you walk into your house and are immediately hit by the stench of stale urine, then that's something that should, even must be described, because it is out of the ordinary.

I always try to ask myself: would the POV character notice this?

[ChunkyC]

Hmm. OK. Seems like I'm on my own here but have any of you ever read a book by Elizabeth George? I think her descriptions are wonderful, very detailed and I can see exactly the picture she paints. She uses a lot more than 3 words though to describe a marketplace, street, building or whatever. Seeing that she's made a lot of money with her writing must mean that sometimes you can get away with a lot of description.
I have not, but I believe they are from the POV of a detective, are they not? Sue Grafton does the same kind of thing with her Kinsey Milhone books. In the case of a story like this, to not describe something in detail would be out of character for their protagonists. They are, after all, professionals trained to notice every little thing.

[Mistook]

Here's another major error: "introductory scene setting." Don't do it. Big mistake. The applicable rule here is that you should never explain anything before the reader wants to know it. Instead, get the story started, and toss in whatever exposition's needed along the way. I'm dead serious about this. Exposition is wasted before there's a story to attach it to. If we don't know where the information fits in, we won't remember it.

Are you talking about introductory visual description, or introductory 'here's the whole history of this town and how it fits into the political scheme of the world' type expositon? Or both?

I think it makes sense to establish whether the character is on a bus, or in a cave or whatever, and cover the basic sights and sounds around him/her as the story begins. No?

[rowriter]

Hmm. OK. Seems like I'm on my own here but have any of you ever read a book by Elizabeth George? I think her descriptions are wonderful, very detailed and I can see exactly the picture she paints. She uses a lot more than 3 words though to describe a marketplace, street, building or whatever. Seeing that she's made a lot of money with her writing must mean that sometimes you can get away with a lot of description.

If a writer makes it work, and the reader doesn't stop reading, then it works, IMO. The 3 things that stand out about a particular place (not 3 words, you could write lots and lots of sentences and paragraphs about the three things your character notices most about a place) is only a suggestion that I have read elsewhere.

I think NeuroFizz referenced earlier what Chunky C is talking about: the reader should see things how the character would see it. I agree with everything they say.

Since some attention seems to be on my description of the city library (maybe I was overdescribing my description, lol), here it is in first draft form....I'm not looking for comments on revision, it will be changed/improved by me later--I already hate the "gave her pause" bit, as well as being murky on her motivation to go there (the most important part!), but hey, it's a first draft, gimme a break, I needed to move on.:) I didn't think I was overdoing it too much, but I've been wrong before... :

She had only a few blocks west before she would be able to gaze up at the smooth concrete and huge glass windows of the library, and the castle appearance of the art museum that always gave her pause when she passed it on her way somewhere. She hadn’t been in this area since...since Kevin had taken her out the other night. But she hadn’t been on this particular road for months.
then there's a crappy paragraph about her 'feelings', then:
She couldn’t think anymore. She had parked in front of the library, dark and hollow seeming in the night, with a few street lights beaming down on her car; she was one of only four cars on this street, and all the others were empty. There was a solitary pedestrian on the sidewalk, an elderly looking person who walked slowly and with a limp. The person was walking away from her, she focused on watching that, instead of getting lost inside her own head. It wasn’t long though, before everything seemed to pile mentally in her head, breaking her focus and driving her to tears. She had no idea how to deal with any of it.

[Mistook]

She had only a few blocks west before she would be able to gaze up at the smooth concrete and huge glass windows of the library, and the castle appearance of the art museum that always gave her pause when she passed it on her way somewhere. She hadn’t been in this area since...since Kevin had taken her out the other night. But she hadn’t been on this particular road for months.


then there's a crappy paragraph about her 'feelings', then:


She couldn’t think anymore. She had parked in front of the library, dark and hollow seeming in the night, with a few street lights beaming down on her car; she was one of only four cars on this street, and all the others were empty. There was a solitary pedestrian on the sidewalk, an elderly looking person who walked slowly and with a limp. The person was walking away from her, she focused on watching that, instead of getting lost inside her own head. It wasn’t long though, before everything seemed to pile mentally in her head, breaking her focus and driving her to tears. She had no idea how to deal with any of it.


I'd say the first paragraph is awkward because you're describing places she hasn't gotten to yet. If you need to have us with her as she approaches the library, then you should describe where she is at that moment, or... if she's in the car then just mention the car and focus on her internal thoughts.

The second is better, because we're in the moment, and you didn't over-describe, but you still could've put things together more succinctly. Give us one beam of one street light, instead of multiple beams. Those three sentences about the elderly person could easily be condensed into one smooth sentence.

At the end, you kind of lose the action right when you've set us up for it. Take us through that little nervous breakdown she's having.

[rowriter]

I'd say the first paragraph is awkward because you're describing places she hasn't gotten to yet.


I definitely agree with that. She should see it instead of imagine seeing it. Your other comments are good too. I think the one streetlight would make it feel closer to the character. (remembering *perspective*)

First drafts for me are very unlike the final product and I suppose I'm sensitive about them; I get the ideas out and they never come out perfect the first time...and rarely the second. :) This is my first serious novel attempt, and often I find myself saying the same thing more than one way and just leaving it all, because I don't trust myself to finish the draft if I start fiddling. I just think, "I'll cut that later." "I'll rewrite that later." I think I'm actually going to finish! I guess procrastination is good for some things.

[Tirjasdyn]

Now, what did Melville do (with chapters where nothing really happens) that a novice writer doesn't?
Have them play in whale sperm?

[clotje]

I have not, but I believe they are from the POV of a detective, are they not? Sue Grafton does the same kind of thing with her Kinsey Milhone books. In the case of a story like this, to not describe something in detail would be out of character for their protagonists. They are, after all, professionals trained to notice every little thing.

Well, no not just from the POV of the detective, also other characters in the book, like the murderer.

[gp101]

Rowriter:

Your first paragraph is the type of description I usually skim past (no offense, please) because it doesn't seem to really do anything for the scene. Maybe it does justice to the overall piece, but the one paragraph is all we got to glimpse.

Your second paragraph is the type I truly like, though it's still a bit wordy. That description seemed to set the tone and mood for that scene, one of lonliness, maybe apprehension. The rhythm of that description helped also, as did your word choices. Your shorter sentences with simple descriptions punctuate a mood--at least for me--more than the flowery longer sentences with the five-dollar-words could have. I think a lot of writers forget about a paragraph's rhythm when it comes to setting the tone or mood of a scene, especially with description. I love those type of descriptions in noir-type stories. They're almost like the scary synths you hear in a movie as the hero is about to encounter something bad. Sets up the audience (or reader).


In other news... still on the topic of description, I finally got around to reading Dashell Hamett and Raymond Chandler, the two "godfathers" of the detective novel. Read Chandler's The Big Sleep, and Hammett's Maltese Falcon (currently reading Hammett's Red Harvest). They definitely earned their titles, as the characters in these novels are fantastic; delicious in a hedonistic way. The dialogue is truly amazing, which added to the enjoyment of character, even though a lot of the references are 60 years old. The plots are tight, but aren't the main focal point. They're more like an excuse for letting loose all the characters. You could care less about the plot, it's how the characters react to their situations and the decisions they make, and how they carry themselves and the way they talk... freaking great!

But then there's all that damn description! Both writers were masters at quick one-line similes and metaphors and I enjoyed those immensely. But time after time they went off on long (sometimes half a page) descriptions of places and people, especially people. Often times the same character gets multiple paragraphs in various pages to describe their facial movements, their clothes, etc. Drove me batty. And yes, I skimmed most of them once I'd read the first dozen or so long descriptions. Does anybody else feel the same way about these books (regarding the description) or am I a victim of being part of the MTV generation with short attention spans? I'm not knocking the books, they're really great. But that damn description...

[Mistook]

That goes back to the Melville thing. When reading the masters, you really do need to give yourself over to their pace and understand that those descriptive paragraphs aren't just for the sake of drawing a picture. There are subtle layers of meaning packed into passages like that.

You'll never get it if you aren't in the groove, and if you don't get it, you'll never be able to create that same kind of groove in your own work. The only thing that pleases everybody on the first try is sugar candy. All the great things - coffee, sex, cubism - are "aquired tastes". But once you acquire it, baby...

[gp101]

You'll never get it if you aren't in the groove, and if you don't get it, you'll never be able to create that same kind of groove in your own work. The only thing that pleases everybody on the first try is sugar candy. All the great things - coffee, sex, cubism - are "aquired tastes". But once you acquire it, baby...


If a writer has to wait for a reader to get into a groove in order to appreciate some point of their writing, I think they're kidding themselves, or pretentious, or both. I think Hammett and Chandler got away with the verbose description because the other aspects of their novels were (and still are) so superior to most everybody else's stuff. I was willing to deal with the long (and sometimes boring... there, I said it) descriptions just to see what the characters would do and what they would say.

And, Mistook... why do you consider sex an acquired taste? It's usually pretty damn tasty from the first few encounters on. Alright... stopping now before thread dejenerates to crap.

[cwfgal]

Everyone is very focused on description as something seen but you're forgetting the other senses and they can be extremely valuable. Description is typically used to give the reader a sense of a place or a person, and while the visual can be very important, things like smell, touch, sound, taste, and that ever-vague sixth sense can be useful, too, and may keep your prose a bit more lively.

For instance, someone mentioned the guy running and diving into a dumpster. Would he notice the crumbling facade on a building? Probably not. But he might well note the horrific stench of the garbage in the dumpster or wince at the slimy feel of something sliding along his face, or be forced to quell a lesser fear for a greater one when some critter runs up his leg or rustles the trash. What foulness might he taste if he nervously licks his lips? How would the bullets sound if they hit the metal of the dumpster? Can he hear the breathing or footsteps of his pursuer? Do his hackles rise because he senses the pursuer is close by?

If you meet a person for the first time, you notice what they look like. But you may also notice what they smell like...strong perfume, bad BO, fresh, etc. What do these things tell you about the person? If you shake their hand and their grip feels firm and skin is warm and dry, how does that compare to someone whose grip is limp, and whose hand is damp and cold? Ever meet someone for the first time and get a creepy feeling about them for no apparent reason?

Try this. Sit or stand in a place -- it can be your bedroom or basement, or the middle of the food court at the mall, or a bookstore, or a coffeeshop, or the DMV, or inside your car, or at the park -- and close your eyes. Now describe the place as best you can using as many of your other senses as possible. Which of those senses by itself gives the best feel for the place? In the coffee shop it might be the smell, in the park it might be the sound of the wind in the trees and the songs of the birds. Describe these sounds and add in the smell of pine or grass or flowers and your readers will SEE the scene even though you haven't described anything visual.

Bring the reader along for the ride by letting him or her experience a scene through more than one sense.

Beth

[HapiSofi]

My previous long post, and everything I want to say now, owes too much to TNH's expository writing lectures for me to feel entirely comfortable.

[ChunkyC]

Well, no not just from the POV of the detective, also other characters in the book, like the murderer.
Thx, clotje. I've been meaning to check out Elizabeth George's work. I read her book on writing, and found it fascinating. I also quite like the TV treatment of her stuff, the Detective Linley mysteries on PBS.

A question for you: do you find the description in her work to be filtered through the viewpoint of the current POV character? Or is it more omniscient? I think the latter would be the most difficult to pull off, since evoking a strong response (which is what we want, no?) depends entirely on how something is perceived. The writer can only completely control the perceptions of their characters, and so controlling the reader's perceptions would best be achieved through said characters, IMHO.

[reph]

My previous long post, and everything I want to say now, owes too much to TNH's expository writing lectures for me to feel entirely comfortable.
If those lectures are on the Web, some readers might benefit from a link. For myself, browser incompatibility makes her site hard to use, but many people have more flexible arrangements.

[rowriter]

Rowriter:

Your first paragraph is the type of description I usually skim past (no offense, please) because it doesn't seem to really do anything for the scene. Maybe it does justice to the overall piece, but the one paragraph is all we got to glimpse.

Your second paragraph is the type I truly like, though it's still a bit wordy. That description seemed to set the tone and mood for that scene, one of lonliness, maybe apprehension. The rhythm of that description helped also, as did your word choices. Your shorter sentences with simple descriptions punctuate a mood--at least for me--more than the flowery longer sentences with the five-dollar-words could have. I think a lot of writers forget about a paragraph's rhythm when it comes to setting the tone or mood of a scene, especially with description. I love those type of descriptions in noir-type stories. They're almost like the scary synths you hear in a movie as the hero is about to encounter something bad. Sets up the audience (or reader).



GP,
No offense taken; I myself am likely to puke over any given scene/chapter/paragraph/page of my first draft. That's why I keep pointing out it's a first draft, not a polished, arranged and thought-out finished piece. :) Glad you liked the second paragraph more, though...that might be a keeper.

[rowriter]

Everyone is very focused on description as something seen but you're forgetting the other senses and they can be extremely valuable. Description is typically used to give the reader a sense of a place or a person, and while the visual can be very important, things like smell, touch, sound, taste, and that ever-vague sixth sense can be useful, too, and may keep your prose a bit more lively......Bring the reader along for the ride by letting him or her experience a scene through more than one sense.

Beth

Beth, very true and thanks for bringing us back to the big discussion of description. Nice examples too.

I was going to post something earlier about some authors' use of smell in books; if it's overdone, it can really become annoying. One book I recently read kept mentioning the way a restaurant smelled...it wouldn't have been so bad except that the author used the same description every time a character went into that restaurant. It drove me batty!

But obviously, if it's used well (and not overused) that type of description really adds to the experience.

[Jamesaritchie]

How much description is too much depends entirely on the reader. There isn't one audience out there, but a thousand audiences. Many love a lot of description, many hate anything to do with description. I tend to like more, rather than less, other readers are the opposite. Melville, Hammett, love them both.

I try to write description through the character's eyes. If it's something a real character would notice through any of the senses, I think it belongs in the scene. If not, I leave it out.

But you can't write well when your main thought is "what will readers think of this." Writing comes best when you write what you think is good, and then let the book find its own audience.

[dawinsor]

I find this comforting because it means there's an audience for all kinds of writing.

I also try to do what you describe, James, but there are moments when I struggle. How am I ever going to get my central characters to describe himself, for instance? For that matter, why would he describe his father or brother? He sees them every day. I try to imagine what would prompt me to think about how a member of my family looks, and I'd only do it if I saw some change or their expression or action really caught my eye. Why would he think about how his room looks? And yet, I need to anchor him in a physical place somehow.

[clotje]

Thx, clotje. I've been meaning to check out Elizabeth George's work. I read her book on writing, and found it fascinating. I also quite like the TV treatment of her stuff, the Detective Linley mysteries on PBS.

A question for you: do you find the description in her work to be filtered through the viewpoint of the current POV character? Or is it more omniscient? I think the latter would be the most difficult to pull off, since evoking a strong response (which is what we want, no?) depends entirely on how something is perceived. The writer can only completely control the perceptions of their characters, and so controlling the reader's perceptions would best be achieved through said characters, IMHO.

Hi ChunkyC,
I am a fan of her writing since day one. Her descriptions are through the characters POV, like you guessed. The detective Lynley series on PBS doesn't do justice to her books. If you want to check out her work I'd recommend you start with the first of the series, definitely not the last one, trust me on that!

[clotje]

I find this comforting because it means there's an audience for all kinds of writing.

I also try to do what you describe, James, but there are moments when I struggle. How am I ever going to get my central characters to describe himself, for instance? For that matter, why would he describe his father or brother? He sees them every day. I try to imagine what would prompt me to think about how a member of my family looks, and I'd only do it if I saw some change or their expression or action really caught my eye. Why would he think about how his room looks? And yet, I need to anchor him in a physical place somehow.

You can have him look at himself in a mirror, reflection of a shopwindow or rearview mirror to name but a view.
He could notice more lines on his father's face, his hair turning grey or something like that?!?
Use someone else's POV to describe his room.

[mistri]

You can have him look at himself in a mirror, reflection of a shopwindow or rearview mirror to name but a view.
He could notice more lines on his father's face, his hair turning grey or something like that?!?
Use someone else's POV to describe his room.

You have to be very careful with the mirror/reflection thing. I normally shudder whenever I read passages that begin, 'She looked in the mirror, and gazed at her porcelain white cheeks, her long brown hair, and violet eyes, wondering what tomorrow would bring.'

Okay so some mirror/reflection scenes may not be that bad -- but many are. Does the reader *really* need to be told what the main character looks like anyway?

[cattywampus]

The trick with description is the same with all aspects of writing: "Say less, mean more."

The problem is not "too much" description, it's "too much BAD description."

Here's an example of really good character description I found in an old Writer's Handbook:

"He was the kind of man who would spend a pleasant half-hour in the bathroom, plucking the hairs from his nose."

That pretty much tells you everything you need to know about the guy, right? And note, the operative word is "pleasant" - take that out and you have nothing. Contrast!

Here's something that might help: discard the first 4-5 things you think of, for they are bound to be cliches. Go on to the 6th or 7th or until you come to something you haven't been hearing all your life.

[Jamesaritchie]

I find this comforting because it means there's an audience for all kinds of writing.

I also try to do what you describe, James, but there are moments when I struggle. How am I ever going to get my central characters to describe himself, for instance? For that matter, why would he describe his father or brother? He sees them every day. I try to imagine what would prompt me to think about how a member of my family looks, and I'd only do it if I saw some change or their expression or action really caught my eye. Why would he think about how his room looks? And yet, I need to anchor him in a physical place somehow.

I seldom, if ever, have a character describe himself. I've never found a reason for doing so. Better, I think, to let the reader form his own image of what the character looks like. If you want a tall character, have him reach something on a tall shelf, etc. I don;t think it matters in the least what color hair or eyes a protagonist has. Again, let the reader fill in the blanks.

As for describing his father, something like, "Each time I saw him it seemed his hair was whiter, his shoulders a bit more stooped, and his gait slower. His eyes, however, were seemed bluer, colder, and harder than ever."

But here again, I don't much like character descriptions. Whenever possible, I prefer character actions that allow a reader to see the character through what he does and how he does it.

His room? Action is better than description. What does he DO in his room, what does he use, what does he trip over? What's in the old plate on the fllor that he accidentally steps in? Does he have to kill a roach in the kitchen, chase a rat from the bathroom?

It's the out of the ordinary that gets describe. No one notices the sidewalk they're walking on, unless they step in a hole or trip oover a crack. We see the new, the extraordinary, the out of place, the unusually beautiful, the unfamiliar.

[maestrowork]

You can have him look at himself in a mirror, reflection of a shopwindow or rearview mirror to name but a view.
He could notice more lines on his father's face, his hair turning grey or something like that?!?
Use someone else's POV to describe his room.

Oh no, not the mirror/reflection trick. Yikes.

Seriously, I don't think you need to describe your main character too much. A little bit here, and little bit there, the readers will supply their own imagination.

Having the characters noticing something about other characters would work, if that doesn't stop the story.

Using another POV just to describe the main character's room would be cheesy, I think. Even if the character is familiar with his room, I bet the narrator could pick out a few details to talk about, that are relevant to the scene.

[reph]

You can have him look at himself in a mirror....
The second half of this thread: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15522
explains why not to say "He stepped into the shower and washed his blond hair." The reason not to insert a mirror scene into a novel is similar. Using any such device to tell the reader what a character looks like will interrupt the story – it'll create a digression from whatever's important in the story at that point – and will undermine the reader's identification with the character.

Sometimes a character should look in a mirror. If the POV character has just been beat up, he might reasonably check a mirror and learn that his nose is still bleeding. Most of the time, however, the information from the mirror is irrelevant. A novel isn't really about hair color.

[Mistook]

I pulled a fast one in my current version of chapter 1. Near the end, her license is called in by the cops and the dispatch reporter comes back with a basic description.

I agree there's no real need to describe the main character, but the opportunity was there, so I took it. Her ravishing beauty isn't much of an issue, and neither is her hair/eye color, but I was glad to establish her height/weight.

Because she's such a two-fisted tomboy, I want to get across the irony that my MC is not some statuesque "Laura Croft" type heroine, but rather a little slip of a girl.