Description

As a reader, I definitely think less is more for this genre. I'm going to fill in the blanks, anyway. Interesting that you mention Kinsey Milhone, I have a definite image in my head as to what she looks like. I'm sure you are right and it is my own construct.

Yep, less is better (for me, anyway). It's definitely different from literary.

Give me a general sense of the landscape--where in the world we are, a sense of setting, day or night, an impression of the people, and I'm happy.

I really would rather use my imagination when it comes to characters' looks.

jeseymour said:

How much is too much? I think we all want to avoid the old cliche of "she looked in the mirror and brushed her brown bangs out of her blue eyes" but when does it become too much? ... What do you like as a reader? What do you do as a writer?

Click to expand...

I think a character should only be introduced with active description. like the way they move or think, and only a piece or two of physical description that matters to the story. Once you say something physical, the reader can picture someone from their past in that role. Or they can imagine that person. After that initial introduction, it sort of jolts the reader out of the story if you introduce something that defies the image in their head.

Interesting question....

I think that readers prefer not having a lot of description of the main character (or even any) because then we (the readers) can picture what the character looks like from our mind's eye perspective, which is more accurate than anything the author can provide anyway.

Kinsey Milhone is a good example... and so is Alex Delaware, Jonathan Kellerman's creation. In fact, I've read EVER SINGLE ONE of both Grafton's and Kellerman's books yet I'd be hardpressed to describe either MC, beyond the car's they drive (80's Volkswagon, 70's Caddy, respectively). Now, on the other hand, if we're talkin' Kinsey's octogenerian landlord or Rosie at the restaurant, I could give a police sketch artist enough of an accurate description such that it could be fed into a facial recognition program. I suspect this would be true of almost any of her readers because Grafton adds detail to the appearances of those endlessly peripheral characters while leaving the MC to stand, and live, on her own.

Likewise, Kellerman's peripheral characters. I could recognize Milo in a mall parking lot, at night, from ten rows away.

And this has got to be a choice: Grafton is good at description; Kellerman is great at description (in my opinion, Kellerman gives the best quick, vivid and mind-blastingly memorable descriptions of any commercial writer out there... I salivate over his encapsulated peeks at what suspects/witnesses look like, what they're wearing, and what kind of furniture they have.) But as for his main character?... who knows... I figure Delaware's picture is the one on the book jacket, the one misidentified as Kellerman.

I'm lucky in that my series has two main characters, and both are regarding the other one in terms of their appearance and physicality, so I don't bother with any description other than what each is thinking, and observing, close third.

As a reader, in terms of commercial MTS fiction, I crave fast paced action and clever or insightful dialogue but also vivid, "you are there" description. If I'm "looking" at someone, I want to "see" them. If I'm in a place, I want to be fully aware of what's around me. I think because we identify with the MC, who is our way into their world, we don't need buckets of description since, well, we already know them.

I mean, who writes a description of their mother in a letter to their sister? Nobody. Mom is Mom.

I've been reading Elizabeth George for a long time. Lately, she's been mentioning Thomas Lynley is blonde. Of course he's NOT blonde! I've been "seeing" him for decades. His hair is dark! She needs to get over that absurd idea.

Giving just enough description is a true and remarkable talent.

I prefer to give very limited description, but many of my betas have called it too little. Personally, I don't need a lot of description as far as character looks. No matter if the author says the hero is blond, in my mind he isn't. But I do want some sense of place and movement. Make use of the senses, but don't rhapsodize about the details. (I'm certain that's extremely helpful in answering the "how much is too much" question.)

Description was something I used to hate to do so whenever I started a new scene, I figured out what was where, how it looked, and who was doing what. Then I sketched it out with a well-timed paragraph or brief sentences interspersed here and there. I think it's balanced, but my audience of few could tell you better. Instead of length in descriptions, try for really effective words.

... helpful? I don't know. I've been trying to get my characters out of a tunnel for the last hour or two. It's dark in there. You can't describe what you can't see. (Okay, fine. There's description, but it's all shadowy.)

> What do you like as a reader?

When the narrator picks up traits which are prohiminent in a character and gives it a twist which is in line with this narrator's voice.


> What do you do as a writer?

See above. And add 'as best as I can...'.


-cb


(*) From an untitled work by AW member Aggy B., 09DEC09

description

hi
I'm new to this forum. this discussion of description is very helpful, since I have lots of trouble even thinking about describing people and things. I'm much more of an auditory person than a visual one. Dialogue is my thing. So I have to remind myself that the reader needs to know what this person looks like, etc. I do a lot of descriptive action and dialogue, so it gets done that way, too.
thanks,
Sandy Gardner
[email protected]

sandy gardner said:

hi
I'm new to this forum. this discussion of description is very helpful, since I have lots of trouble even thinking about describing people and things. I'm much more of an auditory person than a visual one. Dialogue is my thing. So I have to remind myself that the reader needs to know what this person looks like, etc. I do a lot of descriptive action and dialogue, so it gets done that way, too.
thanks,
Sandy Gardner
[email protected]

Click to expand...

But description isn't just visual, right? If you're into dialogue then there's scope for description of sound and tone of voice.

For me less is more. I recently read a book where every character was described down to bone; she had blonde hair, blue eyes, a green top, brown shorts, running shoes. It was so annoying I couldn't stand it. I like to form a picture of the characters in my own head. I don't need to know every detail of what they are wearing or what they look like. Instead tell me that her clothes were crumpled or she wore too much makeup. Little obscure details are worth their weight in gold.

sandy gardner said:

hi
I'm new to this forum. this discussion of description is very helpful, since I have lots of trouble even thinking about describing people and things. I'm much more of an auditory person than a visual one. Dialogue is my thing. So I have to remind myself that the reader needs to know what this person looks like, etc. I do a lot of descriptive action and dialogue, so it gets done that way, too.
thanks,
Sandy Gardner
[email protected]

Click to expand...

to the forum, sandy!

I don't need much in the way of character description, and aside from that just a sentence here or two to ground the action and give me something to build on is good. Definitely less is more.

jeseymour said:

I write very lean, with almost no description of anyone or anything. I'm very much a leave it to the reader's imagination kind of writer, but when does it become too little?

Click to expand...

I've read your work. In my opinion you are doing it right, and here's why. I always had a clear mental image of your characters, and I did not even notice that you had not described them in detail. So your approach works.

However, if there is something unusual about a character's appearance, and that something contributes to the story, then the reader needs to be told.

But, and this is a big "but," if you have a well-crafted description that entertains the reader, then by all means, put it in.

And like all opinions about writing, we are overrun with valid exceptions.

The protagonist doesn't count. Unless something is really odd about teh protagonist, such as having three hands, or being seven feet tall, you don't have to give me any description.

Scenery is something else. Less is still better, but you do have to show me enough to let me visualize the rest. As with any genre, you have to show what I would notice if I walked into a place. No two antique shops look alike, and I've been in hundreds.

I don't need you to show me every little thing, but you must show me two or three, and tell me how the place feel and smells. Show me why it isn't like other antique shops.

Contrary to what many seem to think, writing is a visual art. If you aren't painting pictures with your words, or at least making sketches, it's going to be a tough sell.

Jamesaritchie said:

Contrary to what many seem to think, writing is a visual art. If you aren't painting pictures with your words, or at least making sketches, it's going to be a tough sell.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. It bothers me to open up a book and be faced with nothing but dialogue and a few tags of who's speaking, with maybe an occasional sentence or two of not-dialogue. Even if your writing style is dialogue driven, you need to ground that in place to make the world you've created come to life. Skipping that, in my opinion, can do the story a disservice and sometimes it's just plain lazy.

I use few descriptors. I mentioned a couple at the beginning that were important, but I too think the reader will visualize. It's easier for them to remember a character that way. Who wants to flip back pages to check what the writer said her six characters looked like. What they're like as people is more important to get across.

If my MC was on the football team all through high school, but he hadn't played in twenty years, you probably would get some kind of image in your head of an out of shape guy in his late thirties, without me coming out and saying what he looked like.

Actually my MC thinks, Pepper Black (the forensic chick) looks hot in her fishing vest and tool belt. (Gadgets & glove etc holder, lots of pockets) Which actually says something about both of them really.

In fact we probably have mental images of each other, just by what we post, and they would all be different, and that's OK. I'm more interested in what you say then what you really look like.

**Except for Kaitie, too which I always say, "You mean you don't really look like your Avatar?" **

HistorySleuth said:

In fact we probably have mental images of each other, just by what we post, and they would all be different, and that's OK. I'm more interested in what you say then what you really look like.

**Except for Kaitie, too which I always say, "You mean you don't really look like your Avatar?" **

Click to expand...

I totally envision you in a fedora, History.

heyjude said:

I totally envision you in a fedora, History.

Click to expand...

Of course she wears a fedora. And red lipstick. I, however, am not a wee yellow lion.

I'll be the fly in the ointment. For character description I agree with the majority, less is more but give me something. I want to know if they are tall or short, lean or stocky, dark or light. You don't have to tell me what color thier pants are, but I want a genral body type to give my imagination a template to work with.

Now as far as scenery, I want description. As someone said, writing is painting with words and I want to see the painting damit!
One of the reasons I love Michael Connelly is the way he describes his character's environment. The way Harry's house balances above those hills and the fog that islolates and connects him to the coyotes that sing in the night.

Yeah- I want to all that and more. I love that type of writing.

sheadakota said:

One of the reasons I love Michael Connelly is the way he describes his character's environment. The way Harry's house balances above those hills and the fog that islolates and connects him to the coyotes that sing in the night.

Yeah- I want to all that and more. I love that type of writing.

Click to expand...

Oh yes. Connelly is of course a master. But he gives just enough--not so much that I'm skimming. Though of course he's the one who sometimes goes overboard on clothing.

I'm still scratching my head over how he seemed to have a thing for women in vests for a while.

heyjude said:

Oh yes. Connelly is of course a master. But he gives just enough--not so much that I'm skimming. Though of course he's the one who sometimes goes overboard on clothing.

I'm still scratching my head over how he seemed to have a thing for women in vests for a while.

Click to expand...

Haha! I forgot about that- Robert Crais has a tendencey to describe clothing a bit too much as well- mean I know Elvis like Hawiian shirts, but I only need to know that once per book please sir. Same goes with Pike and his sleeveless sweatshirts.

HistorySleuth said:

**Except for Kaitie, too which I always say, "You mean you don't really look like your Avatar?" **

Click to expand...

Yeah, he's a lot cuter than I am. My boobs are bigger, though.

I, however, am not a wee yellow lion.

Click to expand...

I do always imagine you holding a pen, however.

And *cough*it'satiger*cough*

kaitie said:

I do always imagine you holding a pen, however.

Click to expand...

I often am, and that is my special pen.

And *cough*it'satiger*cough*

Click to expand...

Are you sure? He's yellow. Lions are yellow. Tigers are orange. Is this a mutant tiger? I think I've just named him. Lion the Tiger.

He's uh...a Japanese tiger? And Japanese tigers are yellow? See?



Okay...maybe that wasn't the best example.

I'm going to have nightmares tonight.