Physical Descriptions

[macalicious731]

Okay. Cleanly writing your charcter's physical description into your story. I've seen it done a dozen ways. Sometimes the importance of character varies the description; sometimes it's full of details, sometimes it's only a couple of words. It could be:

Slipped behind a dialogue tag:

"It's nothing," she said, flipping her long brown hair behind her shoulder.

Or in an entire paragraph devoted solely to physical description. - I find these long and drawn out, and I usually skip them over when I read.

And not to mention timing. When do you do it? Somewhere in the beginning is most expected, but is that the first couple of pages? the first chapter? ... the list goes on. Of course, everything depends on genre, style, story, character... obviously variation is going to make a difference.

So how do you like to write it?

[Pthom]

This question will no doubt elicit many comments. And, no doubt, they will be varied and helpful.

Some questions that should be answered, I think:

Why is it necessary to describe the character? To put into the mind of the reader what the author thinks her character looks like?

Is the character's physical appearance crucial to the story?

I just finished reading the first three volumes of Orson Scott Card's "Ender" quartet. In all of them, I don't recall ever reading a description about what Andrew Wiggins looks like. Card does describe the aliens, only with enough information to show how they differ from humans. As for other characters, I remember that one is small, one has skin so black that it approaches blue ... nothing about long wavy hair, bulging muscles -- in fact, there is little description of the clothing they wear. Yet, in my reader's mind, I see them all clearly, identify with them, love and hate them. I think it is that Card showed me their personalities by the things they do and the way they talk and how they think. (Card's method of showing 'thinking' is unique in my experience...topic for another thread, maybe.)

[Joanclr]

Along the same lines as what you are saying, I tend to think that when it comes to description, sometimes less is more. I tend to like the descriptions when one or two main features are clearly delineated, something that is outstanding or noteworthy.--Rather than just running rote through hair color, eye color, skin color, body type, and so on.

Just my two cents :)

[Poe Me]

I agree with Pthom and Joan. I tend to skip over long descriptions stuck in the middle of stories. The reader in me likes to imagine what the character looks like. A few well placed descriptions like, "I noticed the sixth finger on his right hand" help the reader to see the character. If you show his personality through his reactions then it's easy to imagine what he/she will look like.

Poe Me

[maestrowork]

Describe the character only when it makes sense. For example, if you say the woman is the most beautiful girl in the world... well, give us something to substantiate that claim. If the character is bi-racial, please tell us (and which races).

Again, the rule of thumb is "show, don't tell." Describing a character's phyical attributes is best done by "showing" -- as part of a scene:

Julianne strolled by the garden, whistling a little tune. She leaned in to examine the flowers, the glint in her eyes rivaled the brightest lilacs. Suddenly a bee flew out from nowhere and stung her on her flawless face...

If you do want to describe your character's physical attributes, do it earlier on so that you don't let the readers create a mental image of the character for 80 pages before you completely alter it with the revelation: OH DARN, she is old and she is not a Caucasian... Oops.

[ChunkyC]

All good thoughts. I used to obsess over how to describe a person, until I read a book on character that said something along the lines of:

What if the person reading your book is four-foot six inches tall and overweight, are they likely to identify with a character who is six foot four and weighs one hundred and fifty pounds?

The contention was that a reader will tend to see the character as somewhat like themselves, and that too much description can actually distance the reader from the character. Any physical description should be germaine to the story, and if possible, worked into the action, as in:

Marie stretched and pulled open the cupboard. Good thing the glasses were on the bottom shelf.

If you can make these physical characteristics crucial elements in the story, all the better.

[macalicious731]

I've thought about avoiding the physical description. I don't find it extremely necessay except for one distinguishing feature of the protag. I can't even picture one of my other characters, so that's where I stumble. What he looks like must not be that important, then. :: phew ::

"I noticed the sixth finger on his right hand"

Poe, Princess Bride? What a great novel/movie.

[Terra Aeterna]

Something I've noticed about physical descriptions is that different genre have different expectations about how much physical description is needed. Romance novels tend to go on and on with physical descriptions. I think there's more of it in some other genres than others.

How you work in physical descriptions can depend a lot on what POV you're using. The way someone thinks of themselves and how an observer looks at them can be very different. :thumbs

[James D Macdonald]

Just please, please, don't have the characters looking into random mirrors, pools of water, whatever, in order to give themselves a description (her cool grey eyes, evenly spaced above a long straight nose, stared back ....). That's a cliche scene.

[macalicious731]

Got it, Jim. :thumbs

[Jules Hall]

her cool grey eyes, evenly spaced above a long straight nose, stared back

Argh! Now you've got me wondering how many eyes she has. Gotta be at least three of 'em, but I think four might work better. :)

[SRHowen]

Jim, I was going to say the same thing.

Shawn

[Poe Me]

macalicious, good catch!

Poe Me

[Flawed Creation]

I find that describing characters can be good, if it's germaine. often, you can give clues about the personality of a character simply through description.

without attempting to work it into a narrative, i give you some decriptions.

Flawed carefully straightened his meticulously braided hair, and bound it with a blask elastic. he took pride in his hair. his green-and-black shirt might not match his too-short blue sweatpants, but he didn't care. the hair was what mattered. these stick to hair and clothing.

Flawed's muscles rippled as he walked into the room. his tattered leather jacket had one sleeve cut short, in order to show off his collection of tattoes.

Flawed stared into the mirror, fussing with the unruly tangled hair. i really shold brush this more often , he thought. he grimaced as he struggled into his suit and looked for his father to help him put on a tie. at least this time he would wear the shiny cream-colored shirt, instead of the blue one he hated.

i think the value of description has been demonstrated. one thing i've found helpful, to avoid the awkward mirror scenes, if to have characters describe each other. if your book is told form more than one perspective, like mine, you can avoid having any characters describe themselves.

[alinasandor]

Yep, I remember reading, that if at all possible, don't describe your character.
I write romance, and I have always thought that the descriptions of characters were off putting. Yes, we know she is stunning, yes, we know that he is really hot, but let us decide what is hot. The author may think that 6'4'' redheads are lady killers while I think 5'8'' guys with black curly hair are. See what I mean? How can I imagine the guy as being hot if he's not what I think is hot?

Okay, I'm done talking in circles. :lect

[maestrowork]

I find that even if you give descriptions of a character, if the characterization is strong, the readers would eventually ignore/forget your descriptions and imagine their own...

The point is, keep your physical descriptions to the minimum, and relevant to the story: age, gender, race, build, etc. When in doubt, try cutting out the descriptions and see if anything's lost -- do we need to know if the guy has blond hair or black? Is the fact that the guy is a body builder significant to the story? If it doesn't make a difference, then cut it in the rewrite process.

During first draft, by all means put in all the physical descriptions you want to help you visualize and characterize your characters, to help you write.

Sometimes descriptions of one character help to characterize another character. In the following passage, by describing the woman, I'm characterizing the protagonist...

A thirty-something woman, short blond hair, sits at the bar across from me. She's been giving me the eye. I don’t recognize her, but her voluptuous breasts, pushing against a skin-tight black dress, beg for attention. Men gawk at her – vulture eyes circling – but so far no one’s lunged for the kill. Her eyes meet mine again, and she twists her red lips, moist with freshly applied lipstick, into a seductive half smile. I swallow the last shot of tequila, then grab my glass of Johnny Walker, push the table away and strut toward her. She peers away and adjusts her dress, exposing a fine pair of long legs.

Note the inclusions and omissions -- no mention of shoes, or the color of her eyes, for example. The protagonist is interested in the woman as a sex object; he doesn't notice shoes or the windows to her soul. What he notices, however, are the skin-tight dress, the breasts, the legs, the lips... everything that has to do with sex. Also the other's men's "vulture eyes" -- he's contemplating his competitions. Very male, aggressive.

[Flawed Creation]

as i see it, the main purpose of description is to give clues about a characters personality and background. skin tone, hair length, clothing worn, and so on can all contribute to this.

[Pthom]

... the main purpose of description is to give clues about a characters personality and background. ...Consider: the opposite is sometimes a better choice.

Showing a character's personality and background through his or her actions is a more interesting way to describe that character. Does it matter that the girl at the end of the bar has short blonde hair? Maybe it does if the girl next to her is a red head and hair color is the only way to differentiate between them. But certainly, the longer we observe, we notice more than just color of hair or eyes. Or size. Or clothing.

I think if you must identify a character by appearance, keep it brief. I think that if a character is identified only by appearance, that character is no more significant in the story than the barber pole or the weeping willow or the telephone booth.

[Betty W01]

And yet, the Robert Parker Spenser mysteries, in which Parker obsesses over what EVERYONE wears (the swooshes on the protag's running shoes always match his T-shirts, for heaven's sake!), are still great stories in spite of the gratuitous clothing run-downs. And they are gratuitous - Parker's never yet done anything useful or dangerous with the color of a swoosh - but they gotta be in there, apparently! Makes me wonder if he owns stock in a certain shoe company...

[Pthom]

I think we have all read "great stories" that were not especially well written. ;)

[maestrowork]

If the physical descriptions adds to the details of your story, then write it. Remember "show, don't tell." You can tell us all you want about how beautiful Helen of Troy was, but until you give us some definitive descriptions, we could only say, "Sure, whatever you say."

The "woman with short blond hair at the bar" may not be necessary if it's not relevant at all. But in the context of a scene (e.g. the character is attracted to blonds and he wants to have sex with her), it's relevant details. The right details enrich your characters, scenes and story. It gives you a reference to paint that picture in your head. You may not find blond women sexy, but in the scene, it is really about the protagonist (who likes blondes).

It's also relevant if the hair color, or a scar, or her weight, has something to do with the story... Aunt Petunia is a hell lot funnier because she is tall and thin (in contrast to her husband) than if she's fat or if you don't know at all. You don't need to know if she has blond hair or brown. But the relevant details add to the characters and scenes.

Choose your details. Don't describe and name every brand of clothings. Don't give us a laundry list of physical attributes like a criminal profile. But the right details will make your characters and scenes come to life.

Consider the above scene with the woman at the bar, as rewritten here without any physical description:

A woman sits at the bar across from me. She's been giving me the eye. I don’t recognize her, but her beauty begs for attention. Men gawk at her. Her eyes meet mine again, and she twists her lips into a seductive half smile. I swallow the last shot of tequila, then grab my glass of Johnny Walker, push the table away and strut toward her. She peers away and adjusts her dress, exposing her legs.

Some people may actually prefer this version. But IMHO, it's flat comparing to the version above with the physical details.

[Lori Basiewicz]

Flawed, you have the right idea, but the wrong approach. The first examples you provided did not really reveal character; they were just other ways of providing the protag's physical description.

Maestro has a much better approach. Look again at his first example where the woman is described. Yes, he is providing a physical description, but it is not of the POV character. Instead, it is a descripton from the POV character's point of view. It shows us the object of his desire and what he desires about that object (the woman's attributes). And, in so doing, reveals something about the POV's character.

[ChunkyC]

It shows us the object of his desire and what he desires about that object (the woman's attributes). And, in so doing, reveals something about the POV's character
Exactly. Even the swooshes Betty mentioned from the Parker novels say something about the wearer; he is fastidious about this detail of his attire. We're already drawing a picture of the person.

I will admit to having my protag stand in front of a mirror. However, I say nothing about his actual appearance, only his reaction when he compares himself with his father, the emotional heart of the story. For all the reader would know from reading just this scene, he could be a 75 pound pygmy or a 400 pound sumo wrestler.

[maestrowork]

However, I say nothing about his actual appearance, only his reaction when he compares himself with his father, the emotional heart of the story.

Interesting point. In my novel, I never have the protagonist describe himself (it's first person narration), but he does talk about his parents, in an emotional context. From that, the readers might be able to imagine what the protagonist looks like -- but they don't have to. They have a point of reference. Again, we're using other characters' attributes to reveal something about the POV character. It's more effective this way.

In a third person POV, you can achieve that by describing the characters through the POV character:

Hansel noticed how tight Gretel's dress was, and how it clung to her body like a stretched latex glove. He couldn't take his eyes off her ample breasts.

[pina la nina]

Interesting discussion to have in the cyber-world where we all interact without much awreness of one another's physical descriptions. How we "know" one another here and make assumptions about appearances based on our voices can be informative, I think. What clues do we give/get as to gender, age, nationality. Do you picture people here? Do you wish you actually had photos of everyone, or are you glad to be left to your own imagination?

As for my own assumptions, from all these choice bits of description, I'm beginning to think of maestro as a bit hard up. ;)

[Flawed Creation]

Lori- while i make no claims to have done the writing well, i think you missed the point of my post.

of *course* i didn't do anything but find another way to put in the physical description. the whole point of my post was to explain why the description is important. the description is all you need in the description, because it conveys information about the character.

the type of person who wears a leather jacket is different from the type who wears wrinkled t-shirt or the height of fashion.

a persons hair is not just a cosmetic detail. for a boy to have long hair, for instance, may tell you several things about them. they may turn out to be untrue, but you have a "gut instinct"

i challenge you to walk down the street/into a library/whatever, where you'll be around people you don't know, and think about the assumptions you make just form looking at them. then, pick someone and stop and think in detail about how and if their appearance might have affected their lives.

[Lori Basiewicz]

I didn't miss the point, Flawed, but you do not need to describe your characters in such detail. There is a writer's axiom that states 'show don't tell'. I am certain you have heard it. It is cliche, but still valid. It is better to describe your characters by their reactions to their environment and to others. In other words, by the assumptions they are making about people based upon whether they have long hair or are wearing a leather jacket or a wrinkled shirt.

[maestrowork]

As for my own assumptions, from all these choice bits of description, I'm beginning to think of maestro as a bit hard up.

Very observant! As Lori can attest to that... :grin

[Lori Basiewicz]

;) And now I know you prefer women with tight-fitting clothing and large attributes, I'll know who to try to set you up with. :p

[maestrowork]

You got mail. :teeth :jump

[maestrowork]

Seriously, I agree with Lori and some others that "characterization" is more effective and "masterful" through their actions, and the reactions they get from other characters.

"Oh, can I have your autograph?" she said.
"But I'm not a movie star," he said.
"You look like one."

... is more interesting than:

He has blond hair and blue eyes and looks exactly like Brad Pitt.

-----------------------
Flawed said:
the type of person who wears a leather jacket is different from the type who wears wrinkled t-shirt or the height of fashion.

Not necessarily. Maybe the current mood, but not necessarily the person. I have on many occasions worn my leather jacket and heavy boots (and I have pictures to show)... I also have an expensive Armani suit and other "height of fashion"... and you wouldn't be surprised to catch me in my crumpled T-shirt on a lazy Sunday afternoon...

... but! The fact that I change my looks, etc. might give you a better idea of what kind of "character" I am... so it's not really the clothings I wear, but why I choose what to wear that defines my character...

The problem with using appearance to define your character is that you can fall prey to "cliches" -- guy wearing leather jacket vs. guy wearing Armani... goodlooking guy vs. ugly guy with a scar... the "gut feeling" you mentioned usually points to "cliches" and "stereotypes."


That said, some descriptions can enhance your character if you choose the right ones. The "long hair" and "leather jacket" may say something profound about the character if he lives in Beverly Hills, as opposed to East Los Angeles. Again, it's about context and what you're trying to say.

[macalicious731]

As for my own assumptions, from all these choice bits of description, I'm beginning to think of maestro as a bit hard up.

:ha Just what I thought when I read that Gretel description.

[SRHowen]

Well, I think knowing what a character looks like can be important, but not always. I know many times when I hear what a writer really had in mind for the reader to see I think, no way--this is not what I thought of when I imagined this character.

Assumptions about dress, I think, IMHO are a stereo type. He has long hair therefore--wrong. Saw a guy with a grungy t-shirt on, jeans and hair down to his waist. Also noted when he came to the counter to pay for his coke his pass to Sperion (DELL computers in Austin) clipped to his shirt. He makes 45 bucks an hr.

Another guy--nose ring, huge guy, long hair tats all over, long beard, leather jacket, and other biker gear. Opens his mouth and out comes a very soft voice and huge words combined with evidence of a good education.

So you have to be careful of stereo types. You can't skip the details int writing that make a characterization and tell us how he dresses and assume the reader will Say OK he has long hair so-- or he wears leather so, or she wears short shorts so--

The trick to good writing is to show person's inner soul. Then you have a book people will read and remember and one agents and publishers will want.

Shawn

[Jules Hall]

Saw a guy with a grungy t-shirt on, jeans and hair down to his waist. Also noted when he came to the counter to pay for his coke his pass to Sperion (DELL computers in Austin) clipped to his shirt. He makes 45 bucks an hr.

Are you kidding? That's a stereotype all by itself! I nearly conformed to it myself, a few years back, until my boss told me to smarten up my image... never made that much money at it though :(

[Flawed Creation]

i know- my first examples were not the best, but only intended to be examples.

stereotypes, despite being inaccurate, are useful tools to a writer.

a character can either conform to a stereotype, or not. a character may well fit in with a stereotype, in which case the descirption let's you quickly understand the character. this is especially useful with minor characters, who may only be in one scene and act fairly stereotypically during it. sure, they ar really more complicated people, but we don't see that.

if your character doesn't conform to a stereotype, then that can beinteresting too. the character is more complicated than the reader's first impression, and you can have the way the character is perceived at first glance figure in the story.

i'm not saying that description is a substitute for characterization, but description can be useful. it's not neccessary to describe evryone, but having a character look like a member of a biker gang, can be the easiest way to show that they are. and if they look like they are, but they aren't, that can make for interesting characters too.

which is the better way to say he's a guy is a millionaire: just say he's realy rich, or mention his exspensive clothes, watch, jewelry, whatever?

[maestrowork]

Flawed, if you aspire to be a "great" writer, stay away from stereotypes.

A millionaire does not have to own yachts and expensive clothes and blah blah. He's rich because he has money -- lots of it -- in the bank and investment accounts. :grin

Again, stereotypes make for a dull read. Make your millionaire someone like Warren Buffet, who drives a cheap car and wear Walmart clothings. Now, that's interesting.

[Flawed Creation]

i know what you are saying, as you can see from my last post.

however, while not every millionaire has a yacht, the converse is more likely to be true.

i'll say it again: stereotypes are no subsitute for characterization.

however, some characters who are either only bit parts or never fully understood by a character can appear to act sterotypically.

i already mentioned the appeal of non-stereotypical characters.

stereotypes, with the exception of outmoded or bigoted ones, exist because they come from observed behavior. every perception of groups, is, in effect a stereotype.

as you go about your buisness, talk to friends, whatever, see how often people, especially people you don't know, seem to act sterotypically.

of course, no one ever fully conforms to a sterotype, but they cna be a place to start. if i were to tell you about me, i would start by saying that i'm a nerd, and then give you my exceptions from the typical "nerd" category.

[ChunkyC]

if your character doesn't conform to a stereotype, then that can beinteresting too
Flawed, I believe this has some validity in storytelling. Knowing that readers will respond to a stereotype, then having your character behave in a different manner, can add a bit of a zip to the story. If done properly, the reader should say 'oh, I wasn't expecting that', and then read on, anticipating additional surprises.

To turn some of the other examples on their head, how about someone waiting in line, dressed in an Armani suit, impeccable haircut and trimmed beard...and he starts picking his nose. That's not conforming to a stereotype.

[reph]

"stereotypes, with the exception of outmoded or bigoted ones, exist because they come from observed behavior."

With some help from the media. Do you have some ideas/expectations about the citizens of Sweden or Kenya or Tibet or ancient Rome? (Pick a place where you've never been.) Where did those come from?

[SRHowen]

on the guy from Sperion--I see a lot of them as they head to Austin to work--all of them follow a dress code of sorts and it's not the grunge stereo type--that was my point.

Putting a character in a mold is a cop out. It's not useful at all in good writing unless you are doing satire. We all laugh at the stereo types in a book or on TV.

It's easy to say he had yacht or whatever--OK the reader knows he's rich. SO WHAT?? What does that tell us about him? Are we then as a reader to assume all sorts of other stereo types? That he is also a snob? That he is a womanizer? That he got that way because his parents left him tons of money?

When we stereo type in a book and present the characters that way we take a short cut to real writing in which through subtle clues we introduce the reader to the inner self of the character.

A rich character doesn't think about the make of his car when he gets into it--not any more than a diff character thinks about the ford he drives. Those are surface details. And you can get caught up in those details and in the end you have a flat story that does not appeal.

Take the picking nose idea. You intro a character--skip the long description or even short one on what he is wearing or driving etc.

Put him in a bank line: Tom smoothed his hair back and checked again to be sure he had his deposit slip filled out. He brushed at the side of his nose and glanced around. A woman in cheap too tight Wal-mart sweats wrangled with a toddler to keep him from tossing his cereal snack onto the floor. The guy behind him yakked on his cell phone in meaningless words. _Yeah, I'm in lien at the bank. Where are you?_

Tom rolled his eyes and wished his nose would stop itching. When a guy in coveralls bumped him to get the deposit slips, he quickly felt in his pocket. Wallet and money clip were still there.

Only one more person and he could make his deposit and get back to work. He pulled his pen from his pocket and scrawled his name across the line on the slip for cash back. Tom never signed until he he stood almost at the counter.

"Hey, nice pen. Cross, executive. Nice," the guy behind him said then resumed his phone conversation. _Yeah, I'm only two away from the counter._ Didn't the guy know he was waisting money on minutes for idiot conversation?

Another quick glance around and he couldn't stand it any longer--he thrust a finger up his nose, extracted the annoying bit of junk from his nose and wiped it under the counter nearest him. Another eye sweep of the room--no one noticed.

We get the idea that Tom has money. He has a money clip, a Cross pen, he describes Wal-mart clothes as cheap, he notes the guy is having a money wasting conversation--but we also see into Tom without a surface "stereo type" description. Have him leave the bank and get into a Lexus and the reader knows Tom has money. But it will hit with a bang--this guy drives a Lexus and he picks his nose in public? Se we have broken the stereo type right from the start.

Stereo types are only useful to a writer when the writer is too lazy to give us good characterization. And yes we have ideas about the citizens of other countries--where did they come from --stereo types to be sure--but 9 times out of 10 they are wrong.

Shawn

[Jules Hall]

Or when a character isn't important enough to spend the words to give that good a characterization.

Using stereotypes for secondary characters can even be beneficial... its a way of saying to the reader, "don't pay too much attention to this one, he isn't important".

Of course, either doing without the character entirely, or making the character important would sometimes be a better choice, but isn't always possible.

[maestrowork]

Stereotypes are fine to give your character a quick fix, but it makes you a "lazy" writer if you don't do anything else. Again, like I said, if you aspire to be a "great" writer, stay clear of stereotypes.

Beside, why do you need to force that stereotype on the readers? Let them form their own ideas (if they want to imagine a computer wiz with a grunge look or spiffy rich guy with yachts and private jets, let them). What really matters about the characters is how they act and react to others -- how they talk, etc. I'm not saying stereotypes are necessarily bad -- they do give the readers some sort of generic frameworks. Sometimes the less said about the character's appearance, the better, unless there's a point.

In a community writing project in which I was recently involved, we never specifically mentioned the looks of the protagonist -- in the writer's notes we identified her as in her mid-30s, a professor and "attractive." But in the story, we hardly mention her physical attributes; the readers know she's attractive by the reactions of other characters, and I suspect they all form their own images. That's quite powerful. As one of the writers and a reader, I had the image of Catherine Zeta-Jones in my head, and I am sure others have their own favorite "attractive" women in mind. At the end of the day, exactly how she looks is not important. The important bits of information about her (her eyes, for example) may come into play when the story calls for it.

In the "character" sheet break-down of a play or a screenplay, sometimes all you get is:

"Chris, mid-20s, L.A. guy, outgoinging, sexy, loves to party"

There's no other physical descriptions. The actors, director, make-up artists and wardrobe are left to their own imaginations to come up with the "looks" of the character -- that becomes their interpretation of the character.

A novelist could do the same, leaving the readers to have their own interpretations.

[serious comedy]

My two cents: Hamlet, arguably the most discussed piece of literary art ever, from what I remember contains no physical descriptions of the characters aside from what we get from the speeches. But the characters are all there, very present and alive. Like others have said, it's more in what they say and do than how you dress them.

[Lori Basiewicz]

But Hamlet is a play. Characters in plays normally have very minimal descriptions in the written script since they are physically portrayed by the actors and the audience is truly able to see them on stage.

[pina la nina]

Lori - my thoughts exactly. It makes no sense to me to compare characterization in novels with stage directions - actors' appearances to the audience will be obvious and only what matters needs to be specified - Cyrano had a big snoz, Richard 3 had a physical deformity, etc. Plays aren't written with costume and casting directors in mind as their sole audience. Visual media has to be inherantly different.

I don't see anything wrong, in purely print media, with describing characters - obviously not as if they had a personals ad pinned to their chest - but something with which to go on is nice, whether that generates a stereotypical response in a reader or not.

One description that lingers with me over time (From 'Village of Waiting', of an African chief) is "Like Ray Charles in a toga." How well does that work for very young or old readers or readers 100 years from now? It dates the book, but it is pithy and gives a visual right away.

Sometimes a visual is important. There's no need for this sense that all the characters must be left entirely up to the reader's imagination. Surely you see the characters, why not give the reader a chance to see them too? If they are misled into assuming: long hair=slacker, or big dyed hair=not smart, then obviously their actions will confirm or challenge those assumptions. What's the big deal?

[James D Macdonald]

Elizabeth Bennet in Pride and Prejudice (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0553213105/ref=nosim/madhousemanor) ... all the physical description we have about her is that she has "fine eyes."

[maestrowork]

Lori - my thoughts exactly. It makes no sense to me to compare characterization in novels with stage directions - actors' appearances to the audience will be obvious and only what matters needs to be specified - Cyrano had a big snoz, Richard 3 had a physical deformity, etc. Plays aren't written with costume and casting directors in mind as their sole audience. Visual media has to be inherantly different.

The point, though, is that the material itself (settings, dialogues, actions, etc.) calls for a certain "type." The casting director's vision of the character is based on the script. So yes, what you see is what you get, but during casting, the director/casting director has done pretty much what a reader would: interpret and visualize the character (for you, the audience).

The decisions the casting director makes -- either go with the stereotype or against it (Hamlet: tall, lean and blonde or short and buff?) -- is entirely up to him. But if he interprets it wrongly, he would face wrath from the audience.

In novels, you can choose the same tactic and let the readers make their own interpretations. As long as your material is strong (as with Hamlet), the readers will not have trouble finding their visions.


p.s. I try to stay away from referencing current or old celebrities like "Ray Charles in a toga" or "Brad Pitt in a thong." Though the visuals would be nice for those who know who these people are, it doesn't translate well to other cultures and doesn't hold up in time. Same thing with settings, I suppose. If you say, the sunset is like "yolk of a goose's egg." Well, for those who have never seen a goose's egg, your simile is lost on them.

[SFEley]

Every time this subject comes up anywhere, I think of Scott McCloud's book Understanding Comics. This is one of my favorite books about writing; like Uncle Jim's recommended books, the things he talks about have application far beyond his subject matter.

One of the strongest techniques he talks about is called "masking." In comics, this is the practice of drawing characters, especially main characters, in less detail so that the reader will subconsciously project his/her own attributes onto what you've drawn. This helps the reader identify more with the characters. You can see this throughout comics and animation: backgrounds that are extremely and realistic, with characters in front of them that look simple and, well, cartoony. Sometimes it's just done to cut corners and it looks bad (the movie Titan A.E. comes to mind), but other times it's a deliberate design choice.

McCloud cites the European comic Tintin as a classic example. The settings are vivid and colorful; the characters less so, and the hero is even less detailed than the others. I think an even more striking example is Jeff Smith's Bone, which has a complex fantasy plot and realistic-looking human characters, while the protagonists (the Bone family) are pretty much white blobs with eyes and noses. This works better than it sounds like it does; it's visually striking, and it's easier to remember what the Bones look like than, say, Grandma Ben.

Anyway, this is something I try to remember in my fiction. My description of my protagonist is that she's a twelve-year-old girl, shorter than average, with brown hair and a red wool dress. (The dress and hair color change as the story goes on.) The principal antagonist isn't described at all, except to say he's a military officer and to give some details of his uniform. I give a few details as a seed for the reader, and that's all. Exhaustive description is not only boring, it interferes with the reader's ability to project his/her own attributes.


Have Fun,
- Steve Eley

[PixelFish]

One of my favourite descriptions of a character is Vetinari from Terry Pratchett's Disc World. He resembles a "cadaverous flamingo."


In all the Disc World books, there are only about five or six solid lines of description dedicated to Vetinari, and yet, he's one of my most favourite characters, and I have a wonderful mental picture of him.

[SRHowen]

is fine--it's the assumed stereo type that isn't. Along with a stereo type look we get the stereo type actions and assumptions as well.

When I'm reading I hate the stereo types. In life, having lived all over the world, I see the :smack and the :rofl of them all the time. People assume all Native Americans are dark skinned and black haired. Hollywood did a good job of spreading this--we are also lazy, you know. We drink and smoke and spend our days gambling while we get rich off the casinos or maybe we spend the day spearfishing. Oh and let us not forget that we all drive beat up old trucks with at least one mismatched fender. Oh and on top of that we are all environmental fanatics.:ha

OK, I do have a different skin tone, (but I am fairly light skinned) I do have dark brown eyes, I don't care for fishing and the majority of my NA friends don't either. I buy a lottery ticket every so often. (mostly when I make one for a customer at 7-eleven and I goof on what they wanted) I drive (drove for 20 years till my accident) a BMW 7 series. We laugh at the stereo types and we get angry about them.

So when you use them in your book to describe a character's looks--then you get a stereotype personality to go with it. I think of old detective novels as being the home of this sort of characterization.

Shawn

[serious comedy]

"But Hamlet is a play."

I wasn't referring to a staged version of Hamlet. I've never seen one. I meant the written piece. When I read it I had no problem seeing the characters.

[ChunkyC]

In the "character" sheet break-down of a play or a screenplay, sometimes all you get is:

"Chris, mid-20s, L.A. guy, outgoinging, sexy, loves to party"

There's no other physical descriptions. The actors, director, make-up artists and wardrobe are left to their own imaginations to come up with the "looks" of the character -- that becomes their interpretation of the character.
Maestro, this was one of those *boing* moments for me. I immediately pictured a stage inside the reader's head. The reader is the one who mounts the production based on what has been read. What a perfect image to help determine if your descriptions are restricting the reader/director's choices in set decoration, casting, etc.

[maestrowork]

See, I thought my failing acting career would help with my yet-to-be literary career in some way... :grin

As Stephen King said in "On Writing," you want to give just enough details to help the readers paint a vivid picture of the settings and characters, but not smother them with so much that you restrict them to use their own imagination. Now the question is, what's a good amount of detail? Now, that's art.

[ChunkyC]

Exactly. We have to decide how much of the production to mount ourselves, and how much to leave to the reader. A real balancing act, to be sure.

http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/18/18_14_106.gif

[Flawed Creation]

i've thought it over, and i can see why you caution against using stereotypes, but i still think visual description can be a powerful tool.

i write fantasy.

in my current book, many of the characters are angels. i've attempted to give the characters visual representations that help people understand them.

i don't necessarily gtive out all the descirpiton i have, but i have a complete picture in my head, and i try to convey some of it to the readers. bear in mind that angels choose their form, so it is especially useful to know about for them.

the protagonist angel, Lucifer, is described for you below.

Lucifer is a tall and powerfully built human with pale silvery skin and perfectly sculpted body (angels are free from human failings. no birthmarks, irregularites, disfugrements, anything. they look like sculptures.) his wings are angular and the feathers are a birhgt metallic gold that gleams with dazzling light when in the sun. his eyes glow with golden light., and he has a halo of bright gold that matches his eyes.

Lucifer is maybe a little arroant and likes to impress people. he is fiercely good and noble, but his justice is sometimes a little harsh. i tohught the gold color reflected that well, being both shiny and pretty (light= good in many minds) and harsh and dazzling.

Michael has bronzed skin, a heavier frame than mnay angels, and wings formed of pure brilliant fire. his halo is a corwn of flames. he is the warrior king of the angels.

Ardrin has a slender body, mottled hawlike wings and an angular nose, sharp features in general.

this matches the character well, because he is very austere and aloof much of the time. his lack of a halo displays his dislike for ostentatiousness and his cool green eyes display a calmness and wisdom that Lucifer's harsh gold eyes lack. his slender form reflects his love of elegance and efficiency.

Kiira has snow-white wings, reflecting purity, chocolate brown eyes that reflect the warmth and kindness in her personality, and the lean and well developed body of a martial artist.

[John Buehler]

Dunno if you care, but by tradition a halo is not a 'worn thing'. It is a emission of light that is produced by the being's goodness/soul shining through their physicality. Saints are depicted with halos in paintings for this reason.

JB

[SRHowen]

The point is not to skip descriptions--but not to let a stereo type do it for you, and not to let that same stereo type flesh out the character's personality.

Great you have these descriptions--but you would be much better off showing us what they look like. Martial Arts figure--OK, but why not at some point show us the character doing something athletic that most could not do, then the reader assumes the person is going to look athletic.

Shawn

P.S. Did you know there is a spell check button next to the reply button? Most writers who hope to make it some day at least use spell check. I do and I work as a magazine editor. :thumbs This is not a dig, but the many errors in most of your posts is starting to get to me--we all make a post in hurry here and there and let things slip through, but for the most part we want to look like what we claim to be--writers, authors, editors--and so on.

[Joanclr]

Hey Chunky, I love that little balancing guy!!

:D

[Flawed Creation]

yes, i guess i was still missing the point.

i wasn't aware we were disagreeing about how to describe characters, but whether it was necessary. the dominant view in this thread has been that describing characters is to be avoided. i was simply arguing for the advantages of providing description. every time i gave an example i have said that the description i gave wasn't the way i would do it in a book. i specifically pointed out in my first examples that i was "making no attempt to weave it into a narrative", just giving a brief description and explaining the benefits. when i provided the descriptions of my angels, i said i wouldn't dump this much info on the readers. also, those descriptions are not excerpts from my book, but simple description i wrote for this thread.

on an unrelated note, i'm aware that halos aren't something you "wear", so perhaps i chose the wrong verb.

in my book, angels and wizards have the ability to manifest a halo of light, which frequently reflects their mood.

hair isn't something you wear either, but one frequently hears "she wore her hair short" or similar utterances.

[SRHowen]

she tossed her head. But it is not a good idea to use that either in writing. My first response as an editor is --How far?

Shawn

[Jules Hall]

Jules rolled his eyes at Shawn.

"Could you roll them back please?"

[SRHowen]

my eyes are on the clock at the moment so I can't find yours.

[ElizabethJames]

Joancir . . .

Very helpful insight.

[katdad]

One of the strongest techniques he talks about is called "masking." In comics, this is the practice of drawing characters, especially main characters, in less detail so that the reader will subconsciously project his/her own attributes onto what you've drawn.
Thanks for this reference! This is precisely what I've done for my protagonist in my series of "Mitch King" private detective novels. Aside from the items that he's probably in his late 30s, decent looking, and reasonably fit, I defer other descriptions to the readers' eye.

[ElizabethJames]

And what if no one's there to catch it?

Head splat.

:)

[anatole ghio]

of *course* i didn't do anything but find another way to put in the physical description. the whole point of my post was to explain why the description is important. the description is all you need in the description, because it conveys information about the character.

the type of person who wears a leather jacket is different from the type who wears wrinkled t-shirt or the height of fashion.

a persons hair is not just a cosmetic detail. for a boy to have long hair, for instance, may tell you several things about them. they may turn out to be untrue, but you have a "gut instinct"

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so this may get hashed out by the end of it... but a physical description of a persons clothing is important in that it can convey something about the choices made by someone.

A person wearing a leather jacket to a posh restaurant, has made a choice.

A person carrying the latest style purse and with a blond tint in their hair that cost at least $100 dollars, has made a choice.

In regards to stereotypes... consider using clothing to describe character to be a more advanced technique, one to be avoided by beginners simply because of the inherent temptation to use cliche details. Once someone has some skill, they will be able to provide that one extra detail that will lift it from the realm of stereotype... for instance, the guy with the leather jacket and a soft voice.

There was a study done once where a psychology class was asked to make a host of assumptions about subject with whom they had no personal contact, only a minute of observation.

In this single minute, the class managed to be accurate a little over 75% of the time.

Everything we do communicates who we are, and this includes the way that we move, speak and dress ourselves, stereotype of not.

Now to finish reading this thread.

- Anatole

[maestrowork]

Anatole, good points. Anything that indicates choices/decisions/consequences would be good. Bridget Jones decides to wear a Playboy Bunny suit to a party. It tells of her character (why Playboy Bunny?), the person who tricked her, the guests at the party, and the consequences of her choice. Funny how much a costume can do.

[Coco82]

Whenever a new character comes I describe them: hair, eyes, body type (height/weight) if necessary, to give not only the reader but myself ac clear picture of who this person is. I started a thread on this same topic, and I can say I hate when a character is desribed fully, as I mentioned.