physical descriptions

[mr mistook]

I don't want the reader to have to gather up the bits and peices of my character's physical descriptions through the course of three chapters, but at the same time, it seems cheesy to me to have the introductory paragraph be dedicated to painting a portrait.

"Young Adrianne Benson had raven black hair, and peircing blue eyes. He aqualine nose.... her supple lips, a cupid's bow... her determined chin... bla bla bla"

I'm looking for a good rule of thumb for decribing character "looks" especially for those introduced by the narrator, not first seen through the eyes of another character.

Any suggestions?

[writestuff24]

Try weaving it in through action, responses, ect. Also, I wouldn't laundry list it, just enough at first to give the visual. for example:
Adrianne sat down in the waiting room of Mr. Person's office. She smoothed out the wrinkles of her tailored skirt and balanced the clipboard on her lap while she filled in the new patient forms. Her navy suit, her deep black hair tightly pulled back in a bun like a middle-aged librarian, all added to the illusion of a conservative twenty-something. Only the penciled-in box on the form could have predicted otherwise.

Cheesy, but I hope that helps at least a little.

[maestrowork]

How about a straight description in the narrative? Brief of course. Preferrably something that reveals the character as well, maybe even the plot, not just the physical attributes. Then apply Uncle Jim's rule: Does it work?

"Mark Forkill was the kind of guy women would divorce their husbands for: tall and dark, a chiseled face with sky-blue eyes, and dimples to kill. His latest victim was Becky Sanders, a young, gorgeous CEO at Simon & Maneater. She was married, of course, but not for long."

[Writing Again]

I don't normally give heavily detailed descriptions. I like to catch my character moving; describe them once in a way that tells a lot about them, and from then on refer back to that description.

She flipped her raven black hair to the side as she spoke, as though it were a punctuation mark in her conversation. She jutted her determined little chin at the person she was speaking to as though it were a telling blow to the solar plexus. Only when she was in deep thought did her mouth assume the supple cupid's bow men found so inviting.

[mr mistook]

Nice examples guys! Thanks. I'll work on it!

By the way, is "raven black" too much of cliche these days?

[Jamesaritchie]

With very rare exceptions, I don't describe main characters at all. It's easy enough to SHOw that a character is tall, short, handsome, strong, weak, whatever. Descriptions just destroy the reader's illusion that the character looks just like him.

Who cares in the least that the protagonist has black hair?

[maestrowork]

Yes and no, James. It's the job of the novelist to paint as much as possible to help the readers visualize the characters and scenes. Some people are good at visualization, some not. As "artist" we need to give them enough information so that their imagination would kick in to fill in the rest. In general, I think "show" is much better than "tell," but in some cases it's better to just tell and get it over with.

Like any art, it's up to the artist, of course. Some paint like Monet, some paint Da Vinci.

Describing your character by showing through action, dialogue is good. But sometimes it's more economical and direct to simply describe the character briefly. I agree that the color of the character's hair might not be important -- if so, skip it. But if the race of the character is important, you need to let the readers know immediately before he forms an idea that the character is of a different race. And sometimes "show" doesn't quite work as well as "tell."

[reph]

We had a thread on this same question not long ago. It should be hanging around on a back page.

As a reader, I haven't the slightest interest in the color of a character's eyes, unless they're demonic red or something.

[mr mistook]

I feel like the hair color is important. It shouldn't be, but I fear that it is. There's stereotypes about hair color.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a blonde, and that was part of the "joke" along with her very blonde name "buffy". The idea that this ditsy cheerleader type could be a vampire slayer was a real oxymoron back in the day.

James Bond has always has dark hair, with a few exceptions in the Roger Moore era, but still, Bond has never had wavy golden locks, or curly red hair. It just wouldn't be right.

Of course, if somebody's got green hair, you know instantly that they're a punk.

[maestrowork]

Again, you as the writer must decide if the hair color, eye color, etc. are important. In my first novel, I did not describe the protagonist's physical attributes at all, but you can piece all the information together and imagine what an Irish-Chinese American look like. But I did mention the color of the female character because it was important in a symbolic sense. Colors (green, red, blue, etc.) play a subconscious part in the novel. A casual reader would not notice or care, but hopefully some scholars at Harvard might find that interesting. ;)

[Jamesaritchie]

I feel like the hair color is important. It shouldn't be, but I fear that it is. There's stereotypes about hair color.

I think hair color can be important, but far more so in movies and on TV than in novels. Viewers see hair color, but readers see what they want to see. They only know hair color if you tell them. Otherwise they'll give the character the hair color they think fits.

[Jamesaritchie]

Yes and no, James. It's the job of the novelist to paint as much as possible to help the readers visualize the characters and scenes. Some people are good at visualization, some not. As "artist" we need to give them enough information so that their imagination would kick in to fill in the rest. In general, I think "show" is much better than "tell," but in some cases it's better to just tell and get it over with.

I think nearly all readers have a great deal of imagination. If they didn't have very good visualization skills, they'd be watching TV, rather than reading a novel. I fully believe in painting pictures with words, but not physical descriptions of people. The last thing I want is to have the writer tell me what a protagonist looks like. Show me, yes. Tell me, no.

And even if you give no physical description at all, the reader will give one back to you. They will imagine the character in great detail.

Telling does save time, but I don't think it's nearly as effective, or nearly as pleasing to most readers. And if I do my job right, the reader won't get the race of a character wrong, but as often as not, if he does, then so much the better. I think it can be a very GOOD thing to have the reader form an image of a character as white, and then learn he's black or Asian or Hispanic. Or to never find out at all.

If race is an important issue, sometimes telling is good, but even then, I'd rather show.

[Writing Again]

I remember reading that the producers of the tv series Perrry Mason might be difficult because Earle Stanley Gardner had gone to great lengths to avoid actually describing him in the novels. Ok, he had longer legs than Della and she had to run to keep up. Not much there.

Yet the minute Raymond Burr walked in the room to audition they all agreed, "That is Perry Mason."

[Jamesaritchie]

Yet the minute Raymond Burr walked in the room to audition they all agreed, "That is Perry Mason."

I seem to remember reading that somewhere, too. I just read a few Perry Mason novels, and there's zero description of Mason, yet I could see him perfectly.

[reph]

there's zero description of Mason, yet I could see him perfectly.

Did he look like Raymond Burr?

[maestrowork]

But then there's Harry Potter with that damn scar and bispectacles.

[triceretops]

Here are some show examples:

His chest was a fruit salad of tin and brass. It hurt to look at his shoes; you could cut your finger on his pants crease.
His spa instructor approached with a hip-hop. When she landed she didn't stand there; she struck a pose. He took a tenative step back. She looked like something Michael Angelo had carved out, her hair looked to be afire.
Everytime time she looked into his eyes she saw the ocean. Even his hair looked like a wave about to break.

IMAGINE

Triceratops

[maestrowork]

I was rereading King's On Writing and he has a few great pointers about physical descriptions. He says he seldom describes his character in terms of hair color, facial features, etc. However, he does give you the information up front for you to draw your own images.

Frex: Carrie is a high school outcast with a bad complexion and victim of fashion. Everyone would have a different image of what that should be, depending on their personal experiences, but it won't be too far off (like they wouldn't be visualizing Halle Barry).

[Writing Again]

When writing short stories you would pick out one feature and concentrate on it through the story.

That feature might be hair, which they would pull, comb, pull, twitst, ect.

It might be a pair of glasses they would adjust, tap, peer through, etc.

It might be highly polished shoes or the habit of wearing a tweed suit.

I sometimes find myself doing this when writing novels.

[Jamesaritchie]

Actually, Mason did look a lot like Raymond Burr to me. I read several of the Mason books back when they were first published, and from the first I visualized him as tall, thick, and with black hair that looked like Burr's.

From the things he did, the way he moved and reacted, he just seemed like someone tall, strong, and who had black hair.
Burr was Mason all over from a personality standpoint. Even when he wasn't acting, he still seemed like Perry Mason.

[maestrowork]

That brings us to an interesting topic...

Name the actors in TV shows or movies that you think are perfectly cast, based on the description or just the way you visualize the characters in the books.

Raymond Burr was one, as Perry Mason.

I thought Jake Gyllenhaal was pretty well cast as Homer in October Sky.

[Jamesaritchie]

For me, both Spenser and Hawk were perfectly cast in the series. Robert Urich played Spenser, and Avery Brooks played Hawk. I thought the casting was the best. Both were exactly as I visualized them.

[reph]

Perfectly cast: Oprah Winfrey as Sofia in The Color Purple.

[Crusader]

For me, both Spenser and Hawk were perfectly cast in the series. Robert Urich played Spenser, and Avery Brooks played Hawk...

Indeed... so much so, really, that when Star Trek: Deep Space Nine premiered, i did a doubletake upon seeing Hawk in a Starfleet uniform.

[EGGammon]

Continuing the "physical descriptions" part of this thread, I only describe a physical attribute of one of my characters if it is A) necessary to the plot or B) a metaphor of the character.

E.G.

[katdad]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a blonde, and that was part of the "joke" along with her very blonde name "buffy".

Incidentally, do you have any idea what "Buffy" is a nickname for?

[katdad]

Yet the minute Raymond Burr walked in the room to audition they all agreed, "That is Perry Mason."

Do you remember the Saturday Night Live news blurb where they mentioned ordering a case of Raymond Burr nipple rouge?

[katdad]

She looked like something Michael Angelo had carved out...

Is Michael Angelo a cousin of the famous Italian pasta maker Al Dente?

[katdad]

For me, both Spenser and Hawk were perfectly cast in the series. Robert Urich played Spenser, and Avery Brooks played Hawk.

Although I adored him, I thought that Urich was a bit too cute and too small for Spenser. Brooks was spot on.

If you read the physical descriptions of Spenser, you will see: Big man, well over 6 feet, not handsome but rugged, attractive in a harsh masculine way, looks like an old prize fighter.

Do you know the people whom Robert Parker visualized as Spenser and Hawk? I asked him once at a book signing:

Spenser: Robert Mitchum
Hawk: Woody Strode

Interesting, eh?

[katdad]

James Bond has always has dark hair, with a few exceptions in the Roger Moore era, but still, Bond has never had wavy golden locks, or curly red hair. It just wouldn't be right.

If you read the first James Bond book (Casino Royale), you'll see a good description of him (and I quote from memory):

Sharp good looks but with mixed features, a pencil-thin riverboat gambler's moustache, prominent ears, front teeth slightly prominent, sly wicked grin. Characteristics that specifically may not make him knock-dead handsome but together make him irresistible.

And who does this describe? The man whom Fleming imagined as James Bond: Clark Gable.

[katdad]

Indeed... so much so, really, that when Star Trek: Deep Space Nine premiered, i did a doubletake upon seeing Hawk in a Starfleet uniform.

True. And if you remember the first season, Brooks was clean shaven, and his character was fairly mild mannered.

The 2nd season he had the goatee again and his manner was a lot more confrontational. Although I never read this specifically, I'll bet that he brought his "Hawk" character more into play. And much to the better.

[katdad]

I don't normally give heavily detailed descriptions.

Myself, I'm about halfway. Some characters I describe in some detail, some not.

In my private eye mystery series, I deliberately have avoided describing my protagonist Mitchell King. I want the readers to create an 'everyman' in their own minds.

I offer a few clues: He's in his late 30s or early 40s. He's Anglo, in decent physical condition but by no means an athlete, okay looking but not handsome, 5-foot nine or ten tall, and that's all I say. In fact I have never imagined him in my own mind. I certainly wouldn't recognize him if introduced.

[aadams73]

Katdad,
I believe "Buffy" is often used as a nickname for "Elizabeth". Having said that, I have known two Buffys, and neither was an "Elizabeth".

[mr mistook]

He's in his late 30s or early 40s. He's Anglo, in decent physical condition but by no means an athlete, okay looking but not handsome, 5-foot nine or ten tall


Sounds like me, Katdad! Sign me up for the TV series! :)

[JumpingJack]

In my current WIP I described my main character by describing her niece (the little girl busy in the back of the car with a book) and then saying how one could easily mistake her for her mother, since they were so alike (her real mother was my main character's twin). Strange now I look back over it, ive described every character in he book in a brief way, and never once directly described th emain character.

[PeeDee]

In my current WIP I described my main character by describing her niece (the little girl busy in the back of the car with a book) and then saying how one could easily mistake her for her mother, since they were so alike (her real mother was my main character's twin). Strange now I look back over it, ive described every character in he book in a brief way, and never once directly described th emain character.

Better than the worst-done description ploy: The main character looks in a mirror and tells us what he sees. For four pages. Good lord. He doesn't go into that detail with anything else he sees, what's the mirror so special for?

[ChaosTitan]

Better than the worst-done description ploy: The main character looks in a mirror and tells us what he sees. For four pages. Good lord. He doesn't go into that detail with anything else he sees, what's the mirror so special for?

Are three pages acceptable? :D

[PeeDee]

No. I must now hit you with sticks. I'm sorry.

[ChaosTitan]

:e2chain:

[PeeDee]

:eek:

[NeuroFizz]

One tactic is to try to put physical description in the words a POV character. Failing that, the description can be in the words of a narrator.

"The guy could walk into a bar and the all of the women would immediately ovulate."

Obviously, this can't happen, but it is a character expressing (through exaggeration) an impression of the person's appearance.

Everyone knows someone like that, and it doesn't matter what the exact details of the guy's apprearance are. It will be different for every reader. But, if you let the reader draw a parallel between your character and someone that reader knows, the emotional involvement of the reader may just go way up. In other words, unless the specific details are important, let the reader fill in details.

By the way, black hair is enough. Are there shades of black? The only time I can think of to modify it is when the black has the dull appearance of dyed black hair.

[Stew21]

I typically don't offer facial description until it becomes necessary to the story. One character of mine looks shockingly different than the MC had imagined. The features were important in describing this man, primarily from the point of view of the MC as he is the one that is shocked and disheartened. Yet I haven't yet described even the hair color of the MC. It isn't important.

[blacbird]

I agree wholly with JAR. Like any other aspect of your story, physical description of characters should be confined to what is organically important to the story. Harry Potter's glasses and scar, I would say, fit that criterion. Likewise Nero Wolfe's corpulence and Ethan Frome's gauntness. But, as a reader, I don't feel I need to know that Jem Finch has blond hair, or black, blue eyes or brown. No doubt Harper Lee had some visualization in mind when she wrote the story, but whatever those details were to her personally, she recognized that they didn't need to be fed to the reader. They're just not important; I can still visualize a nine-year-old boy in a Depression-era small town in Alabama just fine. My Jem Finch probably wouldn't look like your Jem Finch, or like Harper Lee's Jem Finch, but that's okay. What is important, what makes the story work, is that Jem Finch is a vivid, living character within the imagination of the reader, whatever that imagination visualizes.

caw

[Saundra Julian]

"The guy could walk into a bar and the all of the women would immediately ovulate."

I may throw up!

[scarletpeaches]

Well that's completely f*cked up my menstrual cycle.

[NeuroFizz]

"The guy could walk into a bar and the all of the women would immediately ovulate."

I may throw up!
Says a lot about the POV character as well as about the person he's observing walking in, doesn't it? Another two-for-one.

[Evaine]

I read To Kill a Mockingbird many years ago, and all I can remember was that Scout had bangs - I didn't know what they were at the time, and had to ask around. I seem to remember that was important because the backward chap at the end of the road carved a model of her, and she knew who it was meant to be by the bangs.

[Elektra]

OKay, I have another question. My book is a retelling of Cupid and Psyche, so of course Psyche is insanely, divinely beautiful. I always thought it better to forgo any decription of her, as my insanely beautiful is by no means someone else's (also, I figured if it was good enough for Jane Austen, it's good enough for me--we never get a description of Jane Bennet). But now I'm wondering. Would you prefer to imagine your own perfect beauty, or be given a few details?

[blacbird]

I read To Kill a Mockingbird many years ago, and all I can remember was that Scout had bangs - I didn't know what they were at the time, and had to ask around. I seem to remember that was important because the backward chap at the end of the road carved a model of her, and she knew who it was meant to be by the bangs.

Excellent example, which shows an appropriate use of a detail.

caw.

[MidnightMuse]

Would you prefer to imagine your own perfect beauty, or be given a few details?

As in most things: Less is more.

Personally I prefer as little physical detail as possible so I can fill in the good bits with my imagination and preferences. If there is a detail that happens to be vital to the story, stick it in. Otherwise, don't bother.

[maddythemad]

I think it really depends what kind of book you're writing. I'm writing chick-lit, meaning a lot of the characters are completely wrapped up in their appearances, meaning some of them literally DO stand in front of the mirror and think about what they look like. But I try not to go on too long, because after a couple of sentences, I think the reader gets the idea.

[blacbird]

I think it really depends what kind of book you're writing. I'm writing chick-lit, meaning a lot of the characters are completely wrapped up in their appearances, meaning some of them literally DO stand in front of the mirror and think about what they look like. But I try not to go on too long, because after a couple of sentences, I think the reader gets the idea.

Which is exactly the point: here, the physical attributes do have a significance for the story and its characters, and are appropriate to relate.

caw.

[MidnightMuse]

Yes, exactly. That would be a case of details being necessary to the story.

Sometimes less is more, sometimes more is needed. It all depends on the story you're telling.

[Elektra]

I think it really depends what kind of book you're writing. I'm writing chick-lit, meaning a lot of the characters are completely wrapped up in their appearances, meaning some of them literally DO stand in front of the mirror and think about what they look like. But I try not to go on too long, because after a couple of sentences, I think the reader gets the idea.

May I caution you, though? Just because it's chick-lit doen't mean the characters have to be shallow (I know it's Pepsi's personality, but they shouldn't all be so caught up in their appearance).

[Dru]

Just make sure the descriptions are appropriate to your point of view/narration style. Don't have the tough-as-nails, NASCAR watchin' male cop observing the model, make and color of each dress/skirt-blouse combination that goes by unless his beat is the fashion district and he's looking into knock-off fashion ring.

Fretting in front of the mirror is vastly different than telling us every physical detail of what is shown by the mirror.

[The Unseen Moon]

So here's a question, if you can draw, would it be acceptable to instead draw a portrait of your characters and include them at the back of your book instead of describing their physical capabilities?

Oh, sorry for necroing a thread. I'm new here so this thread is new to me.

[Bufty]

Instead of? No!

You're supposed to be a writer!

Show me the character's capabilities through the character's actions.

If you're talking about describing the character's appearance re-read the thread. If you want to draw pictures, feel free, but I want to read a story - not turn to the back to browse portraits first.

So here's a question, if you can draw, would it be acceptable to instead draw a portrait of your characters and include them at the back of your book instead of describing their physical capabilities?

Oh, sorry for necroing a thread. I'm new here so this thread is new to me.

[The Unseen Moon]

One of my weakest points in writing is describing physical characteristics of people, such as the shape of the nose or the shape of an eye.

[Tepelus]

Then that, my friend, ought to be what you need to practice more. One never becomes a good artist without practice, same applies with writing.

[Little Ming]

One of my weakest points in writing is describing physical characteristics of people, such as the shape of the nose or the shape of an eye.

But is it necessary for the readers to know the shape of your characters nose and eyes? Unless it is absolutely necessary to the story I would not get into such details.

[IdiotsRUs]

I think many readers like some sort of idea of what a main character looks like (I do). Not a laundry list info dump though. A few telling details just to present an image in my head.

If you want to practice, go to a coffee shop or similar and practise describing the people around you. Pick out the telling details about them, the way they move, gestures, the way their mouth twists when they talk or laugh, the sound of their voice. No laundry lists of attributes allowed - the description has to be utterly individual to that person. Annnnnd go!

[sergiotorlai]

I think many readers like some sort of idea of what a main character looks like (I do). Not a laundry list info dump though. A few telling details just to present an image in my head.

I'm one of those readers also... So, what do you think is preferable, a little bit of description or no description at all?

[IdiotsRUs]

Personally, (IMO, YMMV yada yada)I love a little bit of description. Like I say, just enough to get an image in my head. Just not a list of 'he was six foot tall with blue eyes, brown hair...'

Make the description interesting and revealing of character.

A pet hate is getting half way through a book, picturing Hero with dark hair and then find out on page two hundred that he's blond. Jerks me right out of the story. So IF you use description, get it in early!

Again, personal preference.

[ChaosTitan]

One of my weakest points in writing is describing physical characteristics of people, such as the shape of the nose or the shape of an eye.

Not every book requires detailed descriptions. It's not part of every author's style. In romance, authors tend to give greater physical descriptions than in, say, action-adventure. And that's okay. And then there are some authors who don't tell you a thing about the MC other than they're male or female.

Look at the last five books you read and compare how the authors tackled physical descriptions. See if you can figure out *why* they described what they did.

[Hbooks]

I would prefer to get the description in little bits as relevant to the story. The first time the main character meets someone new, they likely notice a few pertinent details and those should be included, IMHO. Like they have brown hair and are stocky and shorter than the MC. Or they're blonde, emaciated and look very tired. I want to get a general image of what they look like.

I think it only becomes an info-dump (and distracting) for me when it's too much trivial information, or goes on for too long. If the MC finds the new person attractive, they likely would notice a few things, stare a bit, for example. But they probably wouldn't get flowery and poetic over every single feature, especially not if it's a male character narrating unless that's truly his personality. So if a FMC notes hair color, his striking smile and warm brown eyes, that's enough of an image for me to start with. More can be added along the way as they spend more time togethr. I can kind of picture him in my own way. If she details his hair type and color, his exact height, his build, the shape of his chin and which of the Greek gods he most resembles, the angle of his nose, his eye color, his strong cheekbones, what he's wearing, etc, that becomes too much for me all at once, especially if it's done for more than one character. I have trouble remembering all of that at once and it's more difficult to get a grasp on the character when you can't kind of picture them as whatever random brown-eyed guy you want to.

[Dave Veri]

Other characters in my novels indicate what my MCs look like. If it's not important, I trust the readers' imaginations. I'm 95% done with this rough draft, and the reader doesn't yet know my MC's last name.

[AinSoph]

The first time the main character meets someone new, they likely notice a few pertinent details and those should be included, IMHO.
I think it only becomes an info-dump (and distracting) for me when it's too much trivial information, or goes on for too long.

Agreed. I like a vague outline of what a character looks like, seen through the eyes of the main character. Just enough information to get an idea without going through a laundry list of physical characteristics. I am really annoyed by descriptions that go into unnecessary detail, especially for minor characters.