At what point does description slow down the narrative?

[Esopha]

I have a major problem with my writing, and that is that I don't seem to be able to handle description. I can write it pretty well, I think, but I don't know when I should add it. One of my major phobias is I'm going to slow down my book to the point where no one will want to read it, or that people won't read my description because they'd rather be reading something else.

I've done exercises involving my favorite books, highlighters, T charts and lots and lots of notes, but that doesn't seem to be helping much.

So I'd like to know how you all regulate your description vs. dialogue/everything else and hopefully I can take something from this.


PS: Is my thread title grammatically correct or should it be "at which point blah blah"?

[girlyswot]

Description always slows down narrative. That's just how it works. So what you need to think about is when you want the narrative slowed down and when you want it speeded up. Do you want your readers to be slowly assimilating a new situation or to be thrust into the middle of it? Should their thoughts be lingering or immediately moving on to the next thing?

[DWSTXS]

Let the characters do the description, "That guy? The one in the red shirt with the walrus moustache?" he said


***
also, I got my favorite book of all time, and re-wrote the entire first chapter, word for word as the author wrote them.

For some reason, when you do that, you'll get a little 'click' in the brain and all of a sudden you'll understand a lot about writing. I think it works to help 'solve' a lot of different writing problems. I've heard other people say it works, too.

[windyrdg]

Each genre seems to have its own rules. Literary is replete with flowing description and navel-gazing, commercial is a quicker read with description only when necessary. I'm sure there are conventions in Sf, Fantasy and so on, but I'm not familair with them.

In addition to what grilyswot suggested re: pacing, I think it always helps to dribble it in piecemeal. A few telling phrases go a long way to stimulating the reader's imagination.

Another trend in fiction is not to go into elaborate character descriptions either. (Other than category romance.) If you go back to older novels they detailed every aspect of the character: height, weight, hair and eye color, dress, manner, whether they smoked...etc. That's all telling. Now they rely on action to form an image in the reader's imagination.

[dreamsofnever]

I have the same issue! I'm paranoid about using too much or too little. The way I get around that fear is to have people read my work and ask them what they see when they read it. If what they see jives with what I intended, then I know it was right.

Basically, my rule of thumb is that I give enough description to set the scene and highlight anything that's really important to the plot/character development. Everything else, I leave up to the imagination.

I know there are some really good essays out there on showing vs. telling but I can't think of any off the top of my head. I would either search the AW forums or google "showing vs. telling in fiction" and you should come up with some helpful suggestions.

As one of the posters above mentioned, it is also a matter of pacing. Some scenes are supposed to be rich in description-they are all about the five senses. With these scenes, you really want the reader to slow down and take notice.

Other scenes are fast-paced, with dialogue, action, explosions... Okay, maybe not explosions, but you get the idea.

[Esopha]

I love all of these responses. They're so helpful.

One of the reasons I love AW is that I'm constantly surrounded by smart, helpful people. Yay. :)

[Stew21]

description slows the narrative at the point when it stops being relevant to the forward movement of the plot.

[davids]

just jumping in here-probably when it slows down the narrative!

[IdiotsRUs]

Ah, the catch all answer -- it depends.

Some people like loads, some people like little. ( I like a fair bit, but not all in one chunk, or just because you think it's a really cool fact. I want it because it matters to the story)It's a balancing act. You're probably best off describing things only as and when they need describing, and trying to thread that in with action, and dialogue, and the million other things your trying to thread in too. And of course make it rivetting description, not bland telling. If I knew how to do that, I'd tell you, I swear by the god of artists and smart alecs.

Write what you feel comfortable with. Get it beta'ed, asking specifically about amount of description and where / how it turns up. Listen to what the majority says. Even then, it will be subjective, but you should have an idea of what is supposedly 'acceptable'.


Just don't get me started on the book I'm reading where at least 1/2 of it is description - and very bland, almost always irrelevant, telling description at that. I may get the hubby to take it the next time he goes clay pigeon shooting.

'pull'
'blam'
'shower of paper'

[maestrowork]

Descriptions may slow down the pace (and they should -- it's like looking at the details of the Sistine Chapel...) but they should not stop the plot movement. Incorporate your descriptions in the plot. Describe things when your characters are on the move or idling. Use "silence" time to do descriptions, etc. But they should not bog down the plot movement. Descriptions can set the mood, too -- but if you have a suspenseful cliffhanger maybe it's not a good time to delve into a long paragraph of how the cliff looks.

It's all about pacing. Even at a breakneck pace, the story needs to slow down somehow, somewhere.

[Stijn Hommes]

Descriptions slow down narration naturally. You need to ask yourself if what you're saying is something the reader will care about at that point in time. You don't go describing the weather when a bank robber is about to empty his gun for example, but it would be appropriate to describe the gun from the victim's perspective.

[Mumut]

If you describe something or someone in too much detail, the reader is reading your story and imagining your characters. If you tell only what is needed about someone/something, the reader's imagination is brought in and the MC, characters, location become the reader's. For example, a reader with red hair might imagine a redheaded MC. If you state MC has black hair (unless this is critical to the plot) you've taken a small amount of ownership away from the reader.

[IceCreamEmpress]

I think sensory detail advances characterization and helps draw the reader in; abstract detail can be boring and alienating.

"It was hot in the parlor. The heavy velvet curtains blocked the windows, and the thick carpets muffled Jeanne's footsteps as she walked from one end of the room to the other. She drew back as she passed the tables laden with china and crystal ornaments, afraid her skirt might send a crowd of them to the floor."

vs.

"The parlor was decorated in the latest style, straight from Godey's Lady's Book. Heavy velvet swags covered the windows. On the floor were thick Tabriz carpets in red and gold. Occasional tables dotted the room, each laden with Wedgwood, Limoges, and Uncle Henry's collection of miniature crystal animals."

[TheIT]

In the "Learn Writing with Uncle Jim" thread, UJ describes details like rivets on a train. During action scenes, the train is moving too fast to count the rivets, while in slower sections the rivets stand out. If the pacing of the narrative is too fast, add detail. If it's too slow, take detail out. Just keep the train (story) moving forward.

[ishtar'sgate]

Description doesn't need to slow down the pace. Here's a paragraph from my novel. My main character is in an ale house at night, waiting to watch the execution of her friend in the morning when she hears the cry to bring out the dead.
At an adjoining window she viewed what passed below. The sight would haunt her dreams forever after. Isolated by the solitude of Stonehaven, she was not aware of the means required to cope with the multitude of plague victims that succumbed daily. Beneath the window rolled a cart with a bellman walking out in front. At the ringing of the bell he made his cry again, "Bring out your dead!" Doors opened and weeping parents appeared, bearing the bodies of their dead children. Buriers grabbed up the victims and threw them roughly onto the dead-cart as though stacking cordwood. Women dragged out dead husbands and men carried forth dead wives. Some were wrapped in linen sheets, some in rags, some were almost naked. All were heaped onto the cart, the buriers unmindful of the indecency of the naked thrown face to face; men, women and children indiscriminately piled one on top of the other. They were, in any case, bound for a common grave so what did it matter?
There was further description but the point is that the only way to show the horrors of the plague as those people had to live it was to describe it. Description is a necessary part of communicating your story. You just have to make it count.
Linnea

[Danger Jane]

Description is too much when it stops being relevant or meaningful. I do my best to dilute my description to a few minute details that carry far more than their own weight in connotations and imagery. That way I end up with the most evocative details and leave as much as possible up to the reader's imagination.

It's something you can learn by example, certainly, but I think you're probably giving yourself a brain freeze by now. Good description feels organic, not forced; you need to fully visualize your scene before you can start to translate it. Then throw on the filters--blank out everything that isn't more than pulling its weight. You'll end up with details that, though they may be few (or not), show everything about a scene, without coming close to itemizing.

You just have to know which words, which details, do the most work.

[Mumut]

I consider yours to be action incorporating the facts, ishtar'sgate. It doesn't stop still to describe the scene. It moves forward - it sounds great!

[Ken]

if you "don't seem to be able to handle description" why bother with it?
That's the approach I take, focusing on the action and letting that give a sense of the place the characters are in. Of course if you're striving for realism this probably isn't the approach to take. If so, just keep at it and you'll eventually get the knack of description. :)

[Elaine Margarett]

I try to make my descriptions serve the mood of the story. In IceCream's excellent example the first description gives us a sense of the character's almost claustaphobic setting. ~~It's too hot. The carpet, although thick adds to the atmosphere of it being a cloying environment. All the bric-brac on the tables add to the sense of the room being over-stuffed and stifling. This is so much more interesting and reads so much faster than a laundry list of room furnishings.

One of my frustrating experiences (there were more; but let's stay on topic, lol) in the first crit group I was in were the members (all RWA members; all serial conferance goers) constantly berating me for not using the 5 senses for every scene!! (I think they must have attended a workshop called the 5 Senses <g>) I'd be critting paragraphs of clothing description, furniture, tickings of clocks and the smell of...well of anything! WHY? It wasn't important. It wasn't germane to the scene. What did I care what the herione's gown looked like. Unless that long train was going to trip her later; I didn't care.

I tend to write sparse and then add if necessary. I've also noticed that my voice for mysteries is different (more spare) than my voice for romance. Less atmosphere (usually) and therefore; less description. I don't avoid it totally; but it's less frequent. The pace in the mystery must move faster than the pace for my romances, so less description serves the story better.

HTH,
Elaine

[Susan Gable]

Give enough setting to anchor your reader in the scene.

Choice setting details that would be noticed by the POV character in the mood they're in. (If you're using deep POV, all narrative is still from the character's POV.)

You can't always speed the story along at 80 miles an hour -- you'll exhaust the reader. So there are times when it's okay to...stop and smell the roses, as it were. Just don't do it for too long at a clip. <G>

In other words, yeah, it's a complete balancing act, and eventually you'll find what works for you and your voice. Some writers are naturally "sparse" writers, and others... aren't. <G>

Susan G.

[kristie911]

If you've added so much description your readers are left saying, "Okay! Enough already! I didn't need to know that!" you've added too much. Anchor your readers in a location and that's usually enough. You usually don't need to give every single tiny detail of a room or a space but give enough so your readers don't feel lost.

It's a fine line to walk in most cases. :)

[Charlie Horse]

This is how I approach description.

A.) In your first draft throw in all the description you like. This gets it out of your system and also give you, the writer, a clear idea of the setting(s) your writing about.

B.) When you do your edits cut most of it out. Make sure you haven't repeated anything as well because if you've described something once there's no need to reinforce it over and over again. But because you have this intimate picture in your head, it will leak out into your story in the most surprising places and your reader will get it.

Of course, as with any advice I give, I could be dead wrong.

[Bufty]

In the extract below, every sentence counts and adds to the previous one, creating an ever-more vivid and alive picture relative to the unfolding story.

To my mind, that's what description is meant to do as opposed to the pouring out of details simply because what is being described exists.

Description doesn't need to slow down the pace. Here's a paragraph from my novel. My main character is in an ale house at night, waiting to watch the execution of her friend in the morning when she hears the cry to bring out the dead.

At an adjoining window she viewed what passed below. The sight would haunt her dreams forever after. Isolated by the solitude of Stonehaven, she was not aware of the means required to cope with the multitude of plague victims that succumbed daily. Beneath the window rolled a cart with a bellman walking out in front. At the ringing of the bell he made his cry again, "Bring out your dead!" Doors opened and weeping parents appeared, bearing the bodies of their dead children. Buriers grabbed up the victims and threw them roughly onto the dead-cart as though stacking cordwood. Women dragged out dead husbands and men carried forth dead wives. Some were wrapped in linen sheets, some in rags, some were almost naked. All were heaped onto the cart, the buriers unmindful of the indecency of the naked thrown face to face; men, women and children indiscriminately piled one on top of the other. They were, in any case, bound for a common grave so what did it matter?

There was further description but the point is that the only way to show the horrors of the plague as those people had to live it was to describe it. Description is a necessary part of communicating your story. You just have to make it count.
Linnea

[vrabinec]

Two chatty women in the kitchen should be kept to pretty much all dialogue with a couple of "she sipped her coffe"'s thrown in. The opening of a chapter in which the MC arrives in the city that's the setting for the story will typically get more attention. Everything in between is subjective. I like a story that moves along fairly quickly, but my WIP is a historic saga which, by the nature of the genre almost demands a lot of description. So I find myself constantly mulling over descriptive prose. It might be a ive I love, something that paints a wonderful picture for the reader, but, if I think the flow of the story is too slow at that point, I cut the line loose and tuck away the descriptive line for future use.