Description

I would agree with this, in general. It seems to be a trait of newer writers to include unnecessary wordy descriptions of everything from the wardrobe and eye colour of every person in the room to the details of the last meal they ate.

In contrast, there are many incredible writers whose particular style includes verbose world-building that has a poetic and picturesque quality about it, namely JRR Tolkein, among others.

It's not my forte and those who can achieve this successfully have my respect.

I also tend to think there's a bit much going on especially with description of characters. Something like - the statuesque blonde - lets me create an image in my mind's eye. In contrast - her vivid azure blue eyes set off her dumpling shaped face - leaves me running for the barf bucket.

There has to be enough description of setting for the reader to be able to visualize the scene. For well known locations, we already have a bit of a picture - say Rome and a vision of the coliseum or the fountains or the basilica pop into mind. Say Heliopolis and most readers would go Hunh? So, in my opinion, there wouldn't need to be so much description of Rome, more a description of the exact location in Rome and the surroundings, and there would need to be more of Heliopolis - where the city was located, significant landmarks, etc. before getting down to the specifics of the location. Anchor the reader.

On skies and flowers and birds and room furnishings - I think going through the head of your character is a good way to approach it. But I don't think descriptions necessarily have to advance the action. If a character notices a steely gray sky before a battle and wonders if rain will cut the upcoming battle short and spare lives - but the rain doesn't happen, I don't see that as a bad thing, I see that as a hint at more of the character's character.

And since we're talking about historical, I also think using a bit of description to impart historical knowledge is not bad. As an example - you could say someone lifted an amphorae, but if you describe it as a clay amphorae, you've passed on a little bit more knowledge. I think that's a good thing. Puma

I hate wasteful description. By which I mean taking a page to describe how someone would put on a toga, or three pages to describe the entrance into the imperial palace, or five paragraphs on the types of trees and bushes lining a certain path.

As you say, Suse, if it's something the character is focusing on...Puma's example of noting the weather before a battle is spot on...then okay. I read a historical fantasy series several years ago where one of the main characters is a blacksmith, so the art of making swords gets a LOT of attention. But because it's what he does and because he's so passionate about it, it works.

And since we're talking about historical, I also think using a bit of description to impart historical knowledge is not bad. As an example - you could say someone lifted an amphorae, but if you describe it as a clay amphorae, you've passed on a little bit more knowledge. I think that's a good thing.

Click to expand...

I'm going to disagree here. All amphorae were made of clay, so noting so (at least in that manner) is redundant. It would be akin to a character in a modern story firing up their car's internal combustion engine or looking out of a glass window. It could definitely be worked in in other ways, but they should be consistent with what the perspective character would note.

In my opinion, the description should be just enough to let the reader fill in the rest from his or her own imagination. I want scene settings that are evocative not strictly descriptive. Example:

He had a narrow, angular nose, dark close-set eyes, and stringy black hair that stuck to his forehead.

Click to expand...

His face reminded Bob of a weasel who had been doused in a rainstorm.

Click to expand...

Also one must be careful about the descriptions being anachronistic by carrying too much detail. In 1950 a "television" was a black-and-white set, and the rare exception was a "color television." The wrong descriptors can pull the reader out of the period.

I recently read a book by an author I admire greatly, whos main character refers to some of her army's materiel as "primitive cannon." Primitive? To us, yes - but to her those were the most advanced firearms she would see in her lifetime.

I usually skim unecessary description. *insert paper bag over head smilie here*

I tend to be a sparse writer, which isn't always good. It's all about balance and placement. I think if you get too wrapped up in physical appearance, you tend to change the tone of a story entirely.

I'd like to add:

I think the amount of description needed is different for every novel.

What Puma said, especially the barf bit.

Most readers of historicals are familiar with the past so you just need touches of description to let them know you're just as knowledgeable.

Well, thank you Suse, that was very kind of you.

I rather like a bit of poetic description to help me see what the writer has in his/her head. I don't want every detail, like "a garden full of astors, zinnias, roses..." and on and on, but something like "a riot of flowers in every colour" lets me see it. I don't need to be reminded every second sentence that the heroine has blond hair and impressive attributes, but I will appreciate it if you tell me the ceilings of the home were vaulted and the walls hung with tapestries.

Shokadh mentioned Tolkien. Yes, his descriptions are pretty intense and wordy but thinking on the stories, he rarely describes his characters after their first introduction. Science fiction and fantasy writers usually need a little more description to introduce their readers to their world. The prospective reader of regular fiction doesn't need to have a car described; a TARDIS on the other hand, needs a few words so someone reading about it has a base to start with.

I think historical fiction writers are actually closer to science fiction/fantasy than to regular fiction, especially in the more remote times or areas of history, when it comes to world-building. Like sci-fi, most of our readers will not have experienced weightlessness or might not know that mass and weight are not the same thing. Unlike sci-fi, many of our readers (not all) will know when we make a boo-boo and have our Neolithic heros smelting aluminium. We have to build the world our characters inhabit well enough to ground those readers unfamiliar with it, yet not in such detail that it bores the readers who know it as well as we do.

We've probably chosen the toughest genre in which to strike a good balance. So give yourself three cheers for having the audacity to even try!

I like descriptive writing, but I usually only use it for outdoor scenes, so the reader has a sense of place.
I never go into too much detail over an MC, I prefer to hint and let the reader fill in the gaps. It's hard for me to describe a person without making it sound like a shopping list.

I try only to describe what I think is necessary to convey a sense of place, and mood of the charachter at that time in that place. I also try to show charachter traits more than what the charachter looks like physically and attempt to convey their inner thoughts more by action and dialogue than stating the charachters internal thoughts. With scene discriptions, I usually only try to show the physical things I mention such as furniture or a door knob for a reason. If I have wind blowing, rain happening, or birds flying it is usally not solely for the purpose of describing an area but more so to advance the plot where it plays a part in either conveying my charachters mood, or will cause and effort, which in turn makes the charachter have to react to what ever is happening at that moment. The right balance is something I contantly battle with. It is always difficult to know if the description has done its job or is too vague or over written.

I tend to be lean on the description and get caught up on what the characters are doing and saying, and their interactions with one another. I forget about the world around them, and have to add that in in the edits, and remember to use as many of the senses as I can, to make my character's world more real.

In...

historical novels the historical setting is as much a character as the people. Some detailed and telling description then becomes necessary.