Giving main characters less detail in romance?

I'd say the MCs that worked best for me were seen through the POV of the love interest. I don't like reading a generic 'description paragraph', but definitely what the love interest finds attractive, the more specific the reason for attraction, the better. The liking could have as much to do with the lover as the person being described.

But this could just be me.

I would argue that it doesn't matter that much if the reader sees the character as "beautiful", so long as the love interest does. We're told in the first line of Gone with the Wind that Scarlett O'Hara is not beautiful, but plenty of men are captivated by her charms including Rhett Butler. In Outlander, Claire has flyaway brown curls, pale skin, and a "round arse" -- not everyone's idea of a great beauty, but Jamie is captivated by her so who cares? Giving the character a few "flaws" humanizes her and makes her more, not less, relatable.

I used to fall on the side of "say little and let the reader fill it in" for physical descriptions, but as I understand it, readers tend to fill in culturally dominant stereotypes for characters rather than populating their minds with "people like me."

Describing someone as objectively beautiful is more of an omni thing, I think, and even when you do it there you can be clear you're talking about your culture's norms of beauty rather than beauty itself. IMHO if you're talking about perception of beauty in the context of a romantic relationship, it's always going to be influenced by attraction more than any objective physical standard.

But I think if you're trying to be inclusive, saying absolutely nothing isn't going to give you what you want.

Thought i'd give it a shot I have a bit of a nightmare about describing my character, and romance is not my genre but i'm trying to work it in. So curious if something like this is chintzy as a description or is it along the lines of ok.

She had whimsical hair. Like her nature it was always a tangle that she battled to keep in place. High cheek bones that offset eyes a man could lose his soul in. Was she pretty, yes, it was the one thing I hated about her.

Beanie5 said:

Thought i'd give it a shot I have a bit of a nightmare about describing my character, and romance is not my genre but i'm trying to work it in. So curious if something like this is chintzy as a description or is it along the lines of ok.

She had whimsical hair, like her nature it was always a tangle that she battled to keep in place. High cheek bones that offset eyes a man could lose his soul in. Was she pretty, yes, it was the one thing I hated about her.

Click to expand...

IMHO: This says everything about the person observing the "she," and almost nothing about the "she" herself. Which is a tactic that can work, and I rather like it, but it's not really a physical description of the character.

(Also, romance isn't my genre either, but I don't think character descriptions are solely the milieu of romance.)

Personally, I'd never use the word "beautiful" to describe a character unless it was in dialogue. The word has no meaning outside of a person's own interpretation. Saying "she was beautiful because..." inserts the writer's idea of beauty, and, frankly, insists on agreement. If the reader doesn't agree, you lose them right there. Admittedly, I'm not great at including physical descriptions of my POV characters. I'm not a fan of having a character describe themselves, and I find it hard to naturally include self-description in close POV.

Beanie, I like that description. I agree with Liz, it's more about the viewer's interpretation, but in romance, at least, that's the most important thing. (Although I've got a general image in my brain from that description and it's enough for me to go on.)

ElaineA said:

Personally, I'd never use the word "beautiful" to describe a character unless it was in dialogue. The word has no meaning outside of a person's own interpretation. Saying "she was beautiful because..." inserts the writer's idea of beauty, and, frankly, insists on agreement.

Click to expand...

I use it a lot in close third, and I use it the way I saw Beanie using it: as a window into the character whose head I'm in. (In one book, there's a character who's viewed as "beautiful" by one POV character, and explicitly not by another.) I think it can actually be used for worldbuilding sometimes (but hey, I write SF, so everything is fair game for worldbuilding ).

But yeah, I get thrown when writers use it as some kind of objective description, because it really isn't, not even within a specific culture.

ETA: I suspect sometimes it's intended as writer's shorthand for "this person is desirable - or assumed to be desirable - to a large number of people in this story, to the extent that it's a plot point," which, okay, fair enough, I suppose.

I think it's generally best if the description of the heroine comes from the hero and vice versa. That was it serves as both description and character insight. And it doesn't have to be detailed.

lizmonster said:

I use it a lot in close third, and I use it the way I saw Beanie using it: as a window into the character whose head I'm in.

Click to expand...

Right, and it's very effective this way, as Beanie's passage proves. I just tend to fall back on specific traits, I guess. Probably my own discomfort with general observations.

ElaineA said:

Personally, I'd never use the word "beautiful" to describe a character unless it was in dialogue. The word has no meaning outside of a person's own interpretation. Saying "she was beautiful because..." inserts the writer's idea of beauty, and, frankly, insists on agreement.

Click to expand...

In omni or distant third, I agree. In close third or first, though, it can be a tool for additional characterization of the POV character... What everyone else said...

Beanie5 said:

She had whimsical hair. Like her nature it was always a tangle that she battled to keep in place. High cheek bones that offset eyes a man could lose his soul in. Was she pretty, yes, it was the one thing I hated about her.

Click to expand...

I do like this description. Romance happens to be my genre and this is good for that. Personally, I'd prefer a little more physical description. Such as: that offset (blue) eyes a man could lose his soul in. But that's just me. I like to picture what the author has in their head. Just because I don't find blonde hair, blue eyed girls attractive doesn't mean I can't appreciate that the Love Interest does.

Lil said:

I think it's generally best if the description of the heroine comes from the hero and vice versa. That was it serves as both description and character insight. And it doesn't have to be detailed.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.

Kaylene said:

I do like this description. Romance happens to be my genre and this is good for that. Personally, I'd prefer a little more physical description. Such as: that offset (blue) eyes a man could lose his soul in. But that's just me. I like to picture what the author has in their head. Just because I don't find blonde hair, blue eyed girls attractive doesn't mean I can't appreciate that the Love Interest does.

Click to expand...

Exactly. I want to experience the journey with the pov characters, so I want to see the other characters as they do, and I want to see the world they occupy through their eyes. Description can go too far. I don't like what feels like a long laundry lists of features, as if the writer is checking off boxes--nose shape, check, eyes, check, hair color and texture, check, shoulders, check, chin shape, check, mouth shape, check. How often do any of us notice every little thing about someone, even if we do find them attractive? It doesn't take a long list of features for my mind to create an enduring image of a person. In fact, too many make it hard, because then I'm having to keep track of all those things.

However, there are some writers who are too skimpy with description, imo, to the point of not including details or descriptions I think most people would notice, at least in passing. At least one bestselling SF writer puts no description in at all, so the stories feel like they're peopled by characters with shifting features navigating their way through a very generic and featureless world where plot-relevant props (like cars or furniture) pop out of a neutral grid. They write good stories, and the characters have good voices and motivations and so on, but the lack of any description is one thing that bugs me about their writing.

There's a happy medium, methinks. Different readers will likely consider that medium to be in different places, however. My hunch is that romance readers, especially when it's a historical romance, tend to like a bit more description of clothes, furniture, decor, buildings, and people than readers of some other genres do.

I like when the heroine sees herself and describes what she looks like, so we get to see what her own opinion is of her beauty. And then we get to see what the hero thinks of her and how what he sees is different to what she sees, because I believe that our perception of our own beauty is coloured by our own opinions. We should show that in our writing. One of the best romance books I've read is when the hero thought the heroine wasn't pretty at the beginning, but by the end she was the most beautiful woman to him. I like that, because it shows that our opinion can change with time and that beauty is perception.

One of the best romance books I've read is when the hero thought the heroine wasn't pretty at the beginning, but by the end she was the most beautiful woman to him. I like that, because it shows that our opinion can change with time and that beauty is perception.

Click to expand...

Ooooo, I like that, too!

Roxxsmom said:

It doesn't take a long list of features for my mind to create an enduring image of a person. In fact, too many make it hard, because then I'm having to keep track of all those things.

Click to expand...

Agreed. With romance, although I like to have descriptions of characters, what sticks with me years afterwards tend to be single details that stand out. He's shorter than the heroine (The Love Charm). She has mismatched eyes (The Rake). He's badly scarred (The Secret Pearl). Even something like a characteristic scent (cologne, sandalwood, etc).

Laundry lists tend not to make the cut. That said, I once beta read a story where the MC came to realize he was sexually drawn to someone, and he pleasured himself while remembering that man's good heart and courage. I suggested he was more likely to associate sex with physical features of some kind. The man's large hands and strong body played a role in his fantasies in the next draft, and the scene felt more earthy and realistic as a result.

However, there are some writers who are too skimpy with description, imo, to the point of not including details or descriptions I think most people would notice, at least in passing. At least one bestselling SF writer puts no description in at all, so the stories feel like they're peopled by characters with shifting features navigating their way through a very generic and featureless world where plot-relevant props (like cars or furniture) pop out of a neutral grid. They write good stories, and the characters have good voices and motivations and so on, but the lack of any description is one thing that bugs me about their writing.

Click to expand...

I know Orson Scott Card does this, and it seems to be a characteristic of all his books. Richard Adams also pulled it off in The Girl in a Swing, where you never find out what the girl looks like, but he does describe her clothes, mannerisms, gracefulness, etc. She's supposed to be an enigma, so the lack of description of her eyes and hair and so on plays into that.