Is this description okay? Or too much?

Well, I'm not too much familiar with actual Italy, but I've been around a fair share of Italian restaurants... And I think this sounds pretty good. Sure, more detail could be added if you wanted to be really anal about it, but I think I like where it is.

Having had much experience with tourism to Italy (I'm involved in the industry), I advise referring to the "clay pots" as "terra cotta pots." You might also want to refer to terra cotta tiles on the floor, also typically italian. I believe stucco is more of a Spanish/Mexican thing... as I recall in Italy the brick (or often just stone) is covered with plaster that often cracks and has to be repaired. Stucco is more of an outdoor thing. I could be wrong about that part. In any case, I guess you don't have to be too terribly accurate since it is an American restaurant.

One note: When I read plastic plants, I thought-- how cheesy! Maybe that is what you are going for-- if so then good. Otherwise you might want to just make them real plants. It's not hard to grow great plants in Pasadena!!!

Oh, and also I wondered at the fact that it was not very busy. Is this a new restaurant or an off time of the year? Usually Old Pasadena (I assume you mean that downtown strip of shops) is pretty crowded.

underthecity said:

I'm revising a couple paragraphs I'd like to ask for advice on.

I'd like to know if it is descriptive enough, if it visually captures the sights and smells. Or if it needs more work.

Greg and Linda are paying a visit to a restaurant in Old Pasadena they've never been to: "Rome," an Italian restaurant. This is a happy visit for them, they're kind of on a date. It is here they will discuss their twelve-year anniversary plans. They will also visit the same restaurant later in the book when he reveals his lies and she leaves him.

Rome wasn’t too busy. Only about half the tables in the dining room were filled. As the hostess led them to a table, Greg’s mouth watered at the sweet aromas of garlic and parmesan wafting through the air. The kitchen door swung open and a bow-tied server walked out carrying plates piled with steaming spaghetti and garlic bread. Greg heard two men inside the kitchen argue loudly in Italian.

Greg loved the Old World Italy decor. He and Linda were surrounded by stucco walls showing small patches of exposed brick. A large fireplace with a rack of clay pots and vases dominated one wall. Plastic ivy was draped on iron trellises in the corners and adjacent walls. Their table was covered with a white and red checkered cloth. The flame of a red candle plugged into an old wine bottle flickered between them, illuminating the pages of their menus. Large rivulets of wax had dripped down the sides forming circular mountain ranges with blurred red and green valleys.

Greg smiled. You didn’t get much more Italian than this place.

Click to expand...

Wow, it sounds good! It's beautifully worded, doing the place itself justice. My only suggestion: add an adjective before "Italian" where the two men are arguing. Thick? Stuffy? Slurred? Rapid?

It's a little too much for me, but I write tighter and maybe need to loosen up a bit. But I say it's too much because it's reading as inconsequential detail; my understanding of the story isn't changed because of it. But, again, that could very well be a difference in writing styles/reading preferences. What's here is well written, by and by.

Don't forget the opportunity to dual-use the setting; here, it's a happy place; later, when he comes back and things go to hell between them, he sees that the plants are plastic and the "terra cotta" is really just linoleum, etc. Or maybe he doesn't see it but she points it out, that it's fake just like everything else in their lives...

jdparadise said:

Don't forget the opportunity to dual-use the setting; here, it's a happy place; later, when he comes back and things go to hell between them, he sees that the plants are plastic and the "terra cotta" is really just linoleum, etc. Or maybe he doesn't see it but she points it out, that it's fake just like everything else in their lives...

Click to expand...

Ooo, I likes.

JoNightshade said:

Ooo, I likes.

Click to expand...

I agree.... That's awesome advice...

It reads fine; it's short enough.

It's rather typically Italian so a little goes a long way -- we've all been to Italian restaurants and nothing here is dramatically unique. I'd offer a few suggestions for edit, to tighten the writing:

underthecity said:

Rome wasn’t too busy. Only about half the tables in the dining room were filled. As the hostess led them to a table, Greg’s mouth watered at the sweet aromas of garlic, oregano, basil, and parmesan wafting through the air. The kitchen door swung open and a bow-tied server walked out carrying plates piled with steaming spaghetti pasta and garlic bread. Greg heard tTwo men inside the kitchen argued loudly in loud, thick Italian.

Greg loved the Old World Italy decor. He and Linda were surrounded by stucco walls showing small patches of exposed brick. A large fireplace with a rack of clay pots and vases dominated one wall. Plastic ivy was draped on iron trellises in the corners and adjacent walls. Their table was Tables covered with a white and red checkered cloth. The flame of a red candle plugged into an old wine bottle flickered between them, illuminating the pages of their menus. Large rivulets of wax had dripped down the sides forming circular mountain ranges with blurred red and green valleys.

Greg smiled. You didn’t don't get much more Italian than this place.

Click to expand...

I also agree with the comments about stucco walls and terra cotta pots, tiles, etc.

I agree with most of Ray's edits, but not the deletion of the last sentence in the second paragraph. The mention of red & green is important, as it evokes the traditional Italian-restaurant colour scheme. Tightening the sentence up and making it less metaphorical might work better, though.

Greg’s mouth watered
Greg heard
Greg loved
Greg smiled

He is a good word. And since we are in his POV, you can dispense with some of that.
Also, you’re trying to show us everything. Cut it back a bit. We’ve all been in Italian restaurants, so show us only what we need to nail the scene. The last line seemed weak, and it’s telling us what you’ve strived mightily to show us. So I’d say something else, some other association he has with the place.

This is good, solid writing, but do you mind if I dig a little deeper? I mean, basically, we've all seen this restaurant--which certainly means you have done your job of describing it. Please please don't be upset with me, but why are you using a good chunk of your word count on something that's your basic Italian restaurant?

It's a good rule of thumb that everything in a scene serves more than one purpose. In this passage, it seems to me it doesn't go beyond the single purpose of describing a standard Italian restaurant we've all been to at some point or another, even if it's only at the movies.

For example, you could get the description in and also develop character if you focus on why Greg loved the decor--the details you do decide to describe, for example, what memories do they have for him? You say it's a happy occasion--how do the details you describe then convey this happiness to the reader--even if you stick to basic description you can write this so that the very description conveys the happiness. At the moment it could also be the setting for a murder about to take place.

Just my opinion, mind.

My bad, I misread it.

ccarver30 said:

It sounds to me like they are in Anytown, USA - not Rome, Italy.

Click to expand...

Old Pasadena is in California, I believe.

Novelist in Paradise said:

...everything in a scene serves more than one purpose. ...focus on why Greg loved the decor--the details you do decide to describe, for example, what memories do they have for him?...
Just my opinion, mind.

Click to expand...

And excellent advice, NiP. I should have seen this, too, but I was in a rush. Excellent stuff.

Julie Worth said:

Greg’s mouth watered
Greg heard
Greg loved
Greg smiled

He is a good word. And since we are in his POV, you can dispense with some of that.
Also, you’re trying to show us everything. Cut it back a bit. We’ve all been in Italian restaurants, so show us only what we need to nail the scene. The last line seemed weak, and it’s telling us what you’ve strived mightily to show us. So I’d say something else, some other association he has with the place.

Click to expand...

I agree with this. The overuse of Greg became apparent to me and the last line is unnecessary. I also agree with jules' comments on maestrowork's edits. (Ha! Work that out.)

underthecity said:

Greg heard two men inside the kitchen argue loudly in Italian.

Click to expand...

Is this important? Are you leaving a revolver on the table? If you're not going to address this again, may I suggest that two men are calling to each other in Italian, or talking in Italian, something like that? Right now I'm curious about what they're arguing about and whether it will bleed over into the date.

Anyway, that's the kind of stuff my editor gets on me about. Only my 2cents!

Otherwise sounds very interesting.

I would take the part out about the men arguing loudly in Italian. It is a stereotype that isn't true.

janetbellinger said:

I would take the part out about the men arguing loudly in Italian. It is a stereotype that isn't true.

Click to expand...

I disagree. My man and his father argue in sicilian all the time.
So do his mother and father. It's fun to listen to, actually.

It reads fine to me. The "youth group" is a good touch -- gives the setting an emotional touch.

Greg loved the Old World Italy décor. He was suddenly transported back to an unforgettable summer he spent in Italy as part of a youth group trip. Maybe some of the trappings here were cliché, but he relished them all. Surrounding them were plaster walls with exposed patches of red brick...

"He was transported back" is writerly and not natural to my inner ear. The whole piece doesn't quite "flow" right to my ear; it's too "inventoryish" for my taste. Perhaps something like:

Greg loved the Old World Italy decor. Cliche, sure, and not all that accurate--the plaster walls with their exposed patches of red brick had more in common with Olive Garden than they did with the Sicily he'd seen on that youth-group trip back in '76 (the trip that introduced him to basil, communion wine, and Susan McEwer*). But the massive hearth with its wire rack of terra cotta pots and vases dominated the wall in an authentically Sicilian fashion, and the ivy draped across the iron trellises in the corners and adjacent walls could have been pulled down from the rooftops of any villa he'd stayed at.**

He couldn't help grinning at the white and red checkered cloths that covered the tables, or at the candles dripping scarlet wax down the sides of their wine-bottle holders. Cheesy. Definitely cheesy. But still . . .

He turned the grin on Linda, and she smiled back. She felt it, too, just like he did. It felt like home.


I probably overdid it a bit, made it a little wandery, but do you see what I was trying for? Blending things into a more logical flow, like one thought leading to another rather than like an inventory of the room's features.

Here's my thinking:

Everything in the storyworld exists to help you tell your tale; lists, generally, don't help you tell your tale (unless it's a specific sort of list for a specific purpose; see Bridget Jones Diary). Room inventories such as your drafts are basically fancied-up lists, no matter how well written they might be. Which isn't to say they should -never- be used, but for my own work I try to make them functional as well as decorative.

*The youth-group trip was a nice inspiration, but why are you mentioning it? What relevance does it have to the story today? See the note above re: everything in a story contributing. How did his youth group membership change him in a way that is relevant to the person he is at the time of the story?

I love throwing things like that into stories, for exactly that reason; since nothing "random" can take place in a story (else why is it there? stories are directed narratives, and randomness is sloppy unless it's a point of the story), throwing random things in help me generate backstory as I explore them. That he was in a youth group, for example, gives him a religious background; I made it explicitly Catholic with the Communion Wine. Why were they there? How far did he go with Susan? I dunno. I'd figure it out as I went and see how I could fold it in...

**See JD madly making up Sicilian details...

Hope this helps!

jdparadise said:

Everything in the storyworld exists to help you tell your tale

Click to expand...

While I agree in general, there are always exceptions. I don't think everything has to be relevant to the plot. I agree that setting off a long list of descriptions may be an overkill, but sometimes rich settings put us in the story and surround us with sight, smell, taste, etc. that make for a richer experience. It's a backdrop of what is to happen in the foreground. And there's nothing wrong with devoting a few sentences to set the stage. I don't think we need to incorporate every bit of descriptions with the plot.

*The youth-group trip was a nice inspiration, but why are you mentioning it? What relevance does it have to the story today?

Click to expand...

Again, not everything has to be relevant to the plot at hand. Sometimes it develops character ("youth group in Sicily" tells us something about Greg, but we don't have to elaborate on that), even if that information may or may not be relevant to the scene at hand. Sometimes it just sets the mood. And sometimes it's just detail to put us in that space, where something is going on.

I think as long as it gives you a fuller, richer experience it's doing its job. It's not to say it's wrong to make everything contribute to the plot at the moment, or convey relevant information -- it can be very good indeed. But I don't think it has to be that way. It's like set dressing on a movie set -- not every piece of prop has to be relevant to the story... a good set is subliminal... it sets up the environment and tells us something about the characters, without banging us over the head with "here's a hammer, and it's there because it's relevant to the plot!"

Descriptions is the equivalent of set design/props in a movie. The right amount gives you a rich, full experience. Too much it distracts and overwhelms.

To me, Allen's two paragraphs read fine, and they set up the mood -- something romantic, charming, old Italian. They envelop us with the senses: taste, smell, etc. Like a richly drawn set in a Pixar animation, all that sensory details add to the experience. And it's just two paragraphs -- hardly an overkill or wasted words.

maestrowork said:

While I agree in general, there are always exceptions. I don't think everything has to be relevant to the plot. I agree that setting off a long list of descriptions may be an overkill, but sometimes rich settings put us in the story and surround us with sight, smell, taste, etc. that make for a richer experience. It's a backdrop of what is to happen in the foreground. And there's nothing wrong with devoting a few sentences to set the stage. I don't think we need to incorporate every bit of descriptions with the plot.

Click to expand...

I agree. However, I do think it's true that a writer usually won't go wrong in making things plot-or-character-relevant if it's possible. Given a choice of a detail that is p-or-c-relevant and one that is not, I'd think relevance might be more useful.

maestrowork said:

Again, not everything has to be relevant to the plot at hand. Sometimes it develops character ("youth group in Sicily" tells us something about Greg, but we don't have to elaborate on that), even if that information may or may not be relevant to the scene at hand. Sometimes it just sets the mood. And sometimes it's just detail to put us in that space, where something is going on.
...
I think as long as it gives you a fuller, richer experience it's doing its job.
...

Click to expand...

Well, yeah. Of course, there's one distinction between what I think I said and what I think you think I said: I think I said "in service to the story," as opposed to "in service to the plot."

If it's your goal to slow down the reader--if you want the reader to pay special attention--you might use one type of material. If you want the reader to read quickly, another. If you want the reader to feel close to the action, you might use one narrative closeness; if you want them to feel a distance, you might choose another.

White space, density of paragraphs, relationship of scene details to the character perspective, number of nouns versus verbs versus adjectives and adverbs... if you can make it do a trick for you (whatever that trick might be), and that trick is what you want, then it's obviously what you should be using.

But as a matter of course, I just don't think you can go wrong with relating the scenery to a character's perspective--with having the character interact in some way (physical, observational, psychically, whatever) with the elements on stage.

You used the analogy of set dressing for a movie. I'll go you one further. Set decorators, as best I know, don't choose things at random. They choose details to evoke a mood (is the candle on the mantle burned-out or is it fresh? Is the pewter drinking mug polished or tarnished?), to reflect on characters (a baseball glove on a shelf means one sort of thing if the focal character is a 7 year old boy, and might mean quite another to an older gent with muscular dystrophy), to give a sense of time and place (is it a photograph or a daguerreotype on the wall?), etc.

I'm just suggesting that the same care be exercised when populating the set of a story's stage... nothing without a reason, even if that reason is only thematic, contextual, or mood-setting...

...and if it's there, you might as well use it in some way to say something about the character or the situation.[/quote]

maestrowork said:

To me, Allen's two paragraphs read fine, and they set up the mood -- something romantic, charming, old Italian. They envelop us with the senses: taste, smell, etc.

Click to expand...

:: shrug ::

I agree; they were "fine." And there's nothing wrong with "fine", particularly in an early draft, and PARTICULARLY when you're just trying to get the story out. But "fine" doesn't mean "can't be improved upon"; whether I actually improved the lines or not debatable, but illustrating something that might constitute an improvement was my goal.

Shorter version: you're right, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong...

janetbellinger said:

I would take the part out about the men arguing loudly in Italian. It is a stereotype that isn't true.

Click to expand...

If arguing could be heard coming from a Southern California restaurant kitchen, it would most likely be in Spanish--no matter if the food was Chinese, Mexican, Italian or fried chicken.