I think I've tried to implement suggestions and tips that called for compression, but those were intended for short story writing. I've tried to say much in as little as possible.

Novel writing evidently needs so much detail to where the reader can smell the air. This is kind of revelation to ignorant me, where I've tried sometimes not add details that the reader will derive at anyway.

Any thoughts?

Each chapter is a short story unto itself. Aside from cliffhangers, and unresolved plot details and stuff, it should be a self-contained little story. The setting should be clear if it hasn't already been described earlier. This doesn't mean go overboard with everything, but if a character has reason to notice something, then so be it. Sometimes, the beginning of a book or chapter is ideal for relating the scenery -- and sometimes it isn't. Some authors love flowery prose and revel in the details, and others (like Dan Brown) cut to the chase and just show you what is happening NOW!

But, aside from setting (which is debatably necessary), if something doesn't further character(s) development or the plot, it should be ruthlessly cut. Period. And that's fairly hard to do in any length story. We don't like cutting out parts because we put them in there. But the editing process is fairly cruel, and our hearts break when we cut out some of our favorite lines -- but they add nothing to story, so they must go.

That being said, I do think there is a place for detail in a novel and it can certainly enrich the story and bring the experience to life for the reader. But it has to be done well, or for me it detracts from the reading experience and I would rather do without it. I can’t stand when I am reading and the action comes to a stop, the writer inserts a long paragraph of description and then continues with the action. It really disrupts the reading experience for me. Good, tight prose, that weaves in relevant description without stopping the action for an info-dump <shudder> keeps me reading.

I also think part of is has to do with what kind of story you are writing. If you are writing a character story or milieu story (even in a short story form) the reader expects more detail and description. You want to show them your world or your character in vivid detail because that is the focus of the story.

Event stories are more focused on the plot and action and anything that doesn’t move the story along should probably be minimized or cut. You need enough description for the reader to understand what is going on, but don’t bog them down in minutia.

But then again, what do I know? It still says New Member under my name…

If there isn't a reason for it to be in there, then it shouldn't be. Same range.

The amount of detail you use - the rule is very simple. Use exactly as much as you need - no more, and no less. If you put in no descriptive details, your characters are floating around in a nondescript space; if you put in too many, you're spending the whole novel describing doilies and your characters are buried in words.

That said, most of the best-selling novels and most highly acclaimed novels ever seem to have the language rather than the plot. If they have both they are termed epic fantasy and take ten 700-page books to finish.

My thoughts have grown to be, why should the viewpoint character describe his wife? He's sees her every day. But he only walks to his brother's grave once a year and when he does it on the day of his grandfather's funeral and meets the man that changes his life for the worse... he remembers a bit more of that.

In other words, put in what the character notices, where and when he notices it. And keep in mind that some people can't abide not knowing what color your character's eyes are, and others (like me) probably won't notice if you never mention it, since they've got their own mental picture that they cling to. You've got to strike a balance, so that both people keep reading.

quote:

---

I disagree that each chapter should function as a short story. i mean, there should be a beginning and a middle and an end etc but if you try to write each chapter so that it can stand alone without the rest of the novel, you will run into problems.

---

Not necessarily arguing, Beth... but...

Isn't a chapter a "section" of a book. A stand alone story in itself. Sure, it's not complete, but it's a fully realized scene or two or three. Many of us read stories by chapters. We stop at a chapter, because not only it's convenient, but it's an ending to a scene. It may not be resolved, it may be a cliffhanger thing, but it's still an ending to a scene.

Though, I concede, some people start their next chapter immediately where the last left off. That's valid; it depends. Chapter breaks are sometimes arbitrary... often there deliberately inserted.

My point is that each chapter is a self-contained unit -- a part of the larger picture, but perfectly presented in a way to satisfy a reader, who can then put the book down with something more to look forward tomorrow or later in the day. Each chapter is a story -- not the whole story -- but a story. It's the simplest way of looking at it. But this doesn't mean resolve everything in a chapter... far from it. It means only that everything that needs to be covered has been covered; questions were answered; new questions asked; some questions linger...

Dictionary.com defines it well, in defintion number 2, which isn't the definition of a book's chapter, but hey-ho, I like it better. The definition reads:

quote:

---

A distinct period or sequence of events, as in history or a person's life.

---

Things changed but I never knew why until I met OSC. He mentioned he had trouble reading other writers' work. IIRC he mentioned they didn't hold his interest beyond the place where he figured out where the plot was going, which was usually early.

A good exciting novel isn't like a subway car, barreling along in the dark in its singleminded direction down a carefully prepared track, illuminating one predicatble station after another. It is like a light plane bouncing all over the sky so you never know how things will end until you finally get it home.

I struggled for a while with the phrase, "More characterization" so I added reactions and descriptions. I finally realized when someone complimented a line with "nice characterization" that the difference between that character reaction and all of the others was that it was specific to the character.

I'd been filling things with, "Huang felt his heart racing and tried to control his breathing," when what my readers were looking for was, "Huang's heart rattled into a stacatto rhythm and he tried to calm himself by running through etudes in his head." Same emotion, same reaction, but a lens that is specific to my character.

A tactful suggestion rather than complaint, to add more brush stokes and add shadow and depth, and less concise. I'm trying not to quote but as an example the person wanted to smell the air, know how the gravestone felt...

You bring up the classic point, when somebody says X, X might not be the problem, but Y is.

I'm the opposite of most of you. When I pick up a book that doesn't describe any of the setting hardly at all, I put it down. It's not worth it to me if I don't know what sort of the world the characters are in.

As I am an artist, I suppose that's understandable. I'm a very visual person, so if I don't know what something looks like, it drives me up the wall. I appreciate it when I can find a good book that details the setting.

For short stories, however, I don't mind not knowing what the setting is like. That's what separates them from novels, at least for me. To me, a novel that doesn't spend time describing the setting is just an extended short story, and I eventually get bored with it.

When I can read a novel that has a detailed description of the setting, I can see it clearly in my head and often, I want to draw or paint a picture of it (and if my painting skills were better, I'd be doing paintings of book settings right and left). I also think that setting can play on the emotions of the reader. An excellent description of the setting can make me feel joy, pain, anger, etc--sometimes even more so than the characters can. For example, if a writer just simply states that the scene awes the character and describes this awe that the character feels, I don't feel it with him. How can I if I don't really know what it is he's looking at? But if a writer says the character is awed and then goes on to describe in detail what it is the character is looking at, then I can feel the awe as well.

Again, I think it comes from me being an artist. I can look at a painting or sculpture and feel all the emotions contained within it whereas I feel next to nothing if I'm listening to the thoughts and feelings of a character. That's just me, though.

I understand people want some things left up to imagination, but my theory is that even if something is described in detail, there's still room to picture it the way you want to. An author, no matter how talented, will find it difficult to get his or her readers to see exactly the same things that he or she sees.