Hatrack River Writers Workshop: description

This is topic description in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001084

Posted by mags (Member # 1570) on :

Part of this is ranting, part is to figure out how others deal with this part....

often when I submit my stories to my writers group, one of the consistant complaints is that I am not doing enough description of the characters to satisfy the reader. --- sooooo I started to seriously look at how my favorite authors deal with physically describing the characters, and have come up with a surprising insite. They don't.

with the exception of romances, and even some of those authors don't tend to describe the character from head to toe, but rather they pull out something about the character which if I met them irl, I might notice - or what would come to mind first when describing them to someone else. But there isn't a single character in any of the last 15 or 20 books that I've gone through where I could give a good enough description that the police sketch artist would even be able to get a good enough image to put on the post office wall.

so what is up with this?

I know that part of my writing style is a conglomeration of everything that I have read in the last uggg... 30 years of my life (with the exception of Dr. Suess) so I'm sure that is why I didn't tend to write great detail about how the character looks.

On the other hand, my husband was getting frutrated with Nora Roberts (book on tape) and her love of description so that description scenes and finding out what is going on gets dragged out -- kinda like lots of foreplay. --- but still many of her characterization relys on what characteristics are most noticable, not just any and all.

I've noticed that Rowling does do some of the most indepth character details -- but she tends to work them back into the story somehow.

In contrast, after reading "Friday" last week, I still can't tell you what she actually looks like - or anyone else to any great length. - did I miss something there? I have a feeling for her, and have a general idea, but couldnt' by any means say that she looks like [fill in the blank].

What have others noticed? and how do you deal with this in your writing?

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

That's a good insight, actually. Many good authors never describe their characters physically because it is never important. To go with one example you use in which it does happen, JK Roawling describes Harry Potter but not really in that much detail. He's skinny, has a lightening shaped scar, has untidy black hair, and he has his mother's green eyes but he looks like his father. So we FEEL like we know exactly what he looks like, but not really. I mean, what does his father look like? This is never explained, and this is the biggest descriptor used. Mostly, all the specific details go towards necessary point in the story.

I have sometimes received commments from critiquers saying that I need more physical descriptions of my charactes...not often but someitmes. I ignore them. They are entitled to their opinions, but so am I, and in my opinion they're wrong. Physical description is the least important part of a character.

Now a warning. Is it possible that your character is not well-developed enough in non-physical ways? I've noticed that the times I receive comments on lack of physical description tend to coincide with times when my characterization in general is weak. Perhaps they are focusing on physical appearnce because they have been given nothing at all and as a beauty-centered people the looks are the first thing we think of. (It's just a possibility, not necessarily true. )

Posted by Jsteg1210 (Member # 1993) on :

OSC actually writes in "Characters and Viewpoints" that physical descriptions of characters are often useless in actually making them sympathetic. Unless a detail is needed, it is usually forgotten within a paragraph of reading. My own technique is to treat it like any other description: if a detail is necassary, it works itself in naturally.

It is possible that your readers aren't forming a very good picture of you characters, this is a little different than lack of description. I would try spritsing a few fine details that a casual observer would notice first about the character's appearance into the narrative. "He yelled for the guards, his eyes flashing a dangerous blue." or "It wasn't until I stood next to her in line that I realized how large she was, almost twice as wide as me at the shoulders." What usually happens is that the reader's imagination kicks in and supplies the rest. So while everyone has a differnt picture in their head, certain key details are kept in common.

Posted by punahougirl84 (Member # 1731) on :

Ah, I really like "Friday" - was another choice of mine for the book club! But a difficult example for this question. I think with her description, there is a lot, but it has to do with her changing her looks based on the situation (do you remember her outfits - she changes in the first scene of the book, and later while traveling with Georges - like in the California Confederacy), or in general how she doesn't think she looks so hot (self-esteem issues, remember?) but others do - we get info based on how it relates to or serves the story. I didn't feel 'shorted' by how she was described. I know how she looked for each situation, could picture it during each scene.

I just finished Stephen King's "On Writing" and I would recommend reading what he has to say (in the pbk, pgs 170-178 for description, 188-194 for character-building, though there are other pages that also deal with it). He believes that writing is like mental telepathy - from the writer to the reader. You can overdescribe (he has some funny examples) and underdescribe - the trick is finding the happy medium, the few "well-chosen details" that come from your mind, that will help the reader create their own image. He also says that everything depends on the story - but few stories depend on you writing a long section describing the character in complete detail. Don't use physical descriptions as a "shortcut to character" such as "the hero's sharply intelligent blue eyes and outthrust determined chin" which he calls lazy and just bad technique.

So far in short stories, I have sprinkled description in with action:

"He scratched his scalp, which was almost bare of what gray hair was left him."

Then later in the story (two years have passed):

"He grabbed a handkerchief from his pocket to wipe the sweat from his now bald head."

If a character can retrieve a book from a high shelf, we know he is tall, and if he pulls over a ladder, we know he less tall! Of course, if his sword drags on the ground, we might need more - he is either short, or the sword is too long or incorrectly attached to the character...

I think having some physical details included does help - I like to have something to hang my visual images on, but you don't have to paint me the whole portrait. Just throw me some bones - have her twist her long dark hair on top of her head as she comes out of the shower, or shriek as she snaps a perfectly manicured nail (ok, maybe too cliche, but you know what I mean), or sigh as her dress has gotten too tight (yeah, we know, it wasn't the dress that changed sizes). Physical details can serve the story, and maybe should.

Ok, should.

I assume (!) your group has been specific, and has pointed out examples. Have they given suggestions of what they would have like to have seen/read? Whether physical or more character building details? Like Christine said, you have the option to ignore the comments. If they come up with these comments without knowing how the others feel, maybe you could think about adding some details - not enough for that police sketch artist, but enough that each reader can come up with their own visual!

Posted by reid (Member # 1425) on :

Robert Sawyer has a nice article on description here:

http://www.sfwriter.com/ow12.htm

I like his point about a writer's advantage over a movie director in deciding exactly what is important for the reader to contemplate through precise description.

Brian

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

If anyone ever claims you need more physical description of your POV character, simply ignore the comment.

It may indicate a deeper problem, as Christine and Jsteg note. But you don't know that it does. Generally, anyone that thinks much physical description of the POV character is necessary or even desirable doesn't have much experience reading good fiction.

Posted by TruHero (Member # 1766) on :

I like it when an author gives hints at a characters appearance, and lets me fill in the blanks. I get a mental picture of the characters that way, and helps me to identify with them better.

You could do as Robert Jordan does and describe the character and their clothing and their horse and his trappings and the weaponry etc... Although in some cases he doen't totally fill you in, but he does have some kind of clothing fetish or something. He must have been a medieval fashion designer in another life.

Posted by Jules (Member # 1658) on :

Just thinking about the main characters in my current WIP, the physical descriptions I give:

Protagonist: none at all (if he is present in a scene it is always told from his POV, so providing a description would be difficult).
Protagonist's fiancee: Straight blonde hair that reaches to the middle of her back.
Protagonist's ex-girlfriend: long dark hair, green eyes; in one scene she has acquired a small scar on her face since the protagonist last saw her.
Other characters: one man is noted as being of Japanese origin, which will obviously provide some stereotypical ideas about his appearance.

That's it. I think any more than this is likely to be too much.

Posted by mags (Member # 1570) on :

my main aversion to deep physical description stems from Steinbeck, and has been reinforced by Robert Jordan. - I enjoy Jordan's stories, but both those authors seem to go overboard to me, to a point where I end up loosing part of the story because I get so caught up in "does a person who looks like this really fit into what I think they should be doing" - like in a movie where they did a bad casting job. - granted, steinbeck also bothered me because he would go into great detail about things that had nothing to do with the story.

thanks for everyones insight. - the people who tend to get on me about my descriptions don't tend to give examples, other than they want more description because they feel they need to know what [insert name] looks like from the very beginning - which actually goes as far as wanting to know the color of the walls (and yes, that was requested by one reader).

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

Well, did the color of the walls *matter*?

Yeah, you seem to get the point. And they seem not to. So I go back to my original advice. Ignore them and continue to only use *relevant* details as authors such as Robert Jordan have failed to do so egregiously.

Posted by Alias (Member # 1645) on :

Isn't it simply a generally understood fact that by maintaining only relevant details the prose is lighter?

I mean, though to a point, it is much better to glide through a story than hack and slash through it ...

Posted by Christine (Member # 1646) on :

No, I don't believe that it is generally understood at all that relevant details are better. My biggest complaint about much published fiction is that it is too detail-heavy, including many irrelevant details that fail to capture my interest and so laden with details that I can barely tell the relevant ones from the author's ramblins. Then again, since these pieces are published, it might be better to err on the side of too much detail.

Posted by EricJamesStone (Member # 1681) on :

Include only relevant details is good advice, although I think it isn't really all that restrictive as to what ends up in a manuscript. The advice should make you think about the details you are putting in your writing; it does not mean you need to eliminate them.

For example, someone in my writers' group includes far more detailed descriptions of characters and settings than I do in my writing. It is not wrong for her to do so; she is writing romance novels, and from what I understand, part of the expected experience of reading a romance novel is the detailed descriptions that allow the reader to build a sharp mental image of the characters and setting.

Relevancy is not based just on plot considerations. Details may be relevant to setting, to character, to style, to genre, to voice, to pacing, or to any other aspect of writing.

Include as much or as little detail as you think is needed to achieve the effect you desire. Analyze why you want to include details -- as long as you think there's a good reason, the details are relevant.

(Of course, others may disagree on how much detail your story needs. You need to take into account the needs and tastes of your target audience.)

Posted by Lullaby Lady (Member # 1840) on :

I have struggled with the opposite-- the people critiquing my work tell me I give too much character description. I've done it on purpose-- I can't stand it when I get halfway through a story to find out the main character has blond hair when I've been picturing her as a brunette!

However, I appreciate this discussion, because I can now see how to "sneak in" the descriptions more by using actions. I'm reading HP#1 for our book discussion, and have been saying to myself, "See?! Jo Rowling does it!" But, upon reading your insights here, I realize HOW she sprinkles those descriptions through the plot.

I am humbled and repentant!

Posted by Pyre Dynasty (Member # 1947) on :

I once read a book where there was a char that did things high, so naturally I though He was a giant. But near the end when he dies it describes his frail fairy body. I had no Idea he was a fairy. SO there is such thing as too little.
In one story I don't describe the Main Char at all, because I will reveal at the end that it was really many people playing the role of this char. It's a little complex but oh well.
As a reader I usually put the storys in places I've seen, and the Chars as people I know. So I usually disreguard description. Unless It's something blatently important.
As for that person who asks what color the walls are tell them that they are always Bright purple with glowing orange Monkeys.

Posted by srhowen (Member # 462) on :

LOL--in one novel everyone thought the main character was a woman for several chapters becasue he had long hair. Had to put in a lot of small manly details to fix that.

Shawn

Posted by RFLong (Member # 1923) on :

Is there such a thing as "Robert-Jordanitus"? I'm reading Terry Goodkind's Naked Empire at the moment and I fear he has caught it...

Posted by Rahl22 (Member # 1411) on :

Goodkind's problem in "Naked Empire" was nothing like Jordan's problem. Jordan liked to drill detail into you. Goodkind likes to preach, the same point, over and over again. The former is boring, the latter is annoying.

Posted by Silver6 (Member # 1415) on :

Yup, but that's a crying shame for them, 'cause I haven't bothered to read either of them for a long while now, and from what I see, I won't bother to read them again. I hate books that drag, but you are right, preachers are more annoying than rambling people.

Posted by Alias (Member # 1645) on :

quote:
LOL--in one novel everyone thought the main character was a woman for several chapters becasue he had long hair. Had to put in a lot of small manly details to fix that.

Are you telling me that for several chapters there was never a pronoun reference to the main character other than his own name? No "he"-said this, or "he"-did that?

LoL! Lhat is funny.

Posted by Gen (Member # 1868) on :

Not if the main character is a first person narrator and doesn't hear other people talking about him in the third person. (Now there's an alternative to the dreaded mirror-scene for describing a first person narrator: narrator happens to walk by a door to a room wherein two people are describing him. "Did you see his manly thews?" asked Arabella. "Oh yes," said May-Belle with a giggle. "And those blue, blue eyes, and his cleft chin! Oh, I should just die if he knew how delicous I thought him!")

Posted by mags (Member # 1570) on :

there is always the option of "he said"

though I can see where this could happen. I had a short story with someone waking up from a coma, and the entire scene was from her pov, and there wasn't any convo from her, as she was just waking up. In addition I purposefully didn't use any pronouns - that was hard for me, but I felt that I learned through the writing.

Posted by Jsteg1210 (Member # 1993) on :

Thats where stereotypes come in. You would need to provide ques (sp?) to the reader that your character is male through actions, thoughts, or opinions. It can be very heard to write in first person from the POV of a member of the opposite sex. I haven't been brave enough to try it. Doing so would be implying that I understand women.

Posted by mags (Member # 1570) on :

and this is also a good reason why some authors shouldn't wrie with the main character being a different sex than they are... I can think of a few people who fall under the idea that they never should have tried... but the did get published.

Posted by jpwriter (Member # 1987) on :

I did write a 2400 word short story, first person POV from a female POV titled "Dressed to the Nines". My wife helped me with the feminine POV and although it needs a few tweaks on this story, I think the POV has worked very well. All the women readers have commented they didn't know it was a man until . . ..
Jerry

Posted by rickfisher (Member # 1214) on :

quote:
I can't stand it when I get halfway through a story to find out the main character has blond hair when I've been picturing her as a brunette!

I agree, this is something that should never happen. But chances are, it's the description of her being brunette that should be removed, rather than making sure it appears earlier. The only physical characteristics that really need to be mentioned are ones that are unusual enough to affect the way other people will react to a character (extreme ugliness, for example; and since we want to "show not tell" [yeah, yeah, I know the problems with that phrase and agree, but I think in this case everyone will know what I'm talking about], you should describe the features accounting for the ugliness, rather than simply claiming it), or things that will have some plot or character influence--extremes of stature, for example. (Wow. Remind me to avoid run-on sentences in the future.) In any case, ALL relevant physical description should be done early in the story so that the readers aren't jarred by a late mention which doesn't fit with the picture they've built up.

[This message has been edited by rickfisher (edited April 24, 2004).]

Posted by Kolona (Member # 1438) on :

'Early' being a relative term, of course.

Posted by Survivor (Member # 213) on :

First person:

"Ever since I've been a small boy/girl...."

Use it freely.