So just how much visualization should be done either in a short story or a novel to get the story across and how much should be left to the reader's imagination? Does it have to be a long description or are there ways to do it with a few simple words?
I guess I should add that I have an animalistic (but highly intelligent) character in one of my novels that I spent time describing in detail but mainly because he is so unlike the more human-type characters in the same story.
My general rule is ... 1. Is this information important, does it tell something necessary about the character's environment or personality, etc? 2. Is it interesting?
Passing either of these checks I'll include the detail. usually, I find, that check two really is just a subset of check one.
Scene description, like so many things, can be used to characterize the protagonist, both his attitude and his familiarity with a situation. I like to think of narration as looking through the eyes of the character using the filter of the words. If he's in his own house, he probably won't describe much because he doesn't think about his house. But if he's a pauper going to a prince's ball, he'll describe many details in wonder. If a warrior walks into an unfamiliar place, he could notice many details, such as what places could conceal an attacker, how many exits there are, etc... If an architect walked into the same room he might notice the beautiful arched doorways and the composition of the floor. Others might scrutinize the people more closely and ignore the location to some extent.
By the way, American Psycho is a novel that drowns the reader in description and detail, but it's absolutely necessary for what Ellis was trying to say (though I have no idea what he was trying to say).
Idiosyncrasies and peccadilloes are sometimes good for concisely distinguishing characters, objects, or settings, but they can be so peculiar that the same loss of reader intimacy will occur. Better if more universal than too peculiar. Another article from long ago that I also can't remember where I saw it said that the strength of fiction is perceiving the familiar in the strange and the strange in the familiar.
Either way, we need a bit of description to know whats going on. Remember that it sometimes doesn't have to add to the story, but rather, to the clarity of what is happening.
Take that into account.
Then, after it cools, read through it and see if you agree that it lacks clarification.
I remember reading a story one time where the character's age wasn't evident right away. I thought I was reading about a young man and then found out he was much older. I had to go back and re-read it to get the picture of the character as a youth out of my mind. It wasn't easy and continued to plague me for the majority of the book.
-Hedging
-Politeness
-Tag questions
-Emotional emphasis
-Empty adjectives
-Proper grammar and pronunciation
-Lack of humor
-Direct quotations
-Extended vocabulary
-Declarations with interrogative intonation
from http://changingminds.org/explanations/gender/womens_language.htm
I'm a reader who is proactive is creating my own mental pictures, so there is a point where it gets to be too much for me.
I'd rather read:
"A sharp-dressed businesswoman who appeared to spend as much time at the gym and on the beach as in the office."
Than a 10-line paragraph describing her outfit, jewelry, accesories, muscle tone, cosmetics, skin tone, eye color, hair color, hairstyle, shoes, etc.
But then again, one of the harshest critiques I've ever received was from a reader who got put off because I did not specify a character's eye and hair colors (she was the POV character) in the opening chapter of a novel. So who knows, maybe I'm in the minority?
They said he once got after a writing student for using too much description. He said that as a writing you make a tacet agreement with the reading. It is as if the reader is taking a hike into the mountains and you are specifying what he needs to bring. If you make him carry a yello volkswagon and he gets to the top and there wasn't a purpose to it he's going to be angry he had to lug it up there.
The type of story your writing in large measure determines how much description you should attempt to include. A story about characters in our time in a suburb in the United States, really requires very little description of surroundings since your audience (assuming that your writing in English to be published in America) already knows what an average suburban American neighborhood is like. Now, if the character is ridiculously wealthy and lives the life of the ultra-privileged, you would want to describe more deeply to your readers the elegance of his surroundings since the 'average American' only guesses at what a life in the lap of luxury would be like.
So, at least for me, the real question is, what kind of story you writing? When you know what type of story you're writing it's easier to determine how much detail is warranted.
There's lot's of ways, I'd think. It would be a function of the POV, and what importance, if any, the character's race has to the story and/or the POV character.
If it's a minor character seen through a POV that isn't overly concerned with race, you could just say, "a middle-aged polynesian man," (or asian, or black, or hispanic, or white, or indian, or whatever). If the POV character is very politically correct you could substitute the "-american" equivalents.
If you're writing, for example, something about the South in the 1950's where racial differences affect the characters to a large degree, it becomes a much bigger issue in how people view each other and themselves.
If you desire to describe the literal flesh tone of an individual, just find a good, non-generic/cliche color description (you'd have a hard time finding someone whose skin is literally black or white or red or yellow, etc.).
And, since I usually deal with the future in some way, usually on far-flung planets, I might be dealing with characters who've never heard of "Polynesia," much less "Polynesians" or "Polynesian-Americans"...and since I intend my stuff to be read by the people who are here-and-now, I can't define an ethnic group on future terms without in some way describing them for the present day...
quote:
A sort-of sidebar thought: how do you introduce info about a character's color of skin without looking like some kind of bigot?
Like with other types of descriptions, first consider why skin color matters in your story. In the future on a far-flung planet, characters' skin colors won't mean the same thing as if they're on present-day Earth. If color defines groups, then look for situations in which the two groups interact, or when a member of one group considers issues between the groups.
Is one character surprised at another's skin color? Are jokes about skin color common? Does a character remark about how garment color contrasts or compliment skin color? Do you have a love scene between people of dramatically different colors? Fight scene, where there's time to describe blood sliding down skin?
If you introduce the info when it matters, as characters notice color of skin, then most readers won't judge you for it.
That man crossing the street is black--dark chocolate brown. The woman with the poodle is white with an Irish flush. Is that girl with the Hispanic boy--no, wait, deep russet, I'll think about him later--Indonesian? Light sepia.
What else could fit in fore-thoughts with this going on? Someone researching a story or deeply biased might fixate on skin colors. Otherwise, getting to work on time, not slipping in the slush, what the spouse said last night, etcetera takes over.
So... "Black" and "white" irritates readers when those descriptions seem to reflect more of a writer's biases/insecurities than what's relevant to the story. Compare excerpts from fictional news reports.
One: "Police identified 20-year-old Matthew Filliger as the thief behind 13 home break-ins last month. Neighbors caught the black man carrying stolen goods..."
Two: "Witnesses report that Terry, a white woman in her thirties, beat the black teenager with a metal trash can lid as she screamed racial slurs."
Do you see the difference?
Anyway, use whatever terminology is appropriate to your story when needed to convey character or plot. "Black" and "white" might not fit. The good news is that if the terminology you use doesn’t make sense, then your test readers will notice.
quote:
Do you really note the skin color of every person you see?
Yes.
As for the fictitious news reports...there are places in the USA that don't include skin color in such reports...which in a "police are searching for..." story, can be quite crippling in locating the person.
And take Fictional News Report Number Two: Reverse the descriptions of skin color: "Witnesses report that Terry, a black woman in her thirties, beat the white teenager with a metal trash can lid as she screamed racial slurs." Is this a different story? And why so? If one of us were writing the story behind the tag line, we would be obliged to explain the why of it.
I'm inclined to include skin color as part of description, come what may.
quote:
Yes.
That explains why you want to know every fictional character's skin color. Write what you want to read.
quote:
As for the fictitious news reports...there are places in the USA that don't include skin color in such reports...which in a "police are searching for..." story, can be quite crippling in locating the person.
A police description for the purpose of locating a subject is different than reporting on a recent incident, though both may occur in an article.
quote:
And take Fictional News Report Number Two: Reverse the descriptions of skin color: "Witnesses report that Terry, a black woman in her thirties, beat the white teenager with a metal trash can lid as she screamed racial slurs." Is this a different story? And why so? If one of us were writing the story behind the tag line, we would be obliged to explain the why of it.
In #2, "black" and "white" combined with mention of racial slurs indicate how the woman will be charged. If she had attacked someone of her own color and screamed insults about race, then that's a different story. Readers would ask different questions.
quote:
I'm inclined to include skin color as part of description, come what may.
We all take risks when writing. That's why I write what is important to me. If I were to publish... sorry, when I publish, I'll care more about if the story was clear than whether or not readers agree with my values.
However, I have worked both alongside and in a helping capacity with people of many different races and found that for the most part people are divided more along the lines of socio-economic differences than differences in race.
What I mean by this is that I have worked as a mentor/counselor with families that were very low in economic status and they are all very similar in their behavior and their order of priorities. Now I say this with a condition - the people I've worked with in this way have had similar needs. Almost all of them have eagerly received government assistance and have had limited education.
I, myself, have been poor on occasion in my life and had neither of these hinderances (and yes goverment dependency is a hinderance). The difference was a belief in rising above poverty and a confidence in doing what must be done to accomplish this.
On the other hand, I've had coworkers of other races and found that, except for a few cultural differences, our basic belief systems and principles were very similar. Our goals are very similar - family, religion, career, etc.
I think I understand what Robert is saying - that often what people see first is skin color. It is many times inescapable, but I would challenge people to consider is the white teenager with his pants-waist down to his knees treated any more trustingly than the black teenager dressed the same? Is the white man in the shirt and tie treated any more trustingly than the black man dressed the same? For many, the answer is "yes", and that is unfortunate.
I am somewhat conditioned to have various degrees of reservation based largely on how people are dressed. that's not to say that people dressed in lowriders are always thieves or that people in ties are always honest. But I am conditioned to have various degrees of concern when encountering people based on this. I suppose demeanor also plays a large part in my perceptions.
Let me end this rambling by stating that much of this is a result of environment. If someone socializes in a group predominantly of one race, I think that person will be more aware of other races when encountering them. I changed positions within my organization about four months ago. I had been working there for about a month and a half when one day I looked around and realized that I was the only caucasion our of about 10 people working in the building. I just hadn't noticed that I was a minority.
In writing, race has its place, but it is not always necessary to point it out.
Names themselves are powerful. Loquacia Robinson in tandem with an uncoventional dialect could show an ethnic person without needing to describe her appearance.
The challenge is to make villains or nemeses unique from their biological predestinations. Giving a reader subliminal cues from a few identifying characteristics is effective as long as decorum is maintained and stock stereotypes don't rise to caricatures of reality. Authenticity is what matters as does tone. Distinguishing racial features if characterized by respectful attitudes doesn't become insensitive observation. One guiding principle I rely on is that no matter who's the villain and who's the hero, in each's mind and comportment, they believe they're noble and distinguished.
When we look at a person, there is a lot of raw information we take in, including the color of their skin and other features indicative of ethnicity. Like so many other visual details, it's importance to a story should dictate whether and to what degree it gets put on the page. A meticulous cataloging of the skin color of every character will tell a reader that skin color is of great importance. If that doesn't have apparent meaning within the story itself, it will reflect on the outlook of the author, and at best be an annoyance to the reader.
It's a judgement call on the part of the writer. If it's a necessary detail, then do it and don't worry about it.
For example, three different characters:
He wore a grey Armani suit, a crisp white shirt and a blue silk tie, perfectly knotted.
He wore a crumpled Armani suit, a blue shirt, and a tie stained with engine oil.
He wore a grey Armani suit, an open-necked blue silk shirt, and a big smile.
[This message has been edited by TaleSpinner (edited January 26, 2009).]
I'm inclined to agree with dee_boncci's statement---we humans do gather a great deal of information at a glance. Digging deeper, to find, say, the person behind this immediately-available info, would come later---in real life and in writing, too.
[This message has been edited by rich (edited January 27, 2009).]
As regarding skin color, how important is skin color to the character? If the story takes place in the US during the time of slavery, or during the time of segregation, obviously skin color is of vital importance to the character.
If it takes place during present day, many times it wouldn't really matter. A character might be interested, might not be. If you get in the character's head, you can think about what they'd notice. If a character from a small town in the Midwest goes to the big city and sees a multiracial populace, he might find it hard not to stare at people with darker skin. Even assuming he's not racist, darker skin tones are just an unusual sight if you're normally surrounded by fair-skinned folk of European descent. But if the character started out in the big city, he might not even think about it (and therefore it should not be in the narration in my view).