posted
Is it better to describe your characters' physical traits with a single open and close selection, or is it better to lead readers to see their own image of the person with dropped hints?
example one: Kate was an expensive woman. From her french pedicure to her pouty, botox lips, every inch of the woman's lean frame was perfection and she had the receipts to prove it. She sat, twirling strands of her ash blond hair around her index finger. She was lost in her own world, unaware that everyone passing, paused for a least a microsecond to admire her magazine cut-out appearance.
example two: Kate's bare pedicured feet padded across the cool tiles...Nothing subtracted from her immaculate mask of heightened, modern beauty. Even in such a state, her pouty, botox lips quivering could make a man sigh...She brushed the ash blond strands out of her eyes...Her lean, graceful figure shilloetted against the moonlit windows...etc.
Example two is scattered throughout the manuscript. Just, where a descriptive adjective flows, it's thrown in. Creating a sense over time, but never showing the character in full at any given point. Pretend the "..."s are filler story.
Example one is more of an introductory snapshot. We can hypothetically say Kate is the M/C of this story. We can say she is a critical player. Does that make getting a general idea about how she looks from the get-go more important or less?
[This message has been edited by Reagansgame (edited August 19, 2008).]
posted
I prefer the Hemingway approach: don't describe people, just their actions and environments. Let the reader draw that conclusion for themselves.
Posts: 487 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if it matters with respect to your question, but you've used an example in which the description shows the narrator's disdain for the woman (through her excessive reworking of her appearance) rather than the general case of describing her appearance. The latter can be neutral or complimentary.
Her ghastly made-up green eyes. Her green eyes. Her sparkling green eyes.
I tend not to describe people because I don't know how to (unless they happen to have green eyes). I could have a model sitting across the table from me while I typed, and it wouldn't help; I don't have a vocabulary for it. So I'll go the Hemingway route.
posted
When physical description of a character is essential for context, and if no other way works, I default to a short block of description. I do strive for features of causation, emotive appeal, and antagonism in physical description, resonance with the plot, although it's not always possible or effective to do so.
The quantity of physical description I find essential is enough for the character to be readily visualized by a reader yet not so much that I force the reader to perceive an exact persona. Sometimes vagueness has a better effect than precision. Too specific information prevents a reader from self-identifying with a central character, especially the protagonist.
If the central characters are being described, when the story is a longer form, I like to incorporate reminders by showing changes in appearances related to the plot highlights as a story progresses. I've used a hat to foreshadow changing attitudes in a protagonist. When he wore the hat, he was meek; without the hat, he was assertive.
I once described a character as resembling John Anderson. Unfortunately, he's not in the public eye anymore. So I changed it to John McCain wearing his reading glasses. That latter comparison will likely pass out of date in a few years or decades, though, maybe months. The public eye is fickle.
In another description that received mixed responses, I described an extras character as looking like a clarinet player, squinty eyes, black horn rimmed glasses, as short and plump as a tree stump. Until it came under scrutiny, the description flowed smoothly, invisibly for the workshop readers. The comment that brought it into focus was what an effectively brief description it was. It conveyed a precise mental picture for half of the workshop, though each had their own interpretation based upon their exposure to clarinet players in their high school bands. The other half then picked the description to death, generally asking what does a clarinet player actually look like, how can a stereotype be applied to a musician's appearance based upon their instrument. Ha! mixed messages.
posted
I'm not sure I get it, reagansgame. Both examples contain the same information - she had a pedicure, she's lean, she has ash-blonde hair, she's botoxed, she meets standards for modern beauty. What is the diff between the two descriptions?
Posts: 1304 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think both your examples read about teh same, and do about the same job at giving us important information about the character.
While I would not generally go into Hugo-style detail about a person's physical characteristics
"John weighed exactly 100 kilos, had a 36 inch waist--though wasn't happy about it, cream-colored skin, red hair, purple teeth--though three were missing--three molars even, he had fat lips, they were a pinkish red, and he had regular arms and regular legs, for that matter he was a fairly regular guy over all."
That's all worthless description that should be cut.
But in your examples I would argue that they aren't just good writing--which they are, but they also give us important information about the characters traits and personality (ie: image and beauty are important to her, and she'll go to extreme lengths to obtain them) and your descriptions are appropriately short while still giving a nearly crystal image of her character.
posted
I agree that there aren't many differences between the two, but it seems in fiction today most will tell you that editors have a preference for fewer blocks of descriptive text, more details drabbled out over the course of the text, which would mean your second bit that you indicate would have the lines of description interspersed with dialogue and action and other bits.
One suggestion, though. Botox doesn't lead to pouty effects. Botox leads to a smooth and severe skin - botoxed foreheads often lead to excessively raised eyebrows.
Collagen implants would make for pouty lips, I believe.
I think, though, my overall thought is that either approach is OK, it's really just your call for what seems to work best for your story. There are stories where the pace is such that a block of descriptive text here and there helps break up the flow. There are other stories where that kind of break would completely disrupt the flow.
posted
The question I would have is what POV are you going to be using? If omniscient is what you're using throughout the book, go with the first one. I liked it better because it had fewer adjectives and it created a sense of who she was as well as how she looked, but telling us that she was unaware of how others looked at her let us know it definitely wasn't her POV.
If you're writting in 3rd, I'd find a way to reword the second to skim down the adjectives and to be sure it's all through her perspective. I personally prefer to start with a brief shetch of what my character looks like and then leave little filler type hints of character description throughout. It's a book, you really can't be too precise about it, and if a reader really feels like they know who your character is, they'll find their own images.
posted
I like simple definitions, myself. If your PoV sees someone, a trait or two will stand out, but not everything they see. If you ask 10 people the "What'd he look like?" question, you'll piece together a description, or find correlating data that shows you his most obvious traits:
Devon's black-stubbled chin was so square it looked artificial, and though he had an athletic build, he looked cartoonish.
That's enough for me to know what Devon looks like to my PoV. In my mind, he becomes the Chin dude for the rest of the story. It doesn't matter what color his eyes are, and I can assume--by the stubble--his hair is black. He's automatically average height, because the PoV doesn't think of him as short or tall.
I try not to describe the PoV, unless through another PoV's eyes.
[This message has been edited by InarticulateBabbler (edited August 19, 2008).]
posted
I like IB's idea, to spot a unique, identifying characteristic about a person so we get a little perspective "the man was very fat" or "his gut bulged out like he was pregnant with thirty-five babies." But don't tell us everything from his eye color to the brand of his jeans. Not unless those details are important for establishing his personality.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Reagansgame, I would hesitate to have too much description of physical appearance. If you describe them all at once, it will look like an info dump. If you let it out in dribs and drabs, the reader will develop their own picture of Kate, and when you drop a new descriptive on them it will conflict with their own image and interfere with the flow.
Also, I am horrible when it comes to reading and retaining detail, so even if you told me all that up front, I will probably still picture her differently than you intended, and further attempts to describe her details will become annoying to me.
posted
Like so much else it depends. Mostly on what you are trying to accomplish, the tone/voice of the story and the POV who's seeing the person.
In both examples, someone other than Kate is describing her. I had a very definate idea of Kate and the POV character based on Example 1. While I had a different concept of Kate, less of a sense of the POV's dislike for her and much less voice in Example 2.
Also, I have to say, I LOVE the first two sentances of Example 1.
I have an MC that always notices the color of someone's eyes. So, when she meets someone she's going to make a reference to thier eyes. The other characters generally don't notice that detail so it's not part of a description they'd give of a person they see. One is going to assess that person as a potential threat and notice details related to that. The other is looking for ways to use the person to get what he wants. Again, he notices details related to his POV - i.e. what about this person tells me that I can or can't use them for X?
I think most writers do both. Some characters get a block description of the important traits up front, and some we get to learn about more slowly.
[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited August 19, 2008).]
Printer-friendly view of this topic
