posted
Tracy Hickman has an essay up that I think is worth considering. He calls it writing porn, but he doesn't mean xxx stuff he means pointless and selfish detail.
posted
I have to say that by the end Terry Goodkind's books felt like wasted writing. Every paragraph seemed to be a mini essay, complete with synopsis, body, and conclusion. In other words he'd write what he was about to say in one sentence, then flesh it out through the paragraph, then conclude it.
Needless to say I got very, very tired of reading the same thing three times over and over again. That and his page after page of nonstop dialogue and it got somewhat tiresome.
posted
Interesting that should come from Hickman, whose writing I have never been able to reapproach after reading a couple of early Dragonlance novels, which surely fell into some of the traps he's now decrying.
Still, I guess we can all learn from our mistakes - I know I can, as I have made plenty!
posted
Oh god, finally someone has the guts to say it. That German guy says what I've been trying to put into words for a decade. It's amazing how many times I heard people saying to me: "Nice story but maybe you should add more detail." And I didn't know what to say to that, I just knew they were wrong.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Could it be that the story has the wrong kind of detail?
A lot of detail can be added within the action. Here is some bad examples of filling in some details.
He slipped a new charge into the blaster. Spring buds just leafing out on the bare trees, birds chirping and flittering from branch to branch, a deer in the brush. He flipped the safety off. A rabbit appeared from behind a mound. He felt bad that they would soon be gone. He pulled the trigger. He had a job to do. Moments later, the scene was flowing lava. Explosions showed where the enemy had dug in beneath the plant cover. When the rock solidified, their creators would not be found.
In the bad example, you get detail into otherwise mundane scene of a soldier firing a cannon into an enemy emplacement. One can have as much detail as one wants, as long as it does not slow down the action. It is a balance.
In older times, one could have vast blocks of detail and explanation between the action. Nowadays, it must be spread through the action. Two people talking, can have loads of description if they are doing stuff within the room or location. Two people gathering native plants for food while watching the horizon for the enemy can be filled with description while they are involved in a heavy discussion. Two people discussing and plotting can have a lot of description if one picking through papers and books for some data or a print out. In either case, you are having them do something besides talk. the action is the talking, the action is the searching, the description is mixed in with the action.
It is the same argument of showing not telling. "He picked up a hammer and missed the nail."
"The hammer felt strange in his hand. He pulled the hammer head back as he held the nail against the wall with his other hand. he swung it with all his might at the target. His yelp brought others into the room. Luckily the hole in the wall was the only damage. An inch farther over and he would be in pain."
Another bad example of getting description into the writing.
In my opinion, it is the right description in the right places.
Of course, I have read elsewhere here where they said that in transitions you tell, in scenes you show.
posted
I've read a lot of books where people put way to much detail into things by going on about what shade of green the grass is, stephen king reference (I think It was him that did that). I look at it this way, yes its bad, but it's easy to do, and if you focus on ridding that problem than one becomes afraid of not enough detail. I good rule of thumb for me is if you know there's someone out there that does not know what you're talking about than describe it.
Example: Quite a few editors told me not to describe the weapons, but if I told you that Shadow master carried Difini Blades, would you have any idea what I'm talking about.
BTW, a couple editors actually told me to NOT describe the Difini Blades. So than I told him "would you know what it was otherwise," and he didn't have too much to say after that
posted
John, would you describe one of these difini blades for me? I tried looking one up and got nothing, and usually with weapons they're at the top of the search page.
As for describing weapons it depends. Sometimes a brief description of a weapon is enough to let you know its purpose, and sometimes you can just say the name and if they can't get it from context they'll look it up and see if they can find pictures of it.
In one of my stories I use quite a few different weapons, some of them more modern. Torpedo knives, kukri knives, wakizashis, estocs, franciscas, chakrams, etc. A lot of weapons have been created during the ages, but most of them fall into broad categories.
For my stories if the PoV character knows what it is I just use the name, and then later on if another character unfamiliar with it sees the weapon I briefly describe it through his eyes. You'd be surprised at what readers can pick up just by how the weapon is used in combat, as well as the fact that in combat you can have a chance to describe the weapon as it's put to use.
A bit of a tangent from the subject of gratuitous detail, but I just love weapons .
[This message has been edited by Natej11 (edited May 14, 2011).]
posted
It's basically a chain blade. I just call it something different. A good example would be the kratos's main weapon in god of war.
Posts: 174 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weapons can be a problem if you do not supply enough detail. Would most people know what a kopis looks like if I use it in a story? Or a rhompaia?
Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a tough balance to make. This may be off subject a little, but is it possible that sometimes its ok to have something viewed as too much?
On the one hand, in the past you could spend a page or two describing surroundings which was probably suitable because a lot of people traveled less. There was no TV or Internet so I can't see a one word and have a predownloaded image in my head. So maybe so much description isn't useful because we're telling people what they already know. Really? The sword has a blade? The main character uses Axe deodorant?
On the other hand, as my wife is constantly telling me when I regail her with critiques of my work, people today have about an attention span of 5-8 seconds thanks to the same visual medias that allow us to not need so much description. But if we follow it to its natural extreme, it must lead to a story that is very undiscriptive and fast paced. Which might be good for variety, but I don't want to live in a world where every show is cut and edited like 24.
Is it ok, to let the reader get a little uncomfortable, to actually make them sit in a scene and take it in? I know from an economic stand no, so maybe it's just a complaint.
posted
I'm thinking you have to balance the need to keep the story moving by minimizing extraneous detail, with the need to make the reader see the story by additional detail.
This can get particularly acute in, say, multi-series books, where the writer has described some things before, but has to describe them again for the hypothetical first-time reader---without disgusting the long-time readers who already know what he's talking about. (I remember a lengthy non-SF police procedural series that contained an explanation of how one character got a kind-of odd name---said explanation present in every book I looked at, and, I've been told, nearly every other book in the series.)
posted
Oh how I hate the details. My first novel like so many people was heavily influenced by LOTR and was told by an editor that I was extremely detailed oriented. Since then I have struggle with the details, taking too many out, and putting them in where readers dont feel they are necessary. 'tis a balancing act to say the least.
As far as Tracy Hickman as a writer, I have only read the ones he co-authored with Margaret Weis. But I will say I found them to drag on more than I like. At spurts I love the books, but find myself skipping paragraphs and then pages.
But as a previous poster said, it is possible to learn from earlier mistakes.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
.
