Interesting Questions
Feb. 23rd, 2008 12:36 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
So, I was browsing the old LJ friendslist and
wldhrsjen3 posted the following questions:
"How much character description do you like? Do you prefer an author to keep things rather vague so you can form your own mental pictures, or do you like a clear picture of the people in the book?
And what is the best way to slip description in without interrupting the flow of dialogue or the pacing of a scene?"
I ended up leaving a rather long comment (for a comment) and I thought everyone might be interested in it. So here's my response:
OK, I generally leave the majority of the description of characters and places and whatnot up to the reader. I always find it annoying (and generally just skip ahead when reading) when a writer goes into some kind of heavy-duty description of a character in a novel. Unless something in that description is important to the plot or to the character (such as eye color because later on that's how they identify the thief, or a scar whose back story gives the character added dimension) I don't think it should be included. So I skip it. Or I give a rather vague description of the character. . . . Although now that I think about it, my "vague" descriptions are usually used to show something about the character. For example, I describe Varis at one point in The Skewed Throne, but the information I give the reader paints a picture about her world: her small form (due to starvation), her torn and tattered clothing, her matted and dirt-smeared hair. All of those details give you an idea of how she lives, but I dind't tell you about her cheek bones or the color of her eyebrows, etc. Such details didn't add anything to the story, IMO.
Others might not agree. That's just what I think about character descriptions and how I use them in a story.
No good suggestion on how to work them in. Like everything else, it should flow. I try to mix the descriptions into the other aspects of the story, such as the dialogue. You can mention how a character's long hair obscures their vision by having another character who cares for her reach out and brush the hair out of the way during a conversation. Things like that. But you can also do a more blatant description. For the above description of Varis, I actually had her think, "I don't know what he saw when he looked back--an eleven-year-old girl who looked as if she were eight, with tattered clothes, dirt-smeared skin, matted hair, cowering against the alley wall." Something like that anyway. I know that in the Throne novels, I made a conscious decision to describe things with a BAM! BAM! BAM! approach. So the basic structure was detail-detail-detail, then back to the story as quick as possible. That worked for Varis. But the new novel can't use that structure because it's got a different voice. So a single answer on how to work in the descriptions just doesn't work, because it depends on the novel and its voice.
Feel free to comment here or, better yet, over at
wldhrsjen3's original post--or both!
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
"How much character description do you like? Do you prefer an author to keep things rather vague so you can form your own mental pictures, or do you like a clear picture of the people in the book?
And what is the best way to slip description in without interrupting the flow of dialogue or the pacing of a scene?"
I ended up leaving a rather long comment (for a comment) and I thought everyone might be interested in it. So here's my response:
OK, I generally leave the majority of the description of characters and places and whatnot up to the reader. I always find it annoying (and generally just skip ahead when reading) when a writer goes into some kind of heavy-duty description of a character in a novel. Unless something in that description is important to the plot or to the character (such as eye color because later on that's how they identify the thief, or a scar whose back story gives the character added dimension) I don't think it should be included. So I skip it. Or I give a rather vague description of the character. . . . Although now that I think about it, my "vague" descriptions are usually used to show something about the character. For example, I describe Varis at one point in The Skewed Throne, but the information I give the reader paints a picture about her world: her small form (due to starvation), her torn and tattered clothing, her matted and dirt-smeared hair. All of those details give you an idea of how she lives, but I dind't tell you about her cheek bones or the color of her eyebrows, etc. Such details didn't add anything to the story, IMO.
Others might not agree. That's just what I think about character descriptions and how I use them in a story.
No good suggestion on how to work them in. Like everything else, it should flow. I try to mix the descriptions into the other aspects of the story, such as the dialogue. You can mention how a character's long hair obscures their vision by having another character who cares for her reach out and brush the hair out of the way during a conversation. Things like that. But you can also do a more blatant description. For the above description of Varis, I actually had her think, "I don't know what he saw when he looked back--an eleven-year-old girl who looked as if she were eight, with tattered clothes, dirt-smeared skin, matted hair, cowering against the alley wall." Something like that anyway. I know that in the Throne novels, I made a conscious decision to describe things with a BAM! BAM! BAM! approach. So the basic structure was detail-detail-detail, then back to the story as quick as possible. That worked for Varis. But the new novel can't use that structure because it's got a different voice. So a single answer on how to work in the descriptions just doesn't work, because it depends on the novel and its voice.
Feel free to comment here or, better yet, over at
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
Thoughts
Date: 2008-02-23 06:02 am (UTC)Some stories are mileu stories, about a setting that the author has made me want to visit as much as possible. I'd like some character description -- especially as regards the ways in which the setting has created people who belong there -- but it doesn't need to be as much. I'm not following the characters so much as I'm ogling the landscape.
Then there are stories of idea or plot. They're not about people, really; the characters are just whomever happens to get swept up in what's happening. That could be anybody. So the only characterization needed is 1) enough to tell them apart, and 2) stuff that's actually going to impact the story. Stories of idea are svelte, elegant things compared to character-driven fiction. Stories of plot can be intricate contraptions where you just want to lie there and watch the gears whiz. Neither of them benefit from show-stealing characters.
Some of the best fiction balances those elements and creates a unique situation that could only emerge from a specific character in a specific setting. Those demand rich characterization, rich background description, and robust plotting. They're challenging to write, but they sure are worth it!
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2008-02-23 07:30 pm (UTC)However, when I refer to character description, I mean things like eye color, hair color, weight, height, clothing, etc. In general, unless it relates to the story or tells me something about their emotional character, I'm not all that interested. I form a picture of the character in my head on my own and don't need the author to flesh out those details. Because of this, as an author I generally leave all the descriptions up to the reader as well. Unless it relates to the plot or characterization in some way.
Re: Thoughts
Date: 2008-02-23 07:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:59 am (UTC)I really like it when the description is worked in throughout the scene. I absolutely HATE when the action is stopped for a paragraph (running grocery list) of a character's description, while I'm sitting there in limbo, waiting. *shudder* I have a critique mate who's made a career out of doing just that, and more and more, I find myself skimming whatever page it is and moving on.
That's just me.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:32 pm (UTC)So work it in so it isn't obvious. That's my motto. And only then when it's necessary for the plot or characterization overall.
visuals
Date: 2008-02-23 11:17 am (UTC)I find myself in the position occasionally that some readers dislike that I don't deliver visuals. That is not only a matter taste. IMO the most challenging is to write without a visual in a way that the lack of visual is not felt so intensly by those readers.
What I try to do, is using, for example, the concept of foreshadowing. I have a dark haired, dark eyed MC. I introduce him in a dark setting. Thus, the reader associates the darkness. If he wasn't dark himself, it would be something *special* to be pointed out.
I have another story the very tall, very young MC burries his foster father in the first scene. I get across the fact that he is in good physical shape by the lengthy procedure and his dealing with it. I let his really big, broad hand do something in a gesture of weariness indicating that he is a tall person. His thoughts about his father portrait his youth. So, there really is no need for an actual visual. And yet you get one.
I am still finding it hard. It helps that I actually do have a visual reference in my head. Even it it doesn't make it explicitely into the scene. And sometimes I simply fail miserable and have to do some serious editing :(
Brooke
Re: visuals
Date: 2008-02-23 12:53 pm (UTC)Word. I always cast characters in my head, and while I don't need enough info to be able to pick them out of a lineup, I would like to know if I need to go with, say, a Liam Neeson type versus a Billy Barty type.
Re: visuals
Date: 2008-02-23 07:37 pm (UTC)Re: visuals
Date: 2008-02-23 07:36 pm (UTC)I'm also don't hang on to visuals when I'm reading. If it's important that a character have green eyes for a huge plot revelation later on . . . I'm going to totally miss that. Because the writer may mention green eyes repeatedly, but a paragraph later I'm not going to remember that. Because I'll already have a picture in my head and I'm happy with that, and in most books my picture works just fine, thank you. *grin*
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 12:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:41 pm (UTC)But yeah, only bring up things that relate to plot and characterization and you're usually pretty well set for descriptions.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 01:13 pm (UTC)She's not the one for him and when he thinks about the girl he does marry, he thinks about *her*, not what she looks like.
Suelder
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:43 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 10:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 01:47 pm (UTC)No, descriptions don't usually work if they're cutting into action, and if they get too elaborate, they drag. But a few well placed sentences or even a paragraph's worth can set up a whole character / place.
For example, the physical appearance of Patrick O'Brian's characters plays into their relationships and their personalities. In the first scene of his entire series, he describes Jack's physique as almost extinguishing the gilt chair he's sitting in. In just a few sentences, not only do you see this larger than life man, but you get the whole room, the milieu, everything. Throughout the series, O'Brian repeatedly mentions Jack's ample physique, his long blond hair, his ruddy sea-tanned face. He can also paint a seascape in just a few sentences. All of that immerses me in that world. Neil Gaimon is good at that, too.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:45 pm (UTC)No, I realize that NOT describing the character in detail is probably going to annoy some of the readers out there. But hopefully I provide enough description--a tidbit there, and tidbit here--so that these readers don't just chuck the book across the room for lack of anyone having faces.
And I do try to describe characters in detail if those details are important for characterization, like your Patrick O'Brian example. He's using it to give us an idea of what the character is LIKE, emotionally, not just so we have an idea of what he looks like.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 09:02 pm (UTC)It's a bent that certain writers and readers have. Ultimately, ya can't please 'em all.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 03:12 pm (UTC)One of the things that bugged me about the last Wild Cards book I read is that they didn't bother with much physical description in the book because the book has a webpage with comic book style art, and that defined how the characters looked. If not for that, I wouldn't really have had a clear picture of anybody other than one. And it would've bugged me worse.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-23 07:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-24 01:56 am (UTC)Some of my favourite books are the novels of Jane Austen, which are almost devoid of specific physical description (she's fond instead of calling people "pretty" or "plain" or "stout" or "light" or "tall" or whatever, which works surprisingly well). My new theory is that Austen had the same handicap that I have -- an inability to visualize -- and therefore concentrated on other things. My other theory is that this is part of the reason I like her books so much ;^).
My own book's got descriptions of people (not everybody) that are sometimes as much as two sentences long, and this strikes me as too much, but then again I have got protags who shape-shift ...