# The Balance between Detail and Imagination.



## Hunter56 (Mar 19, 2013)

This seems to be something that I still have trouble with sometimes. I always want the reader to let their own imagination get rolling but sometimes I'm not sure _how _detailed I should have the scene be.

For example -- if someone's sitting in a room, of course you should explain why he's in the room and what the room looks like at first glance, but you don't want a ten page written tour of the room talking about how many drapes the windows have and what kind of stain is on the coffee table. 

So what I want to know is how you balance the scale between detailing a scene and letting the reader paint the picture for themselves.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 19, 2013)

I think I've learned to strike the balance by osmosis -- from years of reading. And with practice. It's not something I think about and I couldn't tell you how to do it in general terms if my life depended on it. I think it's something you have to learn by doing. There are no formulas.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 19, 2013)

In my opinion, the first thing to remember is, the reader will always paint the picture for themselves.  Once you understand that, you can get past trying to make the reader see exactly what you see in your head, and start making them get the mood, or impression you want to create.  If the setting is important to the scene, then use words and descriptions which convey that importance.  Do you want the setting to be cold and sterile because that's the nature of the character in it?  Write about the flat, blue-white lighting, and surfaces as smooth as wet ice.  Carefully chosen words, and snap-shot-like images can create an illusion of much greater detail.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 19, 2013)

Each character needs a touchstone: a defining detail that the reader can use to form an... Extra-nomial? (visual or otherwise) ...connection to the character. It's fine if a character has more than one, but it needs to be a fairly short list so that the reader can recall it quickly when it comes up in the text.

Harry Potter: Scar, glasses.

Long John Silver: Missing leg.

Eddard Stark: Ice.

There are, of course, several further considerations:

1) Some characters actually exist to provide a proxy for the reader (or, in less fortunate cases, the author). These characters lack such a touchstone *intentionally.* Romance novel protagonists often fall into this category.

2) The touchstone need not be a physical characteristic of the character, nor is it necessary that the touchstone be a characteristic of the character, per se. It can also be a tick or habit, or (as in the final case above) another entity with which the character is associated. 

If a character is going to have a touchstone, it should be introduced pretty damn quickly, because you can't retroactively add in details to a reader's mental picture. Either way, once this initial window of opportunity is closed, don't go adding in specific details: generalizations are all right, but (except in the case that you're reminding the reader about something you've mentioned previously, like in a later installment of a serial work), details should be avoided.

Description beyond that is generally unhelpful.

===

Further note: I am reminded of an exercise from a group I used to attend. A piece described a car in almost personal terms, mentioning, among other things, a bent wheel and rust. After those in attendance had read the piece, the instructor asked what color the car was.

Everyone had an answer. 

The piece never mentioned the color of the car.

===

Changed wording to reflect validity of non-sensory traits.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 19, 2013)

Need?? There are bazillion characters in literature without a "touchstone" or any described characteristics.


----------



## Sam (Mar 19, 2013)

archer88iv said:


> Each character *needs*



I didn't read anything past the emboldened word. You could have made the most compelling argument in history and it wouldn't have mattered.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 19, 2013)

I know I have a touchstone -- it's my luxuriously thick and shiny hair.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 19, 2013)

A bazillion. Can you actually name one?


----------



## JosephB (Mar 19, 2013)

Sure. Right now, I'm well into Philip Roth's _Deception._ So far, no "touchstones."


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 19, 2013)

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]From Amazon:

[/FONT]Davies: Nothing notable
Javits: "Red"
Carlos: "Operator"
Gyle: "Professional"
Walsh: "President"
Johnson: "Wealth, Seniority"
Hunt: "Burnout"
Ivanovich: "Butcher"

I'm going to confess, Joseph, that I don't see anything notable in the Amazon preview of Roth's Deception, either.


----------



## Deleted member 49710 (Mar 19, 2013)

I feel like I've seen this "touchstone" thing done badly quite often. Like everytime the character JosephB walks into a room he's fluffing his luxurious hair so we can't forget that's his special characteristic that differentiates him from, say, Sam with the accent or lasm with the scribbly face. Doesn't really say much about the person, but it gets repeated all the time as if it were meaningful.

Of course a character should have consistent mannerisms and personality markers, but the idea of choosing a single defining characteristic seems limiting and potentially boring.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 19, 2013)

Of course you've seen it done *badly* before... But, see, the catch is, if it's done well, you won't see it at all.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 19, 2013)

Well, some people have an outstanding characteristic of some kind, but a heck of a of lot people don't. It's the sum of different behavioral traits -- how characters think and react that gives them depth. That doesn't rule out a single memorable characteristic, but it certainly isn't a requirement.


----------



## Nickleby (Mar 19, 2013)

In an essay by John D. MacDonald (which I can't find online), he answers this question. You only need one good detail to make a scene come alive. His example was a motel room with an air conditioner in the window. The detail was a stain on the wall where the air conditioner's condensation leaked. That one detail tells you that the room isn't maintained or cleaned properly, that the management and staff aren't conscientious, that the furnishings are cheap, that there's a faint smell of mildew (and other sorts of decay, no doubt), and so on. With a little imagination, you can picture the room, the staff, the entire motel, all from that one stain.

Details themselves aren't important. What they tell you is.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 19, 2013)

A more minimalist approach is fine. I’ve seen well written, more detailed, poetic description that works too -- certainly more than one detail. Ian McEwan is one author that comes to mind who writes lots of compelling description. Depends on how you want to approach it.


----------



## archer88iv (Mar 19, 2013)

Ok, short version: not every character gets described, but characters who do should be described efficiently and consistently. The "touchstone" thing is a means for the writer to achieve efficiency and consistency, though the efficiency thing in particular is more useful for secondary than for primary characters--or, more to the point, this is less common for point of view characters because they don't *look at themselves.*

My apologies to the guy who posted this thread: I have been thinking a *lot* about details and character description lately and I answered your question in that light.

As far as general detail goes, in setting scenery and in describing action, I think much the same approach is effective: comparatively few actual details, given early on, with things left fairly general otherwise. 

One effective device would be the use of an insightful detail: something the reader probably doesn't know about the story that makes the piece more real or more believable, often by lending the piece a greater level of authority. A really easy example would be your common military thriller, which will often resort to technical minutiae for this purpose (and also because, for that audience, it basically amounts to fan service...), but that is by no means the only application. 

Simple examples:

Curtains drawn on the south side of a room; the house is in the northern hemisphere; the room is closed to the sun. You can take this in several directions: a dark personality; a focus on the artificial (light) rather than the real; a freaking vampire...

The actual temperature of river water; could easily be below freezing even while moving and on a nice summer day; reveals a certain minimum level of knowledge regarding the environment. This lends itself to either characterization or setting up events to come: a guide has been working this stretch of the Rio Grande for a long time, or someone falls in and has to warm up, etc.

It's easy to overdo details of this kind. People don't need facts. They just need to know that you (or your characters) are aware of them.

Probably the most effective one is the sensory detail: something that the reader has experienced in his or her own life and that they don't have to imagine based on your description. This is actually a little harder to get right than the insightful detail because just doing a little research isn't going to cut it. Instead, you have to find a chord that resonates for the audience. Talking about the way snow tends to lie in the upper reaches of the Dakotas isn't going to be universally resonant; for a lot of people on this planet, that's more an insightful detail than a sensory detail. 

This is made yet more challenging by the fact that such details need to be fitted to their story context: you can't compare the touch of the enemy knight's sword to an ice cube fresh from the freezer because the freezer probably hasn't got any place in your story. Hitting those universal chords just right is difficult (and, more to the point, impossible; translations into other languages--or other dialects of the same language--become challenging because the chord for an American audience may well be different from the chord for a British one). 

I wouldn't presume to say that my examples will be any good, but I'll give it a shot:

Wind that burns in the nostrils; indicative of dry heat or thirst; *probably* something we've all felt at one time or another.

The scent of sun-scorched blacktop; probably not nearly so universal, but a great way to connect with an particular audience.

The way stars flicker at night, or the actual color of the sky, moon, etc.; everyone has stared at those things at some point or another.

The way the heart pounds and the stomach churns when one has had a narrow brush with danger; physiology is *always* universal.

...In general, tastes, visuals, smells, and even bodily functions that the audience has experienced will connect the reader to the story more intimately than describing things that have not been experienced. The main challenges are, as I mentioned, the fact that not all experiences are universal, and a person's response to a given experience is also not necessarily universal.


----------



## Jon M (Mar 19, 2013)

.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 19, 2013)

Dwight Swain addresses this well in chapter three of _Techniques of the Selling Writer_, but it's far too long for me to quote here.

A simplified version would be to say that when choosing what parts of your storyworld to describe, one approach is to keep in mind your main character, and to show things that are relevant to him somehow.

For example, a detective scouring a room might notice a broken lamp on the floor, a blood stain by the wall outlet, and dark scuff marks on the doorframe. Evidence of a struggle.

However, if your main character is not a detective, but an interior designer instead, she might notice the configuration of the furniture, the lack of Feng Shui, the tattered condition of the window curtains.

One way I like to think of it is that everything that I narrate "pings" off my main character and gets funelled through him or her.

Showing extraneous, irrelevant things that have no importance to the main character can work sometimes, but too much of it can disorient the reader, who is--whether aware of it or not--assigning importance to everything you show him through your narration. If too many "red herrings" (irrelevant details) are shown, and they end up not being significant in any way, your reader might feel disconnected, confused, or even bored, though he or she may not know why.

This is also addressed in the book _Wired for Story: The Writer's Guide to Using Brain Science to Hook Readers_, where studies have shown that the brain is wired to search for patterns and seek resolution. So, everytime you show something to your reader, he or she will be subconsciously expecting that detail to be relevant or significant in some way (be it related to the plot, or to enhance the mood). If you show enough things that trail off with no objective reason for them being there, the reader might start to tune out because there is a lack of significance to anything.

So.. long post short, I'd say one approach is to make sure you show things that matter, and don't concern yourself with things that don't. How to decide what matters and what doesn't? Keep your main character in mind. If the details would matter to your main character, then they are probably significant. If they wouldn't, you can probably skip over them without losing much. :encouragement:


----------



## Whisper (Mar 19, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> For example -- if someone's sitting in a room, of course you should explain why he's in the room and what the room looks like at first glance



Why? Is it important for the reader to know what the room looks like.

Jacob quietly entered the room not wanting to disturb is dying daughter sleeping in the bed. He smiled when he saw that she was covered by her favorite Dallas Cowboy blanket, sparking the memory of when he first gave her that blanket.

Is it necessary to to also talk about the desk and chair, what light is or is not coming through the window, a book shelf. Not in this context, but maybe when he enters he notices little details of his daughters life. Then maybe it might be necessary to go further.

In your example, if a guy is just sitting in a room is it important for the story for me to know what the light is, what furniture is in the room, if it's been cleaned?

It really just depends on how your story develops as to what description is important and what is not.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Mar 19, 2013)

Whisper said:


> Jacob quietly entered the room not wanting to disturb is dying daughter sleeping in the bed. He smiled when he saw that she was covered by her favorite Dallas Cowboy blanket, sparking the memory of when he first gave her that blanket.



The door creaked, slightly too loud for comfort. With careful, minimal steps Jacob slid his feet through the carpet until he was close enough to his baby to see her lying peacefully in her crib. She was clutching her blanket with tiny, dying hands. The only light, glowing uniform across her crib, came from a lone, crackling yellow streetlight outside the open window. Not wanting to disturb her, Jacob hovered his hand over the crib and stroked the air above her. A light breeze rustled Molly's hair, barely noticeable. He sighed, and left the same way he came in, without making a sound.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 19, 2013)

Hunter56 said:


> This seems to be something that I still have  trouble with sometimes. I always want the reader to let their own  imagination get rolling but sometimes I'm not sure _how _detailed I should have the scene be....
> 
> So what I want to know is how you balance the scale between detailing a  scene and letting the reader paint the picture for themselves.



What's cool?

In  other words, you don't have to give your reader a detailed description  of a desk unless that desk is "cool." How about laser beams? There's no  dire need to describe them unless there's something really "cool" about  them. As Stephen  Brust said:



> "The Cool Stuff Theory of Literature is  as follows: All literature  consists of whatever the writer thinks is cool. The reader will like the  book to the degree that he agrees with the writer about what’s cool.  And that works all the way from the external trappings to the level of  metaphor, subtext, and the way one uses words. In other words, I happen  not to think that full-plate armor and great big honking greatswords are  cool. I don’t like ‘em. I like cloaks and rapiers. So I write stories  with a lot of cloaks and rapiers in ‘em, ’cause that’s cool. Guys who  like military hardware, who think advanced military hardware is cool,  are not gonna jump all over my books, because they have other ideas  about what’s cool. "The novel should be understood as a structure built  to accommodate the greatest possible amount of cool stuff."



_"The novel should be understood as a structure built to accommodate the greatest possible amount of cool stuff."_

Pretty cool, huh? 

So,  you need to describe some things. For instance, you need to give the  reader enough basic information so they can understand the scene and to fuel their own imagination. You  also have to take into account what the reader is going to bring to the  act of reading and interpreting your scene. For instance, if it's a room  in a castle, is the reader likely familiar with fantasy castles?  Probably. So, what are we going to do to give them the right impression?  For one, if it's a dark, brooding castle and is "special" in that  regard, then do a good job of describing that in the castle's  introduction. As the character moves along, throw in various bits of  "cool" stuff. (Interesting things that help set the tone for the  setting.) "Dancing shadows" from torches, the lingering evil of a  long-dead necromancer, the "oppressive" weight of the castle bearing  down on the stench of the forlorn dungeons, below, etc... Now, that's  enough to give your reader a general idea of the typical scenery in this  place. So, what happens when they go to a room in this particular  castle? What does the reader imagine, without you having to describe it?  What would you imagine? So, the reader journey's in, opens a door to a  room and is *already* seeing "Standard Evil, Forsaken and  Abandoned, Castle Room #34" without you having to type one extra word. _ Use that_. Not every scene must have its own description of unimportant  elements which are not related to either the action taking place or the  plot unwinding.

But, if it's "cool" then you need to put it in  there. This isn't just to wow the reader with your ability to spout off  cool stuff. It's to give the reader more tools that they can use as  building blocks for their own imagination. This is your world you're building and the reader wants to experience it. You don't have to describe sunlight during the daytime.... But, you do have to describe it if sunlight actually causes people to spontaneously combust! It's important, it's "cool", thus it has to have a good description. If you put a magical and  mysterious fountain of blood in the center of the room and have evil  skeletons jump out of it, that's "cool." If you just have a bunch of  skeletons jump out of a fountain, that's not "cool" and the reader will  also wonder why you didn't describe the fountain to begin with, since  it's important to the action taking place in the scene. 

_"I walked into the room and a bunch of skeletons jumped out of a blood-filled fountain." _

WTF?  The reader is going to throw the book across the room. But, why? Well,  for one, there's no suspense there when there was clearly a great  opportunity for some - The reader is going to feel _cheated!_ For another,  the reader didn't even get to "see" this "room." It just doesn't exist,  yet, in the reader's mind, so how can something have happened there?  This is an important "room", not just a "generic room" so there has to  be some sort of description, right? The reader expects that. Plus, there's no "cool" stuff being  described when, obviously, a blood-filled fountain with skeletons  jumping out of it is darn cool! So, what do you have to do in order to  "fix" this? We'll assume that the lead-in and introduction for this  series of scenes has been done appropriately. The castle has been  described with suitably evil and oppressive descriptive descriptions...  The first few rooms have been described, in decent detail, where they  differ from standard _"Evil, Oppressive, Intimidating, Forsaken and Abandoned, Castle"_  fare. We'll also assume that the character's apprehension has been  suitably communicated. It's not that it's particularly important to the  story, it's that it's very important in regards to how the character  "sees" their surroundings. If you're scared out of your gourd, a bat  unexpectedly flying into your face will make you poop your pants, even  though the bat is truly harmless. (How many scary movies have bats  flying into people's faces and the result is the characters screaming  for their lives? There's a reason for that.) You don't have to describe that bat, even though it's the scariest bat you ever saw. You've, instead, let some of your previous descriptions and setting set-ups handle that bit for you. That it's not a bat wearing lederhosen is enough for the reader to know that it was just a mundane bat and your reaction is due to you being scared out of your wits, already.

_"As soon as I  entered the room, I heard the unmistakable sound of running water.  There, in the center of the room, my torch revealed the outline of an ancient  fountain. Stone gargoyles and other grotesques ringed its hoary central  spire, their dead eyes gazing into the dark. From their gaping maws  spewed not water, but what could only be blood, it's metallic taint  filling the still air. Ringing the fountain was a vile pool and, within  it, something stirred. Scrabbling over the fountain's stone foundation,  the skeletal hand of some long dead soul found purchase and heaved the  hideous form of an ancient warrior from its evil depths."_

No, it's not _good_.  But, it serves its purposes here. We have several things that are being  described here which are not only important, but absolutely necessary.  Though, they could certainly be described better! 

First, we have  the "sound of running water." Why is that there? That is there because  the reader would find the fact that anyone entering a chamber with a  large fountain spewing blood would certainly hear something! Moving  liquid makes noise and if we don't describe the painfully obvious, we're  telling the reader to stop suspending their disbelief. So, some sort of  sound is necessary to be described since "sound making stuff" is in the  room.

"Torch" - Why the torch? Well, here, the reason is not just what I'm  describing, but what I'm leaving out. It's the "torch" that reveals the  fountain, not some other light source. That's handy, because the reader  isn't going to expect me to describe the "unseen" ceiling... It also  helps set the mood. It's a dark place, with an evil fountain, and all  you have is a ratty, sputtering torch to see with. There's no 10,000  candle-power spotlight to make yourself feel a little safer. Here, we  have torchlight flickering around the room, helping the reader to  conjure up an appropriate image. (Yes, torchlight "_flickers around_" places, even though it doesn't have legs...) I didn't want to waste a bunch of time describing "dark." I could have, if this were a different style or there was something significant about that darkness.

 "Center of the room" - Next up, we have a physical location description of the fountain. We _need_  that in order to paint the scene appropriately, since the character is  about to be attacked by skeletal warriors and the reader is going to  expect us to give some sort of direction from which that attack comes.  Plus, we're going to be running around the room, screaming our heads off  and swinging away, wildly, with any weapon we happen to have. That  physical action is going to need a few "place" referents for it to make  sense and, also, for it to be "cool!" Nobody likes battles with just "I  swung the sword and killed something, then I swung it again" sort of  combat. And, lastly, this fountain is "cool." What do we do with "cool"  stuff? We describe it. Such a "cool" fountain must have a "cool"  location, so there it is. Being in the center of the room, the fountain  commands the physical scene, just like any evil, skeleton-sprouting,  fountain of blood should!

Now, we have the "ancient stone  fountain." Whoops? That's not how I described it, is it? No, I just  wrote "ancient fountain." Well, I should have written "ancient stone  fountain." Why? Because, then I wouldn't have had to mention "stone" in  the line "_Scrabbling over the fountain's stone foundation..." _See?  I might have screwed up, there, and would have to rethink how I wrote  that, if I were writing it for a story. Wouldn't the character notice,  right off the bat, that the fountain was made of stone? Probably so. I  will leave the passage as originally written as an example of a possible  mistake. But, moving on: "Ancient Stone Fountain." Why "ancient?" Heck,  I don't know what "ancient" really looks like. Neither do you, most  likely. In fact, I may just have well said "blue" fountain... The point  is - The reader is going to bring their own interpretation to the word  "ancient" and I don't have to do a darn thing about describing "ancient"  in this particular scene. It's not important and wouldn't add much of  anything to the description of this "cool" fountain for me to gabble on  with a couple of lines that suitably describe "ancient." All I have to  do is write "ancient" and, given the setting, the genre and the tone I  have already set, the reader will bring an appropriate interpretation  with them when reading that word. If this fountain was much more  important, like a pivotal plot piece, than I would _have to_  describe "ancient" in more detail. The reader would expect a very  important piece to have much more "oomph" behind its ancientness...

"Stone  gargoyles..." Why? Well, for one, it's "cool." We always describe  "cool" things. For another, if I just wrote "gargoyles", the reader  might expect them to fly around and do gargoyle stuff all over the  place. That would be an incorrect assumption and the reader might  develop a "mental speedbump." ie: What? Gargoyles? Why aren't they  flying around and doing evil gargoyle stuff? Instead, since they're  "stone" it's assumed they are decoration. That's further reinforced by  including "and other grotesques" in the same sentence. I am making it  very clear that the gargoyles are just ornamentation and I did that with  four words of straight description, not exposition. In other words, I  didn't have to say "But, the gargoyles are just ornamental stone statues  that are part of the fountain."

"Hoary central spire" and "dead  eyes gazing into the dark." Why? OK, "hoary" is just a "cool"  descriptive word. And, it's suitably rarely found in descriptions, so it  adds some flavor, anyway. "Hoary" frost, "hoary" moss, etc.. That's how  it's usually used. But, I don't care about that. Why? Because, it's  cool and I wanted to use the word.  The reader doesn't care, either. I  use it in order to bring the character's own interpretation into the  scene. It's like saying "a nice blanket." Blankets aren't nice, they're  just blankets. But, you, as a reader, know what a "nice" blanket is,  right? Here, you may not know what "hoary" means, but its suitably  obscure and forbidding enough to be suitable to describe something about  an evil fountain. Next - dead eyes gazing into the dark. Dead eyes  don't do anything and stone eyes do even less. But, the scene needed  something "active" and "menacing" about this fountain, so I included  some active and menacing stuffs... I could have just written something  suitable about the blood or the central spire of the fountain. I also  wanted to further emphasize the darkness in the room, to push the idea  of a sole adventurer depending upon one ruddy torch as his only comfort.  So, there's "dark."

"From their gaping maws" - A physical  description that the reader can add to, on their own, without me having  to describe, in detail, the posture and expression of the stone  gargoyles. Decorative gargoyles can "gape" in any number of ways and  none of them are particularly important for this scene. But, that they  are "gaping" is important, as we have to describe the blood, since it's  "cool."

"Spewing blood"... Blood spews. Flowing blood is nice,  but spewing blood is more "active." Flowing is boring. Spewing blood is  "cool." And, what do we do with "cool?" But, too much description could  rob the reader of their own imagery. Let the reader have some fun,  once-in-awhile, by letting them figure out what some things look like.  Hold their hand when necessary, though.

"Metallic taint" - Just  like the obvious sound of "running water", the reader would be insulted  if you implied that there was a fountain of blood in the center of a  room and there wasn't any smell to it. "Spewing" blood, in this  instance, is going to further imply that. It's been spewing a long time,  obviously. Plus, there's a whole pool of the stuff. This is another  instance where describing the obvious is necessary. However, I could  have gotten away with not doing so, had I changed some things around.  The reader may have questioned the lack of that description, but  wouldn't have really cared if I had added some distractions, like action  or something else that was even more "cool" than the scent of blood in  the air. IOW - It was a discretionary choice.

"Vile pool" - Well,  vileness is part of this whole scene, so it fits. Plus, I thought about  further describing some physical characteristics, but it turned out  that they were not important. That, in itself, is something important -  Not everything in a scene is equally weighted in importance! How many  times have you ever read a description of a ceiling in any scene where  the ceiling would be just as important as the drapery and the cluttered  desk of the Grand Exchequer of Goomsbottle Prefecture? NONE! HAH!  So,  here, the pool is not so great in importance as the "spewing blood" or  the "gaping gargoyles." Sure, it's there and is even a dominant fixture,  in the mind of the reader. But, they assume that this "fountain" has a  "pool" that the blood is being "spewed" into, anyway. If I kept on  describing things, as if they were all equally important, the reader  would start screaming at me to "get on with it, already!" So, "vile  pool" it is.

"Something stirred" - This is more action, than  anything else. I thought about describing "stirred", but it was too  cumbersome. In some other, similar scene, I might describe it and its  physical interaction with the surface of the pool. But, it wasn't  important to communicate what was happening and it didn't "add" any  "cool" to the scene by doing so. However, if this was an important  plot-building event, I would have certainly concentrated more on  describing it with a few words. Plot-building events are important and  one way the reader knows that something is plot-building is how the  writer treats it. You don't describe a broom in intricate detail if it  doesn't have anything to do with anything important. In fact, you may  not describe it at all. "Something" also adds a bit of suspense to the  scene, by the way. By writing "something" instead of directly describing  it, I'm teasing the reader into reading more. That's always good, so  long as it's not done cheaply, without a care to the reader's  sensibilities.

"Scrabbling over the fountain's stone foundation" -  Remember that point about writing "Ancient stone fountain?" This is  where it matters. Because I chose to write "ancient fountain", I had to  write "fountain's stone foundations" instead of "fountain's foundation"  in this line. I had to complete the description before moving on to the  action. This is something I'd probably work on a few times, for this  passage, until it flowed correctly, if I was actually trying to write  this into a story. The "Scrabbling" part is just "cool." What is  "scrabbling" anyway? It has a sound associated with it, doesn't it?  Especially if it involves stones. Stones scrabble all the time, either  on a mountain passage filled with scree or a walkway covered in gravel.  Either way, "scrabbling" helps me take care of a couple of things -  Describing physical movement and the unique "cool" sound associated with  it, for this scene. If I wanted to emphasize the sound, I'd add another  word, somewhere, to do that. The same goes for the physical movement.  But, in regards to describing a "scene", this meshes nicely with both  the ancient stone fountain and the actions and sounds associated with a  bony skeletal hand moving across it.

"Evil depths" - I'll skip  the non-scene descriptions and move to this. By using "evil", I didn't  have to describe much of anything. I'm counting on the reader and my  earlier setup pieces (which don't exist, but we're assuming they do) in  order to flavor the characterization of "evil" here. "Depths" is also a  good word, as "depths" are always mysterious. But, "mysterious depths"  are just plain insulting... It's like saying "Tasty ice-cream." All  ice-cream is tasty and all depths are mysterious, no need for double  redundancy...

*After all that!*

Can you "see" this room? Can you see the things that are important? Assuming that earlier passages have described things, here and there, sufficiently enough to set the tone, can you see the scene? Sure, you should be able to. But, the passage, itself, is only a few lines long. This "style" is going to contribute towards moving things forwards instead of slowly plodding through them. That's important, too... At least, it's important for the fictional hero-swinging-a-sword-at-monsters genre book. For a different sort of story, with more depth, I would have chosen a different style. _Style_ is important when it comes down to scene descriptions.

A word on Style: What would that passage  look like, had Lovecraft written it? Have you ever read any of  Lovecraft's stuff? What about Tolkien? What if he had taken a stab at  it? How I wrote that passage is all about writing style and  descriptions. If Lovecraft had written it, it would be three pages of  unbroken, straight text, no paragraphs, no breaks, just straight-on  psychological horror with every drip of blood evoking emotional chewing  of aluminum foil. If Tolkien had written it, the fountain would have a  historical or geographical place-name. It would be "The Fountain of  Lorliach'o Grumblebelly the Perpetually Hungry Dwarf." In it, would be  "the Waters of Einglioriantheil's Blood" and they would drain away to  unseen place known as "the Grotto of Huggarth the Everlasting" or  something like that. If it had been a gumshoe mystery, it would have  some internal monologue from the character mixed into it. So, after  "vile pool" would come a short internal monologue from the gumshoe,  questioning why all evil ancient fountains have vile pools associated  with them.

Your style is yours. Don't deviate from your story's _style  _just because you're diving into scene descriptions. Sure, emphasize  things that are important, but do it in the same style as you're writing  everything else. If you're taking the reader on a rip-roaring adventure  with lots of action and smarmy commentary, don't start waxing eloquent  by putting on your Tolkien hat when "Anonymous Evil Fountain Room #34"  comes up! If it's a plot-developing piece, sure, write some detailed  descriptions. But, if it's not, then cover just what you need to cover  in order to lead the reader on the rest of the story.

A word on foreshadowing:     I have assumed that plenty of lead-in work has been done for this  scene. So, there's appropriate flavor descriptions already given to the  reader that I can build on in order to present the scene. Only your  first scene in your story will have none of this. Everything else in  your story will build on your initial setting descriptions and your  style. But, there are some things that must definitely be described,  even though they are not important in a particular scene. 

You  write a scene in which an evil mastermind is giving his evil mastermind  monologue in which he tells the hero all of his plans and all of the  things he has done to thwart the hero. It takes place in the evil  mastermind's sanctum, where all of his evil mastermind machinations come  from. The hero narrowly escapes and is now free to act against the evil  antagonist with full knowledge of their plans! Yay! But, later, in the  same evil mastermind's sanctum, you describe the evil mastermind picking  up a bazooka and blowing the hero's sidekick to kingdom come... Huh?  What bazooka? It wasn't there, before! How in the heck did he get a  bazooka in the first place and why didn't the hero notice it?

If  you have an important plot piece in a scene, yet it doesn't have any  significance in this part of the story, you must describe it. You have  to. There's no way you can get out of doing it if it is in plain sight.  None. Nada. If you don't describe it, your reader is going to get mad when they figure out how important it turned out to be.  But, if you do describe it, you can't put too much emphasis on it, else  the reader will not be surprised (if that's what you want) or the reader  will end up being frustrated because, in the next hundred pages, its  significance isn't described. So, you have to pay some attention to  foreshadowing in scene descriptions. If there's a cliff that a character  ends up jumping off, yet the same location was described in the  beginning of the book and no cliff was ever mentioned, the reader is  going to send you hate mail. Guaranteed.

_On me:_ I tend to get  absorbed in trying to answer questions and always try to include  examples. It's not because I think too highly of myself. It's that I  just want to do my best at trying to help another writer. Sometimes I do  well, sometimes I don't. Sometimes, people think I'm a bit too  long-winded.  I've already thought up three other examples of what I've tried to say, here. Admittedly, some are better at communicating what you need to do regarding scene descriptions. But, I'll spare the forums the extra load, for now.


----------



## Hunter56 (Mar 19, 2013)

*Morkonan -- *Epic post man, I think every person wondering the same thing should read your post  It answered my question and more.

*Archer88iv -- *No need to apologize, your post was very insightful. 

Thanks to everyone else for their comments! This has been a very informative thread for me.


----------



## Pluralized (Mar 19, 2013)

I'd just like to poke my head in and say this has been one of the most informative and useful threads I have ever come across. Thanks to all contributors (especially Morkonan, wow).


----------



## luckyscars (Mar 20, 2013)

The OP's question is a very good question, and like most good questions it is almost impossible to answer. I'm going to say that, if there is indeed an inherent skill that is exclusive to good writers, the ability to distinguish between too much and too little is where its at. Not least because I could give you countless examples of where a writer's ability to describe something in incredible detail made the story 'come alive' and immediately another countless number of where it bored the hell out of me, and presumably anybody else who was unfortunate enough to read it. Conversely, sometimes being vague is a great asset. An example of where ambiguity is used a lot would be in the plays of Pinter (and other absurdists) who frequently neglect to even specify what exactly is happening and seldom give reasons why. In 'The Stranger', Albert Camus (one of my personal favorites) wrote an entire book about a man who murders an Arab and never once explains the reason for it. But the same book is also incredibly detailed, and its in the trivialities of the detail that is given that the reader connects with the character. Contradictory, no?

I guess if I was going to cite some general examples of things I try to address in some level of detail I could name a few. Again, this isn't absolute. I might ignore these things in the very next breath, it really depends. I like to think I am able to 'just know'. But I do tend to talk about the weather in some detail. I would suggest the weather is pretty much the most underrated area when it comes to setting a mood. That said, I don't go on about it for pages and would suggest avoiding doing so (unless it really feels right, of course). I also like to talk about people's actions in some detail. Again, not pages, but if somebody is eating, for example, I sometimes like to not just say 'He ate dinner' but more 'Ben lifted the fork and with it a piece of a kielbasa, pushed it into a red mound of tomato sauce and sat there slowly chewing in the light of the gaslamp.' 

The most important question should always be, 'can I write about this in a way that says something?' If you're including details just for the sake of it there's something wrong. This is especially true when it comes to describing a character. In kid school creative writing classes, it was always seen as especially important to describe EVERYTHING. Pretty much every time you introduced a character you were expected to follow it with at least five sentences talking about the color of his/her hair, etc. This is the express way to bad writing. If it isn't important to know what color the pirate's beard is then shut up about it...


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 20, 2013)

luckyscars said:


> ...The most important question should always be, 'can I write about this in a way that says something?' If you're including details just for the sake of it there's something wrong. This is especially true when it comes to describing a character. In kid school creative writing classes, it was always seen as especially important to describe EVERYTHING. Pretty much every time you introduced a character you were expected to follow it with at least five sentences talking about the color of his/her hair, etc. This is the express way to bad writing. If it isn't important to know what color the pirate's beard is then shut up about it...



You're absolutely right. I'll also point out one example that is entirely within the bounds of your argument: A character's hair can be important. 

If a character's hair is being described in order to further develop the character, that is fine. But, if some anonymous thug's hair is being described and there is nothing significant about it as far as the story or the scene is concerned, it's distracting. In other words, descriptions have to have a purpose, just like anything else in a story. If something in a story doesn't have a purpose, it shouldn't be there.

That raises the question: _But, what about all that descriptive stuff in "The Lord of the Rings?" We didn't get any more information about three-fourths of that junk and none of it was significant to the story?_

That's where "Style" comes into play. There are overly descriptive styles that readers really enjoy and then there minimally descriptive styles that have the same effect. So, a writer's chosen style for a piece may demand a certain level of detail, even if it's not important to the plot or the scene. Setting the "tone" of a story and "enriching" the setting or scene can be done with good effect by manipulating how one handles descriptions. "The Lord of the Rings" was a tour-book of Middle Earth, not an adventure story. As such, overly descriptive passages were entirely necessary in order to build up the tone into one where Tolkien was guiding the reader through an epic taking place in an ancient world full of history and mysterious goings-on in mysterious places and times. But, in something like the "Harry Dresden" series, by Jim Butcher, that style would fall flat and the action and pacing would be cramped. Instead, he does a very good job of keeping descriptions significant, yet balances that with character building moments and enriching his setting or a particular scene. We know what Dresden's car looks like, somewhat. We also know what Butter's one-man-oompah-band outfit complete with foot-stomping base drum looks like, somewhat. But, neither are overly described. If they were, they'd turn from interesting bits of character building pieces into boring bits of distracting fluff. However, in his "Codex" series, he uses a more descriptive style in order to present a more epic and rich setting.

Yes, sometimes, you just "know."


----------



## Hunter56 (Mar 20, 2013)

Pluralized said:


> I'd just like to poke my head in and say this has been one of the most informative and useful threads I have ever come across. Thanks to all contributors (especially Morkonan, wow).



I agree man, we gotta keep it going. It'd be ashame for all these amazing posts to gradually get buried...


----------



## Cheid (Mar 20, 2013)

Morkonan, love your input and it pretty much covers everything I was thinking when I read the OP.  The one thing I would add would be that descriptions should also take the source into account.  A hero entering the evil villains laboratory for the first time will definitely notice the fountain of blood in the center of the room, and your description would be warranted.  The villain himself would probably walk right past it without a second glance, although he may chastise the skeletons for jumping out at him.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 21, 2013)

Cheid said:


> Morkonan, love your input and it pretty much covers everything I was thinking when I read the OP.  The one thing I would add would be that descriptions should also take the source into account.  A hero entering the evil villains laboratory for the first time will definitely notice the fountain of blood in the center of the room, and your description would be warranted.  The villain himself would probably walk right past it without a second glance, although he may chastise the skeletons for jumping out at him.



Yes and no.

The reader still has to be served, no matter what the the provenance of the narrator. However, the narrator's perceptions will certainly affect the flavor of the observations. For instance, the Evil Necromancer may be strolling around his castle and end up walking through that room. But, the narrator would still have to describe the room to the reader, else the whole purpose of "description" in regards to storytelling wouldn't be being served and the reader wouldn't see the "cool" stuff at all. The Evil Necromancer might not pay particular attention to gruesome details and may even shower glowing praise on himself for managing to construct such a "beautiful" fountain. But, somewhere, the reader should be served by receiving some sort of description.

Now, switch styles, narrators and themes and what do you get? Let's say the book is about an Evil Necromancer and how bored his is with being and Evil Necromancer...

_"Yeah, Evil Necromancer, that's me. I'm the guy everyone is afraid of. I'm the guy everyone loves to hate. That's just great, isn't it? Nobody ever thinks that I have feelings, you know? Every week, some group of self-proclaimed adventurers tries to break into my house and steal all my stuff and try to kill me! Do you have any idea of how much that costs me? I had to repair the Fountain of Flowing Blood at least twice this month! That Virgin Blood isn't cheap, you know. And putting all those skeletons back together? Forgettaboutit!"_

Here, we don't care much about describing the castle in this monologue. The character is different, the point of view is the same, but the theme and flavor are completely opposite of the original. So, here's the Fountain of Blood, mentioned for the first time, in a sort of tirade of self-misery. Eventually, he'll walk though the room containing the Fountain of Flowing Blood, we'll get a short description with him grumbling about how much it costs to keep it filled, have a conversation with one of the skeletons that is threatening to call its Union Organizer, and then amble off into another room where he can play Team Fortress without any of his minions seeing him do it...  

But, something with a heavier theme with an Evil Necromancer walking through that room would certainly have a more detailed description, just as long as that was the only chance the reader had for a good first impression. If, for instance, it's barely mentioned in this omniscient narration, which would be pointless since you'd have a lot of power with exposition in that case, you can certain give a different point of view from another character's perspective later in the piece, like from an invading do-gooder adventurer having their stomach wrenched and bowels turned on when the skeleton pops out. In any case, again, the reader has to be served, else the Fountain stay's in the mind of the writer and that's no fit place for it.


----------



## Cheid (Mar 21, 2013)

True, what I was getting at was that the source should determine the type of description.  The necromancer would not take particular note of the gargoyles horrific faces, but rather note how expensive they were to replace last time.

To use another example, you would enter my house and probably notice the large book shelf on the far wall with hundreds of alphabetized books, but as I enter my house i would only take note if the books weren't alphabetized.  in both cases we get a description of the bookshelf and learn that I am ocd when it comes to my books, but the source and the details that you would use to describe them would be different.

In short, to get the point about the cool stuff across we have to provide the details that make sense for the POV.  Characters should notice or comment on things that you would in their shoes.  Nothing angers me more than when a character gets home and describes his own house to me, it totally shatters the illusion.  The hero would notice the horrific fountain of blood, the necromancer would notice that the blood fountain needs refilling.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 21, 2013)

Wow. It seems like you guys are seriously over-thinking this.


----------



## Staff Deployment (Mar 21, 2013)

Underthinking is underfun.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 21, 2013)

Who said anything about _under-_thinking?


----------



## Staff Deployment (Mar 21, 2013)

You did.



JosephB said:


> I, JosephB, wholeheartedly endorse underthinking. This is totally a thing that I have said.



That was totally a thing that you said.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Wow. It seems like you guys are seriously over-thinking this.



Why?

Could you give an example of "over-thinking" the subject of the OP's question?


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Wow. It seems like you guys are seriously over-thinking this.



Yes, because as a reader, I don't mind pages of an author's dribble about seat covers, or how the girl's hair has two twisted and a half pony plait which makes her hair show blond streaks which is why she shouldn't have gone to McCuts, the hairdresser there is dating Johnny, he's two years old than her, and unemployed, what does Suzy see in him, probably his tats; but McCuts, Johnny & Suzy don't actually appear in the story, nor has any relevance to the upcoming scene, or anything else; but lets not worry about this, as a reader I won't mind everything thrown in.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 21, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Why?
> 
> Could you give an example of "over-thinking" the subject of the OP's question?



Well -- for one, an example with a character walking into a room and describing what‘s there in one purple info-dump style paragraph -- and then going on about it with 14 more paragraphs of rather dense but obvious explanation is over-thinking to me.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 21, 2013)

Rustgold said:


> Yes, because as a reader, I don't mind pages of an author's dribble about seat covers, or how the girl's hair has two twisted and a half pony plait which makes her hair show blond streaks which is why she shouldn't have gone to McCuts, the hairdresser there is dating Johnny, he's two years old than her, and unemployed, what does Suzy see in him, probably his tats; but McCuts, Johnny & Suzy don't actually appear in the story, nor has any relevance to the upcoming scene, or anything else; but lets not worry about this, as a reader I won't mind everything thrown in.



I have no idea what you're going on about. You seem to be saying it takes umpteen multiple paragraph posts to get across a few simple ideas about description. Or do you think I'm advocating piling on loads of useless description? What's your point?


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 21, 2013)

JosephB said:


> Well -- for one, an example with a character walking into a room and describing what‘s there in one purple info-dump style paragraph -- and then going on about it with 14 more paragraphs of rather dense but obvious explanation is over-thinking to me.



OK, fair enough. 

But, how do you answer multifaceted questions that can get rather complex and format them so they can be as clearly understood as possible, no matter who is reading them?



> I think I've learned to strike the balance by osmosis -- from years of  reading. And with practice. It's not something I think about and I  couldn't tell you how to do it in general terms if my life depended on  it. I think it's something you have to learn by doing. There are no  formulas.



Osmosis? Is that like magic? Practice? Practicing what, exactly? Writing? So, if I practice descriptions, I should be able to write better ones, right? What if I'm focusing on describing carpet fibers on a floor mat while a construction crane is demolishing the room? Would my intention at focusing on that be correctly interpreted by a reader? Practice is great, but practice never makes perfect - Only perfect practice makes perfect.

*"...It's not something I think about and I  couldn't tell you how to do it in general terms if my life depended on  it..."*

I do think about it and I can tell someone how to do it in general terms.

This is not about jumping back at you, by the way. We're a cadre of people from many different backgrounds that happen to have a common interest. That means that we should be able to discuss appropriate topics at a slightly higher level than just a "man on the street" sort of conversation. I respect your opinion and view you as a comrade in arms, discussing tactics for a battle we are both fighting. You may, of course, view things differently and that's your right. But, it doesn't change how I choose to interact with anyone.

I do not believe that answering the OP's question of "_So what I want to know is how you balance the scale between detailing a  scene and letting the reader paint the picture for themselves._" is sufficiently handled by telling them to use magic. That I am sometimes overly verbose is an admitted fault - I apologize for that. But, writing "on the fly" about a complex subject in an effort to cover as many bases as possible is not easy. As I've said before, if I was a better writer, my posts would be shorter, wouldn't they? But, at least there are answers hidden in there amongst the words. If you can't see any there, then I will accept some of the responsibility for that. But, I won't accept it all.

PS - Yes, my post could have been much better. I should have waited and thought about how I presented it a bit longer. But, what's done is done. So, I'll write up a more formulaic one and post it the next time this question comes around.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 21, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Osmosis? Is that like magic? Practice?  Practicing what, exactly? Writing? So, if I practice descriptions, I  should be able to write better ones, right? What if I'm focusing on  describing carpet fibers on a floor mat while a construction crane is  demolishing the room? Would my intention at focusing on that be  correctly interpreted by a reader? Practice is great, but practice never  makes perfect - Only perfect practice makes perfect.



By  osmosis I mean that I’ve learned from a lifetime of reading. There’s  nothing "magic" about it. And by practice I mean actually writing stories  -- all of which include description of one kind or another. I know that I can step back and read my writing with some objectivity -- put  myself in the place of the reader -- that’s how I determine how something  will be interpreted. Some of that comes to me intuitively, some comes  from having shown my work to other people and getting feedback. So I learn by  example, by doing -- and then by seeing what others think -- frankly, more as  verification. Of course, you can read any of my stories in the Workshop  and then tell me whether or not you think I know what I’m doing when it  comes to description or anything else.



Morkonan said:


> I do think about it and I can tell someone how to do it in general terms.



Well,  what I mean is, I don’t really have to think about it all that much. It  comes naturally -- again from reading and from actually writing. That  doesn't mean I don't carefully consider what I've written though --  because I do. I consider the description in context -- not as some  separate thing -- because it really isn't. And forgive the hyperbole -- I  could tell people how to do it in general terms if I had to, but I  would likely end up rehashing all the banalities that can be had and had  better on umpteen websites and umpteen more how-to books -- all  presented by people who have put a lot more time and effort into it than I  ever could or would want to. But hey -- if you want to try to do it here "on the fly" -- knock  yourself out.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 22, 2013)

JosephB said:


> ... Of course, you can read any of my stories in the Workshop  and then tell me whether or not you think I know what I’m doing when it  comes to description or anything else.



You don't have to be a good player in order to be a good coach. It does help if you've played the game, though. But, the opposite is also true - Good players don't always make good coaches. Imaging having Harlan Ellison as your writing coach... Though, it'd be fun, I'm sure, for a little while. I'm not here to judge you, btw. (Requested critiques, the exception.)



> I  could tell people how to do it in general terms if I had to, but I   would likely end up rehashing all the banalities that can be had and had   better on umpteen websites and umpteen more how-to books



/shrug But, it's worth a shot if you're trying to help someone, isn't it? Maybe you could do a better job and maybe I might learn something from it? I enjoy reading other writer's thoughts on the building blocks of fiction. I've read a good bit online, read most of the books worth reading on the subject and, sometimes, I even remember what I've read. Most of it I already know. That's probably because, like yourself, I've spent a lifetime reading critically. But, I don't know everything, I just try to present what I do know (Or think I do..  ) as best I can, when I can.



> Well,  what I mean is, I don’t really have to think about it all that much. It  comes naturally -- again from reading and from actually writing. That  doesn't mean I don't carefully consider what I've written though --  because I do. I consider the description in context -- not as some  separate thing -- because it really isn't. And forgive the hyperbole -- I  could tell people how to do it in general terms if I had to, but I  would likely end up rehashing all the banalities that can be had and had  better on umpteen websites and umpteen more how-to books -- all  presented by people who have put a lot more time and effort into it than I  ever could or would want to. But hey -- if you want to try to do it here "on the fly" -- knock  yourself out.



That's awesome! A lot of writers don't have to worry with the "easy parts" of writing. It is the easier part, by the way. All this discussion about mechanics and description and the like, that's the easy stuff. The hard part is putting it into practice and then tying everything up into a story that's worth reading. Making it into a "good" story worth reading, well... That's the hardest of all, isn't it?

By the way, no hard feelings here. I don't mind criticism, it drives me to improve. Even if just one person dumps a load on something I've written, that means I didn't do enough to satisfy everyone, doesn't it?


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 22, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> I don't mind criticism, it drives me to improve. Even if just one person dumps a load on something I've written, that means I didn't do enough to satisfy everyone, doesn't it?



You can't satisfy everyone, no matter how hard you try.

Name any author (any one that many people know of), and you will find a portion of the reading population that thinks that author is terrible.

Stephen King, Ray Bradbury, Stephenie Meyer, J.R.R. Tolkien, J.K. Rowling, James Patterson, Dean Koontz, Michael Crichton, et cetera, et cetera... All of them, and others, have fans who love what they write, and they have others who absolutely hate anything written by them.

You can't please everyone--but, hopefully, you can find harmony with your fanbase and recognize what it is that you enjoy writing, and they enjoy reading. That way, maybe not "everyone" is happy, but at least the readers who matter (and also you, the author), will be. :encouragement:

Find your happy place!


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 22, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> You can't satisfy everyone, no matter how hard you try.
> 
> Name any author (any one that many people know of), and you will find a portion of the reading population that thinks that author is terrible...



Charles Schulz






The point is, whether or not it's realistic to expect to satisfy everyone, the desire to do just that can motivate you to continue to improve your own work. Complacency makes a poor writer even poorer, I imagine.


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 22, 2013)

Hey Charlie Brown: kill yourself already | vodka for breakfast (Warning: the blogger REALLY hates Charlie Brown, and uses strong language for emphasis. Although, his hatred is pretty funny. I guess that's the point. )


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 22, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> Hey Charlie Brown: kill yourself already | vodka for breakfast (Warning: the blogger REALLY hates Charlie Brown, and uses strong language for emphasis. Although, his hatred is pretty funny. I guess that's the point. )



Obviously, that page was created by a demon, zombie or some sort of semi-sentient machine. No one with a soul can hate Charlie Brown...


----------



## Kyle R (Mar 22, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> The point is, whether or not it's realistic to expect to satisfy everyone, the desire to do just that can motivate you to continue to improve your own work. Complacency makes a poor writer even poorer, I imagine.



True, I agree with you.

However, some might take it too far, and attempt to please everyone at the expense of their own writing desires or pursuits.

EG: A writer who loves SciFi, but decides to write Vampire Romances instead, because he believes that's what people want to read, even though he hates the genre. 

(And yes, there are writers out there who do this! I've even considered it a few times myself. :-O)


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 22, 2013)

KyleColorado said:


> True, I agree with you.
> 
> However, some might take it too far, and attempt to please everyone at the expense of their own writing desires or pursuits.
> 
> ...



I agree with you on that. It all depends on what you define as "success", I imagine. I just read a wonderful quote by an author who's name I have since forgotten. (That's probably due to some party, back in college. Never thought I'd ever really need all those brain cells...)

"Don't mistake awards for achievement."

Or, something like that.

If I wrote one thing that everyone liked and nobody disliked, that would be quite an achievement, wouldn't it? What if none could ever find any fault with it? Wow, that's huge! I don't care if it never sold because it wasn't in the right genre. But, that's just me and it's likely I'll never get the chance to realize that dream. But, it's a good one to shoot for, I think.


----------



## moderan (Mar 22, 2013)

Some people don't like chocolate.


----------



## Morkonan (Mar 22, 2013)

moderan said:


> Some people don't like chocolate.





That's.. That's impossible!

Sure, some people may be allergic to its scrumptious, velvety rich flavor, it's enticing aroma, it's heady texture and the temptations of its oh-so-delicate bite, like a playful, yet sensuous, nibble from a sugar-land fairy, her warm smile and inviting arms and.... 

Sorry, gotta go. Be right back!

(It's callin' me man! It's callin' me!)


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 22, 2013)

JosephB said:


> I have no idea what you're going on about. You seem to be saying it takes umpteen multiple paragraph posts to get across a few simple ideas about description. Or do you think I'm advocating piling on loads of useless description? What's your point?


I was making a point using satire, but maybe... not worth it.




KyleColorado said:


> Hey Charlie Brown: kill yourself already | vodka for breakfast (Warning: the blogger REALLY hates Charlie Brown, and uses strong language for emphasis. Although, his hatred is pretty funny. I guess that's the point. )


I thought it was funny, but the guy clearly has some race hate issue going on, which diminishes its value.


----------



## Rustgold (Mar 22, 2013)

moderan said:


> Some people don't like chocolate.



Probably cheap English chocolate.  For something with such low cocoa in it, I'd prefer a sour lemon thanks.


----------



## Hunter56 (Mar 22, 2013)

I must confess that this was merely a subconscious concern of mine. No one's ever really said that my writing was either under detailed or overly detailed, it was just when I was reading through some of my earlier works I felt that some details were very vague, then I began to think about the subject quite a bit.

However, this thread has put all of those concerns to rest. Thanks guys.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 23, 2013)

I've been hanging around writing sites for a while -- and there's this general perception that "new writers" use too much description. But I haven't actually seen it all that much. It's mostly another one of those writing site/internet myths -- and one of the reasons so many people worry about it and start to doubt themselves. That's why I encourage people to post their work and see what people think -- because very often, they're worried about nothing. And if there is an issue, it's a heck of lot easier to point out the problem in context than to try to cover it all with general advice and fabricated examples etc.


----------



## Sam (Mar 23, 2013)

If anything, new writers are guilty of overthinking. Very few want to sit down and figure it out for themselves. It's always easier to post to Ask Jeeves or some other Internet site than read a book and study how the masters do/did it. Even this thread, with the greatest of respect to the OP, doesn't make much sense. There's no ratio between detail and imagination; no magic balance you'll strike if you write 5,000 words of action for every 1,000 of exposition. It depends on a variety of outside sources: your genre, target audience, age group, etcetera. In my chosen genre, for instance, you have a variety of authors who write strikingly different prose. Clancy is a master of exposition. Ludlum is a master of character building. But Reilly says, "To hell with that; I want relentless, all-out action for my novels." None of them are wrong. They just write to their own tastes. 

There comes a time when asking every question imaginable no longer qualifies as preparation; it becomes an excuse for not writing.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 23, 2013)

That's what I'm talking about -- over-thinking that leads to self-doubt. Paralysis by analysis -- as my first boss used to say. And I didn't mention pulling a few books off the shelf to see how it's done. That and showing your work to others at some point have to do with _context_ -- and that's what it's all about. Of course, the more people approach things that way, the less opportunity there is for folks to pontificated. Oh well.


----------

