# What's wrong with being over descriptive in your stories?



## BlueLucario (Nov 27, 2007)

I have a question, when I posted my writing up in the forums, look for it if you want to see it. anyways, I got soem critiques saying that, you put unessecary detail in your writing, your being over descriptive. What's wrong with that,

 How do I know what detail is necessary in a story and what's unnecessary?

 How do I know if im being over descriptive?


----------



## terrib (Nov 27, 2007)

Because some times it can bog the flow down and just unnecessary. Plus, I think you need to let the reader form an image in their own mind. If I read a woman has long, blond hair and electric blue eyes that's enough for me. I  picture her attractive. The writer doesn't have to let me know that even though she/he will through the eyes of the male character. But not to the point where I can't use my imagination.  Pick you words carefully and remember less is more.


----------



## workingauthor (Nov 27, 2007)

I haven't read your piece, so take this comment with a grain of salt.

Description, I think, is really up to preference. My personal taste is only describing what I want the reader to know for plot or character development. Some people like to describe everything. It makes for good ambience. In short, I don't believe there's one answer to give you on this point.


----------



## Mr Sci Fi (Nov 27, 2007)

BlueLucario said:


> I have a question, when I posted my writing up in the forums, look for it if you want to see it. anyways, I got soem critiques saying that, you put unessecary detail in your writing, your being over descriptive. What's wrong with that,
> 
> How do I know what detail is necessary in a story and what's unnecessary?
> 
> How do I know if im being over descriptive?


 
Well, it's really a Trial and Error process. Once you read enough you begin to discern what works and what doesn't.

Basically, there's good description and bad description. If it matters to the story, you should spend a decent amount of time describing it, but if it's insubstantial things like the color of the main character's locks, than it's pretty much a waste of time.

For the most part, the reader is going to make what he wants out of your setting. The reader isn't going to see your word exactly as you do, but you can help the reader by describing close enough, using standard descriptions that everyone can relate to.

When I describe a room, I like to concentrate on each of the five senses, but not in succession. I might open with a simile for how the room looks, then I'll dive right into its scent. I'll flesh out the scene a bit more later as my character feels the temperature shift or something or the other. That's the most important thing I think, just describing how the room feels to your character. Does he care that there's a crack in the bottom left wall of the room? Unless it's imperative to the story, he doesn't.

Now, let's take Gibson on the other hand. The guy describes EVERYTHING, I'm talking about even down to the reflection of light on a character's face. The thing is though, it doesn't bog the reader down. Gibson describes in such wit and intelligence, that you actually believe it to be a contemporary novel, as if we all live in this world and are so familiar with it. The thing is though, he doesn't over describe. He spends one line at most on something, but he crafts his descriptions in such small doses over the course of the story, that you're growing along with the world, instead of having it fed to you.

I hope this helps somewhat. But I'm still beginning to learn my chops on this subject as well, and I'm beginning to feel like it's one of my stronger qualities.


----------



## RomanticRose (Nov 27, 2007)

From reading your work, it's not so much over descriptive as it is details about unimportant things.  

Your level of description about anything (room, character, object) should be on a level with its importance to the overall plot arc.  If you give a three paragraph detailed description about Mary's new shoes, that signals the reader that those particular shoes figure prominently into the story.  Details tell the reader, "this is important, remember this."


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Nov 27, 2007)

This has pretty much been said already, but it bears repeating.  Don't describe somthing not important to the story in some way.  If it's a beautiful spring day, and this affects the mood of the character, then it's fair to describe it.  If it doesn't matter what the weather is, then don't waste a word on it.  Almost every word in a story should have a purpose, especially in shorter works.


----------



## Lost in Some Story (Nov 27, 2007)

Let the reader use a little bit of his/her imagination while reading. A good story is a partnership between the writer and the reader.


----------



## Linton Robinson (Nov 27, 2007)

Your question begs itself.   If it's OVERdescription  then that's what's wrong with it.  It's it's NOT too much, then it's fine.

As mentioned, there are some limits to how much people want.   But by the same token, you read popular books, especially fantasy and historical pieces, just dripping with description and detail and people drool over it.    Henry Miller could take five pages to describe taking a piss or picking a booger.

What doesn't work, you have to say, is BORING description.   No detail is too tiny if well-presented.  If the writing is bad, it doesn't matter whether its description or whatever.

This is a matter for your own personal taste,  and a major part of your style.   It's worth looking into and poring over....going back later to read things and seeing how they hold up, for one thing...but there is no law on how much description is good or bad.


----------



## HarryG (Nov 28, 2007)

It used to be said that literary fiction was description, while genre fiction was action, but the line between the two has now been blurred by modernity, and the two are more closely linked than before.

  I think it depends on your own writing ability, your natural writing ability, not one influenced by creative writing courses, which can often do more harm than good.

  By all means learn the necessary basics, read all you can, but write naturally, write to please yourself (mostly), and if you feel that you want to describe something in detail, do it – you will be judged by your reader’s reaction anyway.  There are no set rules.


----------



## Rabid Euphoria (Nov 29, 2007)

double post, my bad.


----------



## Rabid Euphoria (Nov 29, 2007)

No matter how well you try and get the picture across the reader won't see what you see.  I don't care what kind of hairstyle they have (unless it's pertinent to development/plot).  If they are muscular, say they are muscular. If their fat, say so.  That is a key part of the character.  One of my characters is known to be middle-aged, balding with glasses. Really it's all that is needed.

When describing surroundings you can't get to caught up in it, especially during action sequences.  Breif description to supplement the action description is all you need.  My personal preference is to embed symbolism and themes into my description.  What little info you get about my characters appearences is crucial; eye colour, nose size, mouth size, ear size, chin size and other variables, in my opinion, should only be used to set characters apart, especially minor characters.  Have a two appearance character have a huge nose that can be made fun of - adds depth from a small fact.  

Description is nice when told vividly in parts. Say a character has a moment of clarity or something is so awe inspiring or horrendous it wouldn't be the same without a careful description of the look and feel of it.  


My problem with description is how to describe repetitive things. I'm writing a zombie horror book and after 200+ pages how many ways can you write 'got shot' or simply describe what they look like or don't.  I wonder if after this long the audience can imagine their own 'zombies' or if I have to tell them if male or female, young or old.  I've tried to use description properly, to show the 'zombies' humanity and project the lives they were living but it's difficult.


----------



## Fantasia. (Nov 30, 2007)

If you ask me, being verbose is excellent, and I love reading deep descriptions that explain every little detail so it gives you an exact image in your head. Take Stephen King, for example, in his books I sometimes forget I am reading and it's like I'm watching a movie.

But since everyone seems to dislike it, my comment will probably go ignored. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Mike C (Nov 30, 2007)

Fantasia. said:


> being verbose is excellent



_He trod quietly on the gravel path so as not to alert the guard. The gravel was mostly flint, but with some sandstone particles mixed in, giving the path a mottled appearance, three or four shades of brown, from grizzly-bear brown right through to a shade somewhere between beige and taupe. Putty, maybe. It was hard to tell in the twilight. The sun was just below the horizon, sunset being at 6.16 this time of year. There wasn't a cloud in the sky, there would probably be a frost by morning, which would affect the orange crops in the next county. A tree screened him from the watchtower, he thought it might be a birch but it might be something else, he wasn't too good on trees. It was a nice, noble looking tree though, about thirty feet high, maybe 25, maybe 35, and the trunk was about a foot in diameter, which would be about 300mm in metric, not that he used metric because he was an american, but he'd spent a year at school in Paris so knew what a millimeter looked like.

"Who goes there?" A guard came running towards him at about twelve miles per hour, his size ten jackbooted feet sending the aforementioned mottled gravel flying in arcs of about twelve feet in diameter as first his left then his right then his left etc foot came crashing down on it, each step having a fair probability of crushing an insect or maybe even a very small mammal underfoot._
Yeah, verbose is the best, right?


----------



## Fantasia. (Nov 30, 2007)

Actually, I quite enjoyed that ^_^ Nice lil' read.


----------



## lightening@warcraft (Nov 30, 2007)

errr.... well, that kinda was like 7 seperate paragraphs(put into one, might i add!) that all were just describing and useless background info.  Also, what was that a quote of i _must_ know


----------



## Ilasir Maroa (Nov 30, 2007)

God that was obnoxious.  Nice example Mike!:5stars:


Yes, being verbose can be nice, but only if it directly affects the action at hand.  I don't mind a few paragraphs describing a bird... if it's important.  In general, I like the length of a description to be somehwat proportional to the importance of that element in the story.


----------



## Wallmaker (Nov 30, 2007)

Hee hee.  Mike C, I like you more with every post I read.
Fantasia... you said sometimes it can be like watching a movie, taking in the details.  But if Mike's post were a movie, we'd be staring at the damn gravel for 2 minutes.  In today's fast paced society, I don't imagine the theater is going to stay packed long.  Then again, if you like details, I'm sure you'll find lots of stuff to read that I just don't have the caffinated patience for.  And that might be great for you.

I believe the key is to add great packed in and original details.  It's part of the trick of writing.  I could introduce a female protagonist who's cuter than a whole shirtful of buttons or a school history teacher who swaggers like a hippo and talks like a boar.  *Woah, that was a terribly bad pun I couldn't resist.  Sorry.*   Anyway, I digress.  But maybe you get my point?  Details are good and help for a cinematic piece, but as it's been pointed out, too many details slow it down and clog up the piece like a calicified artery.  And we all know that just can't be good.


----------



## winner (Nov 30, 2007)

I read your material. I don't think it is so much about being overdescriptive. That would mean overuse of adjectives. I don't think you do that. But what you do is have a lot of run on sentences. That makes for choppy reading. Don't be afraid to end a sentence and put in a period. You tend to put in a comma and keep the sentence going when it is over. 

_I got up and followed Aiyana up the stairs and into a hallway. We stopped at a door that was right next to Aiyana’s room. She opened it, and hit the switch, which caused the light to turn on. I felt slightly uncomfortable when I saw the room. The office was even messier than the kitchen. There were open books, open folders, and loose papers, most of them flying around in random directions on the floor. The desk was cluttered with papers. The black chair seemed to have fallen over, with its back to the floor. The file cabinet in the very back of the room had all of its drawers open and it also seem to have tipped over. _

Example:
I got up and followed Aiyana up the stairs. There, we walked down the hallway stopping at the door next to her room. She reached in and hit the light switch. Suddenly the dark room was bright. I looked around. Her office was even messier than the kitchen. I saw opened books lying around and loose papers scattered about. The file cabinet at the back of the room had tipped over ... 

See? No run on sentences. It gives the story more of a flow and yet still says what you want to say and in a descriptive manner. 

Keep trying, you'll get it​ 
:flower:​


----------



## Rumrunner (Dec 1, 2007)

> Originally posted by *Wallmaker*:
> But if Mike's post were a movie, we'd be staring at the damn gravel for 2 minutes. In today's fast paced society, I don't imagine the theater is going to stay packed long.


Ever seen a Terrence Malick (sp?) film? 

But yes, the point is valid.  I like "verbose" description, too - but it needs to be description that stays on course and follows the needs of the plot.  MikeC's example wanders all over the place, and that's why it seems awkward and excessive.


----------



## Mike C (Dec 1, 2007)

lightening@warcraft said:


> just describing and useless background info.



That was the point.




lightening@warcraft said:


> Also, what was that a quote of i _must_ know



I wrote it quickly to demonstrate to Fantasia how dumb he is.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Dec 1, 2007)

Horace called this "purple prose" and said it was self-indulgent.

If it serves the story, fine.  If it doesn't it should probably be cut.


----------



## ClancyBoy (Dec 1, 2007)

Mike C said:


> I wrote it quickly to demonstrate to Fantasia how dumb he is.



But Mike, not all of that detail was superfluous.  In trying to be tedious you _accidentally_ managed to work in a lot of important information about the character and the setting: that he is American, has been to Paris, that there were orange trees (meaning the piece is set in either Florida or California) the season and the time of day.  Most of it was actually a pretty good example of showing without telling.

Also the way the narrator works so many numbers and measurements into his descriptions makes him come off as some high-functioning autistic which makes the style actually kind of compelling...

I think this might mean that you're such a skilled writer you have difficulty writing badly even when you want to.


----------



## Mike C (Dec 1, 2007)

ClancyBoy said:


> I think this might mean that you're such a skilled writer you have difficulty writing badly even when you want to.




Damn!


----------



## Zensati (Dec 2, 2007)

Personally I am very lazy when It comes to descriptions In my stories and prefer to focus on other areas of the story. So I kind of admire writers who are very descriptive in their work. I think descriptions are one of those things in which you can be very creative and artistic and create alot of atmosphere. So I think being over descriptive is a positive!


----------



## Throughy (Dec 7, 2007)

Believe that your opening paragraph presents an opportunity to intrigue the reader, that could begin to carry a momentum...

However the descriptiveness to me at least looks like an attempt at credibility by way of being factual. An alternative to ascertaining belief is to suspend it, like with subtle humor, just for example.

Hone-in on the tone, and build on the most important moments. 

Consider recapping anything unecessary to what is being told. Forget the continuum. Hit the revealing sequences and this will eliminate the 'as it happened' mindframe.

*Questions:* _what is being revealed that is more important than what is being told outright to the reader? further develop this undertone for added dimension. you might hint at this to lead the reader to privately 'discover'._


----------



## Rabid Euphoria (Dec 8, 2007)

Fantasia. said:


> If you ask me, being verbose is excellent, and I love reading deep descriptions that explain every little detail so it gives you an exact image in your head. Take Stephen King, for example, in his books I sometimes forget I am reading and it's like I'm watching a movie.
> 
> But since everyone seems to dislike it, my comment will probably go ignored.
> 
> Just my two cents.


 

King isn't one to be over descriptive, at least in setting. He's has a reputation for being long winded in character development. The reason why it's like watching a movie when reading King is because he describe the important things well and the rest you create in your head.   

Tolkien was horrible for descrpiton. 





> _Sam and Frodo stood on top of the hill, gazing upon the vast greenland that lay before them................._


 and so on for two pages. He takes two pages for a damn hillside but the battle of helms deep is 20 pages.


----------



## Mr Sci Fi (Dec 9, 2007)

Fantasia. said:


> Take Stephen King, for example, in his books I


 
Stephen King isn't exactly a master of poetic prose.


----------



## RomanticRose (Dec 10, 2007)

Isn't "poetic prose" an oxymoron?


----------



## winner (Dec 10, 2007)

To Romantic Rose, 

I couldn't stop looking at that cat taking down the x under your name. It's so cute and fascinating somehow too. I like it. I want to get a cat like that one now.

To ClancyBoy, 

That movement under your name is intriguing also. To see something go from being calm and studious-like as it reads a paper to screaming at the top of its lungs, releasing a lot of emotion. Wow. It's therapeutic just to watch. 

To Mike C,

I just wanted to say, for whatever it is worth, that Stephen King is a unique figure in the world. His writing stands out by itself. 

Sometimes a person will come along who makes a success out of doing something in what is considered an unorthodox manner - a way that fails for everybody else. That is Stephen King. He is unique unto himself.


----------



## Mr Sci Fi (Dec 10, 2007)

RomanticRose said:


> Isn't "poetic prose" an oxymoron?


 
No, for there is Prose Poetry.


----------



## bob rulz (Dec 16, 2007)

I'm not going to say that being descriptive is bad.

What you really need to learn in writing is what you're good at. Being descriptive isn't necessarilly a bad thing if you can do it in a way that captivates the reader. However, there is a point where you can overdescribe. If you write a description of a room in 3 sentences, for example, would it be possible to merge all of those sentences into 1 and still say all of the same things? It's really a lot more about flow, sentence structure, and vocabulary and less about how much description you give.

One of the main problems that many people have, however, is to describe things because THEY know it's there. However, just because the author knows it's there does not mean that the character knows it's there. What is described should also be based a lot on from what character's viewpoint it's from.

What I've always thought is don't necessarily describe what _needs_ to be known as opposed to what you _want_ them to know, even if it ultimately doesn't contribute much to the story.

The best example of overdescription I can think of off the top of my head (just because it always stood out to me) is in a Terry Brooks book, and is a pretty good example of why he's not that good of a writer (not to say I don't enjoy his stories, though; it's just that sometimes I do cringe at his writing). In _The Sword of Shannara_, near the beginning of the book when the main character is walking through the woods, he mentions something along the lines of "A scream was heard far to the north." If was so distinctive and standout-ish that 1) it didn't contribute a whole lot to the atmosphere, because of the way it was written, and 2) I was expecting for the entire time he was in that area to see some mention of the scream again. But there never was a mention of the scream again, and when I realized that there wouldn't be, my first thought was "why was it mentioned if he wasn't going to follow up on it?" If it's something like "the distant howl of a wolf was heard," then that's no big deal because that's expected. It's okay to describe that even if ultimately it doesn't contribute to the story. But you don't expect to hear a scream necessarily, so if you're not going to follow up on that then there's absolutely no reason to put that in there.

As for character description, it's best really to describe what stands out about them as opposed to what's normal about them. Really, that's the best advice I can give on character description.

Btw MikeC, I think ClancyBoy was right. I was captivated by it, and I wasn't annoyed or horrified by it as much as I was humored by it.


----------



## Destroyer2000 (Dec 20, 2007)

As has been said, it's a matter of preference.Take Douglas Adams' _Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy_. Description in it is of vast importance, though some of it seems to drag along, it adds to the humor of the book. In other cases, as with excerpt above, it slows things down and serves no real purpose.


----------



## who (Dec 27, 2007)

*Description* - What I have learned thus far is as follows.

1. Get to the point - Do not describe what is not important or what doesn't add to the plot because it becomes boring and interrupts the flow as stated above. A reader wants a story where the plot is moving at a nice pace, not something that drags on and on with insignificant details.

Description can be good as it pertains to the story. If you are writing about Eve eating the forbidden fruit in the garden of Eden, you may say...

The fruit was scarlet and seductive. It felt cool and firm in her hand. It's smell was that of sweet ambrosia. Her mouth moistened with anticipation. She raised her hand toward her lips and with one bite she brought a terrible burden upon mankind.

But if your story has nothing to do with fruit, and your character is just grabbing a bite to eat, you might just say.

The big apple was tasty, but didn't satisfy his hunger.

2. Leave something to the imagination - Let the reader fill in the blanks. When you let the reader do some thinking it allows the story to become more personal to him/her. In other words, don't spoon feed him.

3. Actions speak louder than words - You should show your character's personality's through actions, instead of telling the reader who they are with descriptive words, and long detail.

Example:
 If you tell me that Jim punched his wife in the face (verb). It is better than telling me that Jim is an abusive jerk (adjective). This also gives the reader the chance to develop his own idea and opinion of Jim


----------



## meldy (Jan 1, 2008)

BlueLacario my advise to you would be to put this piece away for a month, or even longer.
Then pull it back out again and see what you think of it.

I had a piece of writing I posted here which I thought was fabulous. It was supposed to be the opening chapter of a YA novel I am working on but as I continued to write and my voice improved the novel has since changed in tone and voice.

Its been about 2 months since I have looked at that first chapter (which Mike C told me to lose altogether by the way) and it is WAY overblown and reads like the aformentioned poetry-prose.
It annoys the hell out of me to read it now although I loved it just a few short months ago.
So I am dumping it now as was suggested back then.
I didnt believe anyone who said it was overdone or sucked. Now I see what they saw then.

Just a thought.

Sometimes when you are knee deep in it you cant see what you are wading through


----------



## Krim (Jan 1, 2008)

There is a major difference between purple prose (overdescriptive) and ornate prose...Purple prose is worthless description for the sake of going "look at me...I can describe stuff." It's going over every insignificant detail until the reader skips half the book just to see the next action verb. Some people do pull it off well depending on their genre and who they're writing for...like Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast Trilogy, which was written for the 1950's intellectual class. 

Ornate, on the other hand, is finding ways to describe relevant things with beauty. Sometimes you may go a bit overboard, though. It's using great metaphors, even though a lot of writers would debate for a hundred pages on how superfluous figurative language can be. Tolkien wasn't much for similies. It's finding that one verb that fits just perfect to give a clear mental image of what's going on in that sentence, finding the right combination of words to make the scene come to life in the readers mind and flow well. 

Kind of like that last paragraph, though that was pretty crappy writing if you felt like critiquing it. I've met plenty of people who like ornate prose, an equal amount who detest it and are minimalist, and some who like purple prose. Really, it depends on which you're best at, doesn't it? But purple prose turns off a lot of agents.



> As has been said, it's a matter of preference.Take Douglas Adams' _Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy_. Description in it is of vast importance, though some of it seems to drag along, it adds to the humor of the book. In other cases, as with excerpt above, it slows things down and serves no real purpose.


 
I remember in one of Adams' Dirk Gently books, Thor throws his hammer into the sky and there is about a page of description of all the flashes and things it does, and then it comes back to him. Someone asks him "What was the point of that?" and Thor replies, "I was angry." Cracked me up.


----------



## QuothTheRaven (Jan 1, 2008)

I haven't read any of your work, so this doesn't directly apply to anything you've written, it's just a general comment.

I think that the definition of what is too much description really varies from person to person. Some people may like lots of description, lots of background story, they really want to be able to see exactly what the author sees. But I think that most people, like myself, want rich descriptions, but we don't want to be bogged down by long descriptions. We want an author to guide us to see things for ourselves rather than tell us exactly what to see. Every time you start to write a long description, ask yourself if every element is necessary (is it enough to say that it's a mahogany table with gothic designs on the surface, or do you really need to go into painstaking detail on what the gothic details are?), and ask yourself if the item even needs description (does it contribute to the story to even describe the table at all, or is it enough to say that there was a table in the room?). Like someone else said, long descriptions weigh down the story and can slow the pace to a crawl. Pay close attention to how your favourite authors--or famous authors that write in the genre that you want to write in--describe things.

Personally, I learned to write from writing essays for school. Unfortunately, the teachers didn't do a damn thing to help me learn to write, but my mother did teach me the basics of how to organize and how to write, even though her first and main language is Russian. When you're writing an essay, you always have to ask yourself--is this sentence relevant? does it advance my thesis? will anything important change if I remove it? If the answers to those questions is "yes," then it's necessary, if not, then you might as well toss it out.

Lavish descriptions may be necessary for lavish locations. If you're describing the home of some snobbish rich man that loves to have pretty, ornate things, then maybe you should go a little deeper into descriptions of his home/office/apartment. If you're writing about a detective that notices EVERYTHING, then once in a while, you might want to go into painstaking detail to show that this detective doesn't miss a darn thing. He sees the barely-visible ink spill on the carpet, he sees that the pins in the bulletin board are all blue except for one black one, he sees that the series of glasses on the table are all the same size and all contain an even number of pens or pencils, etc, etc. However, unless the scene outside of the room that the detective was looking at is important, you probably don't need to describe what kinds of cars are driving down the street, what all of the surrounding buildings are made of, nor the exact number of cracks in the sidewalk below the detective's feet.

Wow, I rambled, sorry. ;D

EDIT: After reading what everyone else wrote, I wanted to bring something up. Almost any story will include some element of suspense, the character and the reader can't know everything that is going to happen. If you ONLY describe things that are important to the story, you're probably going to give too much away. If you are talking about a desk and what is on the desk and you give a long description of the pen knife that's on the desk but you don't give much of a description of anything else, then the reader already know that the pen knife is important because you devoted so much time to it. This can be OK if the main character comes up to the desk, notices the pen knife and examines it in detail, but unless the character somehow knows that the item is very important, more so than anything else, you're probably giving too much away if you ONLY describe important things.

EDIT 2: Going off of what another member mentioned, think about what it would be like if your work was a film. The longer the description, the longer the camera lingers over a particular spot. What would it be like if you were watching a film of what you wrote and the camera kept stopping at things for several minutes. At the same time, consider what I said in my first edit. If the camera pans quickly over the desk, but stops and zooms in on the pen knife for a minute, you're definitely saying "this is important!"


----------



## Mike C (Jan 2, 2008)

bob rulz said:


> I'm not going to say that being descriptive is bad.



Nor is anyone else. To go back to the original question - What's wrong with being *over*descriptive...

Duh. It's a non-question. Over descriptive means too much. The answer is in the question.


----------



## QuothTheRaven (Jan 2, 2008)

Mike C said:


> Nor is anyone else. To go back to the original question - What's wrong with being *over*descriptive...
> 
> Duh. It's a non-question. Over descriptive means too much. The answer is in the question.


 Lin already made that point. OH MY GOD PLAIJURIZUR!

 I joke.


----------



## Crystal Morey (Jan 31, 2011)

I am reading a book right now about two people from two different worlds...they are fighting their love for each other...they want to be together but there are obstacles where...well lets just say that it is keeping them apart...I asked one of my favorite authors "is there such a thing as too much detail"....I am reading this story..and as soon as I get into it...it go's on for pages about detail after detail after detail (breathe's...wipes brow off) and its too the point where I am having to scan through pages just to get back to the main story line...almost like...whoever wrote this book...she didnt know what to put next so she put all of this detail in...My question is I guess...and its plain to see..."Is there such a thing as too much Detail...as to where it can take away from the main story...to the point where it can make the story boring?" Has anyone ever had this problem when reading a story...
Thank you
Crystal


----------

