# Describing things and people. How much is too much?  ( This may get a little PG-13 )



## Guard Dog (Nov 17, 2018)

I freely admit that I'm all over the board on this one... still looking for that "happy medium". But I also think that in some cases, _way too much_ is better than not enough. Infinitely better.

That may just be me, of course. People are different, after all, and you may think just the opposite.

In my case, I also happen to be a talker. So much so, that if Sandor Clegane, GoT's "Hound", had to spend much time around me, he'd likely kill me just to avoid a weight problem from all those f*****g chickens he'd have to eat. 

( All the more reason to make friends with the right people in that world, I suppose. Brienne of Tarth and Arya Stark being top of the list, in my case. )

Anyway, on to the point; I've just gotten a reminder of where I may have picked up that tendency.

I used to read a lot more than I do these days. Folks like Robert A. Heinlein And Arthur C. Clark were at the top of the list. A list comprised of mostly science fiction and fantasy. 

A couple of days ago, I bought a book of Heinlein's that I'd managed to not get my hands on in more than 30 years... Glory Road. And I went through the entire thing in one sitting.

...and that's where I discovered the most likely source of my habit of over-describing. I just hadn't realized how much influence the man had on me, it seems. 

I'm going to give you his description of one of the characters from Glory Road now. Some of you may fall asleep before you get to the end of it, if you haven't already.

Here's Star, in all her glory:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At first glance I thought she was eighteen, maybe twenty; later when I was able to look her square in her face she still looked eighteen but could have been forty. Or a hundred and forty. She had the agelessness of perfect beauty. Like Helen of Troy, or Cleopatra. It seemed possible that she was Helen of Troy but I knew she wasn’t Cleopatra because she was not a redhead; she was a natural blonde. She was a tawny toast color all over without a hint of bikini marks and her hair was the same shade two tones lighter. It flowed, unconfined, in graceful waves down her back and seemed never to have been cut. She was tall, not much shorter than I am, and not too much lighter in weight. Not fat, not fat at all save for that graceful padding that smoothes the feminine form, shading the muscles underneath—I was sure there were muscles underneath; she carried herself with the relaxed power of a lioness. Her shoulders were broad for a woman, as broad as her very female hips; her waist might have seemed thick on a lesser woman, on her it was deliciously slender. Her belly did not sag at all but carried the lovely doubly-domed curve of perfect muscle tone. Her breasts—only her big rib cage could carry such large ones without appearing too much of a good thing. They jutted firmly out and moved only a trifle when she moved, and they were crowned with rosy brown confections that were frankly nipples, womanly and not virginal. Her navel was that jewel the Persian poets praised. Her legs were long for her height; her hands and feet were not small but were slender, graceful. She was graceful in all ways; it was impossible to think of her in a pose ungraceful. Yet she was so lithe and limber that, like a cat, she could have twisted herself into any position. Her face— How do you describe perfect beauty except to say that when you see it you can’t mistake it? Her lips were full and her mouth rather wide. It was faintly curved in the ghost of a smile even when her features were at rest. Her lips were red but if she was wearing makeup of any sort it had been applied so skillfully that I could not detect it—and that alone would have made her stand out, for that was a year all other females were wearing “Continental” makeup, as artificial as a corset and as bold as a doxy’s smile. Her nose was straight and large enough for her face, no button. Her eyes— She caught me staring at her. Certainly women expect to be looked at and expect it unclothed quite as much as when dressed for the ball. But it is rude to stare openly. I had given up the fight in the first ten seconds and was trying to memorize her, every line, every curve. Her eyes locked with mine and she stared back and I began to blush but couldn’t look away. Her eyes were so deep a blue that they were dark, darker than my own brown eyes.

Heinlein, Robert A.. Glory Road (pp. 31-32). Spectrum Literary Agency, Inc.. Kindle Edition. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that's just one person. He's no less thorough with the rest of the book.

So there's where I'm sure I picked up my bad writing habits... or at least one of 'em; reading that sort of stuff. And no, I'm not saying or implying I do it even a one hundredth as well.

So how 'bout you folks? What's your general tendency, and where do you think you picked up the habit?



G.D.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 17, 2018)

Criticizing a writer like Heinlein feels like blasphemy. But yes, that description is too much.

 Not only is it too much, but at least out of context most of it is trite crap.  "Her navel was that jewel the Persian poets praised." What?

It's always hard to criticize this stuff because its so heavily influenced by culture and generational differences. Most classic literature would be unpopular if published in its original style now - that's why there's a market for "abridged classics".  The writer you're taking cues from has been dead for thirty years. That's quite a long time in terms of writing trends. If you're a science fiction writer (and I'm assuming you are) then Heinlein is fantastic and definitely relevant, but that doesn't make him the go-to guy for everything...

I'm not sure that it's possible to really pick between "way too much" and "not enough". That's like asking if its better to be too hot or too cold. People always _think _they know based on what they consider "very hot" and "very cold" to feel like but "very" and "too" do not mean the same thing. The reality is too much of ANYTHING renders the same level of misery, like how a ton of feathers and a ton of bricks are equally unbearable to carry... The "too" qualifies them both equally unacceptable.

If we are going to debate this though, consider what the trigger point for most of the books you've ever abandoned without finishing was and I'll bet there's a good chance it was during some long drawn out ramble about something that seemed irrelevant, dull or both.

 With a few exceptions books have been trending shorter for years. The average 19th century novel was seldom less than 130,000 words. These days anything over 110,000 is a pretty heavy read and the average for most genres is right around the 80-100k mark. This isn't an accident. Attention spans are shorter, the need for instant gratification stronger. The Heinlein excerpt you posted is 510 words. That's 510 words to say what exactly? That some woman is tasty? Well, fine. But if you do that for every significant character, setting and spaceship that features in your story you'll have 300,000 words before you've even got to the point....and that probably wont work. The happy medium is generally where you have to be. It's sort of expected that as a professional author you can figure that out.

So what is a happy medium? 

Depends, obviously. Some characters and places are just more interesting and/or important than others. A haunted mansion typically gets a bigger description than a plate of spaghetti, right?

I think probably the best way to find it is to query your work. Ideally this should be done at the editing phase. Every time you write anything that is not directly concerning the actions and reactions needed to drive the plot you should be asking the same two questions: 

(1) Am I sure my reader *needs* to know this?
(2) Am I sure my reader *wants *to know this?

Beautiful, original descriptions of people and places are fine - they add color. Introspection needed to build character can be great. A libidinous description of a female character's body might be enjoyable. However these are often not details that are essential to drive the story. So then you need to ask yourself what they are adding to the reader's experience. Whether it is worth the amount of time and attention they are costing him or her. It's a simple return-on-investment question: They are giving you their time (and hopefully their money). In exchange, you have to keep them consistently engaged. They are the customer, you are the sidewalk magician. You bore them and they will abandon you.

I think its good practice to constantly assume that your reader is not completely invested in your work, that they are only a few paragraphs away from tossing your book in the trash. You have to feed them with what they are interested in, which may or may not be what you - the writer - is. Otherwise you are taking them for granted.


----------



## Hill.T.Manner (Nov 17, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> Criticizing a writer like Heinlein feels like blasphemy. But yes, that description is too much.
> 
> Not only is it too much, but at least out of context most of it is trite crap.  "Her navel was that jewel the Persian poets praised." What?
> 
> ...



I had my response cannon primed, armed, and ready to go then I saw this... I mean... I can't really follow that. So... *whistles*


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 17, 2018)

> So what is a happy medium?


 Doris Stokes, always smiling, sorry an aside from newspaper ad's of my youth 

My mantra is 'less is more', and a couple of times I have been praised for my descriptions when actually I have described things very loosely, in general terms. Get it right and the reader fills in the scene for themselves supplying the detail they want to see, which is much more vivid than anything you can supply.


----------



## SueC (Nov 17, 2018)

In my reformed self, I try to consider what my readers really need to know to keep the story going. There was a time in my life when I went to bed every night with the men from _Lonesome Dove_. In my head, the persona of these men were familiar to me - some were old actors, some were just folks I knew. So, when I finally got around to watching the movie, I was shocked to see who they had picked to star in the film - none of my head-actors made the cut!

But it had such an impact on me to learn how important it is to leave some element of imagination with the reader. As a result, I rarely describe physical attributes, unless it is germane to the story. I never, ever describe a beautiful woman. I think that technique is so overdone and I confess to not continuing to read a book because we now had this flawless individual, who took MC's breath away with each gesture - yadda, yadda. Instead, I try to make my characters interesting and not always good looking.

I'm still too wordy, though I work on it all the time, thanks to the gentle reminders I receive from others on this site.


----------



## DarkGhost (Nov 17, 2018)

It's ok to discribe a character as long as it's not over done. In fact I would recommend doing it, but keep it to what color their hair is, how tall they are, whether they wear glasses or not. Don't go off on some metaphorical analogy of what a person's navel is like. That can take away from the story, especially if it's an action book.


----------



## Plasticweld (Nov 17, 2018)

I write entire stories without a physical description.  Like Sue and Olly, I try and leave it up to the reader what they look like. I use actions that let you picture the people.  I had to think back about my own work when you asked the question, if I had crossed the line.  I did write a story here in the Humor section making fun of writers and their over use of descriptions.  The characters all lack them accept for one and that was over done on purpose. I have no reason to believe it can ever be underdone.  I am a nobody in the writing game so my opinion is not worth much, but I do try and tackle the problem of there never being anything new under the sun.

Story *here *if your interested


----------



## Annoying kid (Nov 17, 2018)

Description shouldn't exist just to inform the reader of what things look like. The reader already knows what things looks like. Instead it's supposed to evoke a mood, a feel and a vibe. Once you'd done that, there's no point in carrying on. Just get on with the plot until you need to set the tone and atmosphere again. If you aren't operating on a level of feelings, then description becomes trivia, which is potentially boring. In fact if you ramble on, you could potentially lose the feeling you just generated in the reader. As that Star description certainly did with me, early on. Or not, if he was trying to write one of the most awesomely hilarious descriptions of a woman in the 20th century.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Nov 17, 2018)

Heinlein seems over descriptive because that's how they wrote back then.
Writing is an evolving thing...in fact story-telling is an evolving thing.
Every wonder why movies are different than they were in the 40s? Because we have sociologically evolved and now we tell stories differently.
Heinlein did it right for his era...but people don't write that way anymore.


Here is the deal with striking a proper balance with descriptions: *Don't try to do it all at once.*
Write your description of the scene or character, give the basics, get into their head, let the reader get a feel for who they are, but don't try to cover *ALL* bases in that intro.  

Instead, you finish the description using brush strokes.  As the story progresses you continually add little details that *speak to the nature of the character or the scene*. Your hero doesn't just brush back his hair, he brushes back his _greasy_ hair, or he uses an _oil-caked hand_ to wipe back his hair, or his _rough and calloused hands snagged _on his hair as he tried to wipe it out of his eyes...

You see what I'm saying here?
You split the load between the intro and the brush strokes.
As you write, you should be continually adding little brush strokes about your characters and the scene around them.  Just an extra word or two here and there.
You don't just illustrate characters when you first meet them...you continually illustrate them.


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 17, 2018)

Thanks for this, Luckyscars. You've been thourogh enough that simply responding to what you've said makes it easy for me to get my own thoughts out there without giving myself a brain cramp from having to dig too much. 




luckyscars said:


> Criticizing a writer like Heinlein feels like blasphemy. But yes, that description is too much.



I guess I must just be a detail freak, 'cause I actually like it. I know exactly what Star looks like now, and she will never get mixed up in my mind with any other tall blonde woman. And I didn't even have to work for that to happen

For instance, there's Brienne of Tarth that I mentioned earlier. Now she's not quite the same, appearance-wise on the TV show as she is in the books, from what I understand, but if you stand her on the far end of the spectrum, and Star at the other, one of my own characters would fit dead in the middle. 
She wouldn't be as pretty as Star, nor as "plain" as Brienne.



luckyscars said:


> Not only is it too much, but at least out of context most of it is trite crap.  "Her navel was that jewel the Persian poets praised." What?




Eh, I don't get too worked-up over such things... I just figured it was Heinlein's way of letting everybody know that ol' EC had read a poem about Helen of Troy. And you do learn later on that EC has a bit of an obsession with reading.
But then, as you say, context is everything.



luckyscars said:


> It's always hard to criticize this stuff because its so heavily influenced by culture and generational differences. Most classic literature would be unpopular if published in its original style now - that's why there's a market for "abridged classics".  The writer you're taking cues from has been dead for thirty years. That's quite a long time in terms of writing trends. If you're a science fiction writer (and I'm assuming you are) then Heinlein is fantastic and definitely relevant, but that doesn't make him the go-to guy for everything...



Hmm. Well, Glory Road and I are the same age. Came into the world the same year, though it's just a few months younger than I am. And yes, it's the sort of stuff I grew up reading.
So I guess it's fair to say that I'm part of that culture as well.

And as far as the author being dead for 30 years... how long has Shakespeare been gone? He's still doing pretty well in literary circles, from what I understand.  By all reports, Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, Herbert, and a great many others of their generation are also still selling at least fairly well, so....

On a more contemporary note, Stan Lee just died last week at 95. He's another one that had a great influence on me... and also one hell of an impact on the rest of the world, this past decade or so. With the very stuff I was reading when I was 7 or 8. Maybe it took the movie industry catching up to do it, but without him, they'd not have anything to work with to make those billions they're currently rolling in, would they?

There's also that old adage about what's old becoming new again, and the fact that trends run in cycles and circles, with the popularity of certain things rising and falling.

I also realize that what works well for one genre doesn't always work in others. Science fiction and fantasy will require more description on average than most others, due to there being more that people have no knowledge of than say, a western, or some drama or romance set here on earth, either in current times or the past. There is no "one size fits all".




luckyscars said:


> I'm not sure that it's possible to really pick between "way too much" and "not enough". That's like asking if its better to be too hot or too cold. People always _think _they know based on what they consider "very hot" and "very cold" to feel like but "very" and "too" do not mean the same thing. The reality is too much of ANYTHING renders the same level of misery, like how a ton of feathers and a ton of bricks are equally unbearable to carry... The "too" qualifies them both equally unacceptable.



Well, for me, I'd rather be in 80 degree temps than 65 or 70. 100 would be a bit too warm but I'd rather it be that than 32F. And I can manage quite well in 110F, or even 120.  Is that too hot?

By the way, you seem to equate "too much" or "too little" as being automatically unacceptable. To me, in many cases, it may just be "unneeded" but otherwise harmless and easily ignored.



luckyscars said:


> If we are going to debate this though, consider what the trigger point for most of the books you've ever abandoned without finishing was and I'll bet there's a good chance it was during some long drawn out ramble about something that seemed irrelevant, dull or both.



For me, it's usually been the author doing something I just didn't like, or that didn't fit, or didn't make any sense. If the story takes off in a direction I don't care for, I'm usually done with it.
If something seems boring or irrelevant, I use my "fast forward" option, skip ahead a couple of pages, and see if things pick up. Usually they do, and I continue on. If it ventures off into one of the things I mentioned above, then I turn the book into a wall-bouncer.
But that doesn't happen too often. At least not in the things I usually choose to read.



luckyscars said:


> With a few exceptions books have been trending shorter for years. The average 19th century novel was seldom less than 130,000 words. These days anything over 110,000 is a pretty heavy read and the average for most genres is right around the 80-100k mark. This isn't an accident. Attention spans are shorter, the need for instant gratification stronger. The Heinlein excerpt you posted is 510 words. That's 510 words to say what exactly? That some woman is tasty? Well, fine. But if you do that for every significant character, setting and spaceship that features in your story you'll have 300,000 words before you've even got to the point....and that probably wont work. The happy medium is generally where you have to be. It's sort of expected that as a professional author you can figure that out.



Heinlein isn't around anymore to ask, and I don't know if he ever made any comment on it. However, I'll tell you what I think the reason might have been for such a vivid, detailed, and long-winded description:

It was so the image of this woman would be so burned into the reader's brain, and they could understand the turmoil in the mind of the fellow doing the describing, when he found out she was a many-thousands of years old "bag" as her grandson described her.

And yes, I'm fully aware of how people have changed. And I can assure you, I have no intention of writing for the "ADD/Instant Gratification/No desire to actually have to think" crowd.

I probably don't have to worry about ever being too popular, huh?

By the way, Glory road is 320 pages. So... between 80,000 and 100,000 words? And with most everything in it described in similar detail?




luckyscars said:


> So what is a happy medium?



For me, it's just being able to recognize the extremes of what's needed for describing a particular thing and aiming somewhere between those.
As you've already mentioned, some things need more of a description than others, and depending on circumstance, maybe more or less than they normally would. 
Sometimes that's not easy to determine, at least for me, and being able to stay somewhere in the middle - even if it crowds one end or the other a bit - is the "happy medium".



luckyscars said:


> Depends, obviously. Some characters and places are just more interesting and/or important than others. A haunted mansion typically gets a bigger description than a plate of spaghetti, right?



You're right, it depends.
What's the spaghetti got crawling around in it? What's peeping at the diner from behind a meatball? And is it supposed to be there?

And doesn't everybody know what a haunted mansion is supposed to look like by now?
They apparently know what a high-dollar, five-star restaurant looks like, even if it's on an artificial, high-tech space station of sorts... if my own short story posted here on the forums is any indication, that is... 'cause I didn't describe that _at all_, and got no comment on the fact.



luckyscars said:


> I think probably the best way to find it is to query your work. Ideally this should be done at the editing phase. Every time you write anything that is not directly concerning the actions and reactions needed to drive the plot you should be asking the same two questions:
> 
> (1) Am I sure my reader *needs* to know this?
> (2) Am I sure my reader *wants *to know this?
> ...



My own goals are a little different, I guess. Maybe too different. Because what I'm after is for it all to fit together, make sense, and convey the story I'm trying to tell.
That's it. No more, no less. And I'm not the least bit concerned with fickle readers.
They can read it, they can not, they can like it, they can not. It's all the same to me.

The fact is, if I don't write what I like, and what I want... and get it to come out the way I have in mind... I'm not going to write it at all.

What someone makes of it after the fact is up to them, not me.



luckyscars said:


> I think its good practice to constantly assume that your reader is not completely invested in your work, that they are only a few paragraphs away from tossing your book in the trash. You have to feed them with what they are interested in, which may or may not be what you - the writer - is. Otherwise you are taking them for granted.



For someone who wants to be a commercial writer, and wants to make money off of what they write, that's all very true.
But you also have to keep in mind that even within the same genre, everyone is not going to have the same wants or expectations.
When I used to go into bookstores, I'd stand in front of the sci-fi/fantasy section for quite a while, picking and choosing. Usually ended up taking very few home with me, out of all the choices that were there on that 7 foot by usually 20 foot section.
And although what I bought was in the minority, even there, I've gotta assume that somebody bought those others too, or they wouldn't be there.

Oh, concerning someone chucking a half-read book in the trash? Well, at least they bought it didn't they? So it was theirs to do with as they please.

And who knows... maybe someone comes along later, sees a perfectly good book in the trash, takes it out, reads it, and actually likes the damned thing?  *shrug*




Thanks to anybody with the attention span to get this far. 


G.D.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 17, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Description shouldn't exist just to inform the reader of what things look like. The reader already knows what things looks like.



Well that's not necessarily true, especially in science fiction. 

Imagine War Of The Worlds if H.G Wells had assumed people "already knew" what his martians looked like? Jules Verne frequently spends whole chapters describing the machinery. He does this in a detailed, interesting but rather matter-of-fact way. That's part of what makes his ideas seem plausible. Part of description is absolutely just explaining, hopefully in an original and somewhat visceral way, what something uncommon looks like (or smells/tastes/feels/sounds like). 

I think I get what you're saying....that description should not exist only to provide an anatomical account (especially of something mundane). That it should in some way always be linked to the framing of the piece and that when it is not the result is often dull, and I would absolutely agree. 

Sometimes an entity can be sufficiently striking enough in its own right that simply conveying it in physical terms is effective. It just shouldn't result in a poorly written extended info-dump, which the Heinlein example surely is.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 18, 2018)

Guard Dog said:


> I guess I must just be a detail freak, 'cause I actually like it. I know exactly what Star looks like now, and she will never get mixed up in my mind with any other tall blonde woman. And I didn't even have to work for that to happen. For instance, there's Brienne of Tarth that I mentioned earlier. Now she's not quite the same, appearance-wise on the TV show as she is in the books, from what I understand, but if you stand her on the far end of the spectrum, and Star at the other, one of my own characters would fit dead in the middle. She wouldn't be as pretty as Star, nor as "plain" as Brienne.



The problem is _most _prospective readers probably won't like this sort of thing as a typical character description. Just look at the responses to it on this thread thus far and expand that reasoning to non-writers. Or look at the way modern, popular books are written. 

I think this is where people start to have problems with the _commercial_ aspect of writing. If you want to sell more than a handful of your books whether you happen to like something isn't terribly important. You're selling a product for other people.  



> Hmm. Well, Glory Road and I are the same age. Came into the world the same year, though it's just a few months younger than I am. And yes, it's the sort of stuff I grew up reading. So I guess it's fair to say that I'm part of that culture as well.



Again, you are making it about you. That's great you're part of that culture. So am I, I guess. But what does that have to do with convincing people to read and buy your book in 2018? Do you think readers are going to adapt their tastes because of it?

For the record I'm not suggesting for a moment you reinvent your style or deny yourself happiness for the sake of trends. I am simply saying one ought to tread carefully when it comes to writing in a style that is likely to put off a majority of readers. Ask yourself if its worth it. Is your work so draw-dropping it affords you the luxury to do whatever you want and still hold an audience? Mine isn't.



> And as far as the author being dead for 30 years... how long has Shakespeare been gone? He's still doing pretty well in literary circles, from what I understand.  By all reports, Heinlein, Clarke, Asimov, Herbert, and a great many others of their generation are also still selling at least fairly well, so....On a more contemporary note, Stan Lee just died last week at 95. He's another one that had a great influence on me... and also one hell of an impact on the rest of the world, this past decade or so. With the very stuff I was reading when I was 7 or 8. Maybe it took the movie industry catching up to do it, but without him, they'd not have anything to work with to make those billions they're currently rolling in, would they? There's also that old adage about what's old becoming new again, and the fact that trends run in cycles and circles, with the popularity of certain things rising and falling.



Ah yes, this old chestnut...

People still study and take a deep interest in aspects of the Roman Empire. That doesn't mean the gladiator pits are reopening anytime soon.  

Revival is a thing, sure. Generally, though, it only works  as a hybrid. A cherry pick of the good/relevant from the bad/useless. When people say they like 50's stuff they tend to mean they like Elvis Presley and big cars, not Jim Crow and hydrogen bombs. Shirley Jackson wrote "gothic" literature but she did not write in the same way that Bram Stoker did because nobody wanted to read books in that style anymore. Similarly the revision of "Haunting At Hill House" that is currently hugely popular bares very little semblance to Jackson's text but does pay homage to certain themes and the like. A cherry pick. 

Tell you what, why not try writing a sci-fi novel in Middle English and see how far it gets you?



> Well, for me, I'd rather be in 80 degree temps than 65 or 70. 100 would be a bit too warm but I'd rather it be that than 32F. And I can manage quite well in 110F, or even 120.  Is that too hot?
> 
> By the way, you seem to equate "too much" or "too little" as being automatically unacceptable. To me, in many cases, it may just be "unneeded" but otherwise harmless and easily ignored.



If you can "manage quite well" with something it is not "too" anything regardless of what it is. "Too" indicates a subjective judgement of displeasure/unacceptability. You can't say "I don't mind things that are too long" because if you *don't mind* them they are not *too *long - they are just *long*. I'm not sure how else to explain that so if we are still unclear its probably better to just drop it...



> Heinlein isn't around anymore to ask, and I don't know if he ever made any comment on it. However, I'll tell you what I think the reason might have been for such a vivid, detailed, and long-winded description:
> 
> It was so the image of this woman would be so burned into the reader's brain, and they could understand the turmoil in the mind of the fellow doing the describing, when he found out she was a many-thousands of years old "bag" as her grandson described her.



This doesn't alter that on its own it reads overblown and, yes, pretty badly written and I'm not afraid to say that just because it is a great author. Out of interest has anybody told you its a good way to write character descriptions?



> And yes, I'm fully aware of how people have changed. And I can assure you, I have no intention of writing for the "ADD/Instant Gratification/No desire to actually have to think" crowd. I probably don't have to worry about ever being too popular, huh?



Seeking instant gratification and not wishing to wade through mammoth quantities of text before getting to something interesting does not equate to having "no desire to actually have to think". That's nothing short of snobbery.

I think generally speaking readers now _love _intellectual themes in stories. Look at the kind of movies, tv shows and yes books that are getting written. They certainly aren't less thoughtful than readers in the old days. Sure you've always had your Asimovs, your Jules Vernes and Kafkas, but if anybody wants to say that the bulk of Shakespeare's work "makes you think"  they need to lay off the head lettuce. Most Shakespeare is about as thematically complicated as Sesame Street.

You mentioned A Song Of Ice And Fire earlier? That's currently a pretty popular book with all kinds of people. I'd suggest it's also a damn sight more "thoughtful" than, say, The Canterbury Tales. 

The reason people today tend toward instant gratification is not because they are lazy or stupid but because there is just so much really good media within easy access. It does not make sense to subject yourself to days of boredom slogging through something tedious. People haven't gotten stupider, they've just got choices. Just like if 16th century Londoners had Netflix, the ability to read, and access to a good library I can all but guarantee they would not have been chortling en mass to inane dross like _The Merry Wives Of Windsor._



> But you also have to keep in mind that even within the same genre, everyone is not going to have the same wants or expectations.



Absolutely. All the more reason why you need to put aside _your _wants/expectations and try to work to the _majority of readers _wants/expectations within that genre, based on a good understanding the current market trends and sufficient humility to realize where you may need to cater. Assuming you want to sell more than seven copies.




> Oh, concerning someone chucking a half-read book in the trash? Well, at least they bought it didn't they? So it was theirs to do with as they please. And who knows... maybe someone comes along later, sees a perfectly good book in the trash, takes it out, reads it, and actually likes the damned thing? *shrug*



I don't want to be rude, but this is just silly.


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 18, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> I don't want to be rude, but this is just silly.



May be, but you responded to it anyway, when there were so many other things in that post that you didn't. And to honest, it was added as an afterthought... more or less a "so what? somebody sold a book, so why bitch about it? It's not sitting on a store shelf collecting dust."

Anyway, it's neither here nor there, and I did find it amusing that you'd even bother with it.

But now I have one final question for you:

Do you think the only reason a person comes in here, spends time learning about writing, gets opinions on story-telling, and generally talks to people about the subject, and generally wants to get _*technically_ better at it, is so they can get involved with the commercial writing industry, or to make money off of writing?




G.D.

* If you want me to explain what I mean by Technically Better, I will, but that's a subject for some other thread, I think. I will tell you that it doesn't mean learning to write in such a way as to appease or suite any particular person or group of people. At least not in my case.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 18, 2018)

Guard Dog said:


> Do you think the only reason a person comes in here, spends time learning about writing, gets opinions on story-telling, and generally talks to people about the subject, and generally wants to get _*technically_ better at it, is so they can get involved with the commercial writing industry, or to make money off of writing?



I think I mentioned a few times that adapting ones style for the reader only applies to creating commercially viable work. If you don't care about selling you can obviously write however you want. You'll probably find at least a few people who will dig it.

I only go on about market trends because I think a writer who aspires to be professional should take them on board where they can. In any other industry this would be a given:  People who are getting into the food and beverage industry don't decide to build automats or absinthe bars because they were a thing last century. Subsequently I don't think writers in 2018 should be in thrall to the stylistic habits of writers whose heyday was fifty years ago.

I think you got lots of good feedback from various people. Whether you listen to it or not is your call.


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 18, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> I think you got lots of good feedback from various people. Whether you listen to it or not is your call.



I always listen... that's why I'm here.

How or if I apply the information I'm given is another matter.


Thanks.

G.D.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Nov 18, 2018)

Always be mindful of the source of the advice.


----------



## Kyle R (Nov 18, 2018)

Guard Dog said:


> I'm going to give you his description of one of the characters from Glory Road now. Some of you may fall asleep before you get to the end of it, if you haven't already.
> 
> Here's Star, in all her glory:
> 
> ...



My main problem with that passage is that it's all hitting the same melodic note: "This part of her looked like _this_. This part of her looked like _that_." On and on. It's mostly all surface visual description. Which is fine in small doses—but can get tedious in larger amounts.

If the writing's going to linger on a character's description, it should (IMO) explore more than just visual details. It could tell the reader how she moved, or how the atmosphere seemed to change when she arrived. It could describe how the crowd seemed to bend around her, or how she seemed to exist out of time.

Something—anything—other than just a shopping list of body parts and features.

(Also worth keeping in mind that the description tells the reader about the viewpoint character as well—what they notice shows what they value and what matters to them. A painter, for example, would notice different things about the girl than a boxer would.)


----------



## Annoying kid (Nov 18, 2018)

Guard Dog said:


> I always listen... that's why I'm here.
> 
> 
> G.D.



  I don't understand why you're here. :scratch:If you don't care about sales or critical reception, then why use writing forums at all? Hell, why get good in the first place? Why spend 30 years planning? Why not just crank it out and self publish?


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 18, 2018)

Kyle R said:


> If the writing's going to linger on a character's description, it should (IMO) explore more than just visual details. It could tell the reader how she moved, or how the atmosphere seemed to change when she arrived. It could describe how the crowd seemed to bend around her, or how she seemed to exist out of time.
> 
> Something—anything—other than just a shopping list of body parts and features.



Given that there are limits to how much of an excerpt can be used/posted without getting into legal issues, and the fact just the main portion of the description is already so large, I elected to stop with what you see.

However, there is more to it than that, such as how she's obviously used to giving commands and being obeyed, etc., along with not bothering to try and chase her down when she takes to the water and swims off, due to knowing he couldn't out-swim her.

And you're right, his description of her does convey EC's immediate fixation and obsession with her. Which, as I mentioned to Luckyscars, does come into play later on in the story.

So yes, there is a whole other layer of purpose to the description... or at least I believe there is anyway.




G.D.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 18, 2018)

The Heinline passage is first person. Is that the mc talking? I could see how a character could be ultra-focused on another's appearance. Especially a super attractive person they are obviously interested in.


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 18, 2018)

Kevin said:


> Is that the mc talking?



It is. EC "Scar" Gordon. A 20-something year-old fresh out of a tour in Vietnam, trying to figure out what to do with the rest of his life. And he's laying on a nude beach on the French Riviera when he sees this woman.

...which should also tell the reader something about both of them, I think.




G.D.


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 18, 2018)

I suppose I should answer Annoying Kid before his head explodes from confusion and frustration... so here goes:

Because I can. Because it's what I do and have always done; I study, I learn, and I create.

I'm not motivated by financial gain, ego, vanity, or insecurity. If anything, it's just curiosity, and an overly-active mind and imagination.

I have a very long list of skills I've learned over the years, and if I wrote them all out here, you'd likely say I was lying.

But the fact is, I can draw, paint, do wood carving, build furniture, am at least competent at various forms of metal work, sew, cook, work leather, handle a fair amount of veterinary work, learned several martial arts, and a whole long list of other things that I can barely remember at the moment.

That's just me... who and what I am.

And since we're talking about Robert Heinlein here, I'll give you another of his quotes... One that I suppose I must agree with even though I didn't run across it until I was in my 20s or 30s and already well on my way with stacking up skills and abilities:


“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.”

― Robert A. Heinlein


Does that clear things up for ya? Does it explain why I'm here, learning this stuff, even though I have no interest in making it a paying career?

Or did I just make your confusion worse?



G.D.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 18, 2018)

Never learned any martial arts, I think I could manage the rest. Maybe not drawing and painting, but I did scuba dive, sail and water ski, I have been a gardener, driven a truck, run a haematology reception, worked in a library, a warehouse or three, a swimming pool, mending clocks, as a washer up in Spain I learned to speak fair Catalan and middling Castilian, and like GD I am doing this place for the fun of it, I have never submitted my writing to anyone. I did self publish on Lulu, but really only so I could have a few copies, I have never tried the hard sell. The trouble is the older you get the more you learn to do, but also the less time left to do things in, and I am not sure my body could manage water skis anymore, I have muscle wasting and legs like bamboos.

Edit, I also think the site serves a purpose for those who never could get published, when you improve your writing it can also improve your thinking. That you have to consider how to lay things out for someone who is not opposite you saying 'Uhhu', 'I see', or 'I don't get that' every so often improves the logic of your thinking and explanatory skills, and having better communication skills makes life better all round for people. People with good communication skills earn more, their families stay together longer and they even live longer than those without. That makes this place worthwhile, and not only for those who will get published and earn money.


----------



## Plasticweld (Nov 18, 2018)

There is a small segment of society that thrives on learning new things.  It is what keeps them going, they are easily excited by what most would determine to be mundane.  Not deterred by a lack of knowledge, they feel comfortable asking for help or an explanation of how things work. There is no shame in not knowing, only not asking or learning.  Each new task is another new adventure. When you knock them down they get up; they have been knocked down many times before, it only makes them more determined...I am just guessing of 'coarse'   When someone points out their weaknesses or flaws, instead  taking it personal they thank the person for taking the time to help them. It is not criticism, it is instruction.  I am just guessing of course.


----------



## Annoying kid (Nov 18, 2018)

Asking what others think when you don't care what others think is a fundamental contradiction and a waste of other poster's time.


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 18, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Asking what others think when you don't care what others think is a fundamental contradiction and a waste of other poster's time.



You really need to work on your reading comprehension, kid.

Nowhere in here have I ever said I didn't care what other people thought.

What I have said, time and time again, was that I had no interest in publishing, making a living at writing, or even getting paid for it.

Oh, and also that I didn't give a damn about appeasing the average reader, or largest number of possible readers, in order to sell a book or story.

And I usually thank people for talking to me and helping me.

And maybe you didn't notice, but the only actual question I asked when I started this thread was this:

*"So how 'bout you folks? What's your general tendency, and where do you think you picked up the habit?"*

Then I talked to 'em about whatever they responded with, and discussed both theirs and my own view on the subject. Because I'm interested in what they think.

If I wasn't, I could've just ignored them, or pointed out that whatever they responded with wasn't an answer to my question.





G.D.


----------



## SueC (Nov 18, 2018)

Yeah, but can you knit?


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 19, 2018)

SueC said:


> Yeah, but can you knit?



No, but let me drink enough and I can weave with the best of 'em. :very_drunk:



G.D.


----------



## bdcharles (Nov 19, 2018)

Guard Dog said:


> So how 'bout you folks? What's your general tendency, and where do you think you picked up the habit?
> 
> G.D.



I think just one line detailing a notable feature is enough at first - you could conceivably burn a "was" here, eg: "Her casading auburn locks were like an autumn waterfall" or whatever but for me it's best when that is offset by some voice-rich action or perception "Her casading auburn locks were like an autumn waterfall and she would break my heart". That, for me would be enough to go on with, with a few others being dropped in as the character moves about; eg "She stopped me with one metal robot arm. 'Where you going?' she purred." Or something. In the Heinlein example, it does go on some, and I have not read it but I can only imagine either it is to do with the personality of the narrator or he writes for quote a niche male market. 

I see in alot of unpublished (and published, actually, to be fair) writers a tendency to stop the movement and go into describer-her-hair mode. You know the one, where words like cascade and frame tend to get a lot of air time (yes, a bit like I did, and a bit like Heinlein does). Those to me tend to lose a little confidence in the author. Not so bad if they're unpublished, kind of disappointing if they are.


----------



## luckyscars (Nov 19, 2018)

Kevin said:


> The Heinline passage is first person. Is that the mc talking? I could see how a character could be ultra-focused on another's appearance. Especially a super attractive person they are obviously interested in.



This is actually a pretty good point and could in some cases rationalize a lengthy character description - or questionable style in general.

If your story is written in the voice of a character (which would usually, but not always be, first person) you should absolutely write according to their motivations and voice. To do otherwise would not work.

I don't know the Heinlein source text so I'm giving it benefit of the doubt, but a certain type of character, particularly one who is obsessed with the physical appearance of a love interest, may well describe her the way Heinlein did here. In that case it would work for that particular piece because to write it "well" would not be realistic.  

A great example of the character's personality resulting in an unconventional or disorganized narrative is American Psycho by Brett Easton Ellis. In that case the narrator is a psychopath with certain obsessions. His world view is entirely based on material and prestige. The result of this point of view means that the narrative is constantly seen through the lens of extreme superficiality: He describes women entirely as sexual beings and rants about their anatomy, fixates and describes at length things that would not normally be of interest (his beauty regimen, other characters clothing and cars, etc) and the extended rantings work because they become consistent with the character. An indicator of his increasing detachment from reality.

That's an extreme example but if you are going to write a character who is deeply infatuated with another and wanted to capture the level of the obsession and say something about the principle character's state of mind going off the reservation in terms of description MIGHT work. Its not good description of the object in question, but its not really supposed to be...


----------



## Guard Dog (Nov 19, 2018)

A couple of more questions here.

1.) Does anybody want or need another description from this same book,to give them something to compare to?

There's plenty to choose from, like a description of a not-nearly-so-attractive male character, to one of an office, that I find quite amusing.

2.) If so, can a Mod or somebody give me an idea of how much of this book I can post here, before bad things start to happen?

I'm not wanting to step on any copyright violations, or forum rules.

I await both answers.


G.D.


----------

