# Describing houses, buildings and accommodations.



## D.J. (Feb 24, 2011)

Oh, lord, this is something that gets me each and every single time, without fail. When writing, I can describe people, I can describe scenery, I can describe emotions and feelings, but if there's one thing that I cannot describe, it's accommodations. I just can't do it. See, for a piece I am writing, I had an idea of what my main character's home would look like. So, I went to google, and search for a picture of a house, which best represented the house I kept seeing in my mind's eye. However, I'm having a hard time describing it. So, if I post a picture of the house, which I will, below - do you guys think you could help me out, because I've literally got nothing, here.






http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_dJviiSeUR...8HiY/s400/spooky+house+in+black+and+white.jpg


----------



## Sam (Feb 25, 2011)

The old wooden house was in disrepair. Several of the boards had rotted with age, and those that hadn't were tainted with years of accumulated grime. Remarkably, the windows were still intact. Curtains were drawn across two of them towards the front (I actually think they're boarded-up with plywood) and a child-proof design adorned the one on the upper floor. Overgrown foliage rustled in the wind, lending the house a sinister presence.


----------



## The Backward OX (Feb 25, 2011)

THIS OLE HOUSE - 28/03/1981 
3 weeks at #1 - 17 weeks on chart​ 
This ole house once knew his children 
This ole house once knew a wife 
This ole house was home and comfort 
As we fought the storms of life 
This old house once rang with laughter 
This old house heard many shouts 
Now she trembles in the darkness 
When the lightnin' walks about​ 
(Ain't a-gonna need this house no longer) 
(Ain't a-gonna need this house no more) 
Ain't got time to fix the shingles 
Ain't a-got time to fix the floor 
Ain't got time to oil the hinges 
Nor to mend no windowpane 
Ain't a-gonna need this house no longer 
She's a-gettin' ready to meet the saints​ 
This ole house is gettin' shaky 
This ole house is gettin' old 
This ole house lets in the rain 
This ole house lets in the cold 
On my knees I'm gettin' chilly 
But I feel no fear nor pain 
'Cause I see an angel peekin' 
Through the broken windowpane​ 
(Ain't a-gonna need this house no longer) 
(Ain't a-gonna need this house no more) 
Ain't got time to fix the shingles 
Ain't a-got time to fix the floor 
Ain't got time to oil the hinges 
Nor to mend no windowpane 
Ain't a-gonna need this house no longer 
She's a-gettin' ready to meet the saints​ 
This ole house is afraid of thunder 
This ole house is afraid of storms 
This ole house just groans and trembles 
When the night wind flings out its arms 
This ole house is gettin' feeble 
This old house is needin' paint 
Just like me it's tuckered out 
But I'm a-gettin' ready to meet the saints​ 
(Ain't a-gonna need this house no longer) 
(Ain't a-gonna need this house no more) 
Ain't got time to fix the shingles 
Ain't got time to fix the floor 
Ain't got time to oil the hinges 
Nor to mend no windowpane 
Ain't a-gonna need this house no longer 
She's a-gettin' ready to meet the saints​ 
(Ain't a-gonna need this house no longer) 
(Ain't a-gonna need this house no more) 
Ain't got time to fix the shingles 
Ain't got time to fix the floor 
Ain't got time to oil the hinges 
Nor to mend no windowpane 
Ain't a-gonna need this house no longer 
She's a-gettin' ready to meet the saints​ 
Rosemary Clooney, Shakin' Stevens, et al


----------



## Shirley S. Bracken (Feb 25, 2011)

My Dad used to sing that as we worked in his bakery at night.  Great memory.

As for a description: 

Maybe just some call words and phrases you could elaborate on? 

Old (obviously)  
Has seen many lives pass through
Ghosts stuck in the walls
Abandoned possessions 
Empty windows
Worn linoleum
Naked bulbs
Forgotten flowers returning year to year 
Volunteer flowers

I like doing this!


----------



## WriterJohnB (Feb 25, 2011)

The gray, weathered, wooden house was old, so old that the more recently added electric lines went up the outside of the wall. It was a plain-Jane sort of place, no Victorian gingerbread or other adornment. The steeply–pitched roof of the main part of the structure pointed toward the sky like an arrow. An addition and porch had been crookedly attached to the main house, roofed with now rusty, corrugated steel. Vegetation had encroached on every side. It was still too sturdy to blow over, but I wondered if a lighted match would be an act of kindness to this lonely house that had been abandoned by its people.


----------



## movieman (Feb 25, 2011)

Does the appearance of their house actually matter to the story? If I see a two-paragraph description of a building and it has no apparent relation to story then personally I'd probably just skip over it.


----------



## ppsage (Feb 25, 2011)

Although his residence is a classic farmhouse shape, the two story tee, with the third gable behind the tree, it seems to probably be situated in a town, with a sort of false-fronted commercial space facing the street, yesterday's notion of a cubicle, where an accountant perhaps, or the village lawyer, receives petitions. The building is smudged with something, as if scorched with a passing fiery scourge meant for another target, and one can almost imagine it being neighbor to spinster Joanna Burden's doomed mansion, but otherwise it abides very securely, all its lines running unwaveringly straight; even the flat porch roof off the office, usually a flimsy and hasty construction suitable only for corners and always the first to sag, stands square to the earth. 

Under the end gables, a diligent workman, not content with the ordinary practice, used stout diagonal planks in the transition to sheltering roof, arching bulwarks against the earth's leveling attraction, but he left the upper floor respectfully humble, only a half-storey, and those inhabiting this higher plane, in utilizing the full extent of their domain, were forced, at its extremes, to bow their heads.


----------



## Shirley S. Bracken (Feb 25, 2011)

ppsage, that's good.  Very descriptive.


----------



## D.J. (Feb 25, 2011)

Thanks, everyone. Everyone's responses were brilliant. I especially liked Sam's.


----------



## Edward G (Feb 26, 2011)

I think you may be thinking too much about describing something that will almost surely bore the reader to death. So, I recommend brevity at all costs. You can get away with suggesting a picture with words; you can't paint one--not if you want to hold the poor reader's interest anyway.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Feb 26, 2011)

I'm not going to write it for you but give you a description from one of my stories and then point out some of the main points I followed writing it.

The building he was looking at was mid Victorian. “Drawn up large and well proportioned”. Terry would put mental inverted commas around phrases like that, they were the sort of things he could imagine people saying without being able to identify who, like, “A well known phrase or saying”. 
The main fabric was built of yellow stocks, the common South London brick of that time, laid three stretchers one header, good, regular Flemish bonding. The brickwork had been laid with a thin layer of mortar that a modern bricklayer would find difficult to emulate, and the original weather pointing was still almost perfect in the sheltered places. Red stocks and lime stone had been used to effect in places like the outside corners and the soldiers over the windows. Everything was topped off with a real slate roof which was surmounted by an imposing chimney stack and fitted with cast iron gutters and down pipes. The architect and artisans responsible knew their craft; and it was well placed. Large and detached it faced the common and occupied a good size plot on the corner of a junction large enough to be worthy of a traffic light. 
Thus far he approved, but the additions and subtractions of those who followed the original builders nearly all offended him. Waste pipes, overflows and ventilators pierced the walls, odd coloured bricks and flettons had been used to “fill in”, disused insulators and bits of plastic gutter were tacked on or left over. Altogether everything done since the completion of construction expressed expedience, in direct opposition to the original Victorian intent. 
 Then there was what he could see of the grounds, though a high wall concealed the rear. Tenacious shrubs clung on in bark covered beds between trees. A thin skim was attempting to contain the gravel drive, which, refusing to be contained, was flashing through its tarmac in slow motion volcanoes. Originally the drive had passed across the front of the house from one road to the other. But now one end of the drive had been cut off, to stop opportunists taking short cuts, and a turning circle added. The combination of “The best possible motives” with “The worst possible taste” had united to mar something “of its time” he decided.
“It was some cowboy tarmacked that drive.” Terry paused in his thoughts for a second, and pictured in his head the way it had once been. “Where carriages once turned on tuned gravel.”
Another pause,
“The surrounding grounds, now woefully run down, had mossy banks to take one’s ease and Springtime bulbs beneath the trees”
But, just as he was starting to get lyrical, he was distracted by a development over the road[/I].



Here are the points I think worth making about that description,
It is made by one of the characters, what he sees and the way he sees it help to define him as well as the house and the fact that he is involved help to stop it simply becoming a boring description of a house (I hope).

I have looked for various things, firstly  the main structure, then there are details; there is the way it appeared when it was first built and what has happened to it since, both in terms of maintenance and what has been taken away or added.

I have taken a look at the grounds around it and the way they are kept, which is in keeping with the maintenance that has happened to the house, and the access through them to the house (There is more of this when he crosses the road and approaches, it is important because it is the perspective most people get first, they are usually visiting, not simply looking).


----------



## The Backward OX (Feb 26, 2011)

Edward G said:


> You can get away with suggesting a picture with words; you can't paint one


 
Have you any idea how ridiculous those two remarks are, taken together?


----------



## AceTachyon (Feb 26, 2011)

Going with movieman: is the house important to the story?

If it is, show us how the main character sees the house. 

It's like the story of the blind men and the elephant.  No two people will look at the same building in the same way.  A burglar will look at a mansion one way; a personal protection specialist hired to secure that mansion will look at it differently. And an architecture student will look at the same mansion in yet another way.


----------



## Edward G (Feb 26, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> Have you any idea how ridiculous those two remarks are, taken together?



Let me break it down for you: You can suggest the physical appearance of a building, but you can't go on describing it because you're going to lose the reader after the second sentence of description.

You can write your story any way you want to. This is the era of self-publishing after all, but as soon as you start writing for "you" and not your reader, you have left the world of literature and started a journal. It's your choice.


----------



## cajeck (Feb 27, 2011)

I'm not going to try and write it for you, nor am I going to debate whether or not it's absolutely necessary for your story.  If you're set on describing this building, I usually just do a google search for architectural terms.  If I need something specific and know what it is, I go for architectural style:  gothic, antebellum, victorian, graeco-roman, baroque, etc...

Architecture Glossary - Illustrated Dictionary for Architecture Words

That link has a pretty nice list complete with illustrations (granted, you need to click each term to see the pic).  If you're really stuck, you could maybe send it to someone in the know and ask them to help you identify the key features of the building?  I've emailed experts on various subjects and most were more than willing to help me out.


----------



## Bilston Blue (Feb 27, 2011)

Edward G said:


> You can get away with suggesting a picture with words; you can't paint one--not if you want to hold the poor reader's interest anyway.


 
_The Boulevard Du Cange was a broad, quiet street that marked the eastern flank of the city of Amiens. The wagons that rolled in from Lille and Arras to the north made directly into the tanneries and mills of the Saint-Leu quarter without needing to use this rutted, leafy road. The town side of the boulevard backed on to substantial gardens which were squared off and apportioned with civic precision to the houses they adjoined. On the damp grass were chestnut trees, lilac and willows, cultivated to give shade and quietness to their owners. The gardens had a wild, overgrown look and their deep lawns and small hedges could conceal small clearings, quiet pools, and areas unvisited even by the inhabitants, where patches of grass and wild flowers lay beneath the branches of overhanging trees._

_Behind the gardens the river Somme broke up into small canals that were the picturesque feature of Saint-Leu; on the other side of the boulevard these had been made into a series of water-gardens, little islands of damp fertility divided by the channels of the split river. Long, flat-bottomed boats propelled by poles took the town-dwellers through the water-ways on Sunday afternoons. All along the river and its streams sat fishermen, slumped on their rods; in hats and coats beneath the cathedral and in shirtsleeves by the banks of the water-gardens, they dipped their lines in search of trout or carp._

_The Azaires' house showed a strong, formal front towards the road from behind iron railings. The traffic looping down towards the river would have been in no doubt that this was the property of a substantial man. The slate roof plunged in conflicting angles to cover the irregular shape of the house. Beneath one of them a dormer window looked out on to the boulevard. The first floor was dominated by a stone balcony over whose balustrades the red creeper had made its way up to the roof. There was a formidable front door with iron facings on the timber._

This opening three paragraphs of Faulks' _Birdsong_ suggests you can indeed paint pictures. When reading this for the first time I saw it in the style Monet might have painted it. Did it hold my interest: yes. I thought it was beautiful, and still hold that view now. 

I see absolutely no fault with trying to find beauty in the mundane, the everyday.


----------



## Sue Owen (Feb 27, 2011)

DJ,
I agree with a couple of the posts ... be careful how much time/effort you put into architecture descriptions if they aren't key to your story.  I'd also be careful using architectural terms as people who read fiction tend to be casual readers and probably wouldn't know what you were talking about anyway.  That said, casual is the way to go.  Just describe what you see ... a broken down shack or a sweet old home needing TLC with great lines and plenty of personality.


----------



## Edward G (Feb 27, 2011)

Bilston Blue said:


> _The Boulevard Du Cange was a broad, quiet street that marked the eastern flank of the city of Amiens. The wagons that rolled in from Lille and Arras to the north made directly into the tanneries and mills of the Saint-Leu quarter without needing to use this rutted, leafy road. The town side of the boulevard backed on to substantial gardens which were squared off and apportioned with civic precision to the houses they adjoined. On the damp grass were chestnut trees, lilac and willows, cultivated to give shade and quietness to their owners. The gardens had a wild, overgrown look and their deep lawns and small hedges could conceal small clearings, quiet pools, and areas unvisited even by the inhabitants, where patches of grass and wild flowers lay beneath the branches of overhanging trees._
> 
> _Behind the gardens the river Somme broke up into small canals that were the picturesque feature of Saint-Leu; on the other side of the boulevard these had been made into a series of water-gardens, little islands of damp fertility divided by the channels of the split river. Long, flat-bottomed boats propelled by poles took the town-dwellers through the water-ways on Sunday afternoons. All along the river and its streams sat fishermen, slumped on their rods; in hats and coats beneath the cathedral and in shirtsleeves by the banks of the water-gardens, they dipped their lines in search of trout or carp._
> 
> ...


 
I respect that you enjoy Faulks, but I find those paragraphs too bogged down in detail to read. 

I'm not saying a building should never be described. I'm saying once you've called it a castle, for instance, the reader has 90% of the imagery in his or her mind already. 


​ 
If I were to describe Bodiam Castle in England, I might say something like:

_The stone castle sat in the lake; it's ramparts high and solid, daring lesser mortals to try an approach. We would have to navigate the water by boat if the drawbridge was up._

And then I'd continue on with the story, perhaps dropping details about the castle here and there as I went along. That's the key to writing modern literature in my opinion.


----------



## ppsage (Feb 27, 2011)

Not sure how much credence I can personally give, to a source not distinguishing between Sebastian Faulks and William Faulkner. For me at least, that's a gigantic leap. Although in my not unechoed opinion, both use description not only appropiately, but adroitly. There exists a formula genre fiction common sense that currently tries to give descriptive writing universally a bad smell, however, ruling out one's authorial proclivities pro forma would seem to me to be a hard road to small successes. pp


----------



## satkinsn (Feb 27, 2011)

Try something like this, which splits the difference between saying nothing at all about the house and saying a whole lot. (I'm in Edward G's camp: us mere mortals are better off spending few words and trying to conjure something the reader can use to fill in the blanks.) 

X's house was wood, plain, tired. It leaked: the doors and windows admitted rain, wind and bugs, and no longer held the heat or life within.

I'm assuming you're writing something short, and that the picture you found has a mood you liked.  

s.

edit - Or simpler still: X's house was wood, plain, tired. The doors and windows were broken and when it was cold or it rained, you felt it in the living room.

edit, edit - And just for you know what's sake, because beating up on 'writerly' language is fun, a final run at the description.

X's house was plain wood. The doors and windows were broken and the roof leaked.


----------



## Edward G (Feb 27, 2011)

ppsage said:


> Not sure how much credence I can personally give, to a source not distinguishing between Sebastian Faulks and William Faulkner. For me at least, that's a gigantic leap. Although in my not unechoed opinion, both use description not only appropiately, but adroitly. There exists a formula genre fiction common sense that currently tries to give descriptive writing universally a bad smell, however, ruling out one's authorial proclivities pro forma would seem to me to be a hard road to small successes. pp


 
Well, once a year I get to put my big foot in my mouth. I edited my post to remove my ignorance. Thank you for pointing it out. But, I haven't read either author, and based on the sample, I wouldn't read Faulks anymore than I would Faulkner. Granted, I've at least tried to read Faulkner.

And I'll say it again, until I'm blue in the face apparently, you can write with all the adroit description you can fit into the pages of your book, but if you're writing for yourself and not your audience you are not writing literature, you're writing a journal. The days of excessive description, or complicated incomprehensible prose in describing things are over. Sentimentalism used to be big in 19th century English literature. It's over, too. Just like providing another hundred pages after the story ends to talk about how the children grew up and eventually had grand-children, etc.

It's the new age of self-publishing. You can write any way you want to write. But if you want above-ground readers to read your novel, you can't spend three pages describing architecture.

Now, I have to go. I have to dislodge my foot from between my teeth.](*,)


----------



## mockingbird (Feb 28, 2011)

Write how the character feels about the house, not how it looks.


----------



## satkinsn (Feb 28, 2011)

Edward G said:


> And I'll say it again, until I'm blue in the face apparently, you can write with all the adroit description you can fit into the pages of your book, but if you're writing for yourself and not your audience you are not writing literature, you're writing a journal. The days of excessive description, or complicated incomprehensible prose in describing things are over. Sentimentalism used to be big in 19th century English literature. It's over, too. Just like providing another hundred pages after the story ends to talk about how the children grew up and eventually had grand-children, etc.
> 
> It's the new age of self-publishing. You can write any way you want to write. But if you want above-ground readers to read your novel, you can't spend three pages describing architecture.


 
I suppose if you're a great writer, and you're seriously on your game, you *might* be able to get away with a long description. But most of us aren't, and your argument stands. The point is to write a good sentence or two and move things along. 

s.


----------



## Sue Owen (Feb 28, 2011)

I like the idea to say its a castle and let the reader come up with what he/she's version of what a castle is.  However, if further in your story you refer to the orange brickwork on your castle, it might not be a bad idea right up front to let the reader know to image orange bricks instead of the traditional gray.  I think minimalism is good but don't get so minimal that you have your readers wondering where the heck the orange brick reference came in.  Its a journey and you want the reader and yourself to end up on the same page all the time.  If you leave them behind likely they won't bother to finish reading.  I also like the notion of telling what the character feels about the house but that doesn't really work if you are abstractly describing the object because there is no character interaction.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 1, 2011)

Edward G said:


> I respect that you enjoy Faulks, but I find those paragraphs too bogged down in detail to read.
> 
> I'm not saying a building should never be described. I'm saying once you've called it a castle, for instance, the reader has 90% of the imagery in his or her mind already.
> 
> ...


 
Different folks, different strokes. some people like their imagination stimulated with a good description, mind, if I want to know what Bodium castle looks like I can simply pop down the road for a brisk walk.


----------



## The Backward OX (Mar 1, 2011)

Olly Buckle said:


> mind, if I want to know what Bodium castle looks like I can simply pop down the road for a brisk walk.


Others having the same purpose might care to read that part of my WIP about Horace and Gertrude meeting up at Cripps Corner one Spring afternoon, and strolling hand-in-hand through Staplecross and on to the castle, as young lovers were wont to do.


----------



## JosephB (Mar 1, 2011)

It's perfectly possible to create a rich sense of place by sprinkling description throughout the narrative -- working it into the action, dialog or character thoughts. There's really no need to drop it in as one big hunk of cheese.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Mar 1, 2011)

The Backward OX said:


> Others having the same purpose might care to read that part of my WIP about Horace and Gertrude meeting up at Cripps Corner one Spring afternoon, and strolling hand-in-hand through Staplecross and on to the castle, as young lovers were wont to do.


A goodly stroll, four or five miles each way and a steepish hill from Bodiam to Staplecross on the way home. I am not entirely sure of the period of your WIP but your young lovers may have seen something of the original, partial, restoration by Cubitt (Later Lord Ashcombe) in the 1860's. Prior to that the exterior was ivy covered and in poor condition. The main restoration did not happen until the early 1900's when it was acquired by Lord Curzon.


----------



## Edward G (Mar 3, 2011)

Olly Buckle said:


> mind, if I want to know what Bodium castle looks like I can simply pop down the road for a brisk walk.


 
That's cool. I've been there many times myself. I live in the US, but I lived in England (Swindon area) for eight years back in the eighties.


----------



## Terry D (Mar 4, 2011)

Of course a writer can write their descriptions with whatever level of detail they choose, there are no style police ... yet.  I like brief, powerful images.  I want give my reader enough detail to stoke their imaginations furnace, but I don't need them to see it exactly as I do.  This is one of the best descriptions of a house I've ever read, also one of the best opening paragraphs to a novel. IMHO

_"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream. Hill House, not sane, stood by itself against its hills, holding darkness within; it had stood so for eighty years and might stand for eighty more. Within, walls continued upright, bricks met neatly, floors were firm, and doors were sensibly shut; silence lay steadily against the wood and stone of Hill House, and whatever walked there, walked alone." 
— Shirley Jackson (The Haunting of Hill House) _


----------



## Aakriti Gera (Nov 24, 2012)

I actually want some help describing a building too , it for a short story i am writing which is getting published in a book 
The sooner someone replies the better it would be


----------



## Olly Buckle (Nov 24, 2012)

I take it that is the building? Consider how much detail you want to go into and which factors are most relevant, my immediate thoughts on looking at the picture concern, style, construction materials, age, time of year (the tree would not conceal as much in winter), aspect and time of day, which would affect the apparent colours and the reflections in the windows. Other than the physical aspect there could well be an emotional one for a character involved, they can find it sombre, uplifting, familiar, grand etc, according to their circumstance.

Is that the sort of help you are looking for? Welcome to the forum by the way, your first post I see.


----------



## Aakriti Gera (Nov 25, 2012)

Olly Buckle said:


> I take it that is the building? Consider how much detail you want to go into and which factors are most relevant, my immediate thoughts on looking at the picture concern, style, construction materials, age, time of year (the tree would not conceal as much in winter), aspect and time of day, which would affect the apparent colours and the reflections in the windows. Other than the physical aspect there could well be an emotional one for a character involved, they can find it sombre, uplifting, familiar, grand etc, according to their circumstance.
> 
> Is that the sort of help you are looking for? Welcome to the forum by the way, your first post I see.



Thank you for the warm welcome  
Umm yes i do want to go into its details cause i want the reader  to feel the the atmosphere like the wheather , the color and notice the appeal of the building . Its a victorian gothic and veryyy grand . Its the little details that will sum up the whole picture 
like the little chandelier. The character is sort of mesmerized with it and before taking her first steps inside , she needs a few minutes to take it all in and thats where she describes the building


----------



## mockingbird (Nov 28, 2012)

the grey stone edifice of Gothic design stabbed her heart with memories of her childhood standing in a draughty church with her parents. She could even hear the miserable hymns echoing in her mind like distant bells clanging in fog, warning her of some future event yet unseen and yet familiar. She exhaled, not realising she had stopped breathing. Something like that perhaps?


----------



## WritersMentorLondon (Nov 28, 2012)

The important thing is to create a sense of the place. Readers won't remember all the details anyway. One or two memorable images...


----------



## Staff Deployment (Nov 28, 2012)

Edward G said:


> Let me break it down for you: You can suggest the physical appearance of a building, but you can't go on describing it because you're going to lose the reader after the second sentence of description.
> 
> You can write your story any way you want to. This is the era of self-publishing after all, but as soon as you start writing for "you" and not your reader, you have left the world of literature and started a journal. It's your choice.



Is a journal not literature? Is description not an essential component of a novel? _Is a man not entitled to the sweat off his back?_


----------



## WritersMentorLondon (Nov 29, 2012)

Aakriti Gera said:


> Thank you for the warm welcome
> Umm yes i do want to go into its details cause i want the reader  to feel the the atmosphere like the wheather , the color and notice the appeal of the building . Its a victorian gothic and veryyy grand . Its the little details that will sum up the whole picture
> like the little chandelier. The character is sort of mesmerized with it and before taking her first steps inside , she needs a few minutes to take it all in and thats where she describes the building



Yes, it's always fine to describe a building if the characters have the time to take it in; it's not always a good idea to describe it in any detail if the characters are racing through it on motorbikes like in a Bond movie! That way, the story continues to be about the characters, not about the scenery; i.e. you're describing the scenery by describing the characters' experiences.


----------

