# Character Description....meh



## DaBlaRR (Sep 4, 2015)

When I read a story, and the narrator describes a character, I find myself just blowing past it and I forgetting what they're "supposed" to look like. 

Mind you, I will remember the important stand out things, like he is fat, or has a scar on his cheek etc. But I could care less how his forehead is structured (unless he is an ape man or something), or if they have a mole on the side of their neck (unless it's malignant, or maybe even if it was like they were giving birth to their twin out of their neck, and it's a fetus that starts off looking like a mole....shits messed....you know then I'd care).

I find that I picture them in my head. Despite what the narrator dictates to me, I see someone different. It almost actually irritates me, when the narrator messes with my vision of their imagination..(make sense?)

As a result, when I write. My character description is minimal. Don't get me wrong, I do have some. But only the important stuff, that has a reason. Otherwise, I like the idea of leaving it up to the reader to see the characters and create their own picture in their head. 

There _is _a question somewhere in this post... Forget it, I don't really have a question. But what's your thoughts? There you go, there's a question.


----------



## popsprocket (Sep 4, 2015)

I'm pretty much exactly the same. When reading I skim character descriptions. I really don't care what they look like and I would forget what the author said about 20 seconds later anyway. When writing I trickle in small details about characters, almost exclusively from the POV of another character, and usually only make those descriptive identifiers pretty general. As far as I'm concerned it's enough to know if someone is good looking or not, fat or not, and maybe their hair or eye colour if the character has reason to notice such things. I usually give a broad sense of height as well, but usually only in the form of a "he was taller than her," sort of thing.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Sep 4, 2015)

We all have that specific vision. 

We must remember, the reader does too. We often stereotype, and say, 'this character is similar to so-and-so,' another character or someone we know in real life, and it shapes how we view them.

Hair and eye color, general build, sure. Species details, for non-human characters, sure. Unless your story is driven by such things, maybe an obsessive character that examines people closely as a mental tick, excessive detail is not necessarily necessary. 

I might say, with my character, he has gills here, there and there, his skin is like a sharks, cool blue-grey, his hair might be black, and his eyes have an extra layer that gives them a sheen.

Otherwise, regardless of if it fits MY image, you can imagine whatever type of shark man that you want. I imagine him with a more human face, but, if the reader wishes, you can picture him as having a whole shark-head, and fins for limbs. Whatever you want.

I will agree. When I'm forced to accept a specific vision, my brain can't seem to conjure a fitting comparison that I CARE about. And I cease caring.

We should always make the reader care about our characters. Otherwise, they won't keep reading.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Sep 4, 2015)

Interesting. I didn't really know if anyone thought like I did on the whole character description thing or not.


----------



## Deafmute (Sep 4, 2015)

That is a completely valid descriptive style. A lot of writers would argue exactly the points your making. Detailed description that has no lasting purpose is fluff and readers will ignore it no matter how clever you think you are for comparing Jerry's well toned biceps to the cascading rapids of the Ohio River.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 4, 2015)

I appreciate good descriptions—I just don't like them lumped all together into one indigestible chunk.

Scatter them throughout the story, I say. Give me bits and pieces here and there. Sneak them in while the focus is on other things, so that by the end of the story I have a perfect image of the character in my head, one that's entirely of the author's creation, but one that feels like it's all my own. :encouragement:


----------



## InstituteMan (Sep 4, 2015)

I like ample character description, but only if the detail matters. A sloping brow and huge biceps on a guy matters if he's the enforcer of a criminal enterprise or a dude struggling to be taken seriously as a sensitive poet, but the exact shade of his eyes wouldn't matter much in either case.


----------



## Riptide (Sep 5, 2015)

I actually like describing this guy, my recyclable parts post I'll put up soon enough. It's only inevitable the reader will come up with their own image. For Alice in Twilight I saw Alice from Wonderland, like age and all basically. I don't get pissed, though, when I get it wrong. I usually know I get it wrong anyway when I begin reading, but I do believe some description is necessary for longer works. In short works I think just creating a lasting character is enough of a description.


----------



## Bishop (Sep 5, 2015)

I interject details about the character's physical description only when they're relevant to the happenings of the story. This is usually one line, often near the beginning of the book, and gives one or two key characteristics that actually define the character. Other than that, describing more than (at most) a paragraph will tune a lot of readers out. That isn't to say it lowers the quality of the novel as a whole, but it's doubtful that most readers will really retain that information for the remaining 99,900 words of the novel. So, don't waste time hoping that a (even a small) info dump about the character will really stick in the reader's mind. But things like a lightning shaped scar on the forehead? That might come up from time to time. Or in my books' case, the bio-luminescent skin of a race of aliens, or the four arms of another.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Sep 5, 2015)

Hello Da

Some writer do and some writers don't, well not much anyhow. For each writer it's an important element of her or his style.

If you think about Shakespeare, and granted his work is plays rather than prose, there is virtually no description. This gives producers and us as readers the opportunity to create our own mental pictures.

In my work I only describe characters' appearances, the weather or the trees beside the road if these descriptions are germane to the story. Otherwise I leave it up to the reader. My choice.

Isn't this one of the things that makes writing prose fiction so challenging and enables us each to produce unique work, even if we're reworking a plot that has been used many times by others?

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 5, 2015)

I'm with most of the rest. As a reader, I have a perfectly good imagination, thank you very much, Dear Author. I don't need to conform to your ideas of beauty or ugliness, or engage in your flights of purple prose in an attempt to control my vision of things.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 5, 2015)

I don't really describe beyond gender and hair color/cut.  If I do describe a character further, I opt for vague words like "a powerful build" or something similar.  The reader can form his own image of what the character looks like, and we're both spared from superfluous sentences and paragraphs that only take up space.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 5, 2015)

I normally could not care less about an author's description of what a character looks like since I am just going to picture them as someone I have actually seen anyway. 

At no point in my WI have I given any description other than to say my MC has dark curly hair. I have a talking horse as a supporting character and I failed to even mention what breed or color he is. It doesn't really matter much. My girlfriend saw him as a run of the mill chestnut horse. Everyone will see him differently.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 5, 2015)

I don't fully understand the resistance against reading character descriptions. I agree that poorly written (or poorly delivered) description is a turnoff. But resistance against description simply because it interferes with the imagination? Seems contradictory, to me.

I'm not a blind person. I live in a visual world. I want to have that sense stimulated in the stories I imagine, too. I'm paying the author to fill my head with their world. Hit all my senses, I say. Create a reality that eclipses my own.

If the characters are simply blank slates in my mind, I tend to feel like something's missing. Often, I feel like a lack of description points to an area in the author's writing where they could use improvement.

Unless, of course, there's a specific story reason for not describing the character. But if we're talking about avoiding character description simply to avoid encroaching on the reader's imagination? Seems strange, to me.

It'd feel like I'm watching a movie where the characters are just silhouettes. :grief:

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose! (As seems to be the case with most everything in writing.)

I believe genre plays a role, too. In Romance, for example, many readers look forward to that first in-depth description of the Love Interest.


----------



## bazz cargo (Sep 5, 2015)

Hmmm.. I quite like a bit of simile. Face like a broken toilet seat.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 5, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> I don't fully understand the resistance against reading character descriptions. I agree that poorly written (or poorly delivered) description is a turnoff. But resistance against description simply because it interferes with the imagination? Seems contradictory, to me.



Far too often, I have a picture of a character in my mind and then the author tosses in some descriptor that is totally incongruous to that picture. Oops - torn out of the story. Not good. Other times, they describe a female character that the male MC is enraptured with, and it's like, what, is this guy blind? It affects my attitude about the MC. Not good. It's kinda like going to see a Jack Nicholson movie where he's the sexy love interest. The rest of the plot better be REALLY GOOD, or I'll walk out shaking my head in disbelief.

The point to ponder is, IMHO, not why readers don't like descriptions, but why authors feel the need to include them. Is it really necessary to control the reader that much?


----------



## Justine (Sep 5, 2015)

I agree on some points... I really like great descriptions. But as you pointed out, when it's too long, we tend to forget and make an image in our heads. Then we'll read further and read something that completely change the view of the character. And then I don't know, I guess it messes our image and it gets weird. 

Description of a character should never be in one big block. While reading, we learn more and more about this person and mention some things about his physical appearance when it's useful for the plot I guess? I completely loses myself when the description are too stretched out and talk about very specific things.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Sep 5, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> I don't fully understand the resistance against reading character descriptions. I agree that poorly written (or poorly delivered) description is a turnoff. But resistance against description simply because it interferes with the imagination? Seems contradictory, to me.
> 
> I'm not a blind person. I live in a visual world. I want to have that sense stimulated in the stories I imagine, too. I'm paying the author to fill my head with their world. Hit all my senses, I say. Create a reality that eclipses my own.
> 
> ...



I guess my post is more from the readers perspective. As a reader I don't like it. Exactly what Shadowwalker said. It also ruins it for me when their description gets in the way of what I visioned them looking at. It pulls me out of the story.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 6, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> I don't fully understand the resistance against reading character descriptions. I agree that poorly written (or poorly delivered) description is a turnoff. But resistance against description simply because it interferes with the imagination? Seems contradictory, to me.
> 
> I'm not a blind person. I live in a visual world. I want to have that sense stimulated in the stories I imagine, too. I'm paying the author to fill my head with their world. Hit all my senses, I say. Create a reality that eclipses my own.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure it is a matter of resistance as it is some readers simply not seeing characters the way an author describes them no matter how much detail there is involved. I have seen many cases where a writer goes through a lot of effort to describe someone, and I will simply not picture him/her exactly like that anyway.

It's rather like a movie based on a book you have read. How many times have you watched one and said to yourself "That guy doesn't look anything like the way he was described in the book."


----------



## Jon M (Sep 6, 2015)

There is a really strange thread of defensiveness throughout this discussion that I don't get. Some people seem to have an antagonistic relationship with fiction, scoffing, "How dare you create images in my mind of which I do not approve!"


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 6, 2015)

Jon M said:


> There is a really strange thread of defensiveness throughout this discussion that I don't get. Some people seem to have an antagonistic relationship with fiction, scoffing, "How dare you create images in my mind of which I do not approve!"



I'm not sure where you see defensiveness, but antagonism - yeah, a bit. But let's look at descriptions in general, not just for characters. We describe most things to orient the reader, to create an atmosphere, to show the difficulties the characters face... but what is the purpose of describing the characters, and how much description is needed to accomplish that? 

The first point - the purpose of describing characters - needs to be objectively considered. Why do we want the reader to see the characters that way? Is it necessary to the story, or is it Author Must Control? If it really is necessary to the story, then we have to consider how to best go about it. The issue of beauty, for example. This is totally subjective, and authors should recognize that and tailor their descriptions accordingly. If our character has a scar, is it simply because we think it makes him look dangerous - or is there a history there that shows readers the kind of man the character is?

The ideal for me is a description that tells me what I need to know - not what the author insists I know.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 6, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> The issue of beauty, for example. This is totally subjective, and authors should recognize that and tailor their descriptions accordingly.


This is one of the reasons I like first person. Any description delivered by a first-person narrator is, by default, subjective. Character description, delivered by a first-person narrator, also works well to characterize the narrator himself/herself—how the narrator describes others (and things) says a lot about who they are.

The same goes for subjective third, where description is filtered and skewered through the third-person POV character. An objective blue shirt suddenly becomes a "Stupid blue shirt, just like her damn father used to wear." Now, through the mention of another character's shirt, we've deepened the characterization of the POV character just a little more.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 6, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Character description shouldn't be limited to a "need to know" basis, in my opinion. That implies it should only be used by necessity. By _necessity_, no chef should consider flavor, texture, looks, or temperature. By necessity, a chef would only need to produce basic nutrition in a tasteless gel or slush form.



Bit of an exaggeration that doesn't really describe the issue. A good chef knows how much spice to add so the dish isn't overwhelmed by the spice - ie, they know how much it _needs_ without hitting the consumer over the head with that spice.

Every word written in a good book is needed. If it isn't needed, why is it there? Do I need to know every detail of a character's forehead, lips, or nose? Doubtful. So why put it there? Typically because the writer can't relinquish control to the reader.



Kyle R said:


> Turning one's nose up at it, to me, is a very limiting mindset, especially for writers.



No one's turning their nose up at it - we just don't want our noses shoved into it.



Kyle R said:


> We should be striving to _improve_ our character descriptions, I say. Not striving to avoid them.



Not saying avoid them - saying avoid overdoing them. 

Please don't make this an all or nothing thing - it isn't. It's more a "respect your reader" thing, at least to me.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 6, 2015)

To me, excessive or mundane description falls into the "poorly written/poorly delivered" category I mentioned earlier.

It seems to me, though, that some writers/readers are against character description as a general principle, whether it's written well or not—a mindset that leaves me scratching my head.

At least for me, character description is fun. I love picturing the characters. If the author describes them well, I'm all the more thankful for it.

The author controlling my imagination? Yes! By all means. What else am I paying them for?


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 6, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> The author controlling my imagination? Yes! By all means. What else am I paying them for?



To _engage _your imagination.


----------



## Arthur G. Mustard (Sep 6, 2015)

A good image of any character can be conjured up in the reader's mind by the actual things they do throughout the pages, coupled with the dialogue they are given. Description can be delivered here and there in one or two lines where appropriate.  I agree with some of the comments above in that long paragraphs of description are skimmed over and can sometimes spoil the flow of the book.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Sep 6, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Every word written in a good book is needed. If it isn't needed, why is it there? Do I need to know every detail of a character's forehead, lips, or nose? Doubtful. So why put it there? Typically because the writer can't relinquish control to the reader.



And now character description is a matter of respect and control?

How would any mystery work if the writer had no handle whatsoever on a reader's train of thought? 

We pick up a book to go for a ride, and suddenly we're the best backseat drivers in the universe. But it's not a real car. How is it a matter of respect? 

'I thought he was blonde, but the writer said otherwise! How dare he!'

I'll agree with  everyone though. In moderation it's fine, but yes, paragraphs get skipped. 

I've just never felt cross with the author if he chose otherwise.

But speaking in taste-terms, I don't exactly have a refined palate. I'll eat meat and boiled potatoes. AKA, I'll read almost anything.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 6, 2015)

I love character description. Physical, mental, spiritual.... the list goes on.

I want to experience the story how the author saw it while creating it. The deeper the better. I mean, this author is writing a book for me, after-all. If I'm to experience the way the food tastes, how hard the mountains are to climb throughout their story... then I want to know what the characters look like as well. The more the better. I want a clear image. 

If I wanted to imagine what these characters looked like, I'd write my own book!


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 6, 2015)

Crowley K. Jarvis said:


> 'I thought he was blonde, but the writer said otherwise! How dare he!'



It's not a matter of "How dare he!" as much as "Why is that so important? Why does he have to make the hair dark? Is there something I missed? No? So why can't I see the character the way I want to?".  



Sunny said:


> I mean, this author is writing a book for me, after-all.



Exactly. So why is he demanding I see the characters exactly the way he does if _it doesn't matter to the story_?

It seems like some are missing one of the ideals of good writing - that everything in the story serves the story. How does making a character dark-haired versus blond serve the story? It can, if the dark-haired character is walking down a street where his dark hair makes him stand out for the people following him (maybe he's in Norway, who knows?). It's the same thing with describing _anything _- the question should always be "Does it serve the story?".


----------



## popsprocket (Sep 7, 2015)

I don't have any sort of resistance to whatever ideas an author has about how their characters look, it's more my brain will see them however it wants to, no matter what the words on the page say.

If, after a few chapters there is a character description that contradicts the picture in my head, my brain just goes right on imagining that character as it was before.

Which is why I believe far more readily in using a few, broad descriptors. If a character is handsome with dark hair the first time we meet him then that's really all that needs to be said if there isn't anything relevantly remarkable to add otherwise.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 7, 2015)

Some readers seem to like sparse descriptions. Characters with a few (if any) simple traits—like blank slates or silhouettes for the imagination to fill in. Some like settings with few (if any) notable features—like "a room" or "a field" or "a street corner."

Others like it more in-depth. Characters described in detail—the perpetual tilt of her thin-lipped smirk, the gentle curve of her too-freckled nose, the grease stains and dents on the goggles she wears around her neck . . . Settings described so well one could draw a map of the place, including the scraggly tree shaped like a capital Y with the lightning scar snaking down the middle . . .

Me? I'm one who likes it complex. I find it enriches the reading experience, creating a deeper visual landscape to imagine. Sparse description tends to leave me feeling disappointed.

Narration: "He had brown hair."
Me: "Oh, character description. Sweet!"
Narration: "Moving on with the story now . . ."
Me: "Aw, that's it? That's all I get?"

I can tell from this conversation, though, that there are many who feel and prefer the opposite. To each their own, it seems! <-- (Once again, this phrase pops up. )


----------



## Bishop (Sep 7, 2015)

For some of us, it's an absolute necessity. How else will I tell you about my 204 alien races? If I just say "alien" do you really see that it's bipedal, with swirling black and white skin and a rebreather around its neck?


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 7, 2015)

Bishop said:


> For some of us, it's an absolute necessity. How else will I tell you about my 204 alien races? If I just say "alien" do you really see that it's bipedal, with swirling black and white skin and a rebreather around its neck?



Meh. If you've seen one alien...you've seen them all.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 7, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Exactly. So why is he demanding I see the characters exactly the way he does if _it doesn't matter to the story_?


If it's in the story then the author is saying that it matters, and so it matters to me!



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> It seems like some are missing one of the ideals of good writing - that everything in the story serves the story. How does making a character dark-haired versus blond serve the story?


So I can visualize them the way that they are. I don't want to guess what colour their hair is. I want to know if they have buck teeth or a beautiful smile. Or if they have slanted eyes or big round eyes. Just like in a movie, the director will look for an actor who "looks the part." If character description doesn't matter, why would this term exist?

It's like I'm sitting with my friend at the coffee shop and she wants to tell me a story about her night last night. 

My friend: "Hey you should have seen this stupid bimbo. She slung her blonde curls over her shoulders like it was some curtain of gold. Not to mention her huge boobs that were practically falling out of her bikini top. Every guy in the place was drooling over her bootylicious butt cheeks. Man they were stuffed into some short shorts!" 

Me: "WHAT!? Don't do that!" I scoff at her. "You didn't have to tell me what she looked like! I could have imagined what she looked like myself.  She could have had brown hair for me, or maybe she wore a slinky sundress instead. Just a trampy waitress would have sufficed!" 

Seems silly to me. A story is better with description. A story I'm reading, or a story I'm being told. I want to see it how the person telling it sees it.



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> It's the same thing with describing _anything _- the question should always be "Does it serve the story?".


Description is my favourite. I don't tend to get lost in a story as well without it.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 7, 2015)

Sunny said:


> So I can visualize them the way that they are. I don't want to guess what colour their hair is. I want to know if they have buck teeth or a beautiful smile. Or if they have slanted eyes or big round eyes. Just like in a movie, the director will look for an actor who "looks the part." If character description doesn't matter, why would this term exist?



It sounds to me like the director can visualize what the character is "supposed" to look like without being told.  He picks one that matches his vision, not necessarily the author's.



Sunny said:


> It's like I'm sitting with my friend at the coffee shop and she wants to tell me a story about her night last night.
> 
> My friend: "Hey you should have seen this stupid bimbo. She slung her blonde curls over her shoulders like it was some curtain of gold. Not to mention her huge boobs that were practically falling out of her bikini top. Every guy in the place was drooling over her bootylicious butt cheeks. Man they were stuffed into some short shorts!"
> 
> ...



Maybe you just gave a bad example, but the reason there's description in that story is because the story wouldn't exist without the description.  After all, the classification of "bimbo" seems solely dependent on what the woman was wearing and how she looked, rather than anything she actually did.  Here, the description is the means to its own end.  If you had said, "You should have seen that bimbo.  She was flirting with everyone, and you know she was only doing it for the free drinks they'd buy her," then the physical description is wholly unnecessary for the story.  No one's going to say, "Well was she a blonde or a brunette?" because it doesn't matter.  The action is what defines the story.


----------



## ppsage (Sep 7, 2015)

I'm usually able to put aside the visions which randomly strike my brain to concentrate on what's actually written. To me literature is the words, not the illustrations. Author's experience, not mine. It's her character, not mine, and why does her mind see it that way?


----------



## Sunny (Sep 7, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> It sounds to me like the director can visualize what the character is "supposed" to look like without being told.  He picks one that matches his vision, not necessarily the author's.


It sounds to me like the author gave a good description of their character and the director had a clear vision of what they wanted from _that_ description. 



Gamer_2k4 said:


> Maybe you just gave a bad example, but the reason there's description in that story is because the story wouldn't exist without the description.  After all, the classification of "bimbo" seems solely dependent on what the woman was wearing and how she looked, rather than anything she actually did.  Here, the description is the means to its own end.  If you had said, "You should have seen that bimbo.  She was flirting with everyone, and you know she was only doing it for the free drinks they'd buy her," then the physical description is wholly unnecessary for the story.  No one's going to say, "Well was she a blonde or a brunette?" because it doesn't matter.  The action is what defines the story.


To me, yours is the bad example. I don't see this girl you're saying is a flirt. She's got a blank face. It could be an old biker babe with a leather face from lying in the sun all day for 30 years. It could be a cute college girl that doesn't even need to dress sexy for free drinks. In a story I'm reading, I want to know what that character looks like. Other wise I'm not seeing the face at all. It's not up to me as the reader to make up the character's looks or their defining features. If the author can't give that to me then I'm not sticking with it. I can't get close to a character I can't see.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 7, 2015)

What puzzles me is how any reader can only see a "blank face" for a character. I'm serious. That implies no imagination on the part of the reader.

As to the examples, yeah, the whole emphasis of the first is the looks. It had nothing whatsoever to do with her actions. The second was about her actions, not her looks. So yes, the first had to have description or there was nothing to it except "this gal who was there". Period. Oh, and that conversations with that hypothetical friend would be long, complicated, and boring.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Sep 7, 2015)

T.S.Bowman said:


> Meh. If you've seen one alien...you've seen them all.




Hmm...Bishop, does that sound like a challenge to you? 

View attachment 9561


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 7, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> What puzzles me is how any reader can only see a "blank face" for a character. I'm serious. That implies no imagination on the part of the reader.



Or deficient writing on the part of the author. Not all writing is automatically perfect. Poor writing exists, too. Sometimes, readers struggle to picture the characters because the writing, simply, needs improvement (i.e., needs better character description).

Same goes for setting. I've read quite a few stories where characters seem to be floating in some indescribable limbo while they interact with each other. A reader might complain that they don't have a sense of where the characters are. Usually the problem isn't the reader's imagination—but the writer's lack of detail and description.

Can one go overboard with character description? Sure! Just like anything in writing. I agree that too much description (or description delivered with too heavy a hand) can be off-putting.

But I believe one can swing the pendulum too far the other way, as well. :encouragement:


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 7, 2015)

Sunny said:


> It sounds to me like the author gave a good description of their character and the director had a clear vision of what they wanted from _that_ description.



But his was the perfect example of what we are talking about. YOU see her as someone with a blank face...HE saw her as a flirt. He saw her in an entirely different way than you did based on what was written. Even with more description, chances are the two of you wouldn't see her the same way. 

As far as the director...you said he cast the actor based on "his vision" of the character. What are the chances the director and author pictured that character exactly the same way?

My girlfriend has read the 50 Shades books and watched the movie. She said that the guy who was cast in the lead looked NOTHING like how he was described in the book. Do you think the writer saw him exactly the way the director did. After all, she described him in quite a lot of detail when she wrote the books.

But that's the point. Everyone, except perhaps for Kyle and some select others, sees the characters in their own way.

Just for the record...my girlfriend agrees with you.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 7, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> What puzzles me is how any reader can only see a "blank face" for a character. I'm serious. That implies no imagination on the part of the reader.


I have my own imagination when I write my own worlds, when I write my own characters. When I'm buying a book, I want to experience someone else's imagination. 



shadowwalker said:


> As to the examples, yeah, the whole emphasis of the first is the looks. It had nothing whatsoever to do with her actions. The second was about her actions, not her looks. So yes, the first had to have description or there was nothing to it except "this gal who was there". Period. Oh, and that conversations with that hypothetical friend would be long, complicated, and boring.


Oh, I think the conversation is fun with the friend. She's spunky and a blast to be around.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 7, 2015)

T.S.Bowman said:


> But his was the perfect example of what we are talking about. YOU see her as someone with a blank face...HE saw her as a flirt. He saw her in an entirely different way than you did based on what was written. Even with more description, chances are the two of you wouldn't see her the same way.



I'm just guessing here, but I think he probably _saw _her the way I mentioned her (big boobs, blonde hair and curvy bottom). He just added the actions to my little example. So now she's even more developed. She's a flirtatious bimbo that's after free drinks. She gets these free drinks with her pretty blonde hair, her sexy body and now with Gamers addition, we can see her actions now. All we need is some description of how the place stank of cigarette smoke and the flashing lights were blinding. Maybe we could mention that she reeked of cheap dollar-store perfume. It gets clearer with each description. 



T.S.Bowman said:


> As far as the director...you said he cast the actor based on "his vision" of the character. What are the chances the director and author pictured that character exactly the same way?
> 
> My girlfriend has read the 50 Shades books and watched the movie. She said that the guy who was cast in the lead looked NOTHING like how he was described in the book. Do you think the writer saw him exactly the way the director did. After all, she described him in quite a lot of detail when she wrote the books.


Quite possibly there just wasn't an actor that fit the physical attributes _and_ the personality of the lead. Maybe the director decided to go with the guy that could "act" like Christian Gray and sadly he just didn't look like him. Too bad the director couldn't make a print up of the guy he imagined, the guy that E.L James described and make him the real life actor they wished they'd had. 



T.S.Bowman said:


> Just for the record...my girlfriend agrees with you.


Your girlfriend is on to something Bowman! You should listen to her.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Sep 7, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> What puzzles me is how any reader can only see a "blank face" for a character. I'm serious. That implies no imagination on the part of the reader.



Prosopagnosia?

...

I'm not serious.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 7, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> Or deficient writing on the part of the author. Not all writing is automatically perfect. Poor writing exists, too. Sometimes, readers struggle to picture the characters because the writing, simply, needs improvement (i.e., needs better character description).



If the writing is _that _deficient in characterization, it's probably not worth reading _any _of it. And character description has little to do with characterization, unless one is going for stereotypes.


----------



## voltigeur (Sep 7, 2015)

I guess my question would be:

Is it the _description_ that is objected to, or is it description as an _info dump_? 

In all the classes and critique sessions I have attended trying to learn how to write the one message is don’t put things in your story that are not significant to the story. So for example if a scene happens in a restaurant, I don’t describe the waitress. As the reader, make her whatever you want her to be. 

However if I’m writing a detective novel and I tell you the main character is 6’3 230lbs with a lean muscular build, piercing blue eyes and widower’s point. This information is significant. The message behind the description (remember show don’t tell) this is a _really_ intimidating dude. This information would be an undercurrent of all the scenes he is in. 

If I follow the advice, presented by some on this thread and provide no description at all. Let’s say you picture him as a long haired, rolly polly loser that lives with his mom playing World of Warcraft;  you’re never going to get why everyone this guy meets is instantly intimidated. 

Writing with what seems to be today’s style the "rule" seems to be: I should not tell you anything that is not germane to the story and scene at hand.  In this sense it is no different than any other info dump. Keep it short and to the point and move the story along.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 8, 2015)

I don't know that anyone has said "no description at all". What I object to is the unnecessary descriptions, particularly when they don't really paint the picture one thinks they do. Just taking your description, as an example. A widower’s point doesn't equal intimidating (more that they're going bald), but 6' 3" could. Blue eyes - no. Piercing eyes - well, okay, although I wonder how big a headache the guy gets when his eyes are doing that all the time. All I'm saying is there are ways to get the point across without spelling it out, without trying to force it, and most likely will work better for both story _and _reader.


----------



## Sam (Sep 8, 2015)

Sunny said:


> I have my own imagination when I write my own worlds, when I write my own characters. When I'm buying a book, I want to experience someone else's imagination.



The point isn't that you don't get to experience someone else's imagination. 

The point is that no matter how much, or how well, you describe a character, a reader _will _(not may) put their own face, build, and general appearance to that character. For instance, no matter how much you try to describe Jennifer Aniston's face, you can't describe it in the same way that a photo can show it or an imagination can conjure it. What you end up with is little more than an identikit image spliced together.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 8, 2015)

Sam said:


> The point isn't that you don't get to experience someone else's imagination.
> 
> The point is that no matter how much, or how well, you describe a character, a reader _will _(not may) put their own face, build, and general appearance to that character. For instance, no matter how much you try to describe Jennifer Aniston's face, you can't describe it in the same way that a photo can show it or an imagination can conjure it. What you end up with is little more than an identikit image spliced together.



A good writer can write what Jennifer Anniston looks like. Sure we'll all see her a little different with small details differing from one another. But for me, that's better than seeing a blank face or ghostly shadow of a person. I don't want to vaguely see a character. The more description, the clearer they are, the better the reading experience is.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 8, 2015)

Character description helps me see the characters better—and I like that. Characters are, after all, easily my favorite element of fiction.

The same goes for describing setting—the better it's done, the better it helps me see the environment in which the story is taking place. 

Concrete and engaging description (as opposed to vague or inadequate description) improves my reading experience, whether it's description of an environment, an object, an action, or a character.

Unless there's a specific story reason for doing so, I'm not a fan of characters written as if they are invisible, ambiguously featured, or draped in shadow. I find it lackluster, and, if I'm offering feedback, I'll likely recommend more (and/or better) description.

Describe the characters, and do it well, I say. Make them pop off the page. Unless your goal is to populate the story with visually insignificant characters.


----------



## Sam (Sep 8, 2015)

You shouldn't see a blank face. 

Or, rather, if you _do _see a blank face, it comes back to what Shadow said about imagination lacking. I've never seen a blank face on any character I've ever read about, and a lot of them have been scarcely described.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 8, 2015)

Sam said:


> You shouldn't see a blank face.
> 
> Or, rather, if you _do _see a blank face, it comes back to what Shadow said about imagination lacking. I've never seen a blank face on any character I've ever read about, and a lot of them have been scarcely described.


Whether you think I should or shouldn't see a blank face doesn't make it so. You and I and shadowwalker are three different people. You guys don't see a blank a face with no descriptions, but _I _do. As the character is revealed to me little by little, they become clearer and clearer. 

My imagination is just fine. I use it all the time. I am not going to read an authors book about a character that isn't described (not just physically). If that author can't care enough about that character to reveal enough about him to me, then I'm not interested. For me, a well developed character doesn't only go through things with an exciting plot, they will have a face that the author has described to me.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 8, 2015)

Sam said:
			
		

> I've never seen a blank face on any character I've ever read about, and a lot of them have been scarcely described.



Character description isn't limited to faces, though faces can be part of it. It also encompasses physique, attire, body language, movement, et cetera.

The great thing about character description, done well, is it can blend seamlessly with action and story movement, providing the reader with better visuals of the character without stopping the narrative flow.

A writer can go as specific as skin complexion, or as broad as the way their presence occupies a room. They can describe the various scars on the character's cheeks, or the way their left eye squints when they chug from a beer bottle. They can detail the flecks of gold in his irises, or show the way her skirt outlines her legs when she walks down the staircase.

In one story, Jennifer Egan describes a girl's face and bone structure. In another, J.R. Ward describes the thickness of a woman's mascara, her outfit, and her strut as looking like she has double-jointed hips. In yet another, Claudia Gray goes the whole package, highlighting a man's physique, skin tone, jawline, eye color, and attire in one detailed swoop.

All of it character description. All of it (to me, at least) great (and not to mention, _professional_) writing. :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 8, 2015)

Sunny said:


> A good writer can write what Jennifer Anniston looks like.



Okay - choose a famous person and describe them - without any obvious giveaways or "known for's", like always wears shocking pink hair or has a memorable tattoo or wears a stovepipe hat. Describe them so we'll all know who it is.

Or try this. Pick three of these actresses' pictures (again without the obvious, like a braid in their hair), and describe them so we know exactly which three you're talking about.

https://www.google.com/search?q=thin+actresses+with+light+brown+hair&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&channel=sb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CB4QsARqFQoTCNuRycvr58cCFUsaPgodA2sH8w&biw=1536&bih=730 

Now ask yourself, what's the point? Why is it necessary for the reader to see exactly those three actresses and not one of the others? And even with a detailed description, do you really think that most people will be able to pick out exactly the actresses you described?

No, if a reader can't imagine what a character looks like, it's not because the writer failed.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 8, 2015)

Sam said:


> You shouldn't see a blank face.
> 
> Or, rather, if you _do _see a blank face, it comes back to what Shadow said about imagination lacking. I've never seen a blank face on any character I've ever read about, and a lot of them have been scarcely described.



It may very well be a lacking imagination, but I see a blank face for every character in books I read.  I also see blank buildings, blank environments, blank vehicles, and so on.  I don't bother trying to see those things because I don't have to - books are not a visual medium, and I don't feel I lose any of the story by not picturing every event as it happens.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 8, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Okay - choose a famous person and describe them - without any obvious giveaways or "known for's", like always wears shocking pink hair or has a memorable tattoo or wears a stovepipe hat. Describe them so we'll all know who it is.
> 
> Or try this. Pick three of these actresses' pictures (again without the obvious, like a braid in their hair), and describe them so we know exactly which three you're talking about.
> 
> ...



I'm not going to spend my time describing different actresses to you. 

I read _Twilight _and so did all of my friends. Stephanie Meyer described Edward and Jacob many times. They were described very well. When the movie came out we had discussions about the actors and how closely they resembled the characters in the book. Yes, we varied in our imaginations with the small details. I envisioned Edward more muscular, I envisioned him to have more gold in his hair. But the point is, we saw the same person for the most part. We all saw him as tall, we saw him with bronzed hair that was messy, we all saw him with topaz eyes. Why? Because that's what we were told he looked like. I didn't see him with long brown hair, while my friend saw him with short blonde locks. I didn't see him with asian slanted eyes while my friends saw him with round brown eyes. We all saw him as tall and not some short, pudgy guy with a goatee. 

If I can't imagine what the character looks like, then for me, yes, the writer failed.


----------



## DaBlaRR (Sep 8, 2015)

Sunny said:


> Whether you think I should or shouldn't see a blank face doesn't make it so. You and I and shadowwalker are three different people. You guys don't see a blank a face with no descriptions, but _I _do. As the character is revealed to me little by little, they become clearer and clearer.
> 
> My imagination is just fine. I use it all the time. I am not going to read an authors book about a character that isn't described (not just physically). *If that author can't care enough about that character to reveal enough about him to me, then I'm not interested.* For me, a well developed character doesn't only go through things with an exciting plot, they will have a face that the author has described to me.



You start off this post by saying that there are 3 different opinions and point of views on this subject... which is true... but then you end it with a pretty judgemental comment. It's not that the author doesn't care about their characters, they just don't think it's important to paint a perfect portrait of them, so the reader doesn't have to think.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 8, 2015)

DaBlaRR said:


> You start off this post by saying that there are 3 different opinions and point of views on this subject... which is true... but then you end it with a pretty judgemental comment. It's not that the author doesn't care about their characters, they just don't think it's important to paint a perfect portrait of them, so the reader doesn't have to think.



I'm not going to be interested in a book if they don't tell me what the characters look like. I don't like description-less books. I just don't. We all have our own opinions.

If you want me to enjoy the character, you have to show me who they are, inside and out. Some readers want that. All the books on my shelf, every one I pick up has descriptions of the characters. That's what I enjoy.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 9, 2015)

Sunny said:


> I'm not going to spend my time describing different actresses to you.



And as a writer, I'm not going to spend my time describing different characters to you. If anything physical about them is important to the characterization or the story, I will let you know. Otherwise, it doesn't matter to me, and I'm not going to waste time spoonfeeding readers what isn't important to the story. But that wasn't my point, and I think you know that. 



Sunny said:


> I read _Twilight _and so did all of my friends. Stephanie Meyer described Edward and Jacob many times. They were described very well.



A lot of writers describe the characters in great detail. That doesn't make it necessary or good writing. That's the whole point of this discussion.



Sunny said:


> If I can't imagine what the character looks like, then for me, yes, the writer failed.



So your lack of imagination is the fault of the writer? Really?

I can't imagine the number of great books you will probably never read or appreciate if that's a major criteria for you.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 9, 2015)

> and not some short, pudgy guy with a goatee.



Hey, I represent the short, pudgy, goateed guys in this joint.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 9, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> And as a writer, I'm not going to spend my time describing different characters to you. If anything physical about them is important to the characterization or the story, I will let you know. Otherwise, it doesn't matter to me, and I'm not going to waste time spoonfeeding readers what isn't important to the story.


You're free to write however you want. And readers are free to like or dislike your writing for whatever reason they want. Such is the subjective nature of writing and reading.



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> A lot of writers describe the characters in great detail. That doesn't make it necessary . . .


To me, the whole "write only what's necessary" philosophy is limiting.

Skilled writers know how to write beyond the minimum, to elevate a story beyond its baseline requirements.



			
				shadowwalker said:
			
		

> So your lack of imagination is the fault of the writer? Really?
> 
> I can't imagine the number of great books you will probably never read or appreciate if that's a major criteria for you.


"Great" is a completely subjective term. A great book to one reader might be a lousy book to another. Which reader is right? Both!

Sunny and I have different tastes than you. That's okay. It doesn't make your tastes any more valid. Just different.

It certainly doesn't mean Sunny's "lacking imagination" for not being able to see characters who aren't adequately described. I'm the same way, and I'm pretty confident that my imagination is strong (or at the very least: adequate).

She's like me in that regard: when I read, I let the author paint the story in my mind. Sometimes the author paints the setting well but leaves the character's appearance sparse or vague. It's not a lack of imagination on my part that leaves me seeing such a character as sparse or vague as a result—it's the author's own doing.

Some readers enjoy that ambiguity, that emptiness—an outline to consciously fill in. For others, their minds fill in the gaps without them even consciously doing it. Others still, like Sunny and I, notice the gaps the author has left, and would prefer them filled in.

A lot has to do with genre, too. Romance, especially, tends to include a lot of character description. Most romance readers (that I know of) love that aspect of the genre.

I'd likely struggle to survive as a romance writer if I took the "less character description is better" approach. Readers would pitch my description-lite writing into the trash so fast it'd make my head spin. :grief:


----------



## Sam (Sep 9, 2015)

That's twice now, Kyle, you've stated that skilled and/or professional writers describe everything to a tee, and thereby tacitly implying that anyone who doesn't is neither skilled nor professional. 

That's rather presumptive.


----------



## Sunny (Sep 9, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> And as a writer, I'm not going to spend my time describing different characters to you. If anything physical about them is important to the characterization or the story, I will let you know. Otherwise, it doesn't matter to me, and I'm not going to waste time spoonfeeding readers what isn't important to the story. But that wasn't my point, and I think you know that.


As a writer you have the freedom to write your stories without descriptions. You have the freedom of holding back that spoon. You can write whatever words you choose. Wield that story however you want. And, as a reader I have that same freedom. As as reader I'm likely not going to enjoy your book. Something big would be missing for me. I'm sure you'd have a ton of other readers that enjoy piecing your characters together themselves. Just as I'm sure you wouldn't like the character descriptions I would give to you in my writing. 



shadowwalker said:


> A lot of writers describe the characters in great detail. That doesn't make it necessary or good writing. That's the whole point of this discussion.


And for those writers who like to avoid writing character description in vague or to no detail. I imagine your statement can go for them as well. It doesn't make it good writing.



shadowwalker said:


> So your lack of imagination is the fault of the writer? Really?
> 
> I can't imagine the number of great books you will probably never read or appreciate if that's a major criteria for you.


I am a reader just like you. I am entitled to my reactions of writing styles, just like you. If I want a character described to me and you don't, then that's okay. We just like different styles for our own reasons. Insulting my imagination is silly. I have a wonderful imagination. I use it everyday.

To me, a character without descriptions is just a big hole the writer has left for me to fill. I don't like reading a book with plot holes in it either.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 9, 2015)

Okay, hackles raised enough for everybody?

I could understand people wanting detailed descriptions - but saying/implying that the writer is at fault if they don't tell the reader exactly how the characters look is just not right. It's like saying Isaac Asimov is a bad writer because you don't like science fiction. Let's also try to stop using black and white arguments here. Saying that a _detailed _description is not necessary (ie, the story will fail without it) is not the same as saying writers should not describe characters _at all_. 

(Note - I skip character's descriptions in romances in particular. Romance writers tend to have ideas of beauty that clash drastically with mine.  )


----------



## Terry D (Sep 9, 2015)

I hate books that tell me every little detail about what a character looks like, or what they are wearing, unless it is important to the story. Yes it may be well written and lyrical, but, to me, it is boring. The insinuation that great detail means better writing is ludicrous. Cormac McCarthy rarely describes characters in any detail whatsoever and he's considered a pretty fair writer. Stephen King doesn't do character descriptions either, but I suppose he's not in the same class as P. D. James or Meyer as a writer (thank God).

Personally I use very little description unless the character's physical nature is important to the story. While in real life I very much enjoy photography, in my writing I prefer to sketch. Lots and lots of complexity doesn't make a better book. Some genres demand that the author spoon-feed the reader. I don't read, or write, in those genres.

Read what you like. Write what you like. There is room for all of it. Just don't try to tell me that one way is 'better' or 'more professional' than another.


----------



## Bishop (Sep 9, 2015)

Character description is like salt.

Some people like a lot, some people like none. But no dish was ever ruined by having no salt, and any diner would reject a dish covered entirely in salt.


----------



## bazz cargo (Sep 9, 2015)

Ha! I was going to use Jazz but salt is better. 

Description is another tool in the writer's tool-kit. Used judiciously in the right, or write way it helps add to the story. In the case of Noir Detective fiction it is derigurre.


----------



## ppsage (Sep 9, 2015)

A few dishes are ruined without salt. Tibetan pink tea, for instance.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 9, 2015)

For the people who need a character description. Do you need a description for all of the characters?

Do you also need descriptions of things like cars and houses, or guns and pens? Did you need to some description of what people are eating? How much do I need to describe for my book to be acceptable?


----------



## Jon M (Sep 9, 2015)

ppsage said:


> A few dishes are ruined without salt. Tibetan pink tea, for instance.


See, I was happy and quite content to use the formidable powers of my imagination to guess what kind of tea you meant, had you simply wrote _tea_ out of some slavish dedication to _minimalism_, but then you had to ruin my experience with detail, and specificity.

!!!


----------



## Bishop (Sep 9, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> How much do I need to describe for my book to be acceptable?



Even those who think there needs to be description will have absolutely no answer for this. There is no right answer here. It's what works for the story. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Sep 10, 2015)

Jon M said:


> See, I was happy and quite content to use the formidable powers of my imagination to guess what kind of tea you meant, had you simply wrote _tea_ out of some slavish dedication to _minimalism_, but then you had to ruin my experience with detail, and specificity.
> 
> !!!



I what you're trying to say, but the specificity was required for his point, so it wasn't superfluous.  It would be like having a story where the villains attack blonde people, and leave out that the main character is blonde.  Details that add to the story are acceptable.  Details that don't are unnecessary.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 10, 2015)

But, of course, which details are "necessary" is completely subjective.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 10, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> For the people who need a character description. Do you need a description for all of the characters?
> 
> Do you also need descriptions of things like cars and houses, or guns and pens? Did you need to some description of what people are eating? How much do I need to describe for my book to be acceptable?



I don't "need" anything, but if we're talking about the extremes of detail versus no detail? Then yes, I prefer concrete imagery over vagueness.

I'd prefer to read: The man lifted his arm high above his head and pointed an old revolver at the ceiling. The silver barrel glinted under the florescent lights.
_
Hell_. Jessica winced. This could _not_ be happening.

"Everyone on the floor!" the man yelled.

Rather than: The man raised a gun and told the diners to get down. Jessica couldn't believe it. 

I'd prefer to read: She jammed her fork into the cheese-dusted mound of spaghetti and grinned at the steam pluming between them. "Damn," she muttered. "Sure you don't want any?" She winked. "Last chance."

Rather than: She looked at the food eagerly and offered him some.

And for describing a random character in the story? I'd prefer to read: The man standing with his arms crossed by the entrance was a good head taller than Brenton, and twice as muscular, too. His bare arms were flecked with dark, crescent-shaped scars. He wore a scowl on his face that Brenton hadn't seen since his days in the prison yard. _Just give me a reason_ the man seemed to say.

Brenton swallowed at the sudden knot in his throat. The job just got a little harder.

Rather than: Brenton worried about dealing with the bouncer, who looked big and mean.

For me, concrete details win over vague or sparse details every time. Do you "need" to describe _every single thing_ for me? No way! That'd be exhausting. It'd probably also drag the pace of the story down.

But if you're going to describe _something_, go concrete and specific, I say. Make me see it. Don't make me feel like I have to do the work for you.

Just my own personal preference, though. :encouragement:


----------



## Terry D (Sep 10, 2015)

Kyle R said:


> I don't "need" anything, but if we're talking about the extremes of detail versus no detail? Then yes, I prefer concrete imagery over vagueness.



This where the problem is, IMO. Concise, spare prose isn't necessarily vague. I could just as easily say, "I prefer concrete imagery over unnecessary detail." Because well selected "minimal" details are just as concrete.

No writer worth publishing would write like the 'bad' examples you gave. It's too easy to say, "If I have a choice between this (insert carefully crafted example here) and this (insert intentionally poorly written example here) I'll take the former." No one has suggested not giving any details -- although that works well for writers like McCarthy -- just not describing what your bouncer above was wearing, the shape of his face, the swastika tattooed on his throat, etc. I've seen that done far more often than I've seen your "big and mean" example.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 10, 2015)

True, my examples were crafted for persuasive purposes.

Though, I read a lot of amateur fiction (I often lurk in fan-fiction forums, especially superhero-related ones), and I encounter description written like the red examples quite often. At first I thought it was because they needed improvement. But I soon discovered that, to some writers (and readers), they consider the red examples preferable.

To them, my blue examples would be considered unnecessary and overwritten. "You don't need to describe the bouncer," one might say. "Just say he's big and mean. It gets the point across quicker. Don't bog the reader down with unnecessary detail."

I think that's why this thread (and so many others) turn into passionate disagreements. We all have our own ideas of good writing and bad writing, and sometimes our idea of bad writing fits someone else's idea of good writing (and vice versa).

It even has me questioning if there even _is_ such a thing as good writing (other than grammatically correct writing, that is), or if writing is, entirely, subjective. But that might be a topic for another thread.

In regards to _this_ thread, yes, I'd be fine with a description of the bouncer's face, the tattoo on his neck, his attire, et cetera. Provided it's written engagingly, and provided the bouncer plays a role in the story that at least justifies the attention being drawn to him.

Originally, the thread seemed to be about a resistance to character description. The detractors of character description seemed (to me) to say that it's not a matter of whether it's written well or not, but a matter of _not wanting_ to see the character at all, regardless—not the way the author sees them, at least. A desire to see them in whatever way the reader wants, and a distaste for any visuals that the author may provide. I'm still trying to wrap my brain around that.

For me, at least, it's enjoyable to see the characters the way the author imagines them, even if their description isn't a requirement for the story. Done well, at least, I find it adds a just little more magic to the reading experience. Making the story-world feel just a little more real.

I don't _need_ to know what Belle looks like in _Beauty and the Beast_, but I'd _like_ to.

To each their own, I suppose! And round and round we go . . .


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 10, 2015)

I understand perfectly that some readers prefer 'concrete details' - what gets me is when people infer (or state outright) that writers who don't use that are deficient in their skills. Well, that and constantly making it an all or nothing issue, which it is _not_...

As to the fanfic, that's a whole different world. Readers of fanfic are generally (not always) interested more in the fandom characters and what happens to them, not in the writing itself. I've had readers ask me to add in some inane thing just because they'd like to see that happen to the character, not because it would make the story better (or has anything to do with the story). So no, fanfic is not a good arena to pull examples from.


----------



## Jon M (Sep 11, 2015)

Sorta random contribution, but I read this recently and thought it quite good:

"Uncle Nick was a big man, not particularly tall, but with a stomach that hid his belt buckle and rubbed the steering wheel as he drove."

There's more, but too much to type on my phone.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 25, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> And character description has little to do with characterization . . .


I agree. They're two different elements of writing (though they can be related, depending on how they're handled).

But just as a story with lots of character description and very little characterization would (to me) feel like it's lacking something, so would a story with lots of characterization and very little character description.

I consider them both important (or, perhaps more accurately: _enjoyable_) ingredients. :encouragement:


----------



## walker (Sep 25, 2015)

I have a couple of thoughts on this subject.

In general, I agree not to over-describe.  I do, and it hurts my writing.

On the other hand, sometimes you have to describe the characters well. My favorite novel is The Ballad of the Sad Cafe, and I can't imagine that novel without good descriptions of Miss Amelia (tall, mannish, short hair, flexing muscles, etc.) and Cousin Lymon (dwarf, hunchback, miserable at first, dressed to the nines later) at least. Marvin Macy could have maybe been left to the imagination, but the description of him is also awesome.

I find the Shakespeare comment odd. Of course Shakespeare didn't describe anybody. He wrote plays. They weren't meant to be read, but seen and heard. The actors created the image in the audience's mind.

One last comment: I just watched Once Upon a Time in the American West, which is either a very dull or an epic spaghetti western, depending on your point of view. I thought the plot was slow, twisted, and just lame in general, but the photography and the costumes were absolutely stunning, and that's what made me watch it to the end. If I had been reading a book instead of a movie, I would have wanted to know what every last dirty thread of the cowboy's costume looked like, the complexion and color of their skin, the facial hair, and more. It was all there was to the story, and it was interesting and awesome.


----------



## JustRob (Sep 25, 2015)

walker said:


> One last comment: I just watched Once Upon a Time in the American West, which is either a very dull or an epic spaghetti western, depending on your point of view. I thought the plot was slow, twisted, and just lame in general, but the photography and the costumes were absolutely stunning, and that's what made me watch it to the end. If I had been reading a book instead of a movie, I would have wanted to know what every last dirty thread of the cowboy's costume looked like, the complexion and color of their skin, the facial hair, and more. It was all there was to the story, and it was interesting and awesome.



Are you referring to _Once Upon A Time In The West _by Sergio Leone, probably my favourite film of all time? Yes, it isn't a true western but a tribute by him to the real westerns, of which he was a great fan. It has been described as operatic with its incredibly detailed set scenes, amazing attention to every detail in fact. My BluRay copy has all the background descriptions that accompany the film and explain much of the symbolism and Leone's intentions when he made it, which adds to its entertainment value. Then there's that music by ... Back to the topic.

I have aphantasia. I have great difficulty visualising anything. My mind's eye is virtually blind. Hence I convert the images of the people I see into facts about them. If I have not classified the look of a person's hair while looking at them I cannot describe it later. In a way I live in a world of brief descriptions of people and the ones that I see, even my own angel, are a reality that I cannot imagine. Hence detailed descriptions in books are wasted on me. I will not remember them all and equally won't fill in the blanks with my own perception. What I will see is what really matters, their behaviour and history. Equally this is all that I can provide in my writing, that along with the distinct facts that I can envisage with my identikit mind, but it seems to be enough. Perhaps I live in a world where people are entirely defined in words, not images.

I was interested by the comments made about providing descriptions as they become relevant to the story on a drip-feed basis. That seems to be in conflict with the complaint about a writer introducing details later when the reader has already formed an image in their mind. Personally I drip-feed wickedly. In my second novel, very much a work not in progress, I mention that a character in the first had Caribbean ethnicity, having previously not even mentioned the colour or style of her hair. Face it folks; ethnicity is irrelevant, so we're told. It's not my fault if a reader thinks that all my characters are Caucasian by default just because the story seems terribly terribly English. By then she's out of the story anyway, so it doesn't really matter apart from one remark made in the later story.

I do tend to provide an initial impression of a person's appearance and then add details later as required, but only as required. Here's my initial description of three characters at the same time. Note that what matters to me is the differences between the two women rather than their absolute appearances.

"In one of the settings a very fashionably dressed lady was sitting at a table with a computer in front of her and just by her a young man in a check shirt was playing video games on another computer. Across the room from them a girl sat in a chair with a large display screen mounted on a movable arm in front of her. Her choice of dress was very different from that of the other woman, whose clothes would look good even on a hanger. It seemed the young lady had continued to wear her school uniform until she outgrew it and that time had now passed. Nevertheless, on her any clothes could look good."

I've actually barely described them at all but already there's a suggestion of a more prim mature style of woman alongside one who wouldn't look out of place at St. Trinians. I think these comparative descriptions are more valuable than absolute ones. It doesn't matter how pretty the young girl is, just that clothes aren't the defining feature in her appearance whereas they are for the other woman, so perhaps she isn't so naturally appealing. The reader has enough to go on for the time being and details such as hairstyle, makeup, shoes and clothes come gradually later. Do I need to mention which of the two women is wearing stilettos or which has blue eyes? Only when there's a reason. Already there are also suggestions about the relationships between the three and their roles, if one reads the signs. I don't set aside a block of text to describe someone, but just relate all the information needed to keep the story moving at that point. What's important is that they all use computers but the young girl has one different from the others, so she's different in some way and not just in her appearance.

That's enough showcasing on my part. PM me for a copy of the novel if you're interested further. To my mind the key issue remains though. Is it better to drip-feed as the story progresses or dump out a lot of detailed info initially to fix the character in the reader's mind? It sounds from the comments already made as though neither method will satisfy all readers.


----------



## walker (Sep 25, 2015)

JustRob said:


> Are you referring to _Once Upon A Time In The West _by Sergio Leone, probably my favourite film of all time? Yes, it isn't a true western but a tribute by him to the real westerns, of which he was a great fan. It has been described as operatic with its incredibly detailed set scenes, amazing attention to every detail in fact. My BluRay copy has all the background descriptions that accompany the film and explain much of the symbolism and Leone's intentions when he made it, which adds to its entertainment value. Then there's that music by ... Back to the topic.



Yes, this is the movie I saw. The detail was incredible, just incredible. There were looooooooong takes of nothing but a costume, or a face, or a setting, without dialogue, but it was fascinating because the costumes, makeup, etc. were just so. I live in Arizona and recognized some of the scenery as Arizona and Utah. I looked up the shooting locations on-line and other scenes were shot in Spain, as well as Bavispe, Mexico, which is in the Sonoran desert south of here.


----------



## JustRob (Sep 25, 2015)

walker said:


> Yes, this is the movie I saw. The detail was incredible, just incredible. There were looooooooong takes of nothing but a costume, or a face, or a setting, without dialogue, but it was fascinating because the costumes, makeup, etc. were just so. I live in Arizona and recognized some of the scenery as Arizona and Utah. I looked up the shooting locations on-line and other scenes were shot in Spain, as well as Bavispe, Mexico, which is in the Sonoran desert south of here.



Well he couldn't get absolutely everything right on a budget. The hills in the background change colour depending on which location was used for a shot. That's not a problem that a writer has unless they are extremely careless with their continuity. Back on the current topic, the important thing is to remain consistent with one's description of a character, which goes almost without saying. Inconsistency is not the same as allowing a reader to form incorrect preconceptions to my mind, but others may think otherwise. A reader may guess what's going to happen next and be wrong and accept the fact, so why shouldn't they accept that they were wrong in their assumptions about a character's appearance?

I wrote my story based on Oscar Wilde's premise, that it ought to be worth reading more than once if there's any point in reading it at all, so anyone who didn't enjoy it fully, and few will, the first time may well do so the second, knowing more than they did the first time around. For that reason I feel justified in drip-feeding character descriptions throughout. The sequence of presentation of information in a novel is a compromise between practicality and impact. Sometimes no linear sequence can achieve everything required of it though. 

I can't say how many times I've watched _Once Upon A Time In The West. _It's more like playing a favourite piece of music than watching a film. Some books are like that just as Wilde stated, I've no doubt. I have great doubt that mine is though.


----------



## walker (Sep 25, 2015)

JustRob said:


> I wrote my story based on Oscar Wilde's premise, that it ought to be worth reading more than once if there's any point in reading it at all, so anyone who didn't enjoy it fully, and few will, the first time may well do so the second, knowing more than they did the first time around. For that reason I feel justified in drip-feeding character descriptions throughout. The sequence of presentation of information in a novel is a compromise between practicality and impact. Sometimes no linear sequence can achieve everything required of it though.



I think people want an answer, and there is no answer. Or put another way, everybody's right.

There are rules for writing, in any number of How-to books on Amazon, but they're not rules for _good writing_, they're rules for _writing that sells_ in 21st century America, or England, or wherever. So modern readers are bored by long description? I'll buy that, and I'll learn how to write without long description. I want to sell books too!

Things go in and out of style. There is a subtext in this day and age  that we are at the pinnacle of learning "how to write"--don't put in big  words, no fancy sentences, excitement! Wham! Pow! Boom! like a Marvel  comic--but It's easy to argue that other styles, not popular  commercially at the moment, also have merit. Do they sell? No. But at  least let's discuss terms in things of writing that sells and writing  that doesn't sell, not good and bad writing. Justin Bieber sells too. I don't presume that he's a better musician than Aretha Franklin, because he sold more records in his lifetime, and because her style of music is out of vogue at the moment. Justin Bieber may be _more worthy of imitation in 2015_ than Aretha Franklin, if your goal is to make money in the music industry. But that's a separate question.


----------



## voltigeur (Sep 25, 2015)

> I think people want an answer, and there is no answer.



There is an answer but it is not a "either/or" one.

I see this issue closely related to writer's voice. You can have too much and you can have not enough. The correct answer is a function of your style (how you use your writer's voice.) and your target audience _i.e. genre_. 

If a reader just wants a good story they can read the hour before they go to bed? They probably will appreciate less description. Some one who wants a literary book with flowery language probably wants tons of description and metaphor. 

I seriously doubt there are very many who want to imagine faceless manikins running around doing non descript actions.  

I see it as a pendulum. We all have our version of the perfect centerline. Let's say the right side is too much description the left is too little. All of us will have a pendulum swing, hopefully as you get better it swings less and less.


----------



## walker (Sep 25, 2015)

voltigeur said:


> I see it as a pendulum. We all have our version of the perfect centerline. Let's say the right side is too much description the left is too little. All of us will have a pendulum swing, hopefully as you get better it swings less and less.



I said there was no answer, yet you found one. Nicely done!


----------



## Patrick (Jan 10, 2016)

You know, the more I write, the more I plant an image in the reader's subconscious without actually describing a particular character beyond small, relevant details. I do it through a kind of sublimation that shows the character in an indirectly connected image, and I have this sense that because I've seen something with my own eyes or clearly in my imagination, that I can get you to see it too without ever telling you what it is exactly. More than that, I feel I am then writing about who my character really is rather than what they're like. I don't want to liken them to anything you, the reader, had previously in your mind.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Jan 16, 2016)

Here's what I think: 

People always say that description is for putting an image in a reader's mind, but for me, that's only its secondary purpose (Readers have their own "mind's eye" and they can create a pretty good image out of minimal description). I see description as a way to attach feelings or ideas to characters or places, or to set a mood, or to foreshadow an event, or to do many other more subtle things. When an author describes a rose as "pale, thin-petaled, bowing and shivering in the wind," he/she is not just giving you an image of the rose, he/she is tacking feelings of fragility and weakness to that rose (this rose, of course, must have some kind of importance, if it is given any description at all). 

Another thing I like to do with description is to use it to emphasize some aspect of a character. For example: "His voice was like sifting sand." This is an an unusual simile for someone's voice, so it draws attention to the sound of their voice, and the reader realizes that this character's voice must be an especially important aspect of them.

So, though I think that readers _can _usually create their own image of a character, description is necessary for subtly inserting feelings, ideas, or emphasis into the reader's concept of that character.


----------



## BobtailCon (Jan 17, 2016)

A good writer understands that a story is pictured through the reader's mind. When describing a character, the good writer should give a basic outline of the character, hair color, body stance (slouching, at attention, etc.), and their clothing. The rest of the character should be filled in through the reader's imagination.

Whenever I watch a movie that is based on a book, I have a moment of, "wait, they don't look like that!" The good writer should allow the reader's mind to roam.


----------



## Patrick (Jan 17, 2016)

The only thing that matters is whether it's good characterisation or not. Minimalism is a school of thought, not a law.


----------

