Those of us who wish to be called “author” are charged with the task of using words to describe things both vividly and concisely. It is beginning to dawn on me how much of an undertaking this really is.
Now, in fairness, there are plenty of good books out there that are vivid enough. The action/plot/point of the book or story isn’t lost in the detail, but there’s enough detail left out that readers either fill in the blanks on their own, or aren’t fully seeped in the imagery.
I don’t think there’s anything necessarily wrong with this. For instance, in a fast-paced action-type story, the characters or narrator won’t have time to wax poetic about the leaves on the trees during a chase scene. It would kill the pace. Moreover, being overly specific can drown out the story and bore your readers to death for very little gain. After all, in most cases it doesn’t make a difference if your character is pictured with blue eyes or green. Similarly, most people probably won’t picture an oak tree any differently from a maple tree, so if it’s not important to the story, it probably doesn’t need to be specified.
I’m going to cite my favorite example of “details gone wild.” In “The Last of the Mohicans,” there are a bunch of long passages that, at least for me, killed the story. I often refer to that book as, “fifty pages on how a bear walks.” If I hadn’t needed to write an essay on it, I would never have finished (or, I would have skimmed ahead until the bear was done walking).
So, now that I’ve illustrated the problems with using too much description (which I might be prone to doing, given that my introductory thought to this post took four paragraphs), I’m going to tell you what brought this all on.
Earlier this week my family and I went to Georgia (the state, not the country) for the first time. We were near the ocean. I was expecting the sand-for-dirt with houses on stilts type of environment that I’d experienced in the Outer Banks area. Boy that was NOT what I got.
Parts of it were marshy (the word “bayou” comes to mind). There were long stretches on either side of the road with reed-like things and, according to the maps, a river meandering through it. In my opinion, none of it qualified as land. Then, there were parts that were downright lush with shrubs and trees and various plants I can’t identify.
The part I liked best was where the enormous old trees were. I’m told they are called “live oak.” They have rough bark and huge trunks, but branch out down low. The big branches look knobbly and twisty as they reach out and often down. Some hit the ground before turning up. The old ones have huge spans. There was one near the beach that had about twenty picnic benches under it.
Except for the ones along the beach, these trees’ branches are covered with Spanish moss. It hangs like clumps of brown tinsel and sways in the wind. These thick-branched trees don’t rustle in the wind, but the moss sways. They provide dense shade over large areas and, in the light of dusk or dawn, the moss swaying in the breeze is a bit creepy.
Areas with several of these big old trees invariably made the word “cemetery” pop into my head, but they were also majestic and in places provided a historically charming feel. I especially liked how some of them branched out over the roads providing shade from above. You can see from the picture that these trees can have very long horizontal branches.
I regret that I didn’t take a camera with me (although, with two kids and two cats in a car for a 11 hour drive, I think you’ll forgive the omission).
So, what the heck do these trees have to do with writing? Well, when I started regretting my lack of a camera, I started thinking.
Spanish Moss (Photo credit: Diorama Sky)
Could I (or anyone) write a good enough description of them? Is it possible to capture the feel of these trees in sentences and paragraphs? I think it could be done in poetry, but what about in a novel?
I tend toward almost scientific descriptions. If I’m not careful, my descriptions can be about as dry as a grocery list:
- long hair (check)
- brown eyes (check)
- average height (check)
With my recent evaluation of The Hunger Games books and movie, I started thinking. Is a picture really worth a thousand words? Are there some places authors should not try to describe things in detail? When is it important to get the feel for a place? Is it sometimes better to have a picture (or hire an illustrator)?
Perhaps you all have thought about this before. For me, a suburbanite, this is a rather new concept. Sure, I’ve traveled a bit, but I’m only starting to really get into places that have a totally different feel. Frankly, the suburbs of most cities feel the same to me. Sure, there might be different architecture or types of trees, but I can probably find a Walmart in any of them.
So, dear readers, what do you think? How much description is enough? Does it vary by genre? location? audience? something else?
Shannon-
For me, my mind paints a picture 50 times faster than I can read. So, I prefer a story where the author gives me the critical details, a few sensory points for feeling, and moves on with the action. I create the scene in my head and wait for the characters to do their thing.
I can think of two world renowned fantasy authors whose books I will not read. I have tried repeatedly, but each time I get bored with their description. It is so detailed that I forget what the plot of the story is and who is involved. Less is more.
Now I’m curious as to which authors you won’t read…
I tend to like things a bit faster, but then I often have trouble picturing things if it is fast. There’s no hard and fast rule, I guess.
Shannon-
I really like Kate’s comments below about weaving information in around the action. It is a great way to keep the pace up and still create the desired picture for the reader. I also think there are times when the author should take more time to describe the scene. However, I think those should be the exception rather than the rule.
In his own book on writing, Terry Brooks, talks about his first book, Sword of Shannara. He said that he was not happy that it takes 150 pages before something interesting happens to the characters. I should have read his comments before my three attempts to read the “Sword”. I have yet to get past page 118. I may try one more time but I will start on page 150 and if it holds my interest, I’ll go back pick up the rest. In his defense, Mr. Brooks did say that “Sword” was not his best work.
Lastly, I understand that LOTR is the gold standard in fantasy circles. It is what everything else written since is compared to. I have read it, the Hobbit, and the Silmarillion. I agree that Mr. Tolkien was a world-building genius. However, His works are not the books I would grab first for entertainment if my house was burning.
-Dennis
I couldn’t get through the Silmarillion. I’d rather read a book about how a bear walks.
I guess that means that, just because something is a lush fantasy world, doesn’t mean it will hold interest if nothing happens in it for a long time. E.g. There was 2 billion years of peace. In year one, everyone got along. In year two, they got along better. In year three…
LOL. That is one way to write a 700+ page book.
Such good questions, Shannon. You know, I would have to say it really does depend on a lot of different things going on. Genre, mood, pace, relation to storyline–all need to be considered before deciding on how much or how little detail to write.
Description is really tricky to write well, IMO. Personally, I like detail when it is written in conjunction with action. For instance, when I describe a character I try not to write, ‘Sasha was a blue-eyed blonde.’ Rather, I would write ‘Sasha pulled back her blonde hair so she could see the map better’ or something like that. I always say ‘don’t write your characters like they ought to be on a wanted poster’. I hate it when description is handed to me as if in a file.
As for describing setting, I think it is important to give a full feel for the world you want us to step into. Not that it should take up 17 pages, but as a reader, I want to see my characters using the setting, and I want weather, and I love it when characters’ moods or thoughts are reflected through nature. I also think setting needs to be described throughout the book, not just in one clump on page 4. Here again, I’m not talking about pages and pages of setting, but to weave it in throughout the plot and the characters.
I would agree that some genres have more flexibility with description than others. Thrillers or action or any fast-paced book are not going to delve into description the way a fantasy or commercial fiction might. But that doesn’t mean description should be scrapped. It just means that it has to be as tidy and concise as the plot, so it doesn’t interfere either by being verbose or non-existent.
As far as audience, well, I think there are readers–and then there are readers. Know what I mean? Some people take a book to the beach and devour it in an afternoon. Others linger over books. ‘Lingering’ readers will appreciate more description than readers who want a quick, easy read.
BTW, Iive oaks are amazing trees, and with the moss they are the perfect backdrop to a southern romance.
Thanks
I know what you mean about action, but I find that too much of it becomes obvious. I agree, it’s really tricky.
I’m wondering where exactly you got 17 pages…
That’s a good point about fast readers and lingering ones. Do you think, when writing, we should have one or the other in mind as an audience, or try to straddle both, or ignore it and go with our best judgement?
Hey,
oh, 17 pages was just a random number I threw out there–just exaggerating.
I don’t think about whether any of my readers are lingerers or devourers, because that’s a surefire way to drive me straight up the tree! I write description to match the pace of whatever scene/chapter/mood I’ve got going. If you want to linger over it, great. If not, they’ll cruise right through it to the action. Okay by me.
I’d fall into the bored camp if the description goes on too long. Give me a few details and let my imagination fill in the blanks, describe everything and I’ll skip the page. I think you need to drip in the pertinent details around the action and dialogue. Subtle and not a data dump
Yeah, “data dump” can describe me – at least when I’m talking. Oh well.
Just curious, do you feel the same way about poetry?
I have to stay on the fence with that one
I don’t read much poetry. When I did my creative writing courses we had a five week spell doing poetry and it was the toughest part of the year for me. I’ve read some poems that I just don’t understand and feel life would have been better if I’d never read it. Then there are others that I really like.
When I see poetry on blogs I do try and give it a go. I am trying to expand my reading so poetry should be on the list too.
That was well put. I’m usually not a poetry person, although I’ve done a few peoms lately that just sort of “sprang out” and I really liked them. Not my usual thing though, and there have definitely been pieces where I felt, “If the author really wanted me to not understand, why bother in the first place?”
I think it will always depend. Is it something completely new in a sci fi it needs to be described. Is it a very emotional scene? It needs to be described. I feel like I leave my own descriptions lacking though so ill need to work on it myself.