# Don't Tell Me the Moon is Shining



## C Hollis (Aug 14, 2013)

I enjoy looking into inspirational quotes that us writing types like to put in our signatures or hang on our walls.  I think some of you would be surprised at the origins of those phrases that bring you inspiration.
But I digress.

In May, 1886, Chekhov wrote to his brother Alexander, who had literary ambitions: “In descriptions of Nature one must seize on small details, grouping them so that when the reader closes his eyes he gets a picture. For instance, you’ll have a moonlit night if you write that on the mill dam a piece of glass from a broken bottle glittered like a bright little star, and that the black shadow of a dog or a wolf rolled past like a ball.”

That letter is oft paraphrased and pasted on meme’s and posters:

“Don’t tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass.”
by Anton Chekhov

Here's the question for the group:

Has our clicky-clicky, got to have it now culture completely invalidated Mr. Checkhov?


----------



## SeverinR (Aug 14, 2013)

I don't think so.

Someone once wrote "a dark and stormy night" is cliche. It is common, but it can be written so many different ways, as much as how to describe the moons reflection.

I think the artist must use their creative energy to make that moon shine like no one else has. Make that dark and stormy night something more then the cliche.
Every person that has written before, sets the bar and we must climb over that bar to make our writings unique.  They did it good or great, now I must embrace that and tell it different, not neccesarily better, just different.

I think Chekhov should pay more attention to Capt Kirk and less on philosophical writings.  
(I am not now nor ever have been a Trekkie, I am a son of a trekie. I have been called worse then a son of trekkie)


----------



## Chilari (Aug 14, 2013)

I think the meaning of what he was saying is maintained, and the wording is snappier and easier to remember. It's not the words he said so attributing it to him isn't quite right - it's paraphrased - but it works.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 14, 2013)

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: maybe, to a certain extent and in certain situations, but not completely.

There are still people who enjoy a good immersion, but there are also those who just want to get to the juicy bits right away. 
A friend of mine is a fairly active writer on fanfiction.com and she's got a fair bunch of followers who read her work. The more she's writing the more effort she's putting into plot and characters and setting and background and all that stuff. Yet those who read her work keep pestering her to put in more "action" (sex). 
It's her audience and it's what they want. To hear her tell it I don't imagine they're all that interested in flowing living descriptions of nature and scenery.

On the other hand, there are other audiences who do crave that immersion. The kind of people who like to live the story in their mind. With instant gratification being such a big thing in today's world I think it's natural to assume that the people who can savor and nurture a pleasure to come are a minority. I don't think that's correct.
I think there are still plenty of people who can appreciate a well written (whatever that means) story which isn't about in-your-face sex or brutal action. They're just not very vocal about it.


----------



## Daichungak (Aug 14, 2013)

C Hollis said:


> Has our clicky-clicky, got to have it now culture completely invalidated Mr. Checkhov?



Not at all.  Personally, the more descriptive and the deeper the immersion the better.  The exceptions being descriptions that are so obscure, heavy handed or long winded that they distract from the flow of the story.

I was intrigued by Svrtnsse's comments regarding the requests from fans for more “action.”  I guess genre could (does) play a role in the amount and depth of description in creating a scene.


----------



## Rinzei (Aug 14, 2013)

I prefer a middle-ground myself - not overly cliche, but also not so long as to make me lose my focus. For instance the example you gave from Chekhov: The original example he gave just was too long for my attention span. His paraphrased words, however, are short and sweet yet not cliche and I like that. It's more of a personal preference than anything. My attention can tend to waver when descriptions get too long and/or start to ramble on.


----------



## Guru Coyote (Aug 14, 2013)

"The first man who said: Your skin is like a rose petal, was a poet. The second who said it, was a thief. And the third? He was an idiot."

I have no idea who I was paraphrasing there, but I think this idea is relevant to the original quote. I think what was really meant by the quote was not to have the moon reflect off broken glass... but to to find a NEW way to make the reader experience a moon-lit night.

That is still very valid for any writer today, even in the times of instant gratification... isn't instant gratification also 'a new way to make the reader experience?'


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 14, 2013)

> I have no idea who I was paraphrasing there, but I think this idea is relevant to the original quote. I think what was really meant by the quote was not to have the moon reflect off broken glass... but to to find a NEW way to make the reader experience a moon-lit night.



Ideally, the author would get inside the character's head to understand what detail the character would notice and use the description both to develop the character and to make the reader understand the character's emotional state.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 14, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Ideally, the author would get inside the character's head to understand what detail the character would notice and use the description both to develop the character and to make the reader understand the character's emotional state.



Assuming you're in a tight POV, I agree. You might not want to write in a tight POV, in which case you'll cast a broader net in terms of what is described, and the language itself might be more evocative since you're not relying on a character's impression to convey feeling to the reader.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 14, 2013)

"Talent borrows, genius steals." - Oscar Wilde

I think, in many ways, the above quote applies more to ideas than to actual products though. If I find that someone is using the exact wording of someone else I'd probably be less than impressed. However, if I see someone taking someone else's idea and improving on it, or creating something better than the original, then I'm all of a sudden a lot more impressed.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Aug 14, 2013)

C Hollis said:


> Has our clicky-clicky, got to have it now culture completely invalidated Mr. Checkhov?



I don't think it has invalidated it.  What I think it has done is produced a culture of non-readers.  I am a voracious reader, raised by a voracious reader.  I was read to at great length from a very early age.  I luxuriate in the written word, both as a reader and as a writer.  My sister, raised in exactly the same environment, is not a reader.  She embraced popular culture, coveted being in the "in crowd."  Popular culture has always looked upon the intellectual with distrust and scorn - "only nerds and outcasts read a lot, you know."  She does not read to her son, who is at 9 also not a reader.

So, I think it's not that readers want to get to "the good stuff."  Certain genres come with certain expectations, such as Svrt's friend's fans pushing her to write more "action."  To be honest, they're not reading fanfic to become more fully immersed in their favorite fictional worlds.  Readers love to read, and appreciate good writing.  Non-readers will not read fiction - they want their information delivered to them in twitter-sized chunks so they can get back to watching their videos.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 14, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Assuming you're in a tight POV, I agree. You might not want to write in a tight POV, in which case you'll cast a broader net in terms of what is described, and the language itself might be more evocative since you're not relying on a character's impression to convey feeling to the reader.



I'm trying something like that in the introductory paragraph to my current WIP. The character isn't introduced until the very end and the descriptions are a lot more telling than showing. Still, I feel it works pretty well in setting the initial scene:



> It was that time of the year. Spring had dressed the world to dance and summer was tuning its instruments, eager to start playing. A bright afternoon sun shone down on a little train making its way east across the plain near the forest's edge. In one of the cars, by a window, Enar sat looking out, thoughtful but happy.


----------



## Guru Coyote (Aug 14, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Ideally, the author would get inside the character's head to understand what detail the character would notice and use the description both to develop the character and to make the reader understand the character's emotional state.



That might not always be what I want as a writer... what happens if I need to build a moon-lit night and all the eerie atmosphere to get the reader immersed... but the character in question would never notice those details?
(Steerpike already answered that one.)


----------



## Chessie (Aug 14, 2013)

What it comes down to is writing what you want to read, always. I agree with AE Lowan in that there seems to be more non-readers these days. Last night, I overheard two of my coworkers talking about a novel one had let the other borrow. They talked about how wonderful the story was, how the author was one of their favorites, and how the writing was simple enough that they understood what was going on. The book was pretty chunky, and I smiled because its SO good to know there are people out there STILL reading. Its one of the things that's wonderful about kindles, etc that at least people can read on those. 

About the OP, I think the message still stands. But there has to be a balance between description and flow. Enough description to set the mood for the readers, but enough flow that the story still is at the front of the page. Its what's so fascinating about writing, we can do it in a myriad of ways and its always the right way for us.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 14, 2013)

I agree with Chesterama and AE Lowan. Think of the opening of _Titus Groan_, where the great castle is a sort of character in and of itself:



> Gormenghast, that is, the main massing of the original stone, taken by itself would have displayed a certain ponderous architectural quality were it possible to have ignored the circumfusion of those mean dwellings that swarmed like an epidemic around its outer walls. They sprawled over the sloping earth, each one half way over its neighbour until, held back by the castle ramparts, the innermost of these hovels laid hold on the great walls, clamping themselves thereto like limpets to a rock. These dwellings, by ancient law, were granted this chill intimacy with the stronghold that loomed above them. Over their irregular roofs would fall throughout the seasons the shadows of time-eaten buttresses, of broken and lofty turrets, and, most enormous of all, the shadow of the Tower of Flints. This tower, patched unevenly with black ivy, arose like a mutilated finger from among the fists of knuckled masonry and pointed blasphemously at heaven. At night the owls made of it an echoing throat; by day it stood voiceless and cast its long shadow.



Great opening. Sets the tone for the entire work. Brings home that the place is intimately connected to the story itself. And yet there's not much action going on here.

EDIT: I particularly like the last two sentences


----------



## Jabrosky (Aug 14, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Assuming you're in a tight POV, I agree. You might not want to write in a tight POV, in which case you'll cast a broader net in terms of what is described, and the language itself might be more evocative since you're not relying on a character's impression to convey feeling to the reader.


I agree. I want to add that if you're setting your story in an exotic environment unfamiliar to your readers, limiting your description to what your in-world characters may notice could actually do a disservice to the message you're trying to communicate. If your main character is a Paleolithic forager living in the jungle, odds are she would take her habitat for granted, but this same environment could inspire awe in your readership if you describe it.


----------



## Shockley (Aug 14, 2013)

I think the status of the moon, unless your character is a werewolf or a lunatic, is probably irrelevant to what your characters are doing, saying or thinking. 

 Far be it from me to crap all over Chekhov, though, so I'll let Hemingway do it: "Chekhov wrote about 6 good stories. But he was an amateur writer."


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 14, 2013)

Shockley said:


> I think the status of the moon, unless your character is a werewolf or a lunatic, is probably irrelevant to what your characters are doing, saying or thinking.



Could be, but not every detail present in your story has to be relevant to what your characters are doing, saying, or thinking.


----------



## Shockley (Aug 14, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> Could be, but not every detail present in your story has to be relevant to what your characters are doing, saying, or thinking.



 Has? No. Should be? Probably.


----------



## A. E. Lowan (Aug 14, 2013)

Jabrosky said:


> I agree. I want to add that if you're setting your story in an exotic environment unfamiliar to your readers, limiting your description to what your in-world characters may notice could actually do a disservice to the message you're trying to communicate. If your main character is a Paleolithic forager living in the jungle, odds are she would take her habitat for granted, but this same environment could inspire awe in your readership if you describe it.



I personally prefer to write deep POV, and I get around the taking-the-exotic-for-granted issue by having a POV character or two be a newbie to the situation - either an out-of-towner or just young, something along those lines.

And, please, no Hemingway rebuttals.  He thought far too highly of himself.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 14, 2013)

Shockley said:


> Has? No. Should be? Probably.



I don't agree. Sure, if you want to write that style of story, that's fine. But there are plenty of books where this isn't the case. Within the fantasy genre, I suspect most books contain details that aren't relevant to the thoughts, acts, or pronouncements of the characters. If you look at classics, this certainly seems to me to be the case. 

So no, I don't agree with 'should,' either. Some people prefer to write in a more descriptive style. Plenty of fantasy books, for example, may make mention of a type or tree, or plant, or passing animal that has no bearing on the story or direct relevance to the characters whatsoever.


----------



## Shockley (Aug 14, 2013)

> I don't agree. Sure, if you want to write that style of story, that's fine. But there are plenty of books where this isn't the case. Within the fantasy genre, I suspect most books contain details that aren't relevant to the thoughts, acts, or pronouncements of the characters. If you look at classics, this certainly seems to me to be the case.
> 
> So no, I don't agree with 'should,' either. Some people prefer to write in a more descriptive style. Plenty of fantasy books, for example, may make mention of a type or tree, or plant, or passing animal that has no bearing on the story or direct relevance to the characters whatsoever.



 I would certainly agree with you in the sense that if someone wants to write a story that is very, very purple in its description and people want to read that kind of story, far be it from me to tell them that they can't or shouldn't. As to whether most fantasy books contain it, possibly - I've always been open about my inability to stand 90% of the books published as fantasy. 

 I think about it in terms of Robert Howard versus J. R. R. Tolkien. Howard could get very heavy in the descriptions, but if he spent a paragraph describing a stone you could be confident in the idea that the stone in question would play a role in the plot and had some relevance - Tolkien gives you a Bombadil aside and you're just left confused and wanting more. I prefer, 9/10, the method where I am not left wanting to know the relevance of something.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 14, 2013)

C Hollis said:


> ...In descriptions of Nature one must seize on small details, grouping them so that when the reader closes his eyes he gets a picture. For instance, you’ll have a moonlit night if you write that on the mill dam a piece of glass from a broken bottle glittered like a bright little star, and that the black shadow of a dog or a wolf rolled past like a ball.”
> 
> That letter is oft paraphrased and pasted on meme’s and posters:
> 
> ...



I find this very interesting. In my experience, I've never seen the paraphrased quote applied as an instruction on the use of description, or at least not in the way mainly being discussed in this thread. Every time I've seen it pop up, it's been used as an illustration of the "Show don't tell" principle. Meaning, a writer should use Chekov's guidance to employ the reader's imagination to build the image of a moonlit night without simply writing "It was a moonlit night."


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 14, 2013)

Shockley said:


> I would certainly agree with you in the sense that if someone wants to write a story that is very, very purple in its description and people want to read that kind of story, far be it from me to tell them that they can't or shouldn't. As to whether most fantasy books contain it, possibly - I've always been open about my inability to stand 90% of the books published as fantasy.
> 
> I think about it in terms of Robert Howard versus J. R. R. Tolkien. Howard could get very heavy in the descriptions, but if he spent a paragraph describing a stone you could be confident in the idea that the stone in question would play a role in the plot and had some relevance - Tolkien gives you a Bombadil aside and you're just left confused and wanting more. I prefer, 9/10, the method where I am not left wanting to know the relevance of something.



I don't think that makes them "purple." That word carries negative connotations, and seems to me to be used to refer to whatever description an individual didn't like. 

Joseph Conrad, for example, used quite a bit of description and also included details not directly relevant. I wouldn't consider his writing purple. The same holds for Dostoevsky, or even Nabokov, who went much further with the language than either of those. 

Yes, I think Tolkien is a good example of what I'm talking about, as you said. But of course he's been quite popular for a long time, and even if you don't like a lot of fantasy, plenty of people do. So when it comes to whether something 'should' be presented in a certain way, you have to ask from whose perspective you're talking about. Should I, as a writer, write a certain way just because one person thinks I should? Or ten? If I like a certain style, and not only that it happens to do fairly well commercially, there doesn't seem to be a strong argument in favor of me not writing that way.


----------



## Caged Maiden (Aug 14, 2013)

I read Ellen Kushner's "Privilege of the Sword" a couple years ago.  I loved it.  LOVED it!!!  Beautiful descriptions, compelling characters.  What more could I ask for?  Nothing.  It's on me favorite bookshelf with all the others I loved too much to ever part with.  

So a year later, I purchased her first book, "Swordspoint".  It's been touted as a masterpiece and great authors have reviewed it and left comments like "It begins with a single drop of blood in the snow, a powerful image,an d just keeps getting better"  (I think that was GRRM's comment, but I'm paraphrasing).  Anyhoo...

I opened the book and indeed, that first image is really good.  A single drop of blood in the snow.  It goes on to the results of a duel, where a famous swordsman killed a noble's champion.  But then, it all went downhill for me.  I put it down in chapter 3 or 4 and never picked it back up again.  It's in my nightstand drawer, where it's been since I put it down.   

My point?  that while the opening imagery was great, the opening is often the best and easiest place for such imagery.  I think sometimes there's a place to put "The moon shone in the sky, casting light on a thousand pike heads..." and there's a place to put, "A thousand tiny sparkles shone in the street.  Broken glass, littering the cobblestones outside the mayor's dark office."  Whatever.  Just that there's a time and a place to be poetic and reflective, and there are instances when being brief and setting a scene up quickly will work better.

I still believe the original message is valid and gets through even in the paraphrased version of the original thought.  In fact, they both have slightly different meanings, but are both valid.  most writers, I think will enjoy the paraphrased one.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 14, 2013)

I liked Swordspoint a lot. Also, The Fall of Kings comes in between that one and Privilege of the Sword. But I liked all three


----------



## Shockley (Aug 14, 2013)

> I don't think that makes them "purple." That word carries negative connotations, and seems to me to be used to refer to whatever description an individual didn't like.



 I understand the connotations, and am not using it in a pejorative manner. Merely descriptive.



> Joseph Conrad, for example, used quite a bit of description and also included details not directly relevant. I wouldn't consider his writing purple. The same holds for Dostoevsky, or even Nabokov, who went much further with the language than either of those.



 I think Conrad is using it in a way that is relevant to the plot, in that he is generally introducing characters into new, foreboding areas. The descriptions in that case are reflective of what the character is experiencing and their experience in this place is critical to who they are and how they are developing. The setting of the Congo in Heart of Darkness is absolutely critical (in the same way Vietnam is critical to Apocalypse Now), so it makes sense that he spends a lot of time on that topic. It's been too long since I've read Nabokov to have any opinion on that, and I'll just have to disagree with you on Dostoevsky. I've only read the Brothers Karamazov, admittedly, but that was not a stylistic tactic of his that I noticed. 



> Yes, I think Tolkien is a good example of what I'm talking about, as you said. But of course he's been quite popular for a long time, and even if you don't like a lot of fantasy, plenty of people do. So when it comes to whether something 'should' be presented in a certain way, you have to ask from whose perspective you're talking about.



 Tolkien is popular, but I don't think he's popular because of his writing style which wasn't all that great. He was creative, passionate, etc. and that made his work great, but it's not popular because he's a great prose worker (Oddly enough, I always found his character poetry quite good while I think Howard's is lacking).



> Should I, as a writer, write a certain way just because one person thinks I should? Or ten? If I like a certain style, and not only that it happens to do fairly well commercially, there doesn't seem to be a strong argument in favor of me not writing that way.



 No, you shouldn't. Nor should I embrace overly descriptive writing because that is what is popular in the genre.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 14, 2013)

Shockley said:


> The setting of the Congo in Heart of Darkness is absolutely critical (in the same way Vietnam is critical to Apocalypse Now), so it makes sense that he spends a lot of time on that topic. It's been too long since I've read Nabokov to have any opinion on that, and I'll just have to disagree with you on Dostoevsky. I've only read the Brothers Karamazov, admittedly, but that was not a stylistic tactic of his that I noticed.



I agree with regard to Heart of Darkness. The same argument would be true of his book Victory, and also of portions of Chance. But Conrad is quite descriptive in The Secret Agent, for example, and that is set in London. 

With respect to Dostoevsky, I wouldn't go so far to call it a tactic of his, but I do think he has extraneous details in his work. 

Ultimately, I enjoy a wide range of fiction, so it doesn't matter to me which style or approach an author takes (it might on a given day, depending on what I'm in the mood to read, but in the long run it doesn't matter). I think every writer should write in the style they wish, and not worry about trying to please any given person with it. There are enough readers out there to support a wide range of literary styles.


----------



## Shockley (Aug 14, 2013)

> I agree with regard to Heart of Darkness. The same argument would be true of his book Victory, and also of portions of Chance. But Conrad is quite descriptive in The Secret Agent, for example, and that is set in London.



 Yes, well, I think you should get some leeway if you are writing pre-television. That's how I'm able to reconcile my style snobbery with Tolstoy, at least.



> With respect to Dostoevsky, I wouldn't go so far to call it a tactic of his, but I do think he has extraneous details in his work.



 Certainly, though not to the point that it ever became annoying or distracting. 



> Ultimately, I enjoy a wide range of fiction, so it doesn't matter to me which style or approach an author takes (it might on a given day, depending on what I'm in the mood to read, but in the long run it doesn't matter). I think every writer should write in the style they wish, and not worry about trying to please any given person with it. There are enough readers out there to support a wide range of literary styles.



 Agreed. The only reason I even commented in this thread was because I thought that a certain style - Chekhov's style, which I don't particularly enjoy -  was being pushed as the correct way to write.


----------



## Chessie (Aug 14, 2013)

Personally, I think descriptive writing is fading away in the fantasy genre. At least from what I've seen with GRRM and Joe Abercrombie, for instance. Their writing is simple, straight to the point, with enough description there to set the background aura. I find their writing to be very different from Tolkien, lets say. They are all fantastic writers, with popular stories written in their own way. No way is the right/wrong way, I think everyone here can agree on that. 

However, I think the fantasy genre is unique in its need for more description because of setting. We're creating magical worlds here, and readers need a bit more "oomph" to help them visualize what the hell we're talking about. Sure, it can be taken too far, but there's people out there that still want to read it. 

I'd like to further Steerpike's comment on how there's mention of plants or animals in stories that have no bearing to the plot, etc. If anything, it provides the reader a deeper picture of the setting, which can be helpful in putting the entire framework of story together. Setting _is_ part of the story, especially in fantasy.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 14, 2013)

Shockley said:


> Agreed. The only reason I even commented in this thread was because I thought that a certain style - Chekhov's style, which I don't particularly enjoy -  was being pushed as the correct way to write.



Ah. Well, yes, I agree that no one style should be pushed as the correct way.


----------



## C Hollis (Aug 14, 2013)

My own thoughts on the quote, the one that's been making the rounds in paraphrased form for over ten years now:

For me, it's a yes and no.  One hundred years ago, that flowery prose was the norm, not so much today.  Is it dead?  Not by a long shot, but it is less prevalent.  

In my writings, the moon shines when I want it to, and broken glass reflects moonlight when it is needed to show the character of the environment.  Of course, I tend to be economical with my words, because (just a humble opinion, remember) we do live in an age where immediate satisfaction is desired.  However, I do not omit a good description at the cost of the story.  There is a balance to be struck.

Then again, it is MY style of writing.

I don't tend to judge stories by their long-windedness, or brevity.  My only real gauge is how long it takes for me to read them.  I enjoy them, or hate them, just the same.  Though I do have friends on either side of the coin.  A very close friend refuses to read any more Stephen King because he doesn't give a hoot what color the vase on the freaking laminated oak table is.  Heck, I think I've read everything by Mr. King and never realized there was a vase in his books.

I do find the different styles of this group interesting, and refreshing.  Heck, if we all followed the same path, our readers would read one book and be done.  And it just bolsters my belief that what may be right or wrong for a writer, isn't necessarily right or wrong for writing.


----------



## SeverinR (Aug 16, 2013)

Shockley said:


> I think the status of the moon, unless your character is a werewolf or a lunatic, is probably irrelevant to what your characters are doing, saying or thinking.
> 
> Far be it from me to crap all over Chekhov, though, so I'll let Hemingway do it: "Chekhov wrote about 6 good stories. But he was an amateur writer."



I think you can artistically paint the backdrop scenery, otherwise it would be pretty bland.
The brown trees,blue sky, green grass.
There is a broad spectrum between under describing and over describing the scenery behind the characters. Also taking time to smell the flowers shows a relaxed setting, running through the woods would illuminate different descriptions, rocky uneven footing, mudpuddles splashed in.
How the characters interact with the props tells about story as well as the backdrop.
****
"Rushing through the tall grass, dogs baying behind him, racing past he notices a pink flower with yellow center, and bright green leaves, a smell of sweet perfume."
****
To me the story just tripped over the description, the MC is being chased but suddenly the scene is stopped by a flower.


----------



## Guru Coyote (Aug 16, 2013)

SeverinR said:


> ****
> "Rushing through the tall grass, dogs baying behind him, racing past he notices a pink flower with yellow center, and bright green leaves, a smell of sweet perfume."
> ****
> To me the story just tripped over the description, the MC is being chased but suddenly the scene is stopped by a flower.



Or... this flower is a sign of a much greater danger? Is it poisonous? Or does it tell the MC that he has just crossed into the land of the fay?


----------



## Shockley (Aug 16, 2013)

Not to be that guy, Severin, but if I picked up a book and read that sentence I would put it down.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Aug 16, 2013)

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but would your character notice the moon shining? If you're doing first-person or third-person limited, what your character notices may demonstrate what they find important. (For instance, I've done characters who become less observant in the presence of someone they're attracted to.)


----------



## PaulineMRoss (Aug 17, 2013)

This is an interesting discussion. I agree with Chesterama, most fantasy really needs some description of the scenery so the reader can visualise it properly. Even in a real-world setting, I like to have some indication of where the characters are. I've just been reading J K Rowling's murder mystery (The Cuckoo's Calling), and this is something she really does well, I think. Here's a description of a pub:

_"Inside the Feathers, machines were clinking and jingling and flashing primary-coloured lights; the wall-mounted plasma TVs, surrounded with padded leather, were showing West Bromwich Albion versus Chelsea with the sound off, while Amy Winehouse throbbed and moaned from hidden speakers. The names of ales were painted on the cream wall above the long bar, which faced a wide dark-wood staircase with curving steps and shining brass handrails, leading up to the first floor."_

Or a garden:

_"A large magnolia tree stood in the front garden of Lucy’s house in Bromley. Later in the spring it would cover the front lawn in what looked like crumpled tissues; now, in April, it was a frothy cloud of white, its petals waxy as coconut shavings."_

She's even better on descriptions of people:

_"The unbuttoned neck of her thin silk shirt revealed an expanse of butterscotch skin stretched over her bony sternum, giving an unattractively knobbly effect; yet two full, firm breasts jutted from her narrow ribcage, as though they had been borrowed for the day from a fuller-figured friend."_

Or this:

_"The dying woman wore a thick ivory-coloured bed jacket and reclined, dwarfed by her carved wooden bed, on many white pillows. No trace of Lady Bristow’s youthful prettiness remained. The raw bones of the skeleton were clearly delineated now, beneath fine skin that was shiny and flaking. Her eyes were sunken, filmy and dim, and her wispy hair, fine as a baby’s, was grey against large expanses of pink scalp. Her emaciated arms lay limp on top of the covers, a catheter protruded. Her death was an almost palpable presence in the room, as though it stood waiting patiently, politely, behind the curtains."_

They're quite wordy, and maybe you'll think they're over the top, but for me they create a very effective image in my mind.


----------



## Shockley (Aug 17, 2013)

> This is an interesting discussion. I agree with Chesterama, most fantasy really needs some description of the scenery so the reader can visualise it properly. Even in a real-world setting, I like to have some indication of where the characters are. I've just been reading J K Rowling's murder mystery (The Cuckoo's Calling), and this is something she really does well, I think. Here's a description of a pub:



 My objection here is that most fantasy writers are not working in a world where every tree, flower, etc. is so uniquely different from the ones on Earth that they need in-depth description. For most writers and readers, a forest is a forest is a forest. I think, that by being sparse with your words and packing as much meaning as you can into every single one of them you can write a much better story than someone who has told me all about the details of the room and not all that much about the story or the characters. 

 To explain this, I want to go back to Severin's example of a descriptive scene: He is describing his character as rushing, racing, etc. This is important, because it is what the character is doing and it is what hooks me in - I want to know why his character is running. Then we get the description, and it takes me out of the story - if the character can stop to note the details of this flower, they aren't really rushing and I'm taken out of the story and the pacing gets all weird. 

 Or to Rowling's: Most of those scenes could be cut by 50% and still have as much weight. I don't need to know about the bed, or that the magnolia tree will later shed, etc. What I need to know is the story.


----------



## Guru Coyote (Aug 17, 2013)

Shockley said:


> My objection here is that most fantasy writers are not working in a world where every tree, flower, etc. is so uniquely different from the ones on Earth that they need in-depth description. For most writers and readers, a forest is a forest is a forest. I think, that by being sparse with your words and packing as much meaning as you can into every single one of them you can write a much better story than someone who has told me all about the details of the room and not all that much about the story or the characters.
> 
> To explain this, I want to go back to Severin's example of a descriptive scene: He is describing his character as rushing, racing, etc. This is important, because it is what the character is doing and it is what hooks me in - I want to know why his character is running. Then we get the description, and it takes me out of the story - if the character can stop to note the details of this flower, they aren't really rushing and I'm taken out of the story and the pacing gets all weird.
> 
> Or to Rowling's: Most of those scenes could be cut by 50% and still have as much weight. I don't need to know about the bed, or that the magnolia tree will later shed, etc. What I need to know is the story.



The question being: what IS the story? To different readers it will be different things.

I think this is a good place to bring up Orson Scott Card's M.I.C.E quotient... Some stories are about Milieu, some about Idea, others about character and well, some about Events.
M.I.C.E. QUOTIENT

What you stated with 'I need the story' would likely be something between Character and Event.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 17, 2013)

I guess what's important is the timing. How and when matters. I probably wouldn't want to interrupt a tense action scene with descriptions of things that aren't essential to the action. On the other hand, I don't mind fluffing out and describing a setting when things are quiet.

I think how you describe the setting for a scene can have an impact on the overall mood of it. If what's happening in the scene is slow and laid back, describe it that way. If there's going to be action, let that be reflected in how you're describing the surroundings.
Mind you, I don't have much experience with this so I could very well be wrong. It's something I'll be trying out when the time comes though.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 17, 2013)

Description that makes me feel like I'm there, with the character, is what I enjoy as a reader. There's no one way to accomplish that feat. Considering Rowling's writing, a lot of her description is necessary to invoke a sense of wonder in the reader (same as HP when he sees them), the twisting staircases & paintings which come alive for example. In Abercrombie''s writing, his minimalist approach, focusing on a few key points of setting works just as well, but in a different fashion. There the reader has more discretion to build the imagery of setting. However, since his settings are not so uncommon as Rowling's, minimalist description works.

Regardless of the effect the writer is trying to stir in the reader, there is a commonality....the reader should feel a part of the happenings.

"Good writing is supposed to evoke sensation.... Not the fact that it is raining, but the feeling of being rained upon. - E.L. DOCTOROW


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 17, 2013)

I'm of the same view as T.Allen.Smith. A newspaper article can convey the facts of a story. I want something presented in the characteristic style of the author that does more than simply tell the story.


----------



## Shockley (Aug 17, 2013)

Guru Coyote said:


> The question being: what IS the story? To different readers it will be different things.
> 
> I think this is a good place to bring up Orson Scott Card's M.I.C.E quotient... Some stories are about Milieu, some about Idea, others about character and well, some about Events.
> M.I.C.E. QUOTIENT
> ...



 That depends entirely on what the story is - if the story is about a bunch of people who have been kidnapped and taken to Fantasy Mars, then feel free to take some time to develop the environment, the fauna, the flora, etc. It's not something I know so I don't particularly mind being taken down that road. If your story is a guy in a forest, well, I know what a tree looks like. 

 Here's my basic philosophy: Imagine you are sitting down with a friend and telling him a story. You have to entertain, get the point across and make sure he doesn't want to run off to some other story teller. If you sit there telling your friend what a flower looks like, he's going to go elsewhere.


----------



## wordwalker (Aug 17, 2013)

In other words, style.

Not "this story *is* more __" because different writers can tell the same story different ways, even if some concepts are more obviously alien than others-- and that can mean different levels of detail on different things. Some pull it off well, and some readers just prefer more or less detail anyway.

The real question is, what _makes_ more-detailed or less-detailed description work, and maybe how a writer could decide when to use which.


----------



## Chessie (Aug 17, 2013)

Shockley said:


> My objection here is that most fantasy writers are not working in a world where every tree, flower, etc. is so uniquely different from the ones on Earth that they need in-depth description. For most writers and readers, a forest is a forest is a forest. I think, that by being sparse with your words and packing as much meaning as you can into every single one of them you can write a much better story


OK, but we're taking this a bit far by using flowers and trees as the objects of description. Some things need more description than others. Characters, for example, require more attention because they are at the center of the story vs a flower.

I (kindly) disagree with short precise words all the time. Descriptions should add in feeling and vibe to the story. Too much is too much, but short and precise can leave a scene void of feeling if done poorly. Its all a balancing act. I think a well written paragraph can do more than 3 paragraphs about the same thing.


----------

