# Who says modern novels can't employ descriptive writing



## Steerpike (Jul 10, 2012)

I like heavily descriptive writing. I also like lean and mean writing. Descriptive writing is harder to do well, in my view. I had a thread about losing "voice" in modern novels a while back, and about how the modern style often seems to be more generic. I made the point in that thread that I thought things were trending back the other way, and the descriptive writing may be staging at least a little bit of a comeback. A few others noted that the pendulum is always swinging.

I was reading an article about the lack of a Pulitzer this year, and one of the members of the Pulitzer Fiction Jury lamenting this fact (he felt there were novels that deserved it). One that he and others agreed upon was _The Pale King_, by David Foster Wallace. This member of the "Pulitzer jury" stated that the opening paragraph alone of Wallace's book was more powerful than other entire books they'd reviewed. The two other members of the "jury" who submitted finalists for Pulitzer consideration agreed.

Here is the first sentence to _The Pale King_:



> Past the flannel plains and the blacktop graphs and skylines of canted rust, and past the tobacco-brown river overhung with weeping trees and coins of sunlight through them on the water downriver, to the place beyond the windbreak, where untilled fields simmer shrilly in the a.m. heat: shattercane, lamb’s-quarter, cutgrass, sawbrier, nutgrass, jimsonweed, wild mint, dandelion, foxtail, muscatine, spinecabbage, goldenrod, creeping charlie, butter-print, nightshade, ragweed, wild oat, vetch, butcher grass, invaginate volunteer beans, all heads gently nodding in a morning breeze like a mother’s soft hand on your cheek.



I can promise you that if you posted such an opening in a writing forum (fantasy or otherwise) you'd get the automatic "purple prose" reactions that seem to plague so many such forums. Nevertheless, you have the three people who make the final recommendations to the Pulitzer committee agreeing that this one definitely goes on the list.

Not that the award, lack of award, nomination, or lack of nomination is in and of itself the dispositive factor in determining the worth of a book. That rests within each individual reader. But I think the opening above shows that the modern audience is at least receptive to a more artistic (or perhaps expressionistic) prose.

What say you?


----------



## Saigonnus (Jul 10, 2012)

I would say overall it's good, save for the excess of plant varieties at the end... it shows the writer knows his stuff but how does that affect the characters?


----------



## Bear (Jul 10, 2012)

I am all for beautiful prose and descriptive writing. Sometimes I get a bit purple but I feel the description enriches the experience of the reader. If I am reading something I want to be able to imagine the smells, the breeze, the lighting, the emotion, ect... In the review of my first book I was touted as having 'powerful' description. One of the sentences that the critic liked was    

"An enormous white bear lumbered down the path without abandon. Her shadow flickered in the anemic moonlight."

Well that's two sentences but the critic liked the second part about the anemic moonlight.  I am definitely a writer that likes writing descriptive prose.

The bad part is I also get a bit purply as shown here -"The sound embraced an acute silhouette, which gathered speed, akin to a large boulder affirming gravity by the actuation of movement. With the force and violence of a hammer to the head of a nail, the throbbing struck home an uncanny, crippling force."

It's all about balance.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 10, 2012)

It's certainly interesting to hear that. I read the sent... Okay I tried to read it. Seems like a list to me. 

You're right though, it would get shredded in a critique group. I'd do it myself admittedly.

The only thing I can say to this is we may be making a distinction between what some view as art and others view as entertainment. When I read, I want to be entertained. Someone else may read to experience art.

I'm not suggesting that art & entertainment are mutually exclusive but I'm quite certain entertainment sells better than art. Literature as entertainment is a business. It's a commercial business that defines success by volume and dollars generated. Bearing that in mind, I believe that most of our moderns styles tend to cater more towards the streamlined because it will appeal to a broader range of people.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jul 10, 2012)

I really love descriptive writing:  when it's done well.

I recently read some advice about writing that said something to the effect of, "If you are masterful at descriptive writing, then you can do it.  If you're not, then don't do it."  Only certain people have the ability to write this way and get away with it.  Steve Erikson is another that would get the "purple prose stamp" I'm sure.  But the way he writes his scenes are very evocative.  He's not describing mundane things; he's describing gathered armies, crackling magic, and forgotten tombs.  

I think that excerpt you posted from The Pale King is quite excellent.  The difference between this section and stuff you may see elsewhere, is that it's descriptive in a way that you don't feel like it's just there for window dressing.  Which I think a lot of descriptive writing is.  The images pop in my mind.  

Here's the thing though:  there are too many varying opinions on what is good and what is bad writing.  Some may read that opening paragraph and say "Ugh, where's the action?" or "Ugh, where are the characters?"  or any number of criticisms.  Good writing stands out.  Even though I don't typically like (or write) descriptively, I appreciate it when it's done well.

I'll make this analogy.  When I hear a masterful Mozart piece, I can recognize that it's awesome and appreciate its art.  Do I want to listen to Mozart everyday?  No.  However, I listen to lots of K-Pop (Korean pop.)  It's definitely not more masterful than Mozart, but it's more enjoyable to listen to for me.  The analogy being if I read The Pale King, I'd probably like it, but not want to read something much like it for quite a bit.  Meanwhile, I could probably sit and re-read a bunch of old Dragonlance or Forgotten Realms books all day long with a big smile on my face.

So I think there's definitely a place for descriptive writing still.  Just whoever is writing it better be really, really good.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 10, 2012)

Saigonnus said:


> I would say overall it's good, save for the excess of plant varieties at the end... it shows the writer knows his stuff but how does that affect the characters?



I don't think it necessarily has to. It establishes an atmosphere and setting, and the characters act within that context.


----------



## Bear (Jul 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think it necessarily has to. It establishes an atmosphere and setting, and the characters act within that context.



That's kind of the mantra that I went for in my first work. I went for the atmosphere and setting and the characters just played the part in the area around them. I don't know but to me the heavy description breaths life into books that would other wise be bland.  That's just my opinion. I've read some bad purple prose though and I guess it's like anything. Take the good with the bad.

Some of that heavy description can play a part in character development. I spent a paragraph or so describing blue bird slippers that my main character wore to show her femininity. Then that could offer up another question. How much time do you want to spend on characterization? With that being said in that same story I spent two paragraphs describing water running down a window and cigarette smoke cutting through sun beams. Personally, I loved the writing but some readers did comment on they got a bit bored. Many people just want to jump to the action but then things can get generic.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 10, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> It's certainly interesting to hear that. I read the sent... Okay I tried to read it. Seems like a list to me.
> 
> You're right though, it would get shredded in a critique group. I'd do it myself admittedly.
> 
> ...



I like the opening sentence above, personally. I think the distinction between art and entertainment is a good one, and as you say I do think there is overlap there. I found the Gormenghast books quite entertaining, and if there is a more densely descriptive fantasy work out there, I don't know about it. I also thought Nabokov's _Lolita_ was excellent, and there the writing itself is part of the entertainment experience.

I also like crime novelists like Michael Connelly and Robert Crais, however, and they both employ a fairly fast, lean style (Crais moreso than Connelly). So in part it depends on what I am in the mood for, I suppose. I am entertained by both styles, assuming the author has done her job well.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 10, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> So I think there's definitely a place for descriptive writing still.  Just whoever is writing it better be really, really good.



Yes. I think this is the thing. It is hard to write this sort of thing well. If you're Mervyn Peake, or Angela Carter, then great. If you can't do it well, you're better off sticking to a lean style of writing, or at least something in between.


----------



## Bear (Jul 10, 2012)

Actually, that first passage did seem like a list. Kind of a bit of author intrusion maybe? Personally, I could of been happy with reading just one or two examples. I felt like I was in botany class for a moment


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 10, 2012)

Bear said:


> Actually, that first passage did seem like a list. Kind of a bit of author intrusion maybe?



I think so. A bit. I don't mind that either. Peake (to use him as an example again) is full of authorial intrusion. But he does it very well.


----------



## Bear (Jul 10, 2012)

I got blamed for author intrusion in my first book. Looking back I think the main reason was I just wanted to make sure people knew what a particular object was that I used as a metaphor or something. Then again, I got blasted for using to many metaphors. So perhaps, my book needed more author intrusion. That brings up an interesting question in how smart do you think your readers are and how do you present material without insulting their intelligence.  A wise man once said Don't paint seagulls in someone's picture...

Kind of makes me think that the key to description is to just nudge readers with the right words so you don't ruin the vivid picture that the words create.


----------



## Devor (Jul 10, 2012)

I read the sentence and didn't like it at all, but it crossed my mind a moment later that I might think differently if I saw it in a book.

Do we read things differently just because we're seeing them online?  Is that maybe part of why forums tend to get testy about it?


----------



## Saigonnus (Jul 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think it necessarily has to. It establishes an atmosphere and setting, and the characters act within that context.



I know that, I suppose in the right context it could add depth or the sensation of a place "teeming" with life, but I probably wouldn't have included all that extraneous stuff, especially considering the reader likely doesn't know what most of those plant look/smell like etc.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 10, 2012)

Steerpike,

When I read your intro to the piece, I thought (I'm not making this up; I really did): though I'm a fan of modern writing.  I like a good descriptive passage every once and again.  I'll probably like it.

You can probably guess that I absolutely hated it.  Take the first line and a half and made a sentence out of it, maybe it'd be okay.


----------



## Bear (Jul 10, 2012)

Saigonnus said:


> I know that, I suppose in the right context it could add depth or the sensation of a place "teeming" with life, but I probably wouldn't have included all that extraneous stuff, especially considering the reader likely doesn't know what most of those plant look/smell like etc.



Now, what if he went on to describe the smells and such. That would of been crazy immersion.

Speaking of description, I don't know if any of you have ever read Sometimes A Great Notion by Ken Kesey. His writing was so beautiful. He is an incredible influence in my writing.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 10, 2012)

BWFoster78 said:


> You can probably guess that I absolutely hated it.  Take the first line and a half and made a sentence out of it, maybe it'd be okay.



Yeah, I didn't think you'd care for it. I liked it, personally. Not how I would write it, and I like someone like Peake or Carter better.

The interesting thing to me, I suppose, is that given the wide variety of tastes and opinions on such things we still see so much absolutism in writing forums, or even in books on writing. You "have" to do X, or you "can't" do Y. I think if there's one thing a review of the literature tells you, it's that you can do anything you damn well please if you're good enough


----------



## Saigonnus (Jul 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, I didn't think you'd care for it. I liked it, personally. Not how I would write it, and I like someone like Peake or Carter better.
> 
> The interesting thing to me, I suppose, is that given the wide variety of tastes and opinions on such things we still see so much absolutism in writing forums, or even in books on writing. You "have" to do X, or you "can't" do Y. I think if there's one thing a review of the literature tells you, it's that you can do anything you damn well please if you're good enough



I agree with the absolutism theory as we see it everyday. I don't try to do it how people say it should be done... I do it how I think it should be done. If someone says something or I read something that changes how I do it, it's my choice to alter my style.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jul 10, 2012)

> Past the flannel plains and the blacktop graphs and skylines of canted rust, and past the tobacco-brown river overhung with weeping trees and coins of sunlight through them on the water downriver, to the place beyond the windbreak, where untilled fields simmer shrilly in the a.m. heat: shattercane, lamb’s-quarter, cutgrass, sawbrier, nutgrass, jimsonweed, wild mint, dandelion, foxtail, muscatine, spinecabbage, goldenrod, creeping charlie, butter-print, nightshade, ragweed, wild oat, vetch, butcher grass, invaginate volunteer beans, all heads gently nodding in a morning breeze like a mother’s soft hand on your cheek.



I don't mind descriptive writing, but in this case I'd have cut most of the list of plants out of the sentence.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 10, 2012)

ThinkerX said:


> I don't mind descriptive writing, but in this case I'd have cut most of the list of plants out of the sentence.



I think I'd leave it. Whether I know all of the plants or not (I don't), the recitation of them really sets the image and tone of that sentence. Take it out, and you have something completely different. I suspect Wallace spent a lot of time on it. 

Also, I don't know if this is an omniscience view or seen through the eyes of a character, but if it is the latter, that listing of plants tells you an awful lot about the character as well.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jul 10, 2012)

> I think I'd leave it. Whether I know all of the plants or not (I don't), the recitation of them really sets the image and tone of that sentence. Take it out, and you have something completely different. I suspect Wallace spent a lot of time on it.



You are probably right.

I did try to read that book twice, but kept getting lost in the wordage.  That happens sometimes.

BWFoster is probably right that the sentence would work better for most people if about two thirds of it was hacked out.


----------



## Jabrosky (Jul 10, 2012)

I don't particularly like the excerpt quoted in the OP, but descriptive paragraphs do have their place, especially when introducing a character or setting for the first time or creating an atmosphere. That said, it really helps to weave descriptions into the action whenever you can.

The oft-abused phrase "purple prose" doesn't capture the problem with bad descriptions very well. "Amethyst prose", though less alliterative, would work better because it provides an example of description that truly sounds pretentious and merely confuses people. Good description enhances rather than obscures the message one wants to get across.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jul 10, 2012)

This novel won a Pulitzer right?  It must be do something right then.  Even if it's not your taste (not directed at anyone particularly), it won awards.  So it must be good in someone's book.  That's often the problem that I think faces writers in general.  Your writing is being judged on how good it is depending on other people's tastes.  While some may love 50 Shade of Grey, others hate it.  Others must have loved The Pale King.  If an editor or panel or whoever gives something an award, then there's obviously a reason for it.  

For what it is, I think the excerpt is fine.  I can't reasonably critique someone's writing when I haven't been widely published myself.  I just find that somehow...funny?  If someone else is "on my level" (meaning probably unpublished) then I feel more comfortable finding fault with it.  It doesn't mean my opinion is any better than the next person's though.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 10, 2012)

I get what you're saying Phil & agree for the most part. Obviously the writer is doing something right.

However, a critique is largely a matter of opinion anyway (most grammar rules excluded). So if people can have an opinion towards an author's writing I see no reason why they can't also critique that writing. Just because someone is published or not doesn't mean people stop having valid opinions on their writing style.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 10, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> This novel won a Pulitzer right?  It must be do something right then.



No. There was no Pulitzer given out this year, as I understand it. This novel was one of three finalists unanimously recommended to the Pulitzer committee. That puts it in rare company, alone, prize or not. I think you're right in that it comes down to tastes. I am hopeful people will remember that when critiquing. I hate to see a new writer who hasn't found her voice yet discouraged because someone who is critiquing can't tell the difference between their subjective opinion and an objective standard of writing. I've seen people tell others the way they write is "wrong" because it is too descriptive. That is incorrect. It may be that the description doesn't work, but that's a separate issue.

The anecdote I like to tell relates to my first fiction sale, back in 2001 or so. I posted it for a critique on a writing forum, and the unanimous decision was that it was way too descriptive and I needed to change it. I re-read the piece again and decided no, it was in the style I was going for, and I was leaving it (and it was very heavy on what you might call 'flowery' language and description). I kept submitting it and lo and behold it was my first sale. 

At that time, I'd already been on the editorial board of a journal and done a lot of non-fiction freelancing, so I was confident enough in my writing that I didn't let the critiques sway me. I considered them - the people making comments were, by and large, good writers and it was worth giving thought to their comments - but ultimately I decided changing the story to a more lean prose style would ruin it, and so I stuck with it.

Had I written that same piece at age 19 and been told by everyone that I was doing it wrong and had to change it, who knows...I might have actually believed them. Bad advice (or at least the inability of a critiquer to distinguish his opinion from objective reality) can have a detrimental impact on beginning writers. When critiques go to style, I think it is wise for critiquers to stay away from absolute language. Give the advice, but acknowledge it for what it is.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 10, 2012)

That's a good point Steerpike and nicely put.

I agree with everything but with a small caveat. When you ,as the writer, put a piece out to be critiqued you're asking for people's opinions. If you're going to do that you need to realize that sometimes its going to touch on style (whether appropriate or not). Furthermore, people often talk in absolutes when giving opinions. This is especially true when it pertains to their personal perceptions of something.

It's easier (and more valuable in my opinion) for the writer to develop a thick hide than it is to change the way people critique. I'm not saying this isn't worth consideration (it is). It's just opinions though. Throw away those that don't work.


----------



## Philip Overby (Jul 10, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I get what you're saying Phil & agree for the most part. Obviously the writer is doing something right.
> 
> However, a critique is largely a matter of opinion anyway (most grammar rules excluded). So if people can have an opinion towards an author's writing I see no reason why they can't also critique that writing. Just because someone is published or not doesn't mean people stop having valid opinions on their writing style.



I think you're right in that just because someone is published, doesn't mean it should stop people from critiquing them.  However, I think it should be done more of in a review way than a critique way.  If that makes sense.  Reviews often point out what did and didn't work, where I feel like a critique seems to be suggesting changes.  If someone reviews the book, then fine.  But critiquing the way someone, who is published, writes seems kind of bizarre to me.  Maybe it's just me though.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Jul 11, 2012)

I think there's a good chance the Pulitzer judges would not have thought much of that initial paragraph if DFW's name wasn't attached to it. (I'd like to see them go a year locked in a room, not exposed to any hype or publicity, reading books that have been stripped of author information, and then pick which ones they liked the most.)

Not that there's anything wrong with DFW's paragraph if that's the sort of thing you like; for me, a little of that goes a long way. I tend to get bored of the lengthy descriptives. Listing twenty grass species doesn't interest or impress me. I don't need that much mood-setting.

This is the main reason why I don't care about other people's opinions of my stylistic choices. I don't go in much for lengthy descriptions (in fact in my exploratory writing there tend to be virtually none; I have to go back in and add some or it's too dry), but I've got no interest in writing to please other people. Plot holes, character inconsistencies, thematic confusion; sure, that's feedback I'm willing to take. I'd never post a piece and ask for comments about whether people thought it was too wordy or too terse. That's style, and my style is mine.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 11, 2012)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> It's easier (and more valuable in my opinion) for the writer to develop a thick hide than it is to change the way people critique. I'm not saying this isn't worth consideration (it is). It's just opinions though. Throw away those that don't work.



Yes, that is true, and it may be that my concerns are overblown. I have seen, many times, writers (particularly those just beginning) get really down on their own work over critiques presented in this manner. I absolutely agree that writers need a thick skin, however. And you need to develop the ability to stick to your guns in the face of criticism, as well as to realize when a critiquer is right and make a change to your work. If I see a comment presented as an absolute when it really is not (not much is after all) I try to jump in and make the counterpoint, however


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 11, 2012)

Phil the Drill said:


> But critiquing the way someone, who is published, writes seems kind of bizarre to me.  Maybe it's just me though.



I've read some really, really BAD published books!


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 11, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I'd never post a piece and ask for comments about whether people thought it was too wordy or too terse. That's style, and my style is mine.



I agree. And I generally ignore such advice when given because I've already thought through the style I want to use.


----------



## J.P. Reedman (Jul 11, 2012)

I prefer a descriptive style, and, apparently 'visual imagery' and a feel for the landscape it what I've been told are my writing strong points. I'm not keen on very sparse novels, with short broken sentences throughout. (I read one thrilled recently, that had me in stitches. Something like  'The train went over the cliff. It landed on a ledge. They made to escape. A Nazi jumped out! They shot the Nazi...' I'm being facetious here but it was written in such short sentences in this deliberately 'breathless' way, it was almost comical.)
  I think in fantasy, in particular, you can get away with a bit more description; in fact, might even need it to build a complete world. But as other's have said, there is an art to it--it's  no good writing paragraphs full of cliche and overblown descriptions.


----------



## Saigonnus (Jul 11, 2012)

Just because a book has won a pulitzer prize, doesn't mean i'd pick it up and read it... most of those that I have read that won a pulitzer have bored the s%$t out of me truth be told. I think the commitee are bunch of dusty old men and woman who may have a doctorate in literature from Cambridge or Harvard, and may even be authors themselves, but even that doesn't mean they know what good writing is. 

"Excrement! That's what I think of Mr. J. Evans Pritchard! We're not laying pipe! We're talking about poetry. How can you describe poetry like American Bandstand? "I like Byron, I give him a 42 but I can't dance to it!" John Keating in Dead Poet's Society commenting about the "scale" used to rate poetry.

I feel that likely the commitee uses a similar scale or process when "rating" a book.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 11, 2012)

Saigonnus said:


> Just because a book has won a pulitzer prize, doesn't mean i'd pick it up and read it... most of those that I have read that won a pulitzer have bored the s%$t out of me truth be told. I think the commitee are bunch of dusty old men and woman who may have a doctorate in literature from Cambridge or Harvard, and may even be authors themselves, but even that doesn't mean they know what good writing is.



I think this just underscores how subjective it is. They may think it is good writing and you may not. Neither is wrong, in my view.


----------



## Saigonnus (Jul 11, 2012)

Precisely... I do wonder though how they judge a book good enough to win the prize. I looked it up and most of the members of the judging commitee are in the NEWS business, whether editors, columnists or CEOs etc... writing for a newspaper is a bit different than a fantasy fiction or science fiction novel. How can they have people like that judge works of fiction or books in general?


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 11, 2012)

Saigonnus said:


> Precisely... I do wonder though how they judge a book good enough to win the prize.



That's a good question. The guy i mentioned who was a member of this group nominating books did a couple of pieces in the New Yorker explaining his thought processes and a bit of how things work. But the actual committee that makes the final determination doesn't divulge much as far as I know.


----------

