# What do you do to improve your descriptive writing?



## Geo (Mar 19, 2016)

A great description of the world around your characters is what gives a story it’s realism, it’s what allows the reader to fully immerse in the world you have created. But learning how/what to describe of the world I’ve imagined is one of my main writing challenges I face everyday, and from talks with other aspiring writers (and some recent posts here) it seems to be difficult for everybody, so I wanted to share a bit of what I do and ask others to tell about their tricks and strategies to improve their descriptions.

I like to write about what I know, so I take a lot of notes about details of the world around me to translate them later into my fantasy world. I also use parts of my own personal life to round up my characters (memories of what was happening around me as I was doing everyday things). Although none of the things I use are very spectacular or exotic by  themselves, and taken out of context such details might be uninteresting, they appeal to the senses, and I like to think that, when included in an action scene or a setting description, they give the story solidity, a sense of truthfulness.

And you, what do you do to make your descriptions better?


----------



## Vincent Lakes (Mar 19, 2016)

I've done sort of writing exercises to hone my skills in different aspects of the craft. I think of a certain kind of atmosphere, place a character in it, pretty much anything I can think to help me reach a certain goal, then I try to write as well as I can to achieve what I set myself to achieve whether it's character description or different kinds of environmental descriptions. I've also done some erotic pieces this way in order to make them work better in an actual story. I guess the idea behind this is that when I've done it once, and I've been content with the way it turned out, it's easier to embed it in larger context. Sometimes these exercises turn out so well that I extend them into short stories. In any case, I believe that practice is the best way to improve, so I try to make myself do it as often as I can no matter what aspect of writing is in question.


----------



## Jim Aikin (Mar 19, 2016)

(1) Colorful words. (2) Solidly constructed sentences. (3) Appeal directly to the senses. (4) Choose details that can hint at other things you haven't said.

For example, a little while ago I wrote a description of three men in a dingy pub, and mentioned that they were sitting at a much-scarred wood table, and that the sun shone in through a dirty window. Those two details tell us clearly what sort of pub it is. (Well, that and the fact that one of the men is missing an eye.) The state of the floor or the chairs, the fact that flies are buzzing around, the fact that none of the customers have bathed recently -- you can guess all that from the details that were given.


----------



## Letharg (Mar 19, 2016)

For me it's comes down to cutting description down to a few very crucial lines. Most of the time when I'm writing a scene I'll do my best to describe certain objects with details and word choices that convey the sort of feeling I'm trying to create. As such, I'm a firm believer that the reader's minds will fill in the rest of the details if I provide them with the right visual triggers. 

So for practice I mostly write and when I edit my writing I focus in on a single setting, figure out what exact feeling I want the reader to experience then try to wordsmith my way there. Usually you can get a lot of mileage of one single sentence if both the sounds of the words and the words themselves harmonise to crate a feeling. It's hard and it takes time but it's possible.


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 19, 2016)

I'll quote myself from another thread.



> Description flows out of your POV character. What gets "camera focus" and how it is described depends on the POV character. Two different characters put in the same scene will see, notice, and describe things differently.
> 
> Imagine a character describing a nobleman they happen to see on a street.
> 
> ...


----------



## Svrtnsse (Mar 21, 2016)

A while back I wrote this article for the frontpage here on Myhic Scribes: A BeginnerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Guide To Writing Descriptions Ã¢â‚¬“ Part 1

I got a really good response on it and figured I'd mention it here as it kind of ties in to the topic.

The main three points I'm trying to make are:
1. First impressions last.
2. Start with what the character sees first.
3. Don't go back and describe things the reader would already have created their own impression of.


----------



## Geo (Mar 21, 2016)

Letharg said:


> ... when I edit my writing I focus in on a single setting, figure out what exact feeling I want the reader to experience then try to wordsmith my way there. Usually you can get a lot of mileage of one single sentence if both the sounds of the words and the words themselves harmonise to crate a feeling. It's hard and it takes time but it's possible.



I also think that finding the right words is very important. Is not only the meaning of the word what matters but the image it conveys, two words may be synonyms but carry very different images. Looking for the right word may be time consuming, as it is always with good editing, but I think is word the hassle.


----------



## Letharg (Mar 23, 2016)

Geo said:


> I also think that finding the right words is very important. Is not only the meaning of the word what matters but the image it conveys, two words may be synonyms but carry very different images. Looking for the right word may be time consuming, as it is always with good editing, but I think is word the hassle.



Yeah, it can totally be worth it.

Another thing I have been focusing on is using how the word sounds to amplify the image I'm trying to create. For example when describing a harsh scene I try to use short and hard sounding words, avoiding anything flowery. This can, if done right, greatly amplify the way the words are communicated to the reader. I think I heard this tip on Writing Excuses or something like that and now I think of it every time I edit.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Mar 23, 2016)

In my opinion, great description does more than merely describe. Great description does work on multiple layers. Great description engages the readers mind, and choosing what to describe is important.

For example, what's most important about a room in an inn, or motel, or whatever temporary lodging fits your setting? What are you, the author, trying to convey?

Sure, you could just describe a standard bed, table, & chairs, but you'd be missing an opportunity. Rather, think about the motel's location. If it's a seedy part of town, choose descriptors that might suggest a poverty & crime-stricken area. Maybe the TV has bunny ear antenna. Maybe the mirror is cracked. Maybe there's a sliding iron plate on the door, used to identify someone outside. 

Another possible goal for description would be to convey information about its occupant. If we're in a medieval inn, we might describe luggage stacked high, or candles and incense burning, or some sheer fabric draped over the bed posts. I might do that if I wanted to inform the reader a well-to-do lady was renting the room, without just coming out and saying so.

This is a part of the "Show, don't tell" principle writers love to discuss, at length.

There are, of course, other possibilities. It might be the descriptive language itself that creates an effect, sets a mood, or brings an image we create, in our reader's mind, that brings the story to life.

An example another scribe offered as a favorite description they once read (I'm paraphrasing):

He had the look of a man you might find leaning on a pool table, finishing his beer, surveying a trashed bar as sirens wailed and grew louder. 

That description engages the reader's mind. The reader becomes a partner in the telling of this story by filling in the blanks from their own experience. The details don't matter here. The "bad ass" your reader envisions does. It's individual and different for each reader, but only on the surface. That personal connection between your story and your reader might be difficult to create, but it's powerful.

If you want to do the most work with the fewest powerful words, learning how to use description that works on many levels, at the same time, is of enormous value.


----------



## Geo (Mar 24, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> In my opinion, great description does more than merely describe. Great description does work on multiple layers. Great description engages the readers mind, and choosing what to describe is important...
> 
> ... If you want to do the most work with the fewest powerful words, learning how to use description that works on many levels, at the same time, is of enormous value.



I absolutely agree. Description works in several levels. In fact, I'm a believer than piling on those levels along a story gives it a real-life complexity. While simple descriptions are useful for certain moments and characters, more complex, rich descriptions (not in length or number of words, but in the images and associations they convey) help by deepening the characters/setting and the link between the reader and the story. 

However, one thing I have noticed, is that good descriptions may come easily, but excellent descriptions, the ones that have depth and purpose, take time and patience. You need to look for the right words, the appropriate feeling to convey, to look at the world from your character's point of view, but also as an outsider, as the reader, to find that connection. Many, who just started writing, feel that not getting things perfect the first time means they are not good enough, that they lack talent. I don't believe that, I think that the true mark of a good writer is learning to edit your work, learn to polish it. A first draft is just the starting point, the place where you put down the ideas, it's your manuscript's day of birth. It still has to grow, to pass adolescence, to mature, until it becomes the best version of itself.

As Hemingway once said: "Write drunk, edit sober."


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 27, 2016)

Try writing some stuff that is overly descriptive, tons of purple prose, etc., and then trim the fat until you have the essence of what you are trying to say.


----------



## AJ Stevens (Mar 30, 2016)

A few things I do, which really echo what has been written above.

First, and only because I have trouble with it, I occasionally stop and think how the character whose POV I'm writing would interpret what is around him/her. I tend to drift into how *I* would view it, so that's an important thing I have to take consideration of.

I think it's also important to remember how people receive information. Through the senses. While being careful not to overdo it, I make sure to use the full range of senses. Sight can play too heavy a role sometimes. Sound and smell are excellent for adding depth to a scene.

Finally, as some people have already mentioned: Less can often be more. Someone with scars is probably used to fighting, or has been on the wrong end of punishment/torture. Shabby clothing suggests a lack of wealth. A lilting voice invites readers to conclude (rightly or wrongly) that a person is pleasant. Tall, thick-trunked trees tell you a forest is old. Small, brief details that paint a big picture.


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 31, 2016)

AJ Stevens said:


> A few things I do, which really echo what has been written above.
> 
> First, and only because I have trouble with it, I occasionally stop and think how the character whose POV I'm writing would interpret what is around him/her. I tend to drift into how *I* would view it, so that's an important thing I have to take consideration of.
> 
> ...



Economy of words means you are working smarter and not harder, not to mention making editors happy with less pages to read.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 31, 2016)

Miskatonic said:


> Economy of words means you are working smarter and not harder, not to mention making editors happy with less pages to read.



Economy of words is a wonderful thing, and yet it always boggles my brain as to how many are wasted in published works. This is really the case in my pet genre, epic fantasy. The only writer I've read recently who doesn't seem to pepper the page with wasted words is Cormac McCarthy, not fantasy, but in some ways fantasy-esque. Mind you, I don't want everyone to run out and try to emulate CM, the verbosity of fantasy is in some ways what makes it fun. However, there is pure waste, verbosity, and there is tight verbosity... maybe even another level, not enough information, a rare affliction in fantasy, LOL. 

Fantasy world building in 'ticular suffers from pure waste on a regular basis, and verbosity is pretty much expected. My personal opinion is that this basic expectation of extra info for depth of world tends to lead to a whole lot of loose writing in every aspect of the novel. If a writer is prone to dishing out massive detail in the world... well, it's going to be natural to babble incessantly about other things too. Somewhere in there is a fine line that IMO a lot of writers cross, and it's forgivable in the most part because the fantasy reading public is forgiving and expects some of it.

Excessive verbosity (and a lot of bad writing habits) is a self-propagating disease, in part because writers are naturally wordy and in part because of an old "rule" for writers which I get beat up on for beating up on... read read read! Reading lots of books is a great idea up to a point, but here's the thing... unless you are reading to learn what not to do, all it will do is teach you to write with all the bad habits you are reading (at best), and oh boy are there a pile of bad habits out there. Reading classics? Great, but they often follow antiquated rules of writing.  I recommend write write write! Study story structure, and then write, and then learn to write tight. And then tighter. Maybe even learn to write so tight it's strangling your prose, that's when you ease off... keep your words on a choke chain and eventually they'll obey you and achieve the greatest effect without wasting the reader's time, and the printer's paper. And at some point in there, stop reading books on writing, most are redundant after a short time.


----------



## Addison (Mar 31, 2016)

There are a few exercises I do to improve my descriptions. 

One is I make lists of descriptive terms. Like if there's a scene, current or incoming, where I'll be describing something red then I make a list of terms and words that could replace red. Same with slow, fast, strong, cold, etc. 

I describe the person/place/object as a riddle. Long or short, they usually start long but then they get shorter. 

Finally I describe the subject from many different views, each with their own voice, in different formats. I'll describe a house from the perspective of some squirrels in dialogue. Or in a narrative paragraph from the POV of a passing person of high society. Even through the perspective of a robber as they're robbing it. I've found this exercise useful if I haven't found the right voice and/or tone of the story.

Hope this helps, happy writing.


----------



## AJ Stevens (Mar 31, 2016)

Addison said:


> There are a few exercises I do to improve my descriptions.
> 
> One is I make lists of descriptive terms. Like if there's a scene, current or incoming, where I'll be describing something red then I make a list of terms and words that could replace red. Same with slow, fast, strong, cold, etc.
> 
> ...



Interesting, particularly the part about lists of descriptive terms. Do you drop them into your first draft? Or do you write 'red' and then go back and change it on the second pass? Do you find that disrupts your flow at all?


----------



## Addison (Mar 31, 2016)

Mmm, it depends on how well the writing is going. Usually I use the lists and the exercises prior to the writing as a way to get my brain running. If a list or any of the exercises don't work prior to the writing then the lists will come in handy during the revision.

I actually have some lists already made so if I get to a spot where I think a description could be better I just flip through them. When I first implemented this practice into my writing it was a little disruptive, like a speed bump on a race track, but I've gotten used to it.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 31, 2016)

One thing some folks will find useful is the good old word search... this won't teach you how to improve your description, but it can show you where to improve your description or prose in general if you expand your search.

A few to look for are: Look(ed), saw, see, feel, felt, feeling, hear, heard, smell, taste, -ly "b"adverbs. Plenty more to throw in, such as up and down, most directionals. These are a few important ones worthy of searching a manuscript for. Why? Two basic reasons, they are generic and sometimes redundant. I've been brutally destroying these words long enough now that I barely use them, but I  did catch one the other day. And sometimes it's just fine to use them so you have planted little red flags to say (improve here!) instead of slowing down writing progress.

I wish I could remember exactly what I found the other day... think it was a "felt". By the time I replaced that bugger the entire paragraph read better with more life, and I think it really only changed/added 6-7 words. It clarified everything I was trying to say, or at least I hope it did, LOL. 

And for good measure, I'll throw out a few more words that all writers should search for and consider improvement around: had, that, was, were, could, would... no, a person shouldn't replace them all, but replacing some and simply deleting others in certain cases can improve prose.


----------



## Miskatonic (Mar 31, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Economy of words is a wonderful thing, and yet it always boggles my brain as to how many are wasted in published works. This is really the case in my pet genre, epic fantasy. The only writer I've read recently who doesn't seem to pepper the page with wasted words is Cormac McCarthy, not fantasy, but in some ways fantasy-esque. Mind you, I don't want everyone to run out and try to emulate CM, the verbosity of fantasy is in some ways what makes it fun. However, there is pure waste, verbosity, and there is tight verbosity... maybe even another level, not enough information, a rare affliction in fantasy, LOL.
> 
> Fantasy world building in 'ticular suffers from pure waste on a regular basis, and verbosity is pretty much expected. My personal opinion is that this basic expectation of extra info for depth of world tends to lead to a whole lot of loose writing in every aspect of the novel. If a writer is prone to dishing out massive detail in the world... well, it's going to be natural to babble incessantly about other things too. Somewhere in there is a fine line that IMO a lot of writers cross, and it's forgivable in the most part because the fantasy reading public is forgiving and expects some of it.
> 
> Excessive verbosity (and a lot of bad writing habits) is a self-propagating disease, in part because writers are naturally wordy and in part because of an old "rule" for writers which I get beat up on for beating up on... read read read! Reading lots of books is a great idea up to a point, but here's the thing... unless you are reading to learn what not to do, all it will do is teach you to write with all the bad habits you are reading (at best), and oh boy are there a pile of bad habits out there. Reading classics? Great, but they often follow antiquated rules of writing.  I recommend write write write! Study story structure, and then write, and then learn to write tight. And then tighter. Maybe even learn to write so tight it's strangling your prose, that's when you ease off... keep your words on a choke chain and eventually they'll obey you and achieve the greatest effect without wasting the reader's time, and the printer's paper. And at some point in there, stop reading books on writing, most are redundant after a short time.



If the world you have created is so off the wall that a lot of it needs explanation because it's so far removed from what we are used to in our own world then having a decent amount of description makes sense; however if you are basing your fantasy world on something that could be comparable to a past time in our history then you probably don't need to do nearly as much. I can appreciate the time the author dedicated to learning about the middle ages, for example. They may know all about the culture but that doesn't mean we need an extremely detailed history lesson. If you mention a particular type of clothing that was worn say back in the 1600's, and your readers aren't familiar with it, it's probably better to leave it up to them to look it up online than to spend two paragraphs giving a description that will still be rather vague. GRRM does this more often than I would like, and even after he gets done with all the little details, I still don't have a solid idea of what the outfit looks like. If something in particular catches my eye then I'll usually wait until I'm done reading for the moment and look it up, because when it isn't something vital to the plot it isn't going to take me out of the story by not knowing about it. 

Part of it comes down to the "cool" factor. We imagine a castle in our minds and want to do it justice through description, yet this can lead us into a trap where being overly descriptive has the opposite effect. Two sentences might be enough but we convince ourselves that this castle is just so amazing that we need to keep adding more and more description. 

This also happens a lot with character descriptions, especially when trying to portray how attractive a person is. This is doubly so for female characters. I don't need several paragraphs of description so the author can convince me that this is a women that is so incredible that I would do anything for the chance to sleep with her. Just let her interaction with other characters bring about her charm and sexiness instead of talking about how curvaceous she is, how big her breasts are and how gracefully she moves. Sure she may be a knockout but if she's just there for fan service as a two-dimensional character then I could care less. 

I think a lot of people that are new to writing fiction haven't yet realized just how much you can describe through character interaction, both with body language and dialog. If it is up to me I'd rather spend time writing dialog and get information to the reader that way.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 31, 2016)

Screenwriting can be an excellent training tool for learning characterization via dialogue by necessity, but it can be over-used too in novels, one must use all the tools you've got. A castle should be described to the extent it's meaningful to the story, which pretty much goes for every location. If the characters are just passing through the city, I don't need to know about its market, its sewer system which doubles as a black market, how pick pockets gather at the green, how the poor section of town is a collection of rickety buildings leaning one against another, etc etc., I just need to know its a city, with a couple highlights. 

Beauty I think is one of the most wasted attempts at description, because it's so subjective. Generally, an author is better off slapping on a detail or two and letting me know the POV finds them attractive, rather than blathering on and on about details. I will preach all day about not using "vague" terms, but when it comes to people, sticking in a vague term can be useful, because it allows the reader to paint their own opinion in their eye. I really don't like focusing on character description myself, but of course we must to some degree... a quick example or two from my prologue, same POV...

Attractive-- 

He turned, caught by a hug. Five feet nothing and petite, the girl had a smile and curly auburn locks capable of making his eyes droop like a puppy. Even the little mole on her temple endeared him to her.

Unattractive--

A shave under seven feet tall and three hundred stones, with a flattened nose crushed between sagging lopsided eyes by a horse’s hoof, Angin could scare the wits out of any gambler who though to cheat.

Not saying they are perfect,but they are concise, and tell you all you really need to know about these two characters' looks. If looks have meaning... a character identifies with mom's side of the family more than dad's because of how they look, or GRRM, dark haired children of the king, then by all means detail is good.



Miskatonic said:


> If the world you have created is so off the wall that a lot of it needs explanation because it's so far removed from what we are used to in our own world then having a decent amount of description makes sense; however if you are basing your fantasy world on something that could be comparable to a past time in our history then you probably don't need to do nearly as much. I can appreciate the time the author dedicated to learning about the middle ages, for example. They may know all about the culture but that doesn't mean we need an extremely detailed history lesson. If you mention a particular type of clothing that was worn say back in the 1600's, and your readers aren't familiar with it, it's probably better to leave it up to them to look it up online than to spend two paragraphs giving a description that will still be rather vague. GRRM does this more often than I would like, and even after he gets done with all the little details, I still don't have a solid idea of what the outfit looks like. If something in particular catches my eye then I'll usually wait until I'm done reading for the moment and look it up, because when it isn't something vital to the plot it isn't going to take me out of the story by not knowing about it.
> 
> Part of it comes down to the "cool" factor. We imagine a castle in our minds and want to do it justice through description, yet this can lead us into a trap where being overly descriptive has the opposite effect. Two sentences might be enough but we convince ourselves that this castle is just so amazing that we need to keep adding more and more description.
> 
> ...


----------



## Penpilot (Mar 31, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Not saying they are perfect,but they are concise, and tell you all you really need to know about these two characters' looks. If looks have meaning... a character identifies with mom's side of the family more than dad's because of how they look, or GRRM, dark haired children of the king, then by all means detail is good.



To me, it's about knowing when to be concise and when to untie the bow and let things open up. That's where the skill lies.  I hate using this term, but this is all about Show and Telling, knowing when to show, and knowing when to tell, and how much.

Concise taken to the extreme can be cold and with zero immersion. I mean LOTR could be condensed into something like this. 

Two hobbits set out to destroy an evil ring by throwing it into the fires of MT. Doom. They met many interesting people and did many interesting things. Then, they destroyed the ring. The End. 

Doesn't exactly capture the imagination does it?

I'll not bore you with the other end of the extreme. Not enough words on the internet for that.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Mar 31, 2016)

It all really comes down to The Clash: Should I tell or I should I show now...





Penpilot said:


> To me, it's about knowing when to be concise and when to untie the bow and let things open up. That's where the skill lies.  I hate using this term, but this is all about Show and Telling, knowing when to show, and knowing when to tell, and how much.
> 
> Concise taken to the extreme can be cold and with zero immersion. I mean LOTR could be condensed into something like this.
> 
> ...


----------



## Geo (Apr 2, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> It all really comes down to The Clash: Should I tell or I should I show now...



But descriptive writing is part of both telling and showing... it's not exclusive of one or the other.

The big difference is that when we are telling we are describing what the characters are doing in a dynamic way and when we're showing we are describing the settings and generally in a more static form. Hence, both sides of telling a story would benefit of improved describing abilities.

Probably the only place were describing doesn't occur is in un-tagged dialogue (any tags beyond she said/he said are in fact describing).


----------



## Graham M (Apr 4, 2016)

There are some excellent suggestions here. For myself, the simplest thing I can do to improve my description is to consult the thesaurus and dictionary I always have to hand. From there, I can make the best word choice and polish later as necessary. 

I agree that descriptions should hold depth, and do so concisely. It's something I struggle with, but I think some of the suggestions here may help in future.


----------



## Wolf M (Apr 4, 2016)

What I try to do most is use senses other than sight, and when I'm in a particular character's POV, I try not to use any words he wouldn't be familiar with.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 4, 2016)

Geo said:


> But descriptive writing is part of both telling and showing... it's not exclusive of one or the other.
> 
> The big difference is that when we are telling we are describing what the characters are doing in a dynamic way and when we're showing we are describing the settings and generally in a more static form. Hence, both sides of telling a story would benefit of improved describing abilities.
> 
> Probably the only place were describing doesn't occur is in un-tagged dialogue (any tags beyond she said/he said are in fact describing).




The question that I've been hunting for answer to is, how to show and tell at the same time. And do so with curt and concise language rather than waxing poetic layering on descriptive elements.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 5, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> The question that I've been hunting for answer to is, how to show and tell at the same time. And do so with curt and concise language rather than waxing poetic layering on descriptive elements.



The thing about Showing and Telling is that it's a broad concept that doesn't just involve description. It involves story themes, conflicts, and a bunch of other things that aren't coming to me right now. 

For example. You want to show someone is angry, describe them punching a wall.

You want to show one person hates another, have them pee into their coffee.

You want to show greed is good, write a story that shows this through the interaction of the characters and the conflicts.

The first example is the simplest expression of showing, and the latter can be infinitely more complex, especially when you deal with complex themes and situations. 

I read a book called Disgrace. It won the Nobel prize for literature, and by reading it, it showed me the complex social situation in a post-apartheid South Africa, and how they got there by using allegory. After reading the story, I got a clearer view and understanding of both sides and the situation they faced, past and present.

If you look at he works of Cormac MacCarthy, he does similar things. 

So in every story you are showing and telling at the same time.


----------



## Geo (Apr 5, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> The question that I've been hunting for answer to is, how to show and tell at the same time. And do so with curt and concise language rather than waxing poetic layering on descriptive elements.



I think that's exactly what getting better at this craft means. To learn when to tell, when to show, when to do both, when to do it small, and when to use big words. And implies a lot of hard work (at least it is for me) and a bit of luck.

In my opinion, one very important aspect of effective showing and/or telling, and of course the involved descriptions, is to trust your reader. Trusting that whoever is reading your words is capable of filling the gaps, and connecting the dots, that they have an imagination of their own.

Personally, I struggle with that. So when I self edited, I pay attention to how much information it’s really necessary and how much I just gave away because I started doubting the reader would catch my drift (in a matter of speaking).

Here some examples (bare in mind that this are not best-though examples, just what came to me to try and explain what I mean):

1. You can describe when you tell (your focus is on physical features both of setting and character)

_*He advanced slowly, breathing heavy. A big guy, without much hiking experience, he was lucky the ground was covered with pine needles and browning leaves that muffled his noisy march. *_
(Not very elegant and full of unnecessary information).

2. Then you can turn it into a showing (description but focused on actions)

_*Clumsy, he hiked through the forest, the sound of his march muffled by fallen pine needles and leaves. *_
(A bit better, I think, but the felling that he’s running away from something is gone, I don't like that)

3. Then you can show with more elegance and less words  (there is still description but much of it it’s implied, to be interpreted by the reader) 

_*He glimpsed back, and relieved the autumn forest cloaked his heavy steps, he kept moving.*_
(it’s shorter but everything is there. The reference to heavy steps brings to mind a big guy and/or not very agile. Autumn forest tells us about fallen leaves. The glimpsing back, tell us he is running from something… it’s not perfect, but I like it better).

As Penpilot says, reading a lot helps, because you learn by example (and then do by intuition). 

Describing is part of what allows us to create characters and worlds, but it must be a slave to those objectives. If your descriptions are not advancing the plot or building your characters, probably they need some re-thinking (at least that’s why I have found about my own writing).


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 5, 2016)

Lately I've found that a lot of my descriptions are less about showing how something appears and more about triggering associations within the reader's mind. Instead of showing how something looks I try to give just enough pointers for the reader to create their own image of that which I'm describing.

My thinking is that any image the reader creates themselves is much stronger and much more alive than anything I can describe to them. 

I've not taken this to the full extreme yet, and I probably won't, but it's definitely something I'm using and enjoying at the moment. Kind of like this:


> The city stands silent and empty while the heavens wrap themselves around the world like a big grey nothing. This rain will fall forever – all through the afternoon and well into the evening. It’s a day best spent inside. Hot chocolate by the fireplace. Raindrops on the window pane.



There really isn't anything in the above paragraph to show what the characters or the reader see - except there's a city (with no one out and about), and it's raining. The rest are just triggers for emotions to associate with the scene.

Does this work for everyone? I doubt it. 
It works for me though, and it's a style I enjoy both writing and reading.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 5, 2016)

Geo said:


> I think that's exactly what getting better at this craft means. To learn when to tell, when to show, when to do both, when to do it small, and when to use big words. And implies a lot of hard work (at least it is for me) and a bit of luck.
> 
> In my opinion, one very important aspect of effective showing and/or telling, and of course the involved descriptions, is to trust your reader. Trusting that whoever is reading your words is capable of filling the gaps, and connecting the dots, that they have an imagination of their own.
> 
> ...



*Number 1* was better assuming that the information pertaining to the hiker and not been established elsewhere. 


See I wish to leave as few gaps for the reader as possible. I am telling a story to the audience, we are not cooperating in a creative endeavored and there will be no audience participation. 

I know what everything is and looks like, my job is to communicate that to the audience. To do with words what I have not  been able to with my hands, paint a clear picture of what things are unless I am choosing to be vague.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 5, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> See I wish to leave as few gaps for the reader as possible. I am telling a story to the audience, we are not cooperating in a creative endeavored and there will be no audience participation.
> 
> I know what everything is and looks like, my job is to communicate that to the audience.



But you see, I think story telling IS a collaboration. The author brings the spark. The reader brings the tinder. If there's not audience participation, as in emotional engagement, then there's no flame. 

With out audience engagement, the story becomes more of a textbook, a bunch of facts that the reader will have little to no interest in. 

What Geo is trying to show is how one can communicate just as much in fewer words and to engage the reader at the same time.


----------



## Geo (Apr 6, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> I am telling a story to the audience, we are not cooperating in a creative endeavored and there will be no audience participation.



That in itself is a problem... why? because reading requires the creative participation of the reader. And, I'm not trying to discourage you at all, I'm just advancing you a fact. Reading is a process that requires the interpretation of abstract symbols to create images. Unfortunately, as much as we like to believe otherwise, such interpretations are highly subjective.  You could describe something in great detail, but unless it's something really simple, you'll find out that not two readers have imagined exactly the same thing. 

Language, written language and otherwise, evolves not only in time, but geographically, with education, age. Hence, the background of your readers will have a huge impact in the way they interpret your words. Giving them too many words makes them feel trap, there is not way to go, if they can't relate (because your words do not create plausible images, and I mean plausible for them), they will feel cheated, bored. Giving them too little and they would not be able to create satisfactory images. The idea, I think, is to give them enough so they can create their own version of what you saw.

For me, that is where the beauty of writing resides. I write ideas, the reader creates the images... I could not say it better than Penpilot



Penpilot said:


> But you see, I think story telling IS a collaboration. The author brings the spark. The reader brings the tinder. If there's not audience participation, as in emotional engagement, then there's no flame.



However, if spelling every bee and describing every worm is what you need, go for it. Start writing, describing, advance your story... chances are after the first draft is done and dusted, you may come back, re-read your own words and discover the images they bring have change (or not), and then you can edit at own desire. Just write


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 6, 2016)

Any art form requires participation by the audience and the artist will never be in control. Just look at the movie Patton, anti-war film or ra-ra go troops! It's been seen both ways, despite the fact it is probably mostly intended as a biography. And this is a movie where you can actually show the people what you want them to see.

The problem? In the end art is about feeling, not pictures. The most we can do is use our imagery to manipulate that emotion.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 6, 2016)

Penpilot said:


> But you see, I think story telling IS a collaboration. The author brings the spark. The reader brings the tinder. If there's not audience participation, as in emotional engagement, then there's no flame.
> 
> With out audience engagement, the story becomes more of a textbook, a bunch of facts that the reader will have little to no interest in.
> 
> What Geo is trying to show is how one can communicate just as much in fewer words and to engage the reader at the same time.



If the reader needs to imagine things on their own, then I need to go back and do a better job at conveying the story and the world to the audience. To create art is to put on display what the creator thinks and feels to the outside world, it is sharing a piece of your self.  I don't read,watch or listen for my own imagination, I do it to experience the creator's vision. For any possible audience I wish to convey my vision to them in the most clear and concise manor possible.

Mauve or burgundy prose, that line between the extremes of purple and beige, is what I seeking, and what I think that we should all be.     




Geo said:


> That in itself is a problem... why? because reading requires the creative participation of the reader. And, I'm not trying to discourage you at all, I'm just advancing you a fact. Reading is a process that requires the interpretation of abstract symbols to create images. Unfortunately, as much as we like to believe otherwise, such interpretations are highly subjective.  You could describe something in great detail, but unless it's something really simple, you'll find out that not two readers have imagined exactly the same thing.
> 
> Language, written language and otherwise, evolves not only in time, but geographically, with education, age. Hence, the background of your readers will have a huge impact in the way they interpret your words. Giving them too many words makes them feel trap, there is not way to go, if they can't relate (because your words do not create plausible images, and I mean plausible for them), they will feel cheated, bored. Giving them too little and they would not be able to create satisfactory images. The idea, I think, is to give them enough so they can create their own version of what you saw.
> 
> ...





I don't read for my own imagination, I read for the author's. To see the world that they have constructed, I am a spectator on the events that are unfolding over the course of a story, and not a percipient, not even in first-person do I feel like anything over than spectator. And to me that is the correct experience, a book is movie with words and instead of cinematography. I seek to impart visualness  to my writing, to thoroughly describe everything in a clear and concise manor. The fact that writing is craft with abstract tools, in my mind makes the need clarity and concision self-evident. 

What's the point of all that poetic imagery if the audience has stop and puzzle out what something is or what is taking;Unless of course I'm deliberately being obscure.  Every line of description is a brush stroke taking us from a blank canvases to a complete image; that Is how I seek to right.     






Demesnedenoir said:


> Any art form requires participation by the audience and the artist will never be in control. Just look at the movie Patton, anti-war film or ra-ra go troops! It's been seen both ways, despite the fact it is probably mostly intended as a biography. And this is a movie where you can actually show the people what you want them to see.
> 
> The problem? In the end art is about feeling, not pictures. The most we can do is use our imagery to manipulate that emotion.




I seek revelation not participation, both in reading and in want I want my own work to carry. The words convoyed by the author builds an image in the reader's mind,I want that image to be as exacting and distinct as possible.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 6, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> If the reader needs to imagine things on their own, then I need to go back and do a better job at conveying the story and the world to the audience.


I couldn't disagree more.   

In my opinion, you want your reader to be an active participant in your story. Active participation engages the mind. It aids immersion. It can make your story world more real.

For example: If I'm describing a scene with a school bully, I could go into great detail about what the bully looks like (down to the stitching on clothes if I wanted), all the equipment on the playground, the color of brick used to build the schoolhouse, etc. Or, I could give a few specific, but meaningful details, like how the playground smelled like piss the moment that bully roughed up my friend, & allow the reader to fill in the blanks from their own experience. 

We've all likely experienced bullying at some point in our lives, first-hand or second. If the reader imbues my story with their real life experiences (what the bully they remember looked like, the shape of the playground slide from their childhood), the scene will come to life for them more than my attempts at detailed description ever could. 

The reader's true life experiences are what PenPilot meant by "tinder". My conveying of the scene and its events is the "spark".  

Now, if the details of the bully & playground are somehow important & relevant to the story, perhaps the minute details need be told.   

That's the choice I've made for my writing. It won't be the same for all. Some use a lot more description than I do to great effect. Some use less. It can be done either way, and done well.  You can do anything in writing as long as it's interesting. The issue with overly detailed description rests within details that aren't truly necessary, and therefore, slow the story with little added effect, boring the reader.   

I've found the reader's active participation, in adding texture of their own to my scene, my description, helps to keep things interesting.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 6, 2016)

Like T.Allan once reminded me, "You can do anything as long as it's interesting"...  

This discussion brings me back to a previous discussion on writer voice and style. 

Hemingway expects readers to fill in the blank. He gives _just enough_. 

_By this time we were at the restaurant. I called to the cocher to stop. We got out and Georgette did not like the looks of the place. "This is no great thing of a restaurant." 

"No," I said. "Maybe you would rather go to Foyot's. Why don't you keep the cab and go on."

I had picked her up because of a vague sentimental idea that it would be nice to eat with some one. It was a long time since I had dined with a poule, and I had forgotten how dull it could be. We went into the restaurant, passed Madame Lavigne at the desk and went into a little room. Georgette cheered up a little under the food. 

"It isn't bad here," she said. "It isn't chic, but the food is all right."

"Better than you eat in Liege." 

"Brussels, you mean." 

We had another bottle of wine and Georgette made a joke. She smiled and showed all her bad teeth, and we touched glasses.

"You're not a bad type," she said. "It's a shame you're sick. We get on well. What's the matter with you anyway?" 

"I got hurt in the war," I said. 

"Oh, that dirty war." 

We would probably have gone on and discussed the war and agreed it was in reality a calamity for civilization, and perhaps would have been better avoided. I was bored enough.  _

I love Hemmingway because he leaves it up to me. I don't need him to describe the restaraunt. Just her saying "this is no great thing of a restaraunt" is enough to put an entire image in my head, and because whether the wallpaper was yellow or blue or chartreuse is not important to the plot, Hemmingway opts to leave that up to me. 

On the flip side, George RR Martin has invented an entire world and in order to make his world seem more real has to go into great depths describing the pub, the people in the pub, the food at the table, the type of wine they were drinking and where the grapes were harvested. He may also get into the cut and style of the woman's dress, whether it was silk or satin, and how her hair was arranged. 

Both styles work to serve their purpose.


----------



## Geo (Apr 6, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> I seek to impart visualness to my writing, to thoroughly describe everything in a clear and concise manor...
> 
> ...I seek revelation not participation, both in reading and in want I want my own work to carry...



So do it!

You have already a great advantage: You have found your purpose as a writer, so pursue it with zealously. 

Evidently I had not useful advice for you, for I’m never just a spectator. I’m an active reader/watcher/listener. I engage. I enjoy finding the gaps where my experiences become a link with what I read. I like the puzzles niche in the writing cues of unfilled sentences, so I have no useful words for a writer that is looking to fill every gap, that is trying to solve every puzzle for me. 

I can only encourage you to find the way to convey your unique reality, the spectators reality, and to seduce us with this unique voice into forgetting emotions and interactions. Make us spectators of your work.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 6, 2016)

@Heliotrope

An excellent Hemingway example. 

Yes, GRRM does sometimes get exceedingly detailed, describing every plate of food or the color and texture of each fabric in a setting. At other times, he can be quite concise, even a minimalist. The first few pages of Game of Thrones (the 1st book), for example, have very little in the way of detailed description. Yet, I find the opening equally as engaging as the descriptive castle feasts or the settings of Quarth.

I think we should each be able to recognize that a writer can successfully employ one method, the other, or both in the same story. For me, I try to use extreme levels of detail to draw the reader's attention to something in a subtle way, or to assist in conveying a mood. Otherwise, I prefer sparse description.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 6, 2016)

I love, for myself, when a writer can describe something in a new way. Not a visual way, but a way I've never heard before. 

_Her love was an oatmeal kind of love. Cold and grey and bland and yet nourishing in its simplicity. _


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 6, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> I love, for myself, when a writer can describe something in a new way. Not a visual way, but a way I've never heard before.  Her love was an oatmeal kind of love. Cold and grey and bland and yet nourishing in its simplicity.


Metaphor & simile can do so much in a short amount of space. 

Powerful.


----------



## Incanus (Apr 6, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> I love, for myself, when a writer can describe something in a new way. Not a visual way, but a way I've never heard before.[/I]



In that case, you might want to give Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast books a gander.  He pretty well does this kind of thing non-stop, and almost over-the-top, though a visual component is often used.  I've never seen anything like it before, or since.  It may well be the books' most prominent feature; a rich, sumptuous feast of imagery and ideas, with sentences as twisty and winding as the passages of Gormenghast itself.  Light-years from where I'm at.


----------



## Chessie (Apr 6, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> I love, for myself, when a writer can describe something in a new way. Not a visual way, but a way I've never heard before.
> 
> _Her love was an oatmeal kind of love. Cold and grey and bland and yet nourishing in its simplicity. _


Yea...um...that makes me think her love isn't the kind that I'd want. How can oatmeal be cold and gr_a_y (fix'd lol). Oatmeal is warm and nourishing so that example, while it sounds nice, leaves me confused. But I like that this description is straight to the point and makes me think, makes me feel something asap. I'll be the first to admit that purple prose takes me out of the story. After about 4 sentences, I'm done. Eyes glazed. Then I'll skip that passage and read another part of the story. Maybe this is why I do better with cozy mysteries than most fantasies, idk. Although my newfound love for Mercedes Lackey is hotter than hell's fire so...there's that.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 6, 2016)

I think the point of the metaphor is that her love is plain, unexciting & stale, past its prime, & yet you could depend on her being there and doing what was needed.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 6, 2016)

Lol. The point is not really the meaning of the passage, but more about how wonderful it is we have such a vast variety of minds that decide to write. 

So many voices. So many styles. So many ways of describing the same thing. So many philosophies. 

Some people love deep intricate worlds where each meal is explained in mouth watering detail. Some love the depth of the human element described with such bare language that they are forced to inject their own experiences, while others want something that shakes their soul... 

I personally love them all...

Gabriel Garcia Marquez' Nobel prize winner One Hundred Years of Solitude is amazing: 

_At that time Macondo was a village of twenty adobe houses, built on a bank of a river of clear water that ran along a bed of polished stones, which were white and enormous, like prehistoric eggs. The world was so recent that many things lacked names, and in order to indicate them it was necessary to point. _

But the story is not a caveman story, it is set in the 1800s to 1900s... So what he means is that to the mc it was new. The mc was a toddler and didn't know the names of things and had to point at everything. 

I love that stuff. 

But I also love Jack Reacher... So, yeah.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 6, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I couldn't disagree more.
> 
> In my opinion, you want your reader to be an active participant in your story. Active participation engages the mind. It aids immersion. It can make your story world more real.
> 
> ...




If the audience  has to participate then I haven't done my job, I need to go back and wright another draft. I approach a story as a spectator, the book is lens through I am able to observes the subject, the protagonist or protagonists. Unfortunately that  lens has been blacked out and with every line of description the lens is wiped a little cleaner. With each new thing or change to the old the lens is blackened and must be cleansed once more. While I do indeed find poetic descriptions of thing beautiful I also find self-indulgent and grandiloquent on the part of the writer...

*"Look,look, see how clever I can be!"*

I have no problem with a vast and varied means of self expression, I just used "grandiloquent". However all that beauty most not
get in the way of the point,feeding the audience information so that a clear image will form in their minds of what is transpiring. 








Geo said:


> So do it!
> 
> You have already a great advantage: You have found your purpose as a writer, so pursue it with zealously.
> 
> ...




You are a spectator you just don't realize it , do you follow sports,celebrities, do you watch documentaries, the new stories that pop through your feed of choice. Do those events and the people in the effect you despite the fact that you are most assuredly not right beside the subject or at  the point of the event? I'd guess yes to at least one, now why do you feel despite being only a spectator? The answer is empathy, you feel for them despite being you,being a spectator doesn't preclude investments in the events that are unfolding. 

I may have very a hard path to walk if the modern literary convention is that incompletion = depth. I'm not talking about  being mysterious,or leading the audience to a false conclusion to surprise them later. The Image of the world must be clear and understandable. The audience shouldn't have to read a description three times to find out what something is supposed to be, picking up a thesaurus or dictionary is however acceptable. All that musical description is noise if it doesn't convey what the thing is and what unfolding events are.       

The abstraction must create the concrete.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 6, 2016)

Abstract is the opposite of concrete. 

I'm sure you understand that. I'm just making the statement, as a point of reference, because I truly don't understand your position any longer. 

Are you able to provide an example where the abstract creates a concrete image, understanding, or concept that would be the same for every reader? 

I simply can't envision how that would work.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 7, 2016)

Words are abstractions, right? When we use words to describe something, those words become an abstraction of that which we describe. The transformation from the abstract (the words on the page) to the concrete (the image of that which is described) occurs within the mind of the reader. 

This is audience participation.




...and I find the notion of love like oatmeal kind of... unsettling?


----------



## AJ Stevens (Apr 7, 2016)

I think this has descended into something of a paradox, and the question is perhaps not one of participation, but one of control. The reader has no control over the words that end up on the page, and has only that to work with to create an image in their mind. Likewise, the author has no control over the mind of the reader. Oh, he/she can do their best to guide the mind in a certain direction, and I think this is what L&E is getting at. As the writer, it is his/her job to ensure that the reader's mind takes a certain path. Which is true, but with shades of grey. It's a matter of taste, and again, the writer has no control over that. Some readers want every last detail; some want just enough to be able to fill in the gaps how they see fit.

Of course, the beauty of reading is that no matter how hard you try as a writer, you will elicit a wonderfully diverse range of images in your readers' minds, because we're all different.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 7, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> Words are abstractions, right?


True. I was thinking in terms of abstract description vs. concrete description, as in the abstraction pyramid. 



AJ Stevens said:


> ...no matter how hard you try as a writer, you will elicit a wonderfully diverse range of images in your readers' minds, because we're all different.


Exactly. Why fight the impossible battle when you can use this certain effect to your advantage?


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 7, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Abstract is the opposite of concrete.
> 
> I'm sure you understand that. I'm just making the statement, as a point of reference, because I truly don't understand your position any longer.
> 
> ...




Any clear description in a book is going from abstract to concrete.
Words are abstractions of things that exist in the world, and we writers use those abstractions to create concrete images in the mind of the reader.




Svrtnsse said:


> Words are abstractions, right? When we use words to describe something, those words become an abstraction of that which we describe. The transformation from the abstract (the words on the page) to the concrete (the image of that which is described) occurs within the mind of the reader.
> 
> This is audience participation.
> 
> ...




No that is being a spectator for you are watching the events unfold through the lens, which is the book. Through and clear description images scene through that lens become clear and concise. Leaving room for the audience is doing a half job, its a film
missing frames.  



AJ Stevens said:


> I think this has descended into something of a paradox, and the question is perhaps not one of participation, but one of control. The reader has no control over the words that end up on the page, and has only that to work with to create an image in their mind. Likewise, the author has no control over the mind of the reader. Oh, he/she can do their best to guide the mind in a certain direction, and I think this is what L&E is getting at. As the writer, it is his/her job to ensure that the reader's mind takes a certain path. Which is true, but with shades of grey. It's a matter of taste, and again, the writer has no control over that. Some readers want every last detail; some want just enough to be able to fill in the gaps how they see fit.
> 
> Of course, the beauty of reading is that no matter how hard you try as a writer, you will elicit a wonderfully diverse range of images in your readers' minds, because we're all different.





Your close maybe even on point.
I'll try to be plain and direct, a lot of what many people consider good writing I either don't or see as incomplete and some of what people would consider bad righting I  see as essential, some of what people consider purple prose as long as it doesn't wax poetic I have absolutely no problem with.


Poetic language and impressionistic descriptions, can be obstructive. If the description doesn't serve the purpose of conveying clear information about the people/creatures,items, and environment then its just self-indulgent grandiloquence on the part of the author. Using *big words* and obscure terminology is fine, I've needed to whip out a dictionary while reading occasion.


Letting *the reader fill in blanks* is doing a half job as an author. I read to experience the world created by an author, I can deal with my own imagination on my own time.  It's writers half doing their jobs and justifying it in the name of artistry. The only things that don't need to described are things that exist in the world to day and even then they  could have something notable that warrants mention like gun powered that burned blue and smelled of ozone and burning metal.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 7, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> No that is being a spectator for you are watching the events unfold through the lens, which is the book. Through and clear description images scene through that lens become clear and concise. Leaving room for the audience is doing a half job, its a film
> missing frames.



No, what I was describing really was audience participation. But I'm starting to think we are referring to different things when we are talking about audience participation.

The way I see it, the book is not the lens. The reader is the lens. The words on the page may be the medium which is used to store the image, but the are still just words - they are not that which they describe. 

It is not until the words are read that they become images in the mind of the reader. That is why the reader is the lens, and that is why I call it reader participation. Reader participation to me isn't about forcing the reader to make up parts of the story that I for some reason don't include. 
It's about letting the reader breathe life into the images I give them.


----------



## Geo (Apr 7, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Lol. The point is not really the meaning of the passage, but more about how wonderful it is we have such a vast variety of minds that decide to write.



Thank you Heliotrope for that great Garcia Marquez reference, not only is a great example of a description adapted and inherited from the POV of the character, but reading it in English was a new experience for me. An experience that had showed me (once more) that we put so much into what we read, and that most of our input is not even conscious.

Much in the vein of how the reader creates images depending of his/her own experience, and how we fill the gaps, I have to say that all I have ever read from Garcia Marquez I read in Spanish (which is my first language,). Spanish, much like English varies greatly from country to country, even in between regions of the same country. And the words, expressions, and phrasing used by Garcia Marquez are in itself pack with imagery, and make reference to very particular regions (like reading Harry Potter transports you to the UK, so to say). 

So, I found fascinating that just by reading these sentences in English the image I formed of Macondo was completely different than the one I had from when I read the book in Spanish. Suddenly, I could not picture Macondo as this tiny village lost in the middle of the jungle but it turned into a small town from the mid west. I’m sure that if I keep reading, the image will come back to what it was (or at least move closer in that direction) but at the moment I’m surprise of how deep language differences affect us.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 7, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> True. I was thinking in terms of abstract description vs. concrete description, as in the abstraction pyramid.



Got it. 

I think there's a bit of a disconnect in this discussion about the meaning of audience participation, and there may be other terms used to mean different things too.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 7, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> Letting *the reader fill in blanks* is doing a half job as an author.



I see this differently.  There are always blanks, because language is inexact, approximate.  It's not so much a matter of _letting_ a reader fill in those blanks; but rather, an inevitability.

But crucial to this, for me, is the idea of evocation.

I think we are way off base if we begin with the idea that language can express exactly an image or sets of images, laid out without gaps, blanks, or imperfection in a book and waiting for a reader to see that complete picture. 

I do think that words are stimuli.  The author may have an image in his head, but then he creates symbols meant to represent that image, and these symbols (words, sentences, and so forth) become stimuli for the reader who, seeing them, will have new images spring to mind.  The new images _are_ new, however informed by past experience–there is no direct mind-to-mind transference from author to reader, and even an image from memory is "new" in the sense of being "present," a biochemical process in the here-and-now.  This is a process of evocation.  The author creates stimuli which will, it is hoped, evoke the proper images within the reader's mind.

But imagery is not the end-all, be-all.  In fact, objects without context and without motion–without consequence–actually rank very low, in my book, and may themselves be merely stimuli meant to evoke something else.  The image of a bully tormenting a much younger child is not important simply because there is a bigger kid and a younger kid; no, it's what's happening, it's the memory of similar events in our own lives (whether experienced first-hand or from news stories or other literary examples).  The importance in the bully-victim image may be in how it evokes a memory of an abusive older brother or father.  And I don't need to know the color of the bully's hair in order to have that memory evoked.

So, it's all a matter of evocation.  And, yes, the author bears great responsibility in this process.  Even knowing that a reader will _inevitably_ fill in blanks is important–or, that a reader will fail to fill in some blanks in the way the author intends.  But it's not an exact science, because authors do not have perfect knowledge of every potential reader.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 8, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> No, what I was describing really was audience participation. But I'm starting to think we are referring to different things when we are talking about audience participation.
> 
> The way I see it, the book is not the lens. The reader is the lens. The words on the page may be the medium which is used to store the image, but the are still just words - they are not that which they describe.
> 
> ...



No. The reader is a receiver and monitor, the book is a signal sent from the author to the reader.
And that signal must be as clear and comprehensives as the writer's skill can mange. You must,I must paint a picture
with the words, going from a blank canvas to  the complete image one line at a time.



FifthView said:


> I see this differently.  There are always blanks, because language is inexact, approximate.  It's not so much a matter of _letting_ a reader fill in those blanks; but rather, an inevitability.
> 
> But crucial to this, for me, is the idea of evocation.
> 
> ...



And I owe it to the audience to present them with the most clear and exacting image possible.  
If I could draw this issue would resolved intently, but since I cannot, I have to paint each scene and element with my words;every line of description a brush stroke.

I have to try and create the concrete from abstraction.
Every aspect of description is a different element added to the final portrait, emotion serves to give context and resonance to the unfolding events and the characters participating in them.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 8, 2016)

If you can provide one single example, from any author, where the abstract provides concrete sensory details, which are precisely the same for every potential reader, I'd be amazed.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 8, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> No. The reader is a receiver and monitor, the book is a signal sent from the author to the reader.
> And that signal must be as clear and comprehensives as the writer's skill can mange. You must,I must paint a picture
> with the words, going from a blank canvas to  the complete image one line at a time.



Yes. This is correct.

However. The image is not on the page. The page contains only words. The image is in the mind of the reader. It's in the mind of the reader that the abstractions turns into a concrete image. That's what reading is.


----------



## Russ (Apr 8, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> No. The reader is a receiver and monitor, the book is a signal sent from the author to the reader.
> And that signal must be as clear and comprehensives as the writer's skill can mange. You must,I must paint a picture
> with the words, going from a blank canvas to  the complete image one line at a time.
> 
> ...



While this is one philosophical approach to writing I would suggest that it is not the norm or not generally accepted.

Of course you are perfectly welcome to write that way I don't think you should suggest it is suitable for all writers.  Many readers would also disagree with this approach become many of them have no interest in being as passive as you suggest they should be and like to exercise their imagination while reading.  This is really one of the differences between writing and other media like movies or television and some people like reading just for that very reason.

Personally I think of writing as a partnership between writer and reader and expect my readers to invest some time, thought and imagination into my writing to make the experience the best it can be.  This is particularly important in areas like imagery, metaphor and subtext.


----------



## Devor (Apr 8, 2016)

The question is what I do, so that's what I'll talk about.

This is an opening description I wrote about a month ago.  I'll go through the skills process I used to write it.



> Devor clutched his notebook and passed into the barricades alongside two hundred soldiers, most of them roaring out the laughter of victory, smelling of smoke and guts, covered with dirty blood.  He hurried by the tents as the men carried crates of junk and stolen scraps to their straw beds.  He staggered past the fire pit where they burned and mocked the long scarves carried back from their victims. He stumbled up to the barricade wall that had kept them safe from their enemies long enough to become murderers, and then he turned and fell into the dirt, smacking his back against the wood, dropping his head to his knees.



First, the most important thing to me when I write a description is to activate it.  That means a focus on good, strong, compelling verbs.  In a shorter sentence, you push the verb towards the beginning of the sentence and let it carry the rest.  In a longer sentence, you use more of them.

Here's a list of the verbs in this paragraph.  Just reading them makes you feel that something is happening.

clutched, passed, roaring, smelling, covered, hurried, carried, staggered, burned, mocked, stumbled, kept, become, turned, fell, smacking, dropping

The next thing I want to do is use power words.  For instance, one of the lines originally read:

_. . . the men carried crates of food to their straw beds._

But food, to me, didn't have any emotional power.  Food is delightful, it's interesting, it's work in the kitchen, it's important for survival.  But emotionally, the word does nothing here.  I wanted something that conveys the emotion that's happening in the scene:

". . . the men carried crates of junk and stolen scraps to their straw beds."

Junk. Stolen. Scraps.  These words have a lot of power, and together they really hit that tone.

Next, I wanted to build the parallelism in this paragraph so that it could better carry all the wordiness.  There's a lot going on, and I want to make it easy on the reader to process all of it.  I did that through the parallelism in the structure.  But I also masked that "clever but distracting author parallelism" by using it to show progressing emotional notes as the emotion in the scene built up.

Devor . . . . *passed* into the barricades . . . .
He *hurried* by the tents . . . .
He *staggered* past the fire pit . . . .
He *stumbled* up to the barricade wall . . . .

Each verb here pretty much means he *walked*, but with deeper and more emotional tones.

Finally, there's a "big reveal" in this paragraph for the readers. There's lots of hints, getting more and more obvious as the paragraph moves forward, so that it should gradually dawn on the readers what's happening here.  I'll bold the hints.

_Devor clutched his notebook and passed into the barricades alongside two hundred soldiers, most of them roaring out the laughter of victory, *smelling of* smoke and *guts*, covered with *dirty blood*.  He hurried by the tents as the men carried crates of junk and *stolen* scraps to their straw beds.  He staggered past the fire pit where they burned and *mocked* the long scarves *carried back from their victims*. He stumbled up to the barricade wall that had kept them safe from their enemies *long enough to become murderers*, and then he turned and fell into the dirt, smacking his back against the wood, dropping his head to his knees.
_
Note the double meaning of the word "guts" - both are appropriate.

Those are in addition to the more subtle emotion that the MC is clearly feeling in this passage.  Why is he hurried? And then staggering?  He's shaken up by something that just happened - that the soldiers just became murderers.

- - - -

Anyways you can all decide for yourself if the passage is any good.  But do consider the thoughts that went into it, and whether they can help you.


----------



## Russ (Apr 8, 2016)

I should not let Devor's excellent post directly above pass without comment.

One of my most successful writer friends (whose new book just came out...fingers crossed for NYT #1) is obsessive about his editing process.  But what he always emphasizes is the power of verbs and how he does an edit where he goes through the whole manuscript and rethinks each verb to determine whether or not he can find a better one for the job.

The kind of verb work that Devor is suggesting can make your prose orders of magnitude better.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 8, 2016)

Russ said:


> I should not let Devor's excellent post directly above pass without comment.
> 
> One of my most successful writer friends (whose new book just came out...fingers crossed for NYT #1) is obsessive about his editing process.  But what he always emphasizes is the power of verbs and how he does an edit where he goes through the whole manuscript and rethinks each verb to determine whether or not he can find a better one for the job.
> 
> The kind of verb work that Devor is suggesting can make your prose orders of magnitude better.



The new book fantasy? If so I'm always curious to find a good one.

And... I agree with that sentiment, I'm making lots of focused passes over the text, not just general ones. The computer age is enabling.

Passes include:

passives, almost got these eliminated outside dialogue in first draft these days, but I still check them.
that, could, would, and a few others... make sure they aren't wasted space.
-ly adverbs = high bar to get over to stay in. Generally, if the meaning is worth being there it's worth a revision to make it better. I tend to keep maybe 1 every 1k words, thereabouts.
any sentence starting with a word ending in -ing or -ed. Make sure nothing dangles and doesn't get convoluted
every use of hear, heard, see, saw, taste, etc.
generic verbs, walk, run, etc. and any attached adjectives. 

I will make these passes before it heads to an editor, then go from what they suggest, and make more focused passes as well as broad ones.

I think the trick is being obsessive without being too aggressive, I can go overboard on such things, LOL.


----------



## Russ (Apr 8, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> The new book fantasy? If so I'm always curious to find a good one.



Historically based Thriller I am afraid.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 8, 2016)

Drat! Good genre actually, but any reading I'm doing now is fantasy and history.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 8, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> Yes. This is correct.
> 
> However. The image is not on the page. The page contains only words. The image is in the mind of the reader. It's in the mind of the reader that the abstractions turns into a concrete image. That's what reading is.



The book is a medium for conveying information from the author to the audience, the actual information is encoded in the words printed on the page. What the reader is doing by reading is the equivalent of plugging in a flash-drive or SC-card and loading the information contained with in. The author owes it to their audience to present them with a complete experience, and that is done through adequately paining each scene and every seen. 



Russ said:


> While this is one philosophical approach to writing I would suggest that it is not the norm or not generally accepted.
> 
> Of course you are perfectly welcome to write that way I don't think you should suggest it is suitable for all writers.  Many readers would also disagree with this approach become many of them have no interest in being as passive as you suggest they should be and like to exercise their imagination while reading.  This is really one of the differences between writing and other media like movies or television and some people like reading just for that very reason.
> 
> Personally I think of writing as a partnership between writer and reader and expect my readers to invest some time, thought and imagination into my writing to make the experience the best it can be.  This is particularly important in areas like imagery, metaphor and subtext.



Sitting at a table playing an Role playing game is an act of collaborative story telling between the players and the game master, but that is not what consuming a peace of fiction regardless of the medium is about. The purpose of story teller is guide the audience deftly through the story, and if an audience member happens to get lost then it is the author's job to guide them back to the path.


----------



## Chwedleuwre (Apr 8, 2016)

There are at least two viewpoints about the use of description in novels. Those who use a lot and those who don't. Likewise, there are readers who adore long descriptions and those who don't. Of course, there's another way of looking at it. Not a middle ground necessarily, but a knack for knowing when to tell the reader that the woman wore "four-inch red spiked heels" and when to tell the reader that she wore shoes. I like to use color in some descriptions. 

Then there are descriptions of people, cars - things. Descriptions of emotions. And descriptions of scene or setting. In my writing, I consider the pace of the scene. Fast-paced, action scenes may not require tedious details. But readers might welcome a leisurely, long descriptions of the place afterwards.  As with most writing... it depends.

Yeah, I veered off your original question. 

As I wrote, I like to use colors. And I collect adjectives and powerful verbs as I read. I keep a notepad next to my bed for that, as well and those midnight inspirations. 

Happy writing to all!


----------



## Devor (Apr 8, 2016)

I'm going to jump in just a little to the debate that's happening here.

I think somewhere down the line I've learned to separate imagery from other parts of a description.  I think most good characters, settings, scenes, or whatever need a solid description.  But vivid imagery is only a part of that description, and not always an essential one, depending on the subject or the author's style.  Whether the character has dark hair, kind dimples and a thin face may not always be important to get across.  It depends on too many things.

One thing I have found, though, is that there's nothing worse to me as a reader, description-wise, than suddenly realizing that I have the _wrong _image.  And that sometimes happens when midway through the story an author puts a call-back to some unimportant detail in the character's features.  So watch for that.

In a phrase, my opinion is: *Don't waste your descriptions.*  Take advantage of it to provide information that's important to the thing's mystique and development.  It's a powerful tool and an opportunity to give your reader something lasting.  Don't skip it without a good reason, and don't blow it on an overloaded list of forgettable details.  Look for ways to make that lasting impression, and build on that.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 8, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> The book is a medium for conveying information from the author to the audience, the actual information is encoded in the words printed on the page. What the reader is doing by reading is the equivalent of plugging in a flash-drive or SC-card and loading the information contained with in. The author owes it to their audience to present them with a complete experience, and that is done through adequately paining each scene and every seen.



This might work in the Matrix, but it's a poor analogy. Computers interpret code by a strict system of language, brains do not. Which  is a good thing or a typo might make us fall asleep, heh heh. 

I would like to see an example of prose you are talking about, which achieves this ideal.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 8, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> This might work in the Matrix, but it's a poor analogy. Computers interpret code by a strict system of language, brains do not. Which  is a good thing or a typo might make us fall asleep, heh heh.



A)  This reminds me of my days as a child typing in pages of nothing but hexadecimal code, from the back of a magazine, so I could play a game on my Commodore 64.  One tiny error and it wouldn't work!

B)  I'm also reminded of the poem “The Printer's Error” by Aaron Fogel.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 8, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> This might work in the Matrix, but it's a poor analogy. Computers interpret code by a strict system of language, brains do not. Which  is a good thing or a typo might make us fall asleep, heh heh.
> 
> I would like to see an example of prose you are talking about, which achieves this ideal.



Actually, the computer analogy might work. But here's the thing. How is the data stored on this USB drive? Is it a word doc, word perfect, or one of a million other formats? If I don't have a program that can read that data, it remains inaccessible.

It can be like someone trying to plug an eight track tape into DVD player.

Other problems arise depending on what OS that USB key was formatted on. A windows machine can't always read a USB key formatted on an Apple machine, and vice versa. And what if a device doesn't have a USB port like the iPhone?

My point is like every machine can run a different OS and have different programs, every person is different in their make up. So there's no guarantee that just because one person can interpret something as expected that every one will be able to do that. There's no program or file that is guaranteed to be universally accepted by every machine.


----------



## Heliotrope (Apr 8, 2016)

Case in point. It doesn't matter how much fancy description you guys used, I would still have no clue what you are talking about. 

I still write by hand in a large black sketch book before transferring my draft to Microsoft word... 

Which illustrates what we call in education as "coat hooks". People only absorb information if they already have some prior knowledge to "hook" the new information onto. If they don't have those "coat hooks" then they will automatically make sense of the new information using whatever prior knowledge they have, even if it is not accurate.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 8, 2016)

Well, I don't think that was their point. Still curious to figure out what the person actually means by their words.



Penpilot said:


> Actually, the computer analogy might work. But here's the thing. How is the data stored on this USB drive? Is it a word doc, word perfect, or one of a million other formats? If I don't have a program that can read that data, it remains inaccessible.
> 
> It can be like someone trying to plug an eight track tape into DVD player.
> 
> ...


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 8, 2016)

A Commodore 64! Good times! 



FifthView said:


> A)  This reminds me of my days as a child typing in pages of nothing but hexadecimal code, from the back of a magazine, so I could play a game on my Commodore 64.  One tiny error and it wouldn't work!
> 
> B)  I'm also reminded of the poem “The Printer's Error” by Aaron Fogel.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 8, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> The author owes it to their audience to present them with a complete experience, and that is done through adequately paining each scene and every seen.



You've said this several times now, and while I disagree, because I feel what you're suggesting isn't fully possible, I accept this as your writing goal. 

Still, I've read fairly widely and I've never read anything close to what you're suggesting. I've asked several times if you could provide an excerpt of writing that works the way you claim, but I've yet to see one.

Perhaps, as Svrtnesse suggested, there's a communication problem here, because I just can't understand how any experienced writer could possibly think they could create imagery that'd be identical for every reader, regardless of culture, ethnicity, life experiences, age, gender, color perception, & a thousand other variables. 

I'm not asking for an example to back you into a corner, Logos&Eidos. I sincerely want to read something that you believe achieves this end. Or, once we see an example, figure out if there's something lost in the communication of our ideas in this thread.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 8, 2016)

Chwedleuwre said:


> There are at least two viewpoints about the use of description in novels. Those who use a lot and those who don't. Likewise, there are readers who adore long descriptions and those who don't. Of course, there's another way of looking at it. Not a middle ground necessarily, but a knack for knowing when to tell the reader that the woman wore "four-inch red spiked heels" and when to tell the reader that she wore shoes. I like to use color in some descriptions.
> 
> Then there are descriptions of people, cars - things. Descriptions of emotions. And descriptions of scene or setting. In my writing, I consider the pace of the scene. Fast-paced, action scenes may not require tedious details. But readers might welcome a leisurely, long descriptions of the place afterwards.  As with most writing... it depends.
> 
> ...




Its not about long or short for me.
"A blue stone glittered like it was sprinkled with the dust of powdered diamonds". vs "there was a sparkly blue rock".

A part of it is my instinctive rebellion against the status quo, the other is the fact what I am seeing as good writing advice on many sites just pings to me as wrong.

*No purple prose*. Yet some of the things that I've seen accused of being that aren't florid,grandiloquent,or poetic to the point of being obstructive. It was just an excerpt of that showed a clear and detailed description of scene?  

*Let the audience have a place for the selves in material*.
That's a big no because a book, any fiction, is a product of the imagination of its creator. To immerses yourself in the mind of another is why you read, that and to be entertained, is part of the point of reading.

Also the way I've seen this described reads like an artistic justification for doing a half job on description in a book. 




Devor said:


> I'm going to jump in just a little to the debate that's happening here.
> 
> I think somewhere down the line I've learned to separate imagery from other parts of a description.  I think most good characters, settings, scenes, or whatever need a solid description.  But vivid imagery is only a part of that description, and not always an essential one, depending on the subject or the author's style.  Whether the character has dark hair, kind dimples and a thin face may not always be important to get across.  It depends on too many things.
> 
> ...




I'm using image in a much broader sense than just appearance.  My goal is to create a clear and exact of an image as possible
so that readers never imagine things wrong, because I did my job and painted a clear image.




Demesnedenoir said:


> This might work in the Matrix, but it's a poor analogy. Computers interpret code by a strict system of language, brains do not. Which  is a good thing or a typo might make us fall asleep, heh heh.
> 
> I would like to see an example of prose you are talking about, which achieves this ideal.




I have heard poetry,seen exerts but it has never appealed to me.

My analogy stands.
Language creates a common system/medium through which humans may convey information. It is the responsibility of the author to use that common medium to convey what they imagine to the audience. 

Well ideals are something that you strive for but never quite achieve. I do not possess excerpts of choice bits of description.  But I can tell you what it is, any concrete non florid description of a person ,place,thing or event  is in line with my ideals.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 8, 2016)

Heliotrope said:


> Which illustrates what we call in education as "coat hooks". People only absorb information if they already have some prior knowledge to "hook" the new information onto. If they don't have those "coat hooks" then they will automatically make sense of the new information using whatever prior knowledge they have, even if it is not accurate.



...or, from context.

This may be a problem particularly for fantasy, which often uses archaic/historical terminology–gorget, hauberk, cuirass, pauldron–and science fiction which can have its own in-genre tropes already established or use uncommon scientific terminology (inertial dampeners, Dyson spheres, tidal locking.)  Many readers may understand these terms, many might have general ideas, or the gist, but not all readers will have solid knowledge.  

For me, the same thing can happen with colors. Fuchsia, mauve, puce...Sorry, these just don't spring clearly to my mind, and I know this by doing a Google search.   But the _gist_....yeah, usually.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 9, 2016)

I think I'm starting to get it now, sort of.

Descriptions should convey information that the reader can form an image that's complete as far as its relevance to the story goes.

Let's look at an example.


> Three people stepped into the room - one man, one woman.


That description is incomplete, because it leaves out the gender of the third person. The third person may be completely irrelevant to the story and their gender may not be important. However, as the other two were identified by the gender and the third one omitted, it leaves the reader with incomplete information. Mentioning the gender of the first two people highlights that the third one isn't mentioned and it makes the reader wonder why.
This is the bad kind of audience participation, where you have to fill in a blank (the third person's gender) without guidance. 



> Three people stepped into the room - one man, one woman, and a third person of undetermined gender.


This description is complete. The description mentions the gender of all three people, even if one of them is undetermined that is still mentioned. Within the context of the description, it's complete.

Obviously there's a lot of room for filling out other details. The above are just very basic examples. There's nothing mentioned of what the room looks like, or what the people look like, or the house the room is in, etc, but for the sake of simplicity I left that out.

And then there are exceptions too, where intentionally leaving out information can be used to great effect, but let's not get into that now.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Apr 9, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> My analogy stands.
> Language creates a common system/medium through which humans may convey information. It is the responsibility of the author to use that common medium to convey what they imagine to the audience.
> 
> Well ideals are something that you strive for but never quite achieve. I do not possess excerpts of choice bits of description.  But I can tell you what it is, any concrete non florid description of a person ,place,thing or event  is in line with my ideals.



That may have been the attempted point of your analogy, but it was a flawed construction. 

I've come to the conclusion that you aren't really saying anything uncommon. Here is the basic problem, you say "any concrete non florid description of a person, place, thing or event is in line with my ideals" but you didn't really tell me what it is to you, because those words are abstractions that mean different things to different people.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 9, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> *Let the audience have a place for the selves in material*.
> That's a big no because a book, any fiction, is a product of the imagination of its creator. To immerses yourself in the mind of another is why you read, that and to be entertained, is part of the point of reading.



When I'm reading essays, autobiography, and the like, I do often want to immerse myself in the mind of another.  At least, I expect the author to refrain from lying to me, so that I can believe I am experiencing his true thoughts, his mind.

But when I'm reading fantasy, I honestly don't care about the author's mind.  Yes, I want to immerse myself in a good story, an exciting/interesting world, intriguing characters, great ideas, and these might be the products of an author's mind–or, are they?  The question is moot, in the end, because I am more interested in what I find there in the words.

There was an interesting Writing Excuses podcast on "Creator vs Creation," in which the group talk about the experience of having readers come up to them and saying (paraphrasing), "Hey, I really love that you put X in this novel!" and the author is like, "Um, ok, I'm glad you liked that" even if he did not in fact put it in the novel or intend for a reader to have that particular interpretation of a metaphor, event, etc.

Mary Robinette Kowal mentions, near the start, this, which I think might approach what you have been saying through these various comments, my emphasis added:

[Mary] One of the things we say in the theater, and it applies across this, is “If it’s not on the page, it’s not on the stage.” *Which is basically that whatever you put out there is what the audience will see.* And that once it leaves your hands, you don’t actually have any control. You can’t go back and adjust the audience’s response. That’s one of the things about fiction is that everything that leaves… *Everything you write is going to have some sort of life of its own. So you need to kind of look at what you’re putting on the page and try to imagine the different ways it can be perceived and make sure that you’re… *You don’t have to make sure… Like you don’t have to overthink this. But also, don’t be surprised when someone comes to you and says, “Oh. This thing that you did! I…” And you’re like, “I have no idea what you’re talking about.”​
She cut off that thought, but the idea was important.  Authors do have a responsibility to create a clear "image" (term used broadly, here) or to lead a reader down the path that will deliver the intended story.  But still, not every base can always be covered perfectly, and sometimes readers will read things that the author did not intend.  That can be both, a bad thing and a good thing, so authors do need to take care.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 9, 2016)

Demesnedenoir said:


> That may have been the attempted point of your analogy, but it was a flawed construction.
> 
> I've come to the conclusion that you aren't really saying anything uncommon. Here is the basic problem, you say "any concrete non florid description of a person, place, thing or event is in line with my ideals" but you didn't really tell me what it is to you, because those words are abstractions that mean different things to different people.





Here is an excerpt.


> Lord Tresting frowned, glancing up at the ruddy, mid-day sky as his servants scuttled forward, opening a parasol over Tresting and his distinguished guest. Ashfalls weren’t that uncommon in the Final Empire, but Tresting had hoped to avoid getting soot stains on his fine new suit coat and red vest, which had just arrived via canal boat from Luthadel itself. Fortunately, there wasn’t much wind—the parasol would likely be effective.


From chapter one Mistborn by Brandon Sanderson.




> Adamat wore his coat tight, top buttons fastened against a wet night air that seemed to want to drown him. He tugged at his sleeves, trying to coax more length, and picked at the front of the jacket where it was too close by far around the waist. It’d been half a decade since he’d even seen this jacket, but when summons came from the king at this hour, there was no time to get his good one from the tailor. Yet this summer coat provided no defense against the chill snaking through the carriage window.


Promise of Blood chapter one, by Brian Mccallen.

Both are examples of of conveying information to the reader without waxing into poetic obstructiveness, though personally I wouldn't have objected to more description. 

Just one line,just one paragraph wouldn't be enough to exactly what I think to be ideal. I've said before that each line of description is a brush stroke on a canvas, the book is the entire painting.

"any concrete non florid description of a person, place, thing or event is in line with my ideals". 

The context in which the words are used, provide what is necessary to understand them. My other post also serve to paint the picture of what I find unsatisfactory. 

Or would you rather Info-dump my opinion on, which is another writing-sin.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 9, 2016)

Thanks for the example. I think this shows that we've been talking about different things - or that we've been using similar words to mean different things.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 9, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> Thanks for the example. I think this shows that we've been talking about different things - or that we've been using similar words to mean different things.


Yup. I'd come to agree with your conclusion, Svrtnesse, simply because the alternative was incomprehensible.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 9, 2016)

I am not at all certain that two different things have been obfuscating this discussion, because a great number of examples using, effectively, a sparse descriptive style could be provided.

For me, an analogy with the subject of world building (surely a related subject) could be useful.  To paint a _complete_ picture of a fantasy world might require, at a bare minimum, something like 2.9 billion words.  At least, that's the approximate number of words on the English version of Wikipedia.  Perhaps that would only be required for pre-writing notes about the fantasy world, since each subject wouldn't need its own comprehensive page/entry in a novel and so things could be condensed in the writing of it.

But very few 2.9 billion-word novels exist.  (Or, 2.65 million-word novels, for the condensed version.)

So it really comes down to what is required for the particular story being told.

The same holds true for description, for painting the story.

Edit:  I certainly don't want to draw out a useless debate, especially if I, myself, am not seeing something that should be glaringly obvious—i.e., if I'm simply missing the point.  But if the argument can be condensed to "Description needs to be adequate for the purposes of delivering a comprehensible and enjoyable story, whether it is sparse or florid or somewhere in between," well, that doesn't say much, does it, beyond the obvious?


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 9, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> Thanks for the example. I think this shows that we've been talking about different things - or that we've been using similar words to mean different things.



Okay what have been trying to talk about?


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 9, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> Okay what have been trying to talk about?



This bit (EDIT: this is just one example, there were other statements I took to mean similar things):


Logos&Eidos said:


> The book is a medium for conveying information from the author to the audience, the actual information is encoded in the words printed on the page. What the reader is doing by reading is the equivalent of plugging in a flash-drive or SC-card and loading the information contained with in.



When you load up the information on a flash drive on a computer it is always the same regardless of what computer you are using - provided you're using the same OS and software to decrypt it.

When you wrote that, I took it to mean that you believe that _when a person reads something they will see the *exact* same thing in their mind as another person_. I do not believe that this is the case, and that is what I've been trying to point out.

I also took it to mean that you believe that _the reader has *no input* on what images they see in their head when they read something_. I also do not believe that this is the case, and I tried to explain that too.

What do you think I've been trying to say? - And this is something that I'm asking out of curiosity, not to be snarky or rude.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 9, 2016)

FifthView said:


> I am not at all certain that two different things have been obfuscating this discussion...


I do believe there's a disconnect in understanding the concept. Heres why....

Take a look at the first example provided:


> Lord Tresting frowned, glancing up at the ruddy, mid-day sky as his servants scuttled forward, opening a parasol over Tresting and his distinguished guest. Ashfalls weren't that uncommon in the Final Empire, but Tresting had hoped to avoid getting soot stains on his fine new suit coat and red vest, which had just arrived via canal boat from Luthadel itself.



There are so many descriptions and actions within that example that are open to reader perception & interpretation, which would result in different imagery for each reader. The interpretations are basically the same, but with a multitude of variables.

1 - A frown
2 - a ruddy, mid-day sky
3 - scuttling servants
4 - a parasol 
5 - ashfalls
6 - a fine, new suit coat
7- a red vest

The frown: 
Is it tight-lipped? Does the skin around his lips wrinkle? Is one corner of his mouth lower than the other?

A ruddy, mid-day sky:
Just how red is the sky? Is it streaked with clouds? Is the sun bright? Is it closer to morning or evening, or is it precisely mid-day? What is the sun's position in the sky?

Scuttling servants:
What kind of clothes are the servants wearing? What color are the clothes? Are they uniformed? Are they both male & female? What is the roadway like that these servants are scuttling over?

A parasol:
Is it yellow, blue, green, etc? Is it elaborate of plain? What is the texture of the fabric? How large is it? Is there lace skirting the edge? 

Asfalls:
How big are the flakes of ash? Is the ash gray, black, white, or a mixture? How does the ash float on the wind? Do pieces curl with a breeze, blow horizontal to the ground before settling, or fall heavily, straight downward. 

A fine, new suit coat:
Wool? Cotton? Trimmed with reptile skin? What do the buttons look like? Is the stitching elaborate? Are the jacket collars wide or thin? Does it hang open, or is it buttoned tight?

A red vest:
Crimson? Scarlet? Blood-red? Is it velvet? Does the color coordinate well with the suit, or is it meant to draw attention in a flashy way? What is the hem cut like? How low does the neck dip before the first button?

All these, and potentially many, many more variables will be different for each individual reader. The author here has NOT made it so clear that the imagery may only been cast in one way. Rather, each reader will indeed fill in the blanks with their own creativity, fleshing out the details to make the scene come to life. 

In that way, the reader IS an active participant in the story.


----------



## Miskatonic (Apr 9, 2016)

I can't say I've ever read a story where I wasn't using my imagination to fill in certain blanks or to enhance what was being stated concretely. 

I think avoiding a reader becoming confused is a bigger priority. 

You could describe a character in vivid detail, but I will still picture the character in my head differently than what you intended, even if only a little. The same goes with buildings, scenery, etc. 

Unless I'm looking at a photograph there will be some room for mental interpretation.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 9, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I do believe there's a disconnect in understanding the concept. Heres why....



Ah, I see what you mean by that. If that passage passes the smell test for L&E, then "letting the reader fill in blanks" is the point of misunderstanding.

I'm now curious to see L&E's idea of a "bad" example of letting a reader fill in blanks.


----------



## Geo (Apr 9, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> There are so many descriptions and actions within that example that are open to reader perception & interpretation, which would result in different imagery for each reader. The interpretations are basically the same, but with a multitude of variables...
> 
> All these, and potentially many, many more variables will be different for each individual reader. The author here has NOT made it so clear that the imagery may only been cast in one way. Rather, each reader will indeed fill in the blanks with their own creativity, fleshing out the details to make the scene come to life.
> 
> In that way, the reader IS an active participant in the story.



Thank you! 

That is exactly what I mean when I talk about trusting that the reader is capable of filling the gaps, which in my opinion, is a basic element of learning how to write effective/memorable descriptions. It doesn’t matter is you use metaphor, or if you decide to use only everyday words, or if you include a whole poem, as long as you don’t underestimate your reader capabilities. A good writer knows that the reader has a vivid imagination and wants to use it. 

And just to clarify what do I mean by _using our imagination_ *Logos&Eidos*, from the example you gave us, we can deduce that Brandon Sanderson trusts us to fill the gaps he left with our own imagination. How do I know that? Because he didn’t have to tell us the color of the parasol, nor the gender of the servants, because he knew that as we read his description we were to create our own unique and personal image of what he told us. His description is a guideline nor a picture. We are actively connecting the dots, we are assigning a particular color to the parasol, we are deciding the gender of the servants, and each one of us is picturing a particular frown in the face of Lord Tresting. Most important, the paragraph it’s more effective because of that, because there are gaps to be filled... Could you imagine how boring this description would be if Sanderson would have provide us with every single detailed? 

As *T.Allen.Smith* says, we became active participants, and that made the description better.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 9, 2016)

I believe (and could be wrong) that Logos&Eidos is speaking of description on a more macro level than the rest of us.


----------



## Geo (Apr 9, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I believe (and could be wrong) that Logos&Eidos is speaking of description on a more macro level than the rest of us.



it is possible, but Logos&Eidos also objected to examples of descriptions in the level that the rest of us appears to be referring to... so it is difficult to fully understand his point of view.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 10, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> This bit (EDIT: this is just one example, there were other statements I took to mean similar things):
> 
> 
> When you load up the information on a flash drive on a computer it is always the same regardless of what computer you are using - provided you're using the same OS and software to decrypt it.
> ...





I will try to explain my position in a clearer manor.
I believe that it is the job of the author to convey what they imagine to the audience in as clear and direct manor as possible. The author is encoding(writing) their imagination and transmitting it to the audience who then reads(decodes)it and experiencing what the author imagined.






Geo said:


> Thank you!
> 
> That is exactly what I mean when I talk about trusting that the reader is capable of filling the gaps, which in my opinion, is a basic element of learning how to write effective/memorable descriptions. It doesn’t matter is you use metaphor, or if you decide to use only everyday words, or if you include a whole poem, as long as you don’t underestimate your reader capabilities. A good writer knows that the reader has a vivid imagination and wants to use it.
> 
> ...



It still could have used more description in my opinion, and perhaps more information is conveyed latter on. It would not have been boring, it would have been thoroughly described. Providing  a clear image of the world,people and the events. The audience is not an active participant,they are spectators, the audience sitting in a theater that is what readers are; its just that books can convey more information than sight or sound.

I do not read the work of another to form a "own unique and personal image" based on guide lines that they have set up. I read to immerse myself in their imagination and creativity, it is their vision that I am interested in and not my own. That is part of the reason why I like description that  are direct,to the point and creates a definite image rather than merely implying what something is.





Geo said:


> it is possible, but Logos&Eidos also objected to examples of descriptions in the level that the rest of us appears to be referring to... so it is difficult to fully understand his point of view.



What level of description are you taking about?




T.Allen.Smith said:


> I believe (and could be wrong) that Logos&Eidos is speaking of description on a more macro level than the rest of us.



I'm not even sure what the levels of description are, so please explain.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 10, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> The author is encoding(writing) their imagination and transmitting it to the audience who then reads(decodes)it and experiencing what the author imagined.



I believe that each reader decodes the encoded image in a slightly different way. Do you agree with this or not?

Let's say readers may be using slightly different programs to decode the images. Overall the big picture will be the same, but there will be little details (usually stuff that isn't important) that is different from reader to reader. Does that sound reasonable to you?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 10, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> I'm not even sure what the levels of description are, so please explain.



If you read through my examples for each of the descriptions taken from the first excerpt you provided, the descriptions in the excerpt would be macro (those provided by the author), the descriptions in my examples would be micro (the fine details, based off of the author's descriptions, that add more to the scene). 

The fine details are where the reader is an active participant by filling in the blanks, or to say it in another way, adding texture to the broader description. That's what makes the world and events spring to life, the author/reader collaboration.

You're doing this as a reader too. You just don't realize it.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 10, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> I believe that each reader decodes the encoded image in a slightly different way. Do you agree with this or not?
> 
> Let's say readers may be using slightly different programs to decode the images. Overall the big picture will be the same, but there will be little details (usually stuff that isn't important) that is different from reader to reader. Does that sound reasonable to you?




It is unfortunately true, if I could draw then there would be one and only one image of everything...mine. Since I can't I have try and paint a concrete image of things.



T.Allen.Smith said:


> If you read through my examples for each of the descriptions taken from the first excerpt you provided, the descriptions in the excerpt would be macro (those provided by the author), the descriptions in my examples would be micro (the fine details, based off of the author's descriptions, that add more to the scene).
> 
> The fine details are where the reader is an active participant by filling in the blanks, or to say it in another way, adding texture to the broader description. That's what makes the world and events spring to life, the author/reader collaboration.
> 
> You're doing this as a reader too. You just don't realize it.




I know this, the reader isn't an active participant they are a spectator. The author creates the world and the reader partakes in that created world;if there was any collaboration every member of the audience would be a co-writer. To cut down on individual variances between different audience members, a complete description of the world must be provided by the author. Gaps lead to people filling them in themselves, which leads to forming an inaccurate picture of the author's worlds.

Perfect accuracy is only possible for author-illustrators, but those us who are only authors must see that the text is faithful to our visions.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 11, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> It is unfortunately true, if I could draw then there would be one and only one image of everything...mine. Since I can't I have try and paint a concrete image of things.


I do not see this as something unfortunate.
Rather, I see it as something that can be used and taken advantage of. It means that I can focus on what is important for the story and for my vision of the story. I can ignore the bits that I don't think are important and I the trust the reader to fill out those unimportant bits on their own.
I can cut out descriptions that don't further my vision of the story or the world, and I can focus on making sure the readers get as clear an impression of what's important to me as possible. 



Logos&Eidos said:


> I know this, the reader isn't an active participant they are a spectator.


See. This is where we are talking about different things. You call this being a spectator. Me and TAS (and probably others) refer to this as being an active participant in the story.
All this time, we have been using different words to mean the same thing.



Logos&Eidos said:


> [...];if there was any collaboration every member of the audience would be a co-writer.


This is NOT what I refer to when I'm talking about audience participation.
When I talk about audience participation, I mean filling in the blank spaces that aren't part of the description, the tiny little bits that differ from reader to reader. This is something that happens in the mind of the reader, even if it's just on a subconscious level, and that's why I call it audience participation. I think you're calling it being a spectator.

I think what you mean by audience participation is having to make up part of the actual story as a reader. Kind of like in an interactive story or a computer game. Audience participation does not have to mean collaboration (it can mean that, but I don't think anyone here has actually argued that it should).



Logos&Eidos said:


> To cut down on individual variances between different audience members, a complete description of the world must be provided by the author. Gaps lead to people filling them in themselves, which leads to forming an inaccurate picture of the author's worlds.
> 
> Perfect accuracy is only possible for author-illustrators, but those us who are only authors must see that the text is faithful to our visions.



I'd go so far as to say that perfect accuracy isn't possible at all. Even in movies, there are things that don't come through fully to the audience and which they'll have to imagine on their own. 

However, if we as writers do our job right and set the right expectations for the reader, then the things they have to make up on their own will be guided by those expectations. 
We set up rules for how the world is supposed to work, and when the reader has to fill in a blank on their own they're guided by those rules - provided we get it right.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 11, 2016)

I'd like to try and explain a little further why I think it's a good thing that readers have room to fill in blank spaces in descriptions.

Short version: It adds life.

Longer version: 
Please note that this is my personal opinion/understanding. I'm not trying to claim any of this as indisputable fact.

The way I see it (in this context), the words and descriptions on the page are triggers and they trigger responses in our mind. The most common response would be the image, but other sensations will work as well. Same with associations.

These images and associations originate from the words I read, but when they transform from words into images, they become more than just the words.

These images that are built from simple words have all of my life's experiences behind them. Let's take the word _door_. I have a lot of experience with doors, and I walk through them almost every day of the year. I know what a door looks like.

Up to a point, words help me trigger images of what is described, but I think it is possible for the description to be too detailed. There can be two reasons for this:
1. The description is too long, and I lose track of what it's trying to show me.
2. The description opposes my understanding of that which is described. 

In either of the two cases above, I'm forced out of the story in order to try and understand what I'm being told. 

I think it's important to strike a good balance here. You need to give the reader enough information to communicate your vision, but you have to avoid distracting or confusing them. Cutting out information that isn't necessary is a good start. 

I also think that when we use our own experiences to build images they feel more natural to us. This makes it easier for us to believe in them, which in turn makes them feel more alive.

Does this make sense or am I just rambling (it took me nearly 2h to write because work kept getting in the way)?


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 11, 2016)

Svrtnsse that reminds me of the Iceberg Theory of Writing by Hemingway. Iceberg Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> If a writer of prose knows enough of what he is writing about he may omit things that he knows and the reader, if the writer is writing truly enough, will have a feeling of those things as strongly as though the writer had stated them. The dignity of movement of an ice-berg is due to only one-eighth of it being above water. A writer who omits things because he does not know them only makes hollow places in his writing.
> –Ernest Hemingway in Death in the Afternoon [4]


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 11, 2016)

Cool. I hadn't heard of that, but it largely supports my own thoughts on the matter. Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 11, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> I do not see this as something unfortunate.
> Rather, I see it as something that can be used and taken advantage of. It means that I can focus on what is important for the story and for my vision of the story. I can ignore the bits that I don't think are important and I the trust the reader to fill out those unimportant bits on their own.
> I can cut out descriptions that don't further my vision of the story or the world, and I can focus on making sure the readers get as clear an impression of what's important to me as possible.
> 
> ...






> I do not see this as something unfortunate.
> Rather, I see it as something that can be used and taken advantage of. It means that I can focus on what is important for the story and for my vision of the story. I can ignore the bits that I don't think are important and I the trust the reader to fill out those unimportant bits on their own.
> I can cut out descriptions that don't further my vision of the story or the world, and I can focus on making sure the readers get as clear an impression of what's important to me as possible.



"A picture is worth a thousand words".
We who cannot draw are stuck trying to convey our definite visions with the abstract and subjective medium of language, greatly do I envy the illustrator though I wouldn't trade my imagination and storytelling for it.  Description is a brush stroke on a blank canvas and that picture must be complete. In the interest of brevity,wieldiness and fluidity everything cannot be fully in a novel. But touches on all the things in the world must be made.  So that when the book is done and reader sits down and thinks about
a complete image complies from all the descriptive elements.

The only description that can be omitted are things that exist in our world, and even then if there is something notable such as guns that fire cased/sabotted flechettes instead of bullets and use a propellant that burns blue and smells of ozone and burning metal, then it must be described.


I know that the modern style leans towards minimal description, but that is not a direction for me.



> See. This is where we are talking about different things. You call this being a spectator. Me and TAS (and probably others) refer to this as being an active participant in the story.
> All this time, we have been using different words to mean the same thing.



To me a coauthor is active participant,illustrators are active participants, the people sitting around a table playing a table-top rpg are active participant,interactive media such as video-games have a level of active participation. The audience are spectators and the book is the camera lens through  which they see the world of story.





> This is NOT what I refer to when I'm talking about audience participation.
> When I talk about audience participation, I mean filling in the blank spaces that aren't part of the description, the tiny little bits that differ from reader to reader. This is something that happens in the mind of the reader, even if it's just on a subconscious level, and that's why I call it audience participation. I think you're calling it being a spectator.
> 
> I think what you mean by audience participation is having to make up part of the actual story as a reader. Kind of like in an interactive story or a computer game. Audience participation does not have to mean collaboration (it can mean that, but I don't think anyone here has actually argued that it should).


 
If you help create the story then you are active participant, other wise you are spectator. Filling the gaps in the prose isn't" active participation" its is making up for a defect inherent in the process.




> I'd go so far as to say that perfect accuracy isn't possible at all. Even in movies, there are things that don't come through fully to the audience and which they'll have to imagine on their own.
> 
> However, if we as writers do our job right and set the right expectations for the reader, then the things they have to make up on their own will be guided by those expectations.
> We set up rules for how the world is supposed to work, and when the reader has to fill in a blank on their own they're guided by those rules - provided we get it right.





To me good writing should leave as little open to interpretation as possible, unless you are deliberately creating something the is to be interpreted. The goal an of author is to create a  concrete depictions of the people,places,things and events that appear  with in. From your mind to the words on the page,fro, the words on the page to the mind of the reader. Things being lost in translation,gaps in the prose formed by the inability to truly convey the mind of the author to the audience.  Make a clear and thorough description of things an absolute necessity.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 11, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> I do not see this as something unfortunate.
> Rather, I see it as something that can be used and taken advantage of. It means that I can focus on what is important for the story and for my vision of the story. I can ignore the bits that I don't think are important and I the trust the reader to fill out those unimportant bits on their own.
> I can cut out descriptions that don't further my vision of the story or the world, and I can focus on making sure the readers get as clear an impression of what's important to me as possible.
> 
> ...





Svrtnsse said:


> I'd like to try and explain a little further why I think it's a good thing that readers have room to fill in blank spaces in descriptions.
> 
> Short version: It adds life.
> 
> ...





I understand you but it reinforces my point, that clear and concrete description is necessary. Because I read to experience the author's vision, that is what interests. I'm not interested  in viewing an adaptation by me  of the authors work, given how reading works that's kind of all I've got to work with. If I could run a cable between my mind and an authors that would be the ideal,or perhaps a device that can record and display mental images.  What I see a story to be is merely an approximation of what it actually is, I want my own work to be as true to what I have in my mind as possible so that the audience can have as close to the truth as possible.

Learning how to do that is paramount. 

I have an example for you.


The Skaa are the oppressed under class from the original Mistborn trilogy.
Assuming the Brandon Sanderson has direct input on the art direction of the Mistborn Rpg then the Skaa look like this 








Given my background and experiences the Skaa look like this








Vin the heroine, who by official art looks a little Eurasian







To me she looked more like this girl
	

	
	
		
		



		
		
	


	




Aveline from Assassin's Creed. Just younger,shorter,slighter of build, and much lighter skinned.


Since the image that formed in my mind is so far from what the author intended, Vin the mulatto who is high-yellow enough to pass for white vs Vin the Eurasian.  The author made error somewhere in their description of the world that lead me to the wrong conclusion. He should have said work camps or servants quarters  instead of shack,and the Lords should have had fiefdoms instead of plantation. 

Describing oppressed people,living in shacks on plantation, there really is just one way that I could view the world and the people in it after that.

That is why, we should endeavorer to leave as few gaps as possible in our description of the world.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 11, 2016)

I think that on the whole, we're in agreement on the technical aspects of description after all. We've just been interpreting each others' words differently. When I said one thing you thought I meant another, and the other way around.

There is one point where we still disagree though, and that's likely not going to change:


> The goal an of author is to create a concrete depictions of the people,places,things and events that appear with in.


There isn't anything wrong with this goal, but it's not my goal.

My goal with my writing is to provide the reader with a pleasantly enjoyable escapist reading experience. In other words: I want to give my readers an temporary escape from the real world, and I want them to enjoy it.

Having a clear vision of my world and being able to communicate it to my reader is essential, but I'm not going to fuss about every little detail. It's more important to me that they're able to immerse themselves in the world, and that they have a good time.

- - -

Now to the example you make.
With the usage of words like _plantation_ etc I would probably have an image of the Skaa similar to yours. If we assume those other images represent the writer's vision, then there's probably some kind of issue with his descriptions (I haven't read those books).

The question then is this - assuming you saw the images after you read the story:
1. When you read the story, did the mistakes with the descriptions affect your enjoyment of the story?
2. After reading the story, when you saw the images, did that affect your opinion of the story and the author?

I think that the answer to the first question is no, because you weren't aware of the issue, and it didn't interfere with your own image.
For the second question I think the answer is yes, because you learned of the mistake and you discovered that the author hadn't communicated their vision clearly.

To me, the important question is the first one.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 11, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> I think that on the whole, we're in agreement on the technical aspects of description after all. We've just been interpreting each others' words differently. When I said one thing you thought I meant another, and the other way around.
> 
> There is one point where we still disagree though, and that's likely not going to change:
> 
> ...




I'm pro escapism, I think that western audiences are too concerned with verisimilitude,grittinesses,and purity of genre.
I grew up playimg 90s,well mid to late 90s jrpgs, Grandia,Star Ocean 2,Saga Frontier 1&2,Crystalis,Final Fantasies VII,Tactics and X,Phantasy Star Online,Golden Sun, Fire Emblem. Science-fantasy  is a pretty common occurrence In Jrpg territory. 

As I said before when I read, I read to experience the author's vision,their message if they have one. Beyond enjoyment I do not read for myself. Because I will assign my own value and meaning to the things with in a book, I will draw unintended conclusions;as does everyone else that reads. This will obfuscate what the author intended and valued.

In an ideal situation I'd be able to read a book egoless, carrying nothing of myself into it, as Stacker Pentecost of Pacific Rim carries nothing into the Drift;But that can't be done. 

I can't stop people from drawing their conclusion,and deriving their own meaning from anything that I may right; if I could I would though. 

I have to try and communicate what I want for myself to a potential future audience , a trip into the world of the author. That is why clear and concrete description is so important to me,without that description I'll have to fill in the blanks myself and what I fill in will not be what they imagined,and experiencing the imagination of the author is the high-philosophical reason behind my reading; the common one is entertainment. The less gaps that the reader has to fill in the better.



As for Mistborn, I knew that the way I was seeing things couldn't be right from the start. No it didn't make me enjoy the story any less. We are in the realm of ideals and technicalities of the craft, Brandon mostly like wanted to invoke the idea that the Skaa that dealt with a comparable level of oppression to black people during the slavery-period, and in many ways he does just that, however three descriptive elements effected just how I would auto-interpret the world, an oppressed ethic group,living in shacks, on plantations. That alone colored everything for me, and crossed line from a people(peoples to be technical) being treated like black slaves, to being black slaves filtered through the lens of fantasy.

Thus mulatto Vin was born.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 12, 2016)

I read the Mistborn books. 

I had a different take on the Skaa & Vin.

My imagining enhanced my enjoyment of the story because I helped in its creation. In that way, I was an active participant.

Every reader will bring themselves into every piece of creative writing. It is impossible to avoid. A clever writer can use that inevitability to their advantage in story telling. 

L&E, I wish you luck in your endeavor. I don't believe what you want to do is possible, but I do hope you'll prove me wrong someday.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 12, 2016)

Let's get back to the original topic then, of how to try and improve descriptions. 

On thing that hasn't been brought up in this thread yet is the concept of first impressions. When you first meet a person, it takes you a few seconds to form your first impression (roughly 7 seconds according to google). Then, once the first impression is set, it takes a lot of time and effort to change it.

I looked into this a while back and I found no research on how this translates into reading, but I believe it does. I think that when we introduce something into a story, we have a limited amount of words to explain it to the reader before their impressions settles. 
After that point, adding more description is still possible, but it will have much less impact on the reader's impression.

This is another reason why I try to keep my introductions short and to the point.

How many words do you have before your reader has formed their first impression of that which you are describing? I don't know, but I try to avoid using more than one paragraph for describing someone - two at a stretch.

Any longer and I'm past the point where a reader has already formed their own impression of the character.


----------



## Logos&Eidos (Apr 12, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> I read the Mistborn books.
> 
> I had a different take on the Skaa & Vin.
> 
> ...





I won't be able to, getting my point across exactly would require footnotes on every page,an appendix at the end of the book. And companion books,that not only explain the world but how I think.

Thus my attainable goal is learn how to create clear and concrete images with my description.


----------



## Geo (Apr 12, 2016)

Svrtnsse said:


> How many words do you have before your reader has formed their first impression of that which you are describing? I don't know, but I try to avoid using more than one paragraph for describing someone - two at a stretch.
> 
> Any longer and I'm past the point where a reader has already formed their own impression of the character.



In real life we create first impressions based on both, what we see and our previous experience, hence the first impression is highly subconscious. I suppose it's the same when reading.

If you start a description with the physical appearance it's possible I jump directly into making inferences about  personality (stupid example: Her blond hair cascaded down her shoulders, a ha! she is blonde, she must be useless... nothing against blonds I was one myself until gray hairs took over). And it is probably the same if you start by describing the personality (another stupid example: He was always laughing, enjoying life, unaware or uncaring of all the pain that existed in the world... this guy must be a prick, all handsome and such if he doesn't even know the pain of rejection...) 

So I'm writing all this only because while it's true that we get first impressions quite quickly, many of them are not as durable as we like to believe, and the ones that, like the energizer bunny, keep going and going may not be much in our control.

But, all that said, yes I also think that quick first impression help for they leave room to develop the characters later.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Apr 12, 2016)

Logos&Eidos said:


> Thus my attainable goal is learn how to create clear and concrete images with my description.



I think that my best advice, for what it's worth, is to first try and understand how readers process information, how they process the words they read. Once you have an understanding of that, you can use that to tailor your descriptions to best suit your goals.


----------



## Leo deSouza (Apr 12, 2016)

Read, read read and read, it is the only real way to learn how to write effectively.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Apr 12, 2016)

Leo deSouza said:


> Read, read read and read, it is the only real way to learn how to write effectively.



Read, read, read.

Write, write, write.


----------



## FifthView (Apr 13, 2016)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Read, read, read.
> 
> Write, write, write.



Right, right, right.


----------



## Bekka King (Apr 20, 2016)

“If you don't have time to read, you don't have the time (or the tools) to write. Simple as that.”  Stephen King

Thanks for all the great suggestions so far.  In addition the suggestions made so far:

1) When I'm actively writing, I make a point of also reading books written by great authors who have published the type of material I'm currently writing.  I do it not to copy their ideas, but to think about what I can learn from their writing style - such as scene descriptions.

2) I'm currently packing my camera around with me when I go for walks.  I look for things to take pictures of - such as an interesting door - that might have a place in my novel.  I work at photographing the item from a visually intriguing angle and think through how I would write that image into my story.


----------

