# Facial Focus: Describing the face of a character



## Devora (May 30, 2012)

I'm having trouble with a bit of description in this story I'm writing where I'm trying to describe the face of one of the main characters. I know that it is bad writing to go into too much detail in stories, i.e, purple prose, but I just want to get some of the defining characteristics such as the shape of parts of the face (the eyes maybe as well).

Any advice on how to approach this situation, and what methods you use?


----------



## Queshire (May 30, 2012)

hmmm.... I'm not that good at this stuff myself, but I'd start with what you want people's first impression of the character to be and then work backwards to try and think of the facial features that would suggest that first impression.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

My personal view is that less is more, but I've read some very good books that include a lot of character description. As a reader, I latch onto one or two primary details and promptly ignore the author's descriptions in favor the image I have in my own head. My recommendation is to go with a couple of primary features very early one (maybe three at most) - the ones that are most important in your view - and leave it to the reader from there. When you envision the characters, what are the two features that stick out most in your mind, for example.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 30, 2012)

I'd tend to agree with Steerpike. Pick out the things that are important, or particularly make them stand out. What makes them look different from the other characters or tells something about them? High cheek bones are a sign of nobility in many cultures, so a noble character (or one who just acts like's the king of the world) with high cheek bones is worth mentioning earlier on. And in general, a blonde-haired, blue-eyed girl with a round face probably warrants less description than a balding brunette girl with one eye gouged out and almost skeletal features. So you can spare an extra sentence or two to description if the person deserves it.

As for the actual execution, I'd _tend _to say one sentence is enough of an introduction. Anything else you'll have to work in organically. The intro sentence could be: "Maria had a certain length to her. She was taller than the man who'd carried her in, her hair went down to her knees, and she had the face of a horse, long and thin." You can toss in her hair or eye colour when she next flips her hair dismissively or glares to the side at your protagonist, if you feel the need to include it at all, but don't bog down her introduction with the less important details or we'll lose track of the scene.


----------



## Caged Maiden (May 30, 2012)

I like hands as well.  You can tell a lot about someone by their hands, and it takes the pressure off an author to constantly differentiate characters by hair and eye color.  Some others might be a limp, a hunched back, dirty clothes, greasy hair, facial hair, straight or missing teeth, a roguish smile, big innocent eyes... oh man I can go on all night.  Hope some of that helps you.


----------



## Steerpike (May 30, 2012)

Ophiucha said:


> The intro sentence could be: "Maria had a certain length to her. She was taller than the man who'd carried her in, her hair went down to her knees, and she had the face of a horse, long and thin."



That's nicely done, because not only do I get enough of a description of Maria, I now know something about the man, and I know Maria is being carried for some reason.

I point this out because I think this is exactly how description works most effectively - when the words are doing more work than merely describing the person. You could simply say Maria was tall, with long hair and a horse face, but no matter how nicely worded if that's all you are saying then the description is static. Here, the description is active. The words not only tell me about the character, they advance the story _at the same time._ So, yeah, I think that works very well. If I never heard another word of physical description about Maria after these two sentences I'd be OK with it.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (May 30, 2012)

I agree with Steerpike & the rest. One of the beautiful things about the reader/writer relationship lies with a mutual understanding of common experiences.
A reader only needs a few details of description. Their own experiences and observations fill in the rest.
For example, if I describe a bully to you with general descriptors (i.e. angry features, big, etc.) but left clothing out, hairstyle, and other features, the reader can build their own picture based off their ideal of a bully. 
This strengthens the author/reader bond.... We are sharing something and as an author you are allowing the reader to cast their own movie. Too much detail can weaken the bond because the author is forcing his/her view upon the reader. If the reader doesn't share a similar image for that character type it can be counterproductive towards story immersion.
This, in my opinion, is one of the reason we often hear people say "The book was way better than the movie." in movies we are subjected to seeing things as the director chooses them to be seen.


----------



## Justme (May 30, 2012)

Anytime you get that personal with your descriptions use the same priority system you would, If you were looking at a person you find attractive. 

I usually start with the eyes, because they are the windows to the soul. I've seen much hurt and pain in the eyes of those who've felt it. Look at the following text about hurt and you'll see what I mean.

*I have seen the scars and wounds of many a battle behind the most beautiful eyes in the world. They are embedded within the soul and will never be removed. All it takes is a mere reference to anything associated the instance and the wound is rent asunder and the memories of ages pour in to collapse the house of the soul. At that time the infant child within us all flees into the deepest recesses of our being and cries, bitterly in the darkness.. *

Sometimes it's not the features of the face but what face reveals that matters.


----------



## Aidan of the tavern (May 30, 2012)

Um yes, what they all said.

Maybe you could find a picture of someone and we could each describe their appearence to give you some ideas of technique?


----------



## Mindfire (May 30, 2012)

I suggest latching on to features that say something about the character's personality. Of course in real life someone's face says very little about who they actually are, but in fiction that need not be the case! Physical descriptions can help characterization. If i describe one man as an albino with sharp eyes, a slight build, and bright teeth, he will be taken quite differently from a rotund man with an impeccably groomed, but bushy beard, and meaty fingers.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (May 31, 2012)

Or maybe just not describe them at all?  What part of their description will have bearing on the story?  If there isn't any, then you don't need it.  Let me explain.  If your character is a male, and handsome, will we get that more from you saying so, or by women who find him attractive and flirt with him?  I'll say that in anihow's description the one thing I got was 'face of a horse', which does provide some very vivid images, of which if there is no further clarification, I'll go on thinking of her as having what amounts to a horse's head.  

Readers are a bit lazy, and we get bored with too much pointless description, things that add no value to the story.  Ever reader has an imagination and can fill in a vast amount of details without need for any detailed descriptions.  If I describe a house as 'tired' what would your mind draw?  Probably something different than mine, but if your impression equates to something not quite run down but old, then the word works to give you the impression I want you to have, while at the same time let you paint it any way you want.  Unless some detail is relevant to the story, all I have to do as the writer is give you enough of the major points to let you imagine an appropriate setting as the story passes through it.

Good description is not always more, it is almost always things relevant to the story.  Although, some people do get away with many bits of pointless description....but that's a different discussion.


----------



## Mindfire (May 31, 2012)

Lord Darkstorm said:


> Or maybe just not describe them at all?  What part of their description will have bearing on the story?  If there isn't any, then you don't need it.  Let me explain.  If your character is a male, and handsome, will we get that more from you saying so, or by women who find him attractive and flirt with him?  I'll say that in anihow's description the one thing I got was 'face of a horse', which does provide some very vivid images, of which if there is no further clarification, I'll go on thinking of her as having what amounts to a horse's head.
> 
> Readers are a bit lazy, and we get bored with too much pointless description, things that add no value to the story.  Ever reader has an imagination and can fill in a vast amount of details without need for any detailed descriptions.  If I describe a house as 'tired' what would your mind draw?  Probably something different than mine, but if your impression equates to something not quite run down but old, then the word works to give you the impression I want you to have, while at the same time let you paint it any way you want.  Unless some detail is relevant to the story, all I have to do as the writer is give you enough of the major points to let you imagine an appropriate setting as the story passes through it.
> 
> Good description is not always more, it is almost always things relevant to the story.  Although, some people do get away with many bits of pointless description....but that's a different discussion.



Some things may not be strictly relevant to the story, but still worth describing. For example, if I go to the trouble of creating an elaborate culture for dark-skinned desert dwellers, I'm going to be quite peeved if the general public assumes the characters are white. Thus, I include description to make their ethnicity inescapably clear.


----------



## Ophiucha (May 31, 2012)

Indeed. I always try to make a character's ethnicity clear. Even if they are white. I don't feel entirely comfortable only ever saying what their race is when they're _not _white (since it implies a default), so I try to sneak in an aside about it, at least.

There are also flavour details. Not necessarily important, but they add _something_. Harry Potter was pretty good with this. The Weasleys had a very distinct family appearance: redhair, hand-me-down robes, freckles. Hermione had crooked or bucked (I can't recall now) teeth until the third or fourth book, which added flavour to her character because her parents were both muggle dentists. We get a lot of description of Harry because one of his traits is "he looks like his father" - and it's nice to know how, exactly, he looks like his father. And, of course, "his mother's eyes". Be a bit weird if we spent seven books going on about how he has his mother's eyes if we never bothered to say that they were green.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (May 31, 2012)

All that you mention are things that _have_ relevance to the story, not just nice to know.  There are many details that have relevance in a story, and a million more that do not.  Vanity descriptions are pretty much just that, the vanity of the author...put them in if you wish, but remember that even when you are Robert Jordon readers still find it too much and annoying.


----------

