# The Pyramid of Abstraction



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 19, 2016)

I attended a class taught by Brandon Sanderson. In that class, he talked about improving your prose and making readers feel more engaged. To do that he gave us the example of the pyramid of abstraction, shown below.  He says that there is a scale to writing. On the one end is abstraction, on the other end, is concreteness. To illustrate what is and is not abstraction he talked about two words, love and dog. He asked us whether the concept of "love" is abstract, it is. To say that I love you is something fairly abstract since everyone has a different take on what love is. He then asked us whether the word dog is abstract. He said that it was because we all have a different conception of what a dog is, meaning we imagined different breeds and such as well as states of being.

In order to be concrete, the concept or action needs to be set in a scene. Take the dog example. To make it become concrete, you describe the dog in detail. You describe its breed, color, whether it is wet or dry, its size, its look, what it smells like, how it walks, etc. The problem becomes making he prose be more concrete. This requires actions and, oddly enough, having the reader draw conclusions about the actions.

Interested in your thoughts.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Feb 19, 2016)

I saw this lecture through a video a couple years back. Loved it then, and I couldn't agree more now.

Clarity is the most important part of writing, in my opinion.


----------



## FifthView (Feb 19, 2016)

On some level, all language is abstract.  These are just pixels on a screen, symbols, that are meant to stand for real things or imply real things or reference real things.

By adding details and context and activity, you are limiting the possibilities.  I mean:  "Dog" can invoke any number of images and realities, but given details and context limit the number of those images and realities.  So for instance if you said a dog jumped on Jorg and knocked Jorg down, and if the reader already knows Jorg is a 6'8", 280 lb barbarian warrior who is extremely strong, then the reader knows that dog probably isn't a toy poodle.


----------



## Heliotrope (Feb 19, 2016)

Yes. This makes perfect sense. I feel like a lot of the stuff I read in crit groups is too abstract. The 'devil is in the details' as the old quote goes. I find that us 'new' writers tend to have an idea in our heads, and we think that we are getting it across in our prose, but to the reader it it still abstract. I find that when I go over the top with tiny details and overflow with emotion it is still just barely enough for my readers… 

There is that great Chekov quote: 

_In nature descriptions one should seize upon small details, grouping them in such a way that you can see the whole picture when you close your eyes. For example, you'll capture a moonlit night if you tell how a sliver of glass from a broken bottle gleamed like a bright star in the wier, and the black shadow of a dog or wolf rolled past… _

In movies I see them do this by doing close ups… so like, if five guys are riding horseback through a field, the camera man might zoom in to the hooves of a single horse, showing how the hooves toss up the dust and grit from the dry plain creating clouds around the dappled legs, and how the spur of the rider is digging mercilessly into their flank, causing streams of blood to run down the legs.… 

Or how in the Prologue to Storm of Swords we see that the team of sled dogs are all huddled around each other trying to keep warm and won't even go after a bear to eat because they are so cold, and we see Chett standing alone in his boiled leathers being all tough… 

Is this sort of what you mean?

(I'm an examples person…)


----------



## skip.knox (Feb 19, 2016)

Funny. He uses an abstraction (the pyramid) rather than using concrete examples. If the image resonates, good on ya. When it comes to representing human activity, I instinctively resist pendulums, scales, pyramids, quadrants and so on. Humans seem far too messy (and interesting) for such *ahem* abstractions. 

I also recognize that this is a personal problem for which I am receiving counseling from my dog.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 19, 2016)

FifthView said:


> On some level, all language is abstract.  These are just pixels on a screen, symbols, that are meant to stand for real things or imply real things or reference real things.
> 
> By adding details and context and activity, you are limiting the possibilities.  I mean:  "Dog" can invoke any number of images and realities, but given details and context limit the number of those images and realities.  So for instance, if you said a dog jumped on Jorg and knocked Jorg down, and if the reader already knows Jorg is a 6'8", 280 lb barbarian warrior who is extremely strong, then the reader knows that dog probably isn't a toy poodle.



I disagree that adding details creates limitations, or at the very least the limitations are not that important. By adding detail, you create richness to the scene. You orient the reader and engage them. So with your example, sure, we know that the dog isn't a toy poodle, but is it a mastiff, a black Russian terrier, a wolfhound, a lab, a pit bull. We also don't know how Jorg got knocked down. Did the dog bite Jorg in the crotch? Was it something playful like a faithful dog knocking down his master to lick his face? Was it protective? Did the dog just want to eat Jorg? By adding the requisite concrete details you give a better sense of space, time, and other relevant details that would make a book more engaging.



skip.knox said:


> Funny. He uses an abstraction (the pyramid) rather than using concrete examples. If the image resonates, good on ya. When it comes to representing human activity, I instinctively resist pendulums, scales, pyramids, quadrants and so on. Humans seem far too messy (and interesting) for such *ahem* abstractions.
> 
> I also recognize that this is a personal problem for which I am receiving counseling from my dog.



The pyramid is meant to be a reminder that most of your writing should be reflecting concrete details of the scene you are in, not going off on abstract tangents. It's the pyramid plus the explanations that are important. The pyramid is a mere tool.

Let's take this as an example. John shot Bill with a gun. Well, what kind of gun. There are four primary types, the handgun, the rifle, the musket, and the shotgun. So, some people would imagine a handgun, others a rifle, a few would musket, and others a shotgun. The concept of a gun here is abstract. So the better way to make this more concrete would be to do as follows,



> John pulled back on the hammer, rotating the sixth and last cylinder to place an unspent round in the firing chamber. (right here we know that we are dealing with a gun and that it's a six-shooter revolver). He aimed down his sights. The white painted dot on the front sight quivered. (so he hasn't filed away his sights and the dot is quivering we have a clearer image of the revolver) Sweat from his hands made the rosewood handle slick. (The gun is coming into clearer focus) John pulled the trigger. The .357 round flew from the chamber. (now we know what kind of revolver it is and the size of the bullets) Fire blazed from the muzzle and smoke soon followed. The thunderous roar of the gun deafened John as it echoed through the church. (This is a clearer picture of what the gun is doing) Shirley, old reliable rosewood handled Shirley, almost kicked back out of his hands because his accursed sweat. Blood and brains exploded out of the back of Bill's head from a hole the size of John's fist. (From here we can infer that the bullet was a hollow point or at the very least a soft round that expanded upon impact) John dropped his gun to the sandstone floor, scuffing the scroll work, tears streaming down his face.



It's arguable that this example is overdone but look at all the information it provides us. It shows the relationship John has with Bill just a little bit, the relation John had with his gun, the emotional state of John (as shown by the tears, the shaking, and the sweat), and the physical details of the gun. This concrete example is far more compelling a read than John shot bill with a gun.

This can be done with human emotions and relationships as well. Even for something as complex as love. There are physical actions, kissing, that can describe love. Or physical sensations, like blushing, can indicate love. Using dialogue could make it more concrete that Fred loves Wilma. Often times with these complex emotions it takes time to show in concrete detail but it can be done. 

And Helio I think those examples are just what Brandon was getting at.


----------



## FifthView (Feb 19, 2016)

I see my last comment was written in too much haste.  I meant evoke, not invoke.  Plus, my general point was unclearly stated.  Essentially, in making something "concrete," we are limiting the abstraction, setting bounds.  It's not just a dog, but a 200lb brown dog with a neural implant enabling brain-to-brain communication--that sort of thing.  

Activity is a different sort of thing, probably.  But setting action-reaction sequences, whether directly shown or implied, suggests limitations also, or bounds.  It also gives the illusion of a realistic world w/ real things within it.

Edit:  I was typing as you posted, so hadn't read your comment.  I may have aleady addressed it, but want to add that my previous example was never meant to be read as a completed concrete picture.  It was merely a step or two in one direction.  Mere "dog" is limited, because we know it can knock down a large man.  Adding more details will limit it further.  That triangle is more than a top point and a bottom line; there is a gradual widening, a continuum of sorts, or at least an area that is more ... something... than its upper and lower limits.


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 19, 2016)

FifthView said:


> I see my last comment was written in too much haste.  I meant evoke, not invoke.  Plus, my general point was unclearly stated.  Essentially, in making something "concrete," we are limiting the abstraction, setting bounds.  It's not just a dog, but a 200lb brown dog with a neural implant enabling brain-to-brain communication--that sort of thing.
> 
> Activity is a different sort of thing, probably.  But setting action-reaction sequences, whether directly shown or implied, suggests limitations also, or bounds.  It also gives the illusion of a realistic world w/ real things within it.



Ok, I see what you are getting at now. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## FifthView (Feb 19, 2016)

Thanks for your quick comment -- posted as I was adding an edit to the comment I had typed having not yet read your previous comment...!


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Feb 19, 2016)

FifthView said:


> Thanks for your quick comment -- posted as I was adding an edit to the comment I had typed having not yet read your previous comment...!



Treebeard would be disappointed in my hastiness.


----------



## evolution_rex (Feb 19, 2016)

This is incredibly helpful.


----------



## FifthView (Feb 19, 2016)

Brian Scott Allen said:


> Treebeard would be disappointed in my hastiness.





I think my perspective on the topic in this thread may seem rather perverse.  You are right in that adding more detail, making things concrete, adds richness; so it seems odd to say that making things concrete is essentially a process of limiting abstractions.

Since you first created this thread, I've been picturing a different triangle, one turned upside-down and placed over the triangle you posted, retaining both triangles.    Up where "abstraction" is, the new triangle would be wide:  Abstractions allow for a wide variety of reactions, visualizations, ideas, and different people will have different understandings, however similar.  Down where "concrete" is, the new triangle would have its point, and this means that all other possibilities but one have been eliminated.  (E.g., the 200lb brown dog w/ neural implants named Chega who also likes to transmit lullibies to your children at night...nearly rules out anything else a reader might have thought about "dog.")

Of course, probably there can never be a true "one" possibility, given the naturally abstract nature of language; but we can get close enough for that to seem possible.


----------



## Heliotrope (Feb 19, 2016)

FifthView… 

I'm trying to understand what you are saying… but having "some" trouble with the abstractness of the concepts… 

Do you mean that while concreteness in prose adds depth and richness, at the same time leaving some things open to interpretation also adds richness to a story? 

Like, in the way that say, a story like Life of Pi is so abstract and open to interpretation is what gives it it's richness? 

I'm just trying to understand… with examples… (WTF is with me and examples?)


----------



## FifthView (Feb 20, 2016)

I'm sorry, Helio, for being so abstract.

I wasn't really addressing richness, per se, but only trying to dissect the differences between abstraction and concreteness in prose.  It's a difficult but fun problem for me especially, because I do view language as being essentially abstract by nature.  So concreteness is like a magical effect of language, metaphorically speaking.

But the idea of richness is also interesting.  I was not trying to say anything about abstraction adding richness--although now you have me thinking about it!


----------



## Heliotrope (Feb 20, 2016)

Ahhhh, I see what you mean... I think.....


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Feb 20, 2016)

Just for nitpicky fun!

Blood and brains exploded out of the back of Bill's head from a hole the size of John's fist. (From here we can infer that the bullet was a hollow point or at the very least a soft round that expanded upon impact)

I would just as easily assume FMJ round in this instance, as expanding rounds are intended to stay in the body, the more it expands, the less likely to come out the other side. A large exit wound, especially the head, would be likely with any 357 making it through. Other expanding rounds I'm used to at least, would be even less likely to impossible to blow out the back of a head. Naturally there are a whole lot of variables, but as a reader I wouldn't make that assumption, LOL. But I'm not an expert either.

223 is puny compared to a 357, but puts a teeny tiny hard to find hole in a tree and blows out splinters in the back. With the skull, a large exit wound would be a given if the bullet manages to not ping around in the brain.

Of course this has nothing to do with point being made on details, but just had to throw it out there. I half-heartedly researched this one for a screenplay before giving up and doing whatever I wanted, LOL.


----------

