How to set the scene.

[Mad Swede]

In my view this depends on what sort of scene you are writing, by which I mean where in the story does it occur? The way you set up the opening scene in a story will be different from the way you set up a scene later in the story when the characters are more established. More than that, what details the characters see (and hence what you describe) and how the characters react to what they see will be different. The way you describe things in your prose depends on the pace needed for the scene. All these differences will vary with what is happening and why it is happening, so they depend on the relative positions of the scenes in the overall story and character arcs.

As an example, below are three extracts from one of my novels, each describing part of scene as seen by three different characters. The first extract is from the prologue, the second two are from later chapters in the novel. The key thing here is that the three characters are passing the same place and are looking at the same thing as they pass...

On towards the street she’d been told to find, the one with the gentle hill. A crowded street, but not as crowded as the square. Past a crowd of people reading a notice. No-one trying to stop her, no-one calling out. No sound of any running feet behind her. Breath coming in gasps, but still she ran. Maybe she’d get away.

#

Into Broad Street, glancing at the notices. They still hadn’t caught Tess, not judging by the reward being offered. But that might not last, Tess’ luck wasn’t going to hold much longer. Hopefully the lass would find a place to settle before she got caught. Perhaps a few words with Hannah Jarnsmed, Tess talked to her.

#

A short and uneventful walk along the alley to the Steps and up to the Square. Past the notice with the reward for Tess the Cat. Not that anyone would be collecting that, not now. Now to look around as casually as possible. Quite a few people on the Square, but the way the groups were thinning out made it apparent that people were heading home for lunch. Torbjorn had his timing right as ever. Up past the top of West Hill. Only a short walk now to Uvenhjelm’s house on Castle Hill. They’d beaten the rain too, only another couple of hours and it would be pouring down.

 

[casval]

The most interesting stories arrive from computer games, horror games, side-scrollers, things like that. They are generic, and might paint a picture for you. They are not terribly new, to the market in most cases, and the cutscenes can be simple yet rewarding. There are plenty of books that site games and visa versa as their inspiration, LOTR being a common example, and it is hard when that is taken away from a person. They can dwindle in the dark places, for hours if they do not have their controller. That is why I make sure I draw from a vast range of inspiration and imagine events that can happen both on and off the page whilst retaining some amount of credibility.

I've definitely drawn on video games for inspiration before, visual novels especially as the closest cousin to (non-visual) novels. Movies and TV shows, too. Perhaps another way to look at a question like 'how do you set the scene?' is to visualize the place in a scene like one in a video game or film. What does the camera linger on, zoom in on? If the player character were walking around this room, which items would have 'Press X to Examine' hovering over them? Every medium has its own way of establishing atmosphere, foreshadowing, etc., but it can't hurt to draw on the others for ideas.

I think my love of Stalker (the Tarkovsky movie) has given me an inclination to write many slow, lingering scenes... I love the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games too, but I don't think those come through in my writing at all.

 

[Genly]

The classic example here is Chekhov's gun; if a character is going to take a gun off a wall and start shooting, establish that there is a gun on the wall before that happens.

Another aspect of scene setting would be figuring out what to include to motivate the plot. It think the idea of Chekhov's gun is that if it is mentioned in the story that there is a gun somewhere, unless that gun is used later, mentioning it would be kind of pointless. Maybe the equivalent in our context would be a monster that is described in great and gory detail but then just disappears from the plot. I do take your point, though: it's important to establish first that there actually is a gun and that it can realistically be accessed by someone to be used later.

 

[casval]

Another aspect of scene setting would be figuring out what to include to motivate the plot. It think the idea of Chekhov's gun is that if it is mentioned in the story that there is a gun somewhere, unless that gun is used later, mentioning it would be kind of pointless.

Definitely! I think Prince of Spires mentioned the rule of three with regards to this - try to keep it to three details. Too many details and the reader is simply unlikely to remember all of them, and will forget the pertinent ones.

It does vary from story to story, scene to scene - sometimes details are useful as ephemera, guiding the reader to a new moment with the expectation they will only be left with the tone of the prose instead of the specifics, but important details need to stand out and apart from those moments. Or to borrow a filmic 'rule of three', the important details like the gun on the wall may need to be repeated to ensure the reader will remember them.

 

[RoccO]

Or to borrow a filmic 'rule of three', the important details like the gun on the wall may need to be repeated to ensure the reader will remember them.

That is seen throughout a story structure, so I do not see why it should not inhabit other schools of thought as well. There are basically three units to a family, three sections to a dwelling. Sure, you can add other things, but the main structure remains intact. It might be difficult for some things to possess other numbers that remain crucial in their makeup. If you had a door with no thickness or maybe a hole with no bottom. It might be an imaginary concept that draws you closer to the truth of a concept more than just flitting away.

The character being propelled forward requires three things, a land they dwell in, a weapon of some kind, or a faceless evil that needs to be thwarted. If they do not possess any of these three things, then it would not be a story. A character possessing nothing to their name may just be a faceless evil themselves, existing from place to place like a wanderer with nothing to protect, or a stench that requires a closer look getting more powerful as they travel. It might be closer to a video game without a controller, an AMV or montage, not a matinee or epic.

A book about a traveler may just be more similar to real life. If they have things that happen to them that are therapeutic or cathartic then maybe they would not be caught up in conflict. The solid foundation of routine is verily a construct itself, requiring three things, more or less, if it boils down to it. They can imagine other things so why cannot they go there, maybe inhabit their personal space and dealings as they go about their day. There is nothing to say a hermit might be better than a philanthropist, however a teacher might have more effect on a developing mind than a mystic.

 

[ennyedits]

I agree these things can be worked on in the edit, or in the second draft. Writing and finishing a work is more useful than worrying about if it's good.

When I'm writing to set the scene, I think about four pieces of (almost) every scene: story, characters, atmosphere, and themes. Each piece is part of the book I am writing, and each one can guide what is worth focusing on in any given scene.

For story, I want to be sure anything important to moving the plot forward is set up before it occurs. The classic example here is Chekhov's gun; if a character is going to take a gun off a wall and start shooting, establish that there is a gun on the wall before that happens. This can apply to all sorts of things, though. If your character is going to escape the dungeon by reaching the keys on the wall, have him look around - he'd be looking for the keys, and he'd take note of the broom that might be able to reach them.

For characters, especially POV characters, I am looking to establish or reinforce things about their personalities, skills, and position in society. For example, if my POV character is a thief, they are more likely to take notice of items in a room of high value. Art, jewels, etc. They may also notice escape routes, i.e. doors and windows. If a character is introduced in a scene, it's a good opportunity to set up some basic character traits: a knight might be wearing armor, or carrying a sword; a noblewoman might be wearing finer fabrics, or an especially beautiful piece of jewelry.

For atmosphere, this can vary a lot but can often be what best decides how much description a scene requires. A tense, scary scene can use a lot of atmosphere - horror novels can go ages without any dialogue or plot movement because a character is simply creeping through a spooky house, and the prose describes every creaking floor board, the smell of mold coming from the walls, the cobwebs between the railings on the stairwell, and so on. Romance scenes tend to be similar, you are lingering in the moment. But an action scene, the characters are less likely to be taking in their surroundings to the same extent - short, choppy descriptions often sell the moment.

As for themes, I'd say this doesn't come up in every scene the same way the first three do, but it can help round out a novel. Themes tend to be a bit more complex than a quick example can give, but I'll try to give a couple of simple examples. If your story deals with, say, an evil king your hero seeks to dethrone, you might take a moment when entering a new village to describe the poverty. Peasants taxed too much to feed themselves, bandits raiding without the protection of knights, that sort of thing. If your story is about a druid, with nature magic and such, you might focus on what plants are in a scene: the sorts of trees in the woods, the mushrooms in the cave, the flowers in a garden.

Also, re: editing vs. reading as a way to learn writing, both have their place. I worked as an editor for a few years, and it definitely helps hone the technical skills of writing and see more clearly where in your own writing needs to be punched up... but if you aren't reading great, complete books, your expectations for yourself will be lowered and you may lack the vision of the high heights your writing could achieve with patience and craft. Of course, being an editor, I often find myself passively editing books I read for leisure as well. it takes a true master of the craft to leave me without any notes in the margins, haha.

I like how you break scene-building into four parts. Which of these do you find hardest to get right when writing?

​

 

[ennyedits]

That's what the second draft is for. You can always add in the details when editing the story.

Also, keep in mind that every writer is different. Some give loads of descriptions while others give just enough to set the scene, and you find everything in between. If you're unsure, give the story to a beta reader and ask their opinion.

As for how to do it, practice and the "rule of three". The rule of three is that 3 is the ideal number of details to give. It's enough for people to remember (most people will have trouble remembering more than 3 details at a time) but not so many that it slows down the story. Sprinkle it into the dialogue and action and don't just have it as a blob at the start.

A good excercise is to write a scene 3 times. Each time, pick a different character and describe what they see. For instance, have the character walk across a marketplace. What do they see? Maybe they perform a drop or try to prevent one. Or maybe they just need groceries. But a spy will see the market differently from a child and different again from a woman taking her fish to market. Or whatever.

I like the idea of writing the same scene from different perspectives. Have you tried this exercise yourself?

​

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I like the idea of writing the same scene from different perspectives. Have you tried this exercise yourself?

​

We actually did this in our third book, Beneath a Stone Sky. Same scene, three perspectives. What made it work is each perspective carries the scene and progresses just a little further with each telling.

 

[casval]

I like how you break scene-building into four parts. Which of these do you find hardest to get right when writing?

Hm, I think it'd be atmosphere. I am an outliner, so I know before I start a chapter exactly what plot and character beats I need to hit. And theme is usually something that emerges organically, and is woven into the idea of the story in a way I don't always need to think about. But atmosphere can be tricky. It can change a lot from chapter to chapter, or it can stay the same for six chapters in a row. It's more abstract than the action that moves the story forward, more up to interpretation by a reader.

Sometimes setting the tone of a scene feels like dipping into another genre. A scene with a monster lurking around the corner requires taking notes from horror, a scene where the protagonist finally kisses his childhood friend takes notes from romance; a scene where the two armies meet for the final battle takes notes from action, perhaps even war dramas. I probably have the most difficulty with comedy - a good joke in a small, aside chapter can be great at breaking tension and gives the characters and readers a moment of relief, but I am just terrible at writing comedy.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I like the idea of writing the same scene from different perspectives. Have you tried this exercise yourself?

I haven't tried it yet. It's a fairly common writing excercise though when it comes to practicing both viewpoint and setting a scene. It forces you to think about what a character would notice based on their personality.

 

[pmmg]

Returning to my answer on this, I would also apply the rule of three. Hit three objects, use them to set the scene and the mood.

The cave was dark, dusty and dry as a bone.
The Brigand was dressed in red, had a large, curved sword in his hand, and a wide smile above his unshaved chin.
Lightening cracked, bringing with it rain and sleet and ice.

There is probably some psychology behind it, but three always feels like the right number of descriptors. More or less when needed.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Returning to my answer on this, I would also apply the rule of three. Hit three objects, use them to set the scene and the mood.

The cave was dark, dusty and dry as a bone.
The Brigand was dressed in red, had a large, curved sword in his hand, and a wide smile above his unshaved chin.
Lightening cracked, bringing with it rain and sleet and ice.

There is probably some psychology behind it, but three always feels like the right number of descriptors. More or less when needed.

Yeah, it's the odd numbers that seem to provide the best structure. Three, five, nine... I think that's most of them. Anybody using a 17 step structure is trying too hard and will not survive the Story Structure Apocalypse.

Edit to Add: This could be a real thing. What timeline is this, again???