Describing Characters

[Chessie]

That is actually a very well made point, saellys. You've just given me a new perspective on the subject. I admit this is one of my weakest areas and that's why I posted this thread. I DO have a clear description in my mind of how all the characters look, and I describe them well. Its just the POV one that mystifies me because I want to stay in limited 3rd person. But you're right, everything else is described why not that?

 

[saellys]

And that's definitely the trickiest situation, but when it comes down to that, I say bite the bullet and squeeze in a couple sentences somewhere that encompass your mental image, then let your test readers tell you if it's too much too fast. For the first chapter or so of The Stone Front, all our POV characters are in the same place, and four of them are related, and nobody is meeting anyone else for the first time, so there is a lot of "She had ___ hair and ___ eyes," and also a bit of comparing who got which traits from which parent. It doesn't flow into the narrative as seamlessly as many authors might want, but it does put all the description in one easy-to-reference spot and then the story can proceed. Tolkien spent like half a page on Boromir's clothes, so I think my co-writers and I are within our rights on this.

 

[Ireth]

What if your POV character isn't in much of a position to notice or care what the person they're meeting for the first time is wearing or looks like? At one point, my MC has been brutally tortured, interrogated, and basically left to die before another character steps in to save him. The MC is in a heck of a lot of pain, can only see through one eye, and is currently trapped and helpless. Can I get away with not describing his rescuer in any great detail right away? In his current state, the MC's not going to pay attention to the cut of her clothes or the style of her hair. If anything he'll be mostly focused on the spear she's carrying, and how much the iron in the head of it is adding to his pain.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I'll comment a little on your description (keep in mind I'm in no way an experienced writer so read critically).

She scratched at the circular tattoos on her chin with the back of her hand, jingling the copper bracelets on her arm.

From this line I get the impression of a slender dark skinned woman. I don't know for sure where I get the idea she's dark skinned. It could be that I associate jangling bracelets with dark skinned women or it could be that I saw a comment from Jabrosky earlier (that's the power of association for you).
There are more reasons for why I picture her as slender. Firstly, it doesn't say anything else. Generally, (I think, not sure here) if a woman isn't slender (she's chubby, fat, round, anorexic) it's pointed out. Slender women as important female characters seems to be something of a norm so that's the conclusion my brain jumps to if nothing else is mentioned.
Secondly, her bracelets are dangling, which indicates they're larger than her arm. Again, I'm assuming that if she had thick arms you'd have mentioned that as it deviates slightly from the norm.
Thirdly, she scratches her check with the back of her hand. This, I feel, is something of a dainty gesture and it fits better with a slender woman.
I also get that she has circular tattoos on her chin. This isn't something I have any frame of reference for. I picture it as two circles about the size of coins (smaller than a quarter) with some kind of pattern inside it. It's not something I'm really putting too much attention to though (again, it's because I haven't seen it before so I have no clear image of what it'd look like).

That's all the information I get from that line. The rest I make up myself based on my own experiences and preferences. So I picture her with an angular face, a sharp nose an straight black hair that falls down her back. Since she's facing me (I imagine) I have no clear image of how long her hair actually is, but it disappears behind her back.
I don't really have any description of her clothes, but I'm thinking it's a warm climate and that she's wearing some kind of light fabric (or possibly leather), probably white/yellow-ish or red/brown.
I also imagine that she's sitting.

As you can see. from that sentence I've filled in a whole lot of blanks that aren't mentioned. I already have an idea of her clothes, face and hair. I haven't really thought about her eyes as that's not something I pay much attention to in real life, but I imagine they're some kind of dark-ish color.

Bearing all this in mind what I'm thinking is that your readers used the first line only to build their image of the character and then didn't make the connection with the rest of the details you put in.

I guess I should learn something from this as well, as I used a similar method when describing Jolene. I first put in the phase and then only later added the dress.

 

[Chessie]

Wow, Svrtnsse, you came really close! I'm impressed. She lives in a cold climate, and I'm glad you mentioned something different which tells me yes, I should add more description in. I redid a couple paragraphs and this is what I have:

She sat on the edge of a cushy chair in Matilda Lievics’s office, her bouncy legs crossed, her sturdy back erect and leaning forward. She tugged at one of her two waist-length braids, black as the mid-winter night sky, wrapped in reindeer hide leather straps. Her light brown skin tone, a characteristic of her indigenous people the Tsy, meshed softly with her yellow silk blouse and flower-patterned scarf. She scratched at the red circular tattoos, the size of small pearls, on her angular chin with the back of her manicured hand, jingling the copper bracelets on her arm.
The tightness in her petite chest allowed her to only suck in a shallow breath. Her deep set brown eyes hovered in sadness and desperation.

She said, pulling at her dark blue leggings underneath her itchy wool skirt. Her sweaty foot tapped against the floor inside a hand-crafted and beaded moccasin.

 

[Jabrosky]

As a reader, if I don't get a pretty clear description of every character shortly after their introduction, even the POV character in a limited-third-person perspective or first-person perspective story, I come away feeling cheated. In a fantasy world where literally everything else is, by necessity, lavishly described, leaving the appearance of your characters up to the reader is a bit of a copout. If you're describing their enchanted sword or ranger garb or desert hut or horse, why not their facial features, skin tone, hair and eye color, physique, and so on? Show me you really took the time to imagine every part of your world.

I do believe that modern Western society's cowardly stance towards racial discussions reinforces many writers' reluctance to describe their characters physically. When one of my aunts taught as a schoolteacher, she read an excerpt from a book which simply mentioned the characters' skin colors, and one of the students cried racism. The irony is that this kind of phony "colorblindness" that tells people not to mention skin color actually strengthens white privilege, because it means you can't describe a person as anything other than the white default.

 

[saellys]

I do believe that modern Western society's cowardly stance towards racial discussions reinforces many writers' reluctance to describe their characters physically. When one of my aunts taught as a schoolteacher, she read an excerpt from a book which simply mentioned the characters' skin colors, and one of the students cried racism. The irony is that this kind of phony "colorblindness" that tells people not to mention skin color actually strengthens white privilege, because it means you can't describe a person as anything other than the white default.

Not to turn this into another "Sensitive Topics" thread, but I think you're not far off. The thing is, there are ways to describe characters' skin colors that could piss off your readers for very good reasons. For instance, food descriptors are tired and cliché, and also rather dehumanizing. I try, when describing people of color, to think of how I would describe my own skin tone, and it's staggeringly difficult because I am the default and I have never had to think about it before. Past a certain point my brain just switches into Crayola mode and I'm apricot, which doesn't solve anything.

There are some lazy descriptions out there, and there are some pretty decent descriptions out there, and at the end of the day there are some very straightforward descriptions that still get ignored by readers and casting agents and actresses. Suzanne Collins described Katniss and Gale and almost everyone else who lived in the Seam area of District 12 in The Hunger Games as having olive skin, dark hair, and grey eyes. That was a really cool part of Collins's post-apocalyptic worldbuilding, with suggestions of First Nations heritage or Indian-American or thoroughly blended races, and I've seen fancast versions of Katniss that embraced all those possibilities (Q'orianka Kilcher is still my favorite), but the casting call scrapped all of that and specified Caucasian and we ended up with Jennifer Lawrence.

It is, no doubt, enough to put a writer off describing characters entirely, but I still think the effort toward inclusiveness and well-crafted description is worth it.

 

[Steerpike]

Skin color is one thing I do generally describe with my characters, because it is a physical trait that is immediately recognizable. My MC is of Mayan heritage. Her skin, hair and eye color reflects that, for example. Another character is black. It makes sense to describe that. But on the whole, I tend to leave out physical descriptions, save for just a few characteristics. I like to let the reader's imagination fill in the blanks on the exact appearance of the character.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

In a fantasy world where literally everything else is, by necessity, lavishly described, leaving the appearance of your characters up to the reader is a bit of a copout. If you're describing their enchanted sword or ranger garb or desert hut or horse, why not their facial features, skin tone, hair and eye color, physique, and so on? Show me you really took the time to imagine every part of your world.

Lavish description in fantasy is a style choice only. Many authors approach setting in a minimalist fashion, same as character description. This is a more modern trend, and the bedrock of the genre did normally incorporate a more generous descriptive style, that's certain. It isn't necessary for a good story though, personal preferences not withstanding.

I do believe that modern Western society's cowardly stance towards racial discussions reinforces many writers' reluctance to describe their characters physically. When one of my aunts taught as a schoolteacher, she read an excerpt from a book which simply mentioned the characters' skin colors, and one of the students cried racism. The irony is that this kind of phony "colorblindness" that tells people not to mention skin color actually strengthens white privilege, because it means you can't describe a person as anything other than the white default.

I don't believe this is the reason for minimal description. Rather, it is a theory geared to involve the reader more, immersing them into the story, making them an active participant by filling in details from their own experiences.

 

[Chessie]

Saellys, your point about Katniss happens to be one of the reasons why I don't describe characters often. Readers get an image in mind and there it goes. A long time ago, I wrote a short story about a character who resembled someone of Greek heritage. A human. One of my readers kept thinking she was an elf...although there were no elves in that story. *shrugs*

 

[saellys]

Lavish description in fantasy is a style choice only. Many authors approach setting in a minimalist fashion, same as character description. This is a more modern trend, and the bedrock of the genre did normally incorporate a more generous descriptive style, that's certain. It isn't necessary for a good story though, personal preferences not withstanding.

Fair enough, but you don't have to be lavish or even generous with description to carry a solid image. "She had creamy, silken skin and hair like honey just off the comb," is a long way from "She was pale and blonde". Same image, different stylistic choices--still counts as description.

An author who consciously decides to not describe anything at all and write nothing but straight narration makes me feel as if I have been plopped down in a Langoliers-esque world of haze and formlessness, and the story tumbles straight out of "style choice" and into "poor writing".

I don't believe this is the reason for minimal description. Rather, it is a theory geared to involve the reader more, immersing them into the story, making them an active participant by filling in details from their own experiences.

That makes me wonder who the writer is here.

Saellys, your point about Katniss happens to be one of the reasons why I don't describe characters often. Readers get an image in mind and there it goes. A long time ago, I wrote a short story about a character who resembled someone of Greek heritage. A human. One of my readers kept thinking she was an elf...although there were no elves in that story. *shrugs*

And sadly, there is little writers can do about something like that. In fact, if we protest too much about readers' willful misinterpretation, we tend to wind up looking like jerks.

 

[Ireth]

And sadly, there is little writers can do about something like that. In fact, if we protest too much about readers' willful misinterpretation, we tend to wind up looking like jerks.

Indeed. You really can't help what goes on in people's heads sometimes. I was part of an RP once that took place in a magical-school setting, where the school was divided into four houses: "normal" humans, mages, vampires and shapeshifters. One of my characters was a "normal" human professor, but somehow one of the GMs always thought he was a mage, even though he had demonstrated absolutely no magical talent or even an inclination toward developing any, until I finally pointed that out. Though said GM then went and turned him into a mage anyway (with my consent, of course), so... moot point, I guess.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

Fair enough, but you don't have to be lavish or even generous with description to carry a solid image. "She had creamy, silken skin and hair like honey just off the comb," is a long way from "She was pale and blonde". Same image, different stylistic choices--still counts as description.

Agreed. As originally stated in this thread, I'm an advocate of a few key, and prominent, details.

An author who consciously decides to not describe anything at all and write nothing but straight narration makes me feel as if I have been plopped down in a Langoliers-esque world of haze and formlessness, and the story tumbles straight out of "style choice" and into "poor writing".

I'm not advocating straight narration either. How can one describe nothing? No, I'm talking about minimalist description, small details that do a lot of powerful work.

That makes me wonder who the writer is here.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking me who believes, or generated, this line of thought? Are you asking me for examples of writing like this? Or, are you trying to say that writers who believe in this approach come from a certain mindset or social group?

And sadly, there is little writers can do about something like that. In fact, if we protest too much about readers' willful misinterpretation, we tend to wind up looking like jerks.

I believe that clarity is king. If your reader is not understanding the distinct image you're trying to convey, you have failed...not them. In my view, this is another argument for minimalist description. The image that moves around within their story is the one the reader created with only minimal, but powerful, input from the writer. That image, in the reader's experience, is dead-on accurate.

 

[saellys]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you asking me who believes, or generated, this line of thought? Are you asking me for examples of writing like this? Or, are you trying to say that writers who believe in this approach come from a certain mindset or social group?

I'm trying to say that a writer who leaves a character's entire appearance open like a Mad Lib blank for the reader to fill in is leaving their job as a writer unfinished. When I start reading a book, I do not want to be an active partner in describing these things that I have never encountered before. Again, this is the same for every part of a fantasy world. Enchanted sword? Describe the runes or the jewels in the hilt or the tassel or the scabbard. Towering city? Tell me what it's made of and what kind of people live there.

There's a certain threshold where I can say "Oh, interesting, based on this description it's fun to picture Locke Lamora as resembling Dev Patel," but I needed Scott Lynch's description (which was pretty minimal, by my standards) to get there. Any less description than that, and I'm not engaged.

I believe that clarity is king. If your reader is not understanding the distinct image you're trying to convey, you have failed...not them. In my view, this is another argument for minimalist description. The image that moves around within their story is the one the reader created with only minimal, but powerful, input from the writer. That image, in the reader's experience, is dead-on accurate.

And again, there are loads of people who walked away from The Hunger Games thinking Katniss was white, despite straightforward description. That's not Collins's failing.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'm trying to say that a writer who leaves a character's entire appearance open like a Mad Lib blank for the reader to fill in is leaving their job as a writer unfinished.

No one said anything about leaving a character's entire appearance open.

When I start reading a book, I do not want to be an active partner in describing these things that I have never encountered before. Again, this is the same for every part of a fantasy world. Enchanted sword? Describe the runes or the jewels in the hilt or the tassel or the scabbard. Towering city? Tell me what it's made of and what kind of people live there.

A personal preference to which you're entitled. However, that level of detail isn't necessary for all readers to enjoy a good story.

And again, there are loads of people who walked away from The Hunger Games thinking Katniss was white, despite straightforward description. That's not Collins's failing.

Although I read this book, I don't recall much about it. I didn't like it nearly as much as most people. I'd have to re-read the story to determine if the description caused image confusion, or if it was reader projection (which is what I think you're implying). I'm not likely to look into deeper as I find the story a tad boring & predictable.

Also, I'm not trying to generate a discussion on this author or that author. Rather, I'm making a case for clarity & the effectiveness of minimalist description done well.

 

[Steerpike]

If an author wants to leave appearance entirely open-ended, that's fine. Why not? In Jeanette Winterson's book Written on the Body​, as I recall the MC is not only not described, but the gender isn't even given.

 

[BWFoster78]

Any less description than that, and I'm not engaged.

I'm the complete opposite. As a reader, I couldn't care less about descriptions of any kind. They are much more likely to bore me, thus reducing my engagement, than to do the opposite.

That's one reason why writing is so tough. Even if an author produces the absolute best work of genius ever in the eyes of one audience, other audiences will not like it at all.

 

[Addison]

There are several ways to describe a character but let me make one thing clear first, there's no set rule that says you must describe the character height to hair in one paragraph. You can do it differently and then some in one of three ways. Each of them describes the character effectively and in more dimensions.

1. Interaction with self. I read this example in a writing book, I forget the book exactly-it's buried in the pile behind me-where this is usually done when the character is dressing. In the book's example it went something like; "He picked up the only clean shirt and slipped it on. Looking at himself he realized he matched head to toe in his given color; s#$% brown. @#$ brown shirt, #$%#$ brown eyes, @#$3 brown hair and @##$ brown shoes to match. All on a body shaped like a turd." So here, however gross (I didn't write it) we get the character's physical description and a clear view of their mentality.

2. Interaction with others. This is usually done with the character comparing themselves to or against others. "I always envied Jenny with her long, straight blonde hair, willowy figure and strong cheek bones. Compared to me, sister of the seven dwarfs. Small, big build with short curls and bouncy cheeks." Who the character compares themselves to and how tells the reader different things. This can also be used as comparing and contrasting to environment, usually in a career. If it's a fire fighter they could say their hair is as black as the smoke or something like that. It can be used as they're on a camping trip, their eyes as blue as the country sky...whatever.

3 In dollops. In both above examples the description is still in one paragraph, you can do it how you please. But you can describe different parts in different ways through the first two or so pages. "The eager beagle pawed at the blankets, uncovering a head of blonde hair......he opened the cabinet and hopped as high as he could to snatch the cereal....he locked eyes with his sister, her blue eyes at war with his green eyes." Here we learn he has a puppy, he's not a morning person, he's short and has a sister with a typical sibling relationship.

There's no rule for how or how fast you describe a character, these are just examples. Hope this helped.

 

[buyjupiter]

Slight disclaimer: I belong to the minimalist approach of writing.

Since you're writing a limited 3rd you actually have a few more options than if you're writing in 1st person.

In a first person narrative (or a really close third person), I find it incredibly self-absorbed to do a descriptive passage. Most people of my acquaintance are not going to describe themselves from head to toe, to themselves. Unless something is wrong.

If your character has just been through a horrible physical experience, like the magical equivalent of a car wreck, I can see the need to go into a description. But it has to make narrative sense for me to do it, not just because I feel the need to check something off the narrative checklist.

I choose to focus on unconscious gestures in any POV. Some people like to tap their feet. Others push back their hair. Some people rub the bridge of their noses. All of these things tell me as a reader (and writer) far more about the person than "raven black hair" or "cornflower blue eyes that matched my gingham apron." I tend to stick to unconscious gestures because it makes more sense to me as a writer/reader to have description where it makes sense.

Another cue for me to write description of my main character is when I'm having them meet people who are the complete opposite of themselves. I think that is a valid time to bring in description as well. Not only does a writer have to describe things/people but they have to distinguish them to prevent confusion as to who is doing what thing to whom. And as a reader, that makes narrative sense as well. I'd expect descriptive passages at these points.

In short: I think that I personally have two qualifications for writing character descriptions.
1. Is this appearance different from their normal, everyday appearance?
2. Is this a scene with more than one person of the same gender/socio-economic status/etc? If it is, then I need to distinguish between characters. Physical description is one way to do this.

Now, if I'm writing a minor character, they get even less physical description than the main players. But that's a choice of detail thing, not a how to place character description problem.

 

[Svrtnsse]

She sat on the edge of a cushy chair in Matilda Lievics’s office, her bouncy legs crossed, her sturdy back erect and leaning forward. She tugged at one of her two waist-length braids, black as the mid-winter night sky, wrapped in reindeer hide leather straps. Her light brown skin tone, a characteristic of her indigenous people the Tsy, meshed softly with her yellow silk blouse and flower-patterned scarf. She scratched at the red circular tattoos, the size of small pearls, on her angular chin with the back of her manicured hand, jingling the copper bracelets on her arm.
The tightness in her petite chest allowed her to only suck in a shallow breath. Her deep set brown eyes hovered in sadness and desperation.

She said, pulling at her dark blue leggings underneath her itchy wool skirt. Her sweaty foot tapped against the floor inside a hand-crafted and beaded moccasin.

I'm thinking that in trying to put in some more description you have gone a little overboard and overdone it a little. I'd try to determine what's essential to form an accurate first impression of her, include those pieces and cut the rest. If this was my story, here's how I would split it.
Things to keep.
- She's nervous.
- Physical appearance: Light brown skin, long black hair (braided), tattoos, frame/build, eyes.
- Bracelets (these were in the original version so I take it they're important)
Things to fit in if the opportunity arises:
- Clothes
- The straps on the braids.
Things to skip
- Bouncy legs.
- Tsy
- Manicured hand

Maybe I'd go for it a bit like this:

Back straight she sat on the edge of a chair in Matilda Lievics’s office. She'd pulled her braids forward so as to not sit on them and now they coiled like black snakes in her lap. She rubbed at her face to try and bring some warmth into it, the little red tattoos on her chin a stark contrast to her pale brown skin. The copper bracelets jingled against each other on her bare arms and one of them snagged against her scarf. Dark eyes squinting she managed to untangle it and let her amrs fall to her sides.

There are several pieces missing here and there's still room for improvement, but I think it cuts an image of the girl similar to the one in your version. It's not exactly the same, but it's at least similar.