Descriptive Passages

[Kenny_K75]

Working away on the new fantasy novel and have one main question concerning descriptive passages. In a lot of fantasy I read there are detailed descriptions of every character that is introduced, what they wear, physical characteristics etc. I generally only mention something if it is relevent. Similiarly many writers of fiction describe buildings, temples, palaces etc. in extreme detail. Again I only mention the relevent stuff. But I'm starting to worry that this descriptive element is a central part of what readers of fantasy expect from thier authors. Any opinons?

 

[Devor]

I generally only mention something if it is relevent.

Describing the characters and the setting both have to be done in order to create immersion. They don't have to be long, you don't have to list every last boring detail, but you need to include something for the reader's imagination to latch on to and build upon.

So as a writer, that presents a challenge: You have to include this detail, but it isn't relevant to the story. And the solution is to make it relevant. Use a character description to give the readers an impression of the character's personality and a setting to establish the mood.

The easiest way to do that, but not the only one, is to get inside your MC's head and present the information through your character's reaction to it.

Between his tangled hair and ragged blue robes, the man reminded Devor more of a beggar than a warrior. He carried his longsword close to the chest and wore the blank expression of a man already tired of pleading for his life.

The details, alone, aren't relevant. Who cares about his hair or his robes or his expression, or where he carried his sword. But they become relevant when they give readers a vivid impression of who this person appears to be. That impression, after all, will help to foreshadow the way the characters interact with each other.

 

[Kenny_K75]

Thanks for that feedback...

 

[Steerpike]

As a rule, I prefer little to no character description. In another thread on 'voice' I talk about a certain style of writing that has fallen by the wayside. If you're writing like that, and have a strong, unique authorial voice that really becomes part of the story, then throw as much description at me as you want. The vast majority of modern fantasy follows a much more lean, invisible prose style. I'd rather the author stuck to providing an important characteristic or two early on and then leave the description alone. All more description does for me is conflict with the image I've already formed in my head, and I end up ignoring it in favor of my own mental image. Thus, every time I encounter more of it, all it does is pull me out of the story because of the inconsistency.

 

[RedMorningSky]

I like some description, but I feel like I get a better picture of the character in my head through their actions. Sometimes when a character description is too much I end up not being able to picture them because even though the author has a very specific vision of them, their description don't resonate with me for whatever reason and they end up being a mixture of little features as opposed to a person. But when I'm given a few descriptors I feel like my brain fills in the blanks.

 

[Griffin]

It is all about relevancy. You want to provide some details, but it is up to you to decide, "Is this important?" For example, if a character has an unusual eye color and people comment on it, it might be helpful to let the readers know what color the eyes are. But if the character is 5'8, 156 lbs, muscular, has shaggy brown hair, purple eyes, and wearing a gray polo shirt and black cargo pants? A lot of those details are not necessary nor are they wanted.

I have read novels with tedious detail of people and objects to the point of banging my head against wall. I have read one novel that describes this table in great detail. Took a page and half to tell me how awesome this table was. And the table? Never came up in the story again. To me, that is useless detail.

My rule of thumb: if it is not needed, don't put it in. If it's important to let readers know that a character is seven feet tall or has horns, go for it.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I prefer a minimalist approach. Allow me, as your reader, to fill in most of the details from my imaginings & experiences.

If you describe a room with a lavish, four-post bed, and an elaborate, teak desk with silver inlay, I can fill in the rest. Your reader will understand the luxury & complete the setting for themselves.

 

[Saigonnus]

I also tend to use a minimalist approach in describing characters or places. I will usually add a tidbit on what the character or place looks like in the regular narrative. I usually only go into further detail if I feel it is important to the story that the reader know the specifics about a given place.

*Phineus brushes his dark lank hair from his forehead and regards the newcomer with a sneer, clearly not impressed with his richly ornate tabard or obsenely large glistening ruby on the thick golden chain around his neck. The barmaid sets three battered tankards on the worn table and scurries off again, dodging the hands of drunk patrons and wiping her hands on her already stained apron.*

 

[Alex97]

I think detailed description is important in the right places. Sometimes you need to describe a certian building or something to help give the reader an idea of that culture but there's nothing worse than over descriptive passages. I find the best thing to do is provide the reader with a few details that are relevent to the story and they can build the rest of the image themselves. At the end of the day the reader is going to have to use their imagination too so listing out every tiny thing is a waste of time.

I've noticed some novels describe the main character's appearance very vaguely which can work depending on the story. It gives the reader the chance to visualise the character as they see them.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I hate it when I dislike the author's description of their character. I, like Steerpike, tend to ignore their attempts to see the character as having black hair after I have pictured them otherwise, and can only fault them for not being more clear in the beginning.

Most of the time, I like the author's descriptions and find little in the way of contrary description, but when it does happen, it is disjointing and jarring.

 

[Steerpike]

I hate it when I dislike the author's description of their character. I, like Steerpike, tend to ignore their attempts to see the character as having black hair after I have pictured them otherwise, and can only fault them for not being more clear in the beginning.

Most of the time, I like the author's descriptions and find little in the way of contrary description, but when it does happen, it is disjointing and jarring.

I agree with this. And, I form my mental image of a character very early. Starting within seconds of encountering a character. By a paragraph or two my mental image of the character is generally fully-formed, and it is not going to change. So an author adding description past that point is wasting their time (as far as I am concerned) and interrupting my enjoyment of the story with their insistence on sprinkling character details into the narrative

 

[Penpilot]

To me, it's about finding the telling details, and enough of them to get what you want across. Sometimes that takes a little more description. Sometimes less. There's nothing wrong with a longer passages but those should be used sparingly just like adverbs and said-bookisms. Knowing when to give that little extra can add to the story, but add too much and it starts to take away.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I know right? I mean, if you want to put it in my head, it's gotta be on first impression. I'm okay learning something like someone who appears tough is really sensitive underneath or that sort of thing, but I equate it to meeting a person. I might notice eyes, hair, build, carriage, clothing, those sorts of things. If I didn't know he was 6' 8" in the beginning, and somehow the character missed he was towering over the other mercenaries... well then it's not my fault I chose to see him as the same as the others described.

The things I'm okay with being revealed later are the sorts of things you get to know about people, how they talk, their demeanor, their expressions. Things like eyes that appeared wild on first introduction, and appear kind as the story progresses... well that's just the natural response of getting to know someone. I like when a character changes throughout the story, and I'm pretty sure something like 80% of my characters change pretty drastically.

 

[ascanius]

Working away on the new fantasy novel and have one main question concerning descriptive passages. In a lot of fantasy I read there are detailed descriptions of every character that is introduced, what they wear, physical characteristics etc. I generally only mention something if it is relevent. Similiarly many writers of fiction describe buildings, temples, palaces etc. in extreme detail. Again I only mention the relevent stuff. But I'm starting to worry that this descriptive element is a central part of what readers of fantasy expect from thier authors. Any opinons?

I may be in the minority on this but I give very detailed description of almost everything, within reason. In my opinion the setting of fantasy is the story because it shapes the characters past, present, and future. If you were to strip away the setting would the story be possible in the real world? I like to create a setting to the extent that is an integral part of the plot and characters and by removing the setting the story can no longer take place. This is because the story and the setting are the same. There are probably many different ways to do this, I just happen to like details, this is my story and my world after all and I want to share how I see it. Like Devor said those details immerse the reader into the setting, but they also give depth. For me level of immersion is dependent on the level of depth in the setting. One reason why Tolkien did such a masterful job is due to the level of details. Those details really made a believable world, and I'm not just talking descriptions in this case but also history and everything else.

However, I think the best advice is to just write how you like. Don't struggle over adding detailed descriptions for the sake of describing something because you are worried. Add descriptions because they have a point whether they be to establish local fashion, costumes whatever. In many ways those other authors you are talking about are do the same thing you are because those descriptions do have a point, to establish facts in the readers mind regarding certain things. Now what and how you decide what is relevant and how to describe that is completely up to you.

Good luck.

@ Caged Maiden and Steerpike. Thanx for that info about adding physical descriptions early. Makes sense, I may have to go back and edit, saved me a lot of hassle.

 

[Kenny_K75]

Thanks so much for all the feedback and it's obvious there are a few different approaches. A lot to be thinking on. Really like the idea that relevant descriptions should be on first introduction and not slipped in later.

 

[Ireth]

@ Caged Maiden and Steerpike. Thanx for that info about adding physical descriptions early. Makes sense, I may have to go back and edit, saved me a lot of hassle.

Seconded, though in my case I'm not entirely sure of how to do that. One character in my first finished novel isn't given a full physical description until six chapters in, when his daughter is describing him to a friend; the closest thing to that earlier on is a subversion of the cliched "protagonist gazing into a mirror and giving a purple infodump about their appearance" trope. The guy does look into a mirror, but he only describes how much he looks like shit from hardly sleeping the previous night, and things like hair and eye color aren't given. His eye color is mentioned once before, but I don't think I mention his hair color at all until chapter six.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I find that I get interested in characters almost entirely based on what they do, not how they look. Physical descriptions are nice but for me at least aren't really important.

That said, I do describe each of my leads quite a bit, but not all at once; details are brought out a bit at a time in most cases.

 

[Elder the Dwarf]

I agree with this. And, I form my mental image of a character very early. Starting within seconds of encountering a character. By a paragraph or two my mental image of the character is generally fully-formed, and it is not going to change. So an author adding description past that point is wasting their time (as far as I am concerned) and interrupting my enjoyment of the story with their insistence on sprinkling character details into the narrative

This. It is why I almost always give at least a small amount of physical description upon encountering the character. This has happened to me in books before and it kind of kills the character a little bit. Every time I see that character's name again I get taken out of the narrative.

 

[Penpilot]

Seconded, though in my case I'm not entirely sure of how to do that. One character in my first finished novel isn't given a full physical description until six chapters in, when his daughter is describing him to a friend; the closest thing to that earlier on is a subversion of the cliched "protagonist gazing into a mirror and giving a purple infodump about their appearance" trope. The guy does look into a mirror, but he only describes how much he looks like shit from hardly sleeping the previous night, and things like hair and eye color aren't given. His eye color is mentioned once before, but I don't think I mention his hair color at all until chapter six.

Some physical descriptions can be simple. You don't even need another point of view looking at them, and you can do it without the cheesy mirror. You just have to find an excuse to bring up those traits subtly.

You can do it through action as follows:

-She huffed the blond curls out of her eyes.
-He ran his thumb across the scar on the side of his face.
-He whistled through the gap in his teeth.

Or you can get it across through their thoughts and character. Revealing the same three physical traits as above, you can say stuff like this:

- Betty couldn't believe she said something so stupid. Even though she was blonde, she never thought she fit the stereotype. She was not dumb... maybe.
- People began staring as soon as I stepped into the room, eyes locked on to the giant scar on the side of my face. I met each of their gazes and dared them to say something about it.
- They offered me an apple. I waved it away. Bloody wide gap in my front teeth made the sensation of biting into stuff like apples, corn, and pears feel... awkward. I don't like awkward.

 

[Caged Maiden]

Right on. There are certain things we notice immediately, and there are things we notice later. I can't tell you what color eyes anyone in my band have and I see them every Thursday, but I can sure tell you that one of the people I play with has the driest sense of humor EVER, one of the girls looks more like a boy, one of the boys is about 6'5" and towers above all of the rest of us...

So I don't know how sold I am on mentioning eye color immediately unless it's an attraction thing, but I love when a writer gets creative, tells me about a limp, a scar, an accent no one recognizes, calloused hands, dirt under someone's nails, or any one of a million other more noticeable things than eye color.