Does a writer need to be observative?

[fantastic]

I often wonder about the way writers write. I started to wonder about things they write and why they write them.

For example, why do they describe something? Do they think it needs to be described? Obviously, if the description is relevant to the story, you would include it. But why have descriptions that are not relevant?

Are these descriptions a writer's attempt to control things such as tempo, tension, perspective and an interest of a reader, or is it just part of the writer's voice? In other words, are these descriptions specifically made to serve a certain function or are they just an extension of writer's imagination?

Which brings me to a point. I am not a perceptive person. I don't notice the details. I don't notice things that are bigger than just "details". I notice little of my surroundings most of the time. And that extends to the way I write, I don't describe what things look like. Even when describing a person, I may simply say what the color of his hair is, his age, maybe color of his eyes and perhaps some notable trait. I could, of course, mention whether a person is tall or slim, black or white, whether he is wearing a suit or not. Obviously, there are things you can force yourself to do, in order to improve your description. But it pales in comparison to rich descriptions that make it quite clear, what something looks like.

Of course, this is partly because I don't really know what to say. And partly because I don't feel it matters, which is probably a wrong mindset for someone who wants to write.

But I am wondering, are writers observative people who notice the details in their surroundings? Are they able to recall the color of the shirt their friend wore when you met him a few hours ago, the shape of drawers in their uncle's house, the pattern on the carpet, the book cover designs, the furniture style, the paintings they saw,... And are the description they write simply an explanation of their colorful imagination they have because they are observative?

So, I am asking for an advice. Is using little descriptions a bad idea? Should I force myself to write more detailed descriptions? Should I try to become a more perceptive person in order to improve the way I write? Expanding my vocabulary and trying to understand the methods other writers use to make us imagine something as vividly as possible is also probably a good idea. What suggestions do you have for me?

 

[Netardapope]

Hello, fantastic. This is a question that bothered me a lot back when I started, but one that is not something worth worrying about, in my opinion. If you want a quick answer, then yes, I do think that writers should be observant. But that isn't to say that you can force yourself to acquire skills in detailed analysis. This is something that grows organically.

In my experience, the more I write, the more I perceive in my daily surroundings. A lot of the stuff I used to write had vague descriptions, but that was because when you start out, you aren't used to viewing things as a writer. The more you write, the more you get used to it. Some people take longer, others don't. One thing that also really helps is to read from authors of varying styles.

Also, there's no problem with only having a little descriptive text. It's a matter of the kind of words that you use and whether they convey a concrete and precise image of what you want to describe, rather than a vague image. At the end of the day, some people (like me) like to get really wordy and love meaty description. Others like description to be sparser. But in both cases, people want it to have CONCRETE and VISUAL words. Which means that instead of run you'll say sprinted, instead of laughed you'll say giggled, instead of smile you'll say smirk and etc...

That isn't to say you can't use run, laugh, or smile. It's just that they should be used sparingly as they don't provide as clear of an image as the replacement words I'd given you. I hope this helps!

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I'm both an observant (I don't think observative is a real word, but it took me about 10 minutes to realize that, so don't feel bad...and now I'm wondering if observational is a word...sorry I'm really tired) person and a descriptive writer. This is how I see things.

First, I've wondered too if descriptions have any intrinsic value or importance to the story. Describing things in great detail and giving lavish amounts of informations seems rather unpopular nowadays. I don't like this trend at all, and I wonder why that would be, if descriptions AREN'T useful to the story...

Personally, description pulls me deeper into a story, makes it more tangible and real. It connects me emotionally. If I can see with my eyes and hear with my ears and smell with my nose and feel with my hands and taste on my tongue the things in the story, I will have a much deeper bond to them. I will care more about them.

I think my observant nature is a natural consequence of me being a writer, really. Being very young and missing lots of key experiences, I fixate on getting as much as I can out of what I *DO* have. Any time I experience something new I try hard to remember what it was like, how it felt...I don't even do this consciously anymore. I hoard details and stories and snippets of conversation and facts and bits of information and fragments of others' stories magpie-like. It's something my mind does without me even noticing it.

As for whether you should "try to be more descriptive?" Trying to be more observant is a good start. But you shouldn't try to change your writing style to please other people or to write in the way you think you "should" write. It's a good idea to occasionally write in a way you wouldn't ordinarily, to try out different styles. But there are people who like a little description and there are people who like a lot, and I've liked books written by both kinds (though I am on the side of preferring more rather than less description)

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

OBSERVANT. That's the word I was looking for! I knew it was shorter...

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

My brain is so fried right now

 

[Netardapope]

OBSERVANT. That's the word I was looking for! I knew it was shorter...

Gotta love it when the word only comes back after you send the message. I feel your pain [emoji23] [emoji23] [emoji23]

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk

 

[Peat]

I think being observant is very useful to writers. Not essential though.

I'd add that being observant of how people react to events and interact with each other is probably more valuable than being observant of your surroundings. Vividly real characters and reactions generally gets writers further than fantastic descriptions.

 

[skip.knox]

Is it possible not to observe? As long as we have senses, we are observing, so I think something more is needed than just the adjective. I wonder what the OP was really asking.

 

[FifthView]

For example, why do they describe something? Do they think it needs to be described? Obviously, if the description is relevant to the story, you would include it. But why have descriptions that are not relevant?

Are these descriptions a writer's attempt to control things such as tempo, tension, perspective and an interest of a reader, or is it just part of the writer's voice? In other words, are these descriptions specifically made to serve a certain function or are they just an extension of writer's imagination?

First, to your point, I also do not notice a lot of the details. But this doesn't mean I don't see them. Like you, like everyone, a simple glance outdoors means I'm seeing so freaking much. High, high, high definition. But a lot of that doesn't get "noticed," it doesn't come to my conscious mind and doesn't get held there. I don't think about it.

As far as the questions above go, I have some things for you to consider.

A picture might paint a thousand words, but we often don't have a thousand words to spend on painting a picture. An awful lot of what we do is shorthand. So we pick the things that matter, the things that will signify the main points or have specific effects, accomplish what we want to accomplish. A lot of the details won't matter–unless they do.

One thing I picked up from listening to the Writing Excuses podcasts was the idea of having everything we put into a story do double- or triple-duty. Picking the details to describe in a scene is more than about trying to paint a complete picture (too many words after all.) Have those details accomplish other things as well; for instance: setting tone/mood, revealing something about the character who notices those details, foreshadowing future events, advancing the plot, revealing significant features of a culture, setting limits and potentials for any action that will take place.

At the same time, I'd suggest not being overly afraid of repetitive descriptions, as long as they multitask and accomplish some of the above. I was reading Robin Hobb's latest Farseer trilogy, and I noticed that many times when she was describing an outdoor scene she used very similar descriptions. The trees were weighted down with snow, the wind was cold and cutting, snow was being blown across the landscape, drifts had formed. I noticed the repetition and thought Huh?....But given the story, it set the right tone of having to drudge across the countryside, of not making headway, of an oppressive sameness. (MC is in an absolute hysteria about rescuing a loved one but is unable to even set out to do so; so, this fits.) Also, pretty much every time the MC sits with the queen, there's a table with a teapot, cups, snacks, all described similarly for each instance, and this speaks to a dependable, unchanging relationship between them. The point: You may not always need extreme novelty for every bit of descriptive detail you choose to include.

 

[Penpilot]

Depends on what you mean by observant. I mean we're all observant and take notice of stuff, but the things we notice, like our POV characters, relates to what we're interested in, what's important to us.

For example, if I'm visiting a city, I notice things like comic books stores. I won't notice other stores as easily, but at a glance I can probably tell you what a comic book store had in the window, etc. Another example, I love hockey. I can glance down a stat sheet in the paper detailing how many goals and assists each player has in the NHL and pretty much take in 50%-75% of the info and repeat it hours later. I can't do this at all for something like Baseball stats, because I don't care.

If something interests you, you'll take notice and information on that interest is easily absorbed. So back to writing. If you're interested in people watching, you'll probably take notice of how people speak, what they wear, etc.

For me, I don't people watch much. But as for details in a story, for me, every detail has a purpose. Each detail says something about one or all of the following: the world, the plot, and the character.

For example, how you describe something, what words you use etc., can tell the reader the emotional state of the character. Here are a couple of lines each describing the same thing. Can you tell who's a little grumpy and who's happy?

The sun shone through the window, lovely warmth caressing her face.

The sun barged through the window, hitting her like a slap in the face.

I don't think you have to be a more observant person. I think maybe you have to figure out how to really get into a character's head and used details to do more than tell your reader what something looks like.

Another example. If I said person one has a bookshelf, and on that bookshelf were three books: Advanced Calculus and the Aerospace industry, Frontiers of Genetic Engineering, and the Best of Nora Roberts. What could you extrapolate about this person?

What if the books were as follows instead: 1001 bad jokes, Comedy for beginners, and Overcoming Stage Fright?

Edit, as I was writing this, Fifthview said a lot of what I wrote

 

[FifthView]

Edit, as I was writing this, Fifthview said a lot of what I wrote

Great minds, as they say...

Another terribly important use of detail that I forgot to include: handling POV transitions.

If you have one character crossing the ocean, another trudging through a jungle, and a third stuck in a palace handling court intrigue, starting a chapter with the right detail about the environment instantly lets the reader know which POV he's in. "An irregular pattering of water droplets fell from the jungle canopy long after the storm had passed" accomplishes something that "The sun sat low in the sky" might not. Robin Hobb's latest trilogy is written in two 1st person POV's, and after a point they are geographically separated, so a chapter opening describing the trees and tents, etc., rather than a castle environment instantly tells us which POV we are in.

 

[Futhark]

I'm an observant person, always trying to assimilate the sights, sounds and smells around me, but I've also wondered about why some people write whole paragraphs on describing the environment. Anne Rice comes to mind, and I find this can actually detract from the storytelling. Unless you have an omniscient narrator, what kind of character would notice all of these details? Other novels I have read are incredibly sparse with the detail, and yet they work because of the pace of the novel. I think the senior members summed it up best. What would your character notice? What sounds comfort them, what alerts them or makes them anxious? What do they see that registers, gasp in shock or awe? What smells register and what memories do they evoke?

 

[evolution_rex]

When writing, I believe being descriptive is important. If I read something and I can't build an image in my head, then it's uninteresting and I simply can't get into it. But what's also important is to keep things relevant. I find myself going off on describing something and then realizing that if someone read a whole paragraph describing the way cigarettes smell, then they may think that it's important to the story somehow. Or they'll just get bored because they're spending too much time reading when nothing is happening. So it's the balance, you've got visualize the story but you've also got to tell it.

As for being observant, I don't think you have to be particularly observant to be a write. It just takes experience to search through your memories and come up with neat little ways to describe things. I don't think you lacking any natural talent, I think it's a matter of time and energy. You'll get there.

 

[JaniceKersh]

I think my observant nature is a natural consequence of me being a writer, really.

I completely agree with you. To write you have to observe a lot: setting, situations, dialogues, etc. So that's hwo you start observing.