Don't Tell Me the Moon is Shining

[C Hollis]

I enjoy looking into inspirational quotes that us writing types like to put in our signatures or hang on our walls. I think some of you would be surprised at the origins of those phrases that bring you inspiration.
But I digress.

In May, 1886, Chekhov wrote to his brother Alexander, who had literary ambitions: “In descriptions of Nature one must seize on small details, grouping them so that when the reader closes his eyes he gets a picture. For instance, you’ll have a moonlit night if you write that on the mill dam a piece of glass from a broken bottle glittered like a bright little star, and that the black shadow of a dog or a wolf rolled past like a ball.”

That letter is oft paraphrased and pasted on meme’s and posters:

“Don’t tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass.”
by Anton Chekhov

Here's the question for the group:

Has our clicky-clicky, got to have it now culture completely invalidated Mr. Checkhov?

 

[SeverinR]

I don't think so.

Someone once wrote "a dark and stormy night" is cliche. It is common, but it can be written so many different ways, as much as how to describe the moons reflection.

I think the artist must use their creative energy to make that moon shine like no one else has. Make that dark and stormy night something more then the cliche.
Every person that has written before, sets the bar and we must climb over that bar to make our writings unique. They did it good or great, now I must embrace that and tell it different, not neccesarily better, just different.

I think Chekhov should pay more attention to Capt Kirk and less on philosophical writings.
(I am not now nor ever have been a Trekkie, I am a son of a trekie. I have been called worse then a son of trekkie)

 

[Chilari]

I think the meaning of what he was saying is maintained, and the wording is snappier and easier to remember. It's not the words he said so attributing it to him isn't quite right - it's paraphrased - but it works.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Short answer: no.

Longer answer: maybe, to a certain extent and in certain situations, but not completely.

There are still people who enjoy a good immersion, but there are also those who just want to get to the juicy bits right away.
A friend of mine is a fairly active writer on fanfiction.com and she's got a fair bunch of followers who read her work. The more she's writing the more effort she's putting into plot and characters and setting and background and all that stuff. Yet those who read her work keep pestering her to put in more "action" (sex).
It's her audience and it's what they want. To hear her tell it I don't imagine they're all that interested in flowing living descriptions of nature and scenery.

On the other hand, there are other audiences who do crave that immersion. The kind of people who like to live the story in their mind. With instant gratification being such a big thing in today's world I think it's natural to assume that the people who can savor and nurture a pleasure to come are a minority. I don't think that's correct.
I think there are still plenty of people who can appreciate a well written (whatever that means) story which isn't about in-your-face sex or brutal action. They're just not very vocal about it.

 

[Daichungak]

Has our clicky-clicky, got to have it now culture completely invalidated Mr. Checkhov?

Not at all. Personally, the more descriptive and the deeper the immersion the better. The exceptions being descriptions that are so obscure, heavy handed or long winded that they distract from the flow of the story.

I was intrigued by Svrtnsse's comments regarding the requests from fans for more “action.” I guess genre could (does) play a role in the amount and depth of description in creating a scene.

 

[Rinzei]

I prefer a middle-ground myself - not overly cliche, but also not so long as to make me lose my focus. For instance the example you gave from Chekhov: The original example he gave just was too long for my attention span. His paraphrased words, however, are short and sweet yet not cliche and I like that. It's more of a personal preference than anything. My attention can tend to waver when descriptions get too long and/or start to ramble on.

 

[Guru Coyote]

"The first man who said: Your skin is like a rose petal, was a poet. The second who said it, was a thief. And the third? He was an idiot."

I have no idea who I was paraphrasing there, but I think this idea is relevant to the original quote. I think what was really meant by the quote was not to have the moon reflect off broken glass... but to to find a NEW way to make the reader experience a moon-lit night.

That is still very valid for any writer today, even in the times of instant gratification... isn't instant gratification also 'a new way to make the reader experience?'

 

[BWFoster78]

I have no idea who I was paraphrasing there, but I think this idea is relevant to the original quote. I think what was really meant by the quote was not to have the moon reflect off broken glass... but to to find a NEW way to make the reader experience a moon-lit night.

Ideally, the author would get inside the character's head to understand what detail the character would notice and use the description both to develop the character and to make the reader understand the character's emotional state.

 

[Steerpike]

Ideally, the author would get inside the character's head to understand what detail the character would notice and use the description both to develop the character and to make the reader understand the character's emotional state.

Assuming you're in a tight POV, I agree. You might not want to write in a tight POV, in which case you'll cast a broader net in terms of what is described, and the language itself might be more evocative since you're not relying on a character's impression to convey feeling to the reader.

 

[Svrtnsse]

"Talent borrows, genius steals." - Oscar Wilde

I think, in many ways, the above quote applies more to ideas than to actual products though. If I find that someone is using the exact wording of someone else I'd probably be less than impressed. However, if I see someone taking someone else's idea and improving on it, or creating something better than the original, then I'm all of a sudden a lot more impressed.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Has our clicky-clicky, got to have it now culture completely invalidated Mr. Checkhov?

I don't think it has invalidated it. What I think it has done is produced a culture of non-readers. I am a voracious reader, raised by a voracious reader. I was read to at great length from a very early age. I luxuriate in the written word, both as a reader and as a writer. My sister, raised in exactly the same environment, is not a reader. She embraced popular culture, coveted being in the "in crowd." Popular culture has always looked upon the intellectual with distrust and scorn - "only nerds and outcasts read a lot, you know." She does not read to her son, who is at 9 also not a reader.

So, I think it's not that readers want to get to "the good stuff." Certain genres come with certain expectations, such as Svrt's friend's fans pushing her to write more "action." To be honest, they're not reading fanfic to become more fully immersed in their favorite fictional worlds. Readers love to read, and appreciate good writing. Non-readers will not read fiction - they want their information delivered to them in twitter-sized chunks so they can get back to watching their videos.

 

[Svrtnsse]

Assuming you're in a tight POV, I agree. You might not want to write in a tight POV, in which case you'll cast a broader net in terms of what is described, and the language itself might be more evocative since you're not relying on a character's impression to convey feeling to the reader.

I'm trying something like that in the introductory paragraph to my current WIP. The character isn't introduced until the very end and the descriptions are a lot more telling than showing. Still, I feel it works pretty well in setting the initial scene:

It was that time of the year. Spring had dressed the world to dance and summer was tuning its instruments, eager to start playing. A bright afternoon sun shone down on a little train making its way east across the plain near the forest's edge. In one of the cars, by a window, Enar sat looking out, thoughtful but happy.

 

[Guru Coyote]

Ideally, the author would get inside the character's head to understand what detail the character would notice and use the description both to develop the character and to make the reader understand the character's emotional state.

That might not always be what I want as a writer... what happens if I need to build a moon-lit night and all the eerie atmosphere to get the reader immersed... but the character in question would never notice those details?
(Steerpike already answered that one.)

 

[Chessie]

What it comes down to is writing what you want to read, always. I agree with AE Lowan in that there seems to be more non-readers these days. Last night, I overheard two of my coworkers talking about a novel one had let the other borrow. They talked about how wonderful the story was, how the author was one of their favorites, and how the writing was simple enough that they understood what was going on. The book was pretty chunky, and I smiled because its SO good to know there are people out there STILL reading. Its one of the things that's wonderful about kindles, etc that at least people can read on those.

About the OP, I think the message still stands. But there has to be a balance between description and flow. Enough description to set the mood for the readers, but enough flow that the story still is at the front of the page. Its what's so fascinating about writing, we can do it in a myriad of ways and its always the right way for us.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree with Chesterama and AE Lowan. Think of the opening of Titus Groan, where the great castle is a sort of character in and of itself:

Gormenghast, that is, the main massing of the original stone, taken by itself would have displayed a certain ponderous architectural quality were it possible to have ignored the circumfusion of those mean dwellings that swarmed like an epidemic around its outer walls. They sprawled over the sloping earth, each one half way over its neighbour until, held back by the castle ramparts, the innermost of these hovels laid hold on the great walls, clamping themselves thereto like limpets to a rock. These dwellings, by ancient law, were granted this chill intimacy with the stronghold that loomed above them. Over their irregular roofs would fall throughout the seasons the shadows of time-eaten buttresses, of broken and lofty turrets, and, most enormous of all, the shadow of the Tower of Flints. This tower, patched unevenly with black ivy, arose like a mutilated finger from among the fists of knuckled masonry and pointed blasphemously at heaven. At night the owls made of it an echoing throat; by day it stood voiceless and cast its long shadow.

Great opening. Sets the tone for the entire work. Brings home that the place is intimately connected to the story itself. And yet there's not much action going on here.

EDIT: I particularly like the last two sentences

 

[Jabrosky]

Assuming you're in a tight POV, I agree. You might not want to write in a tight POV, in which case you'll cast a broader net in terms of what is described, and the language itself might be more evocative since you're not relying on a character's impression to convey feeling to the reader.

I agree. I want to add that if you're setting your story in an exotic environment unfamiliar to your readers, limiting your description to what your in-world characters may notice could actually do a disservice to the message you're trying to communicate. If your main character is a Paleolithic forager living in the jungle, odds are she would take her habitat for granted, but this same environment could inspire awe in your readership if you describe it.

 

[Shockley]

I think the status of the moon, unless your character is a werewolf or a lunatic, is probably irrelevant to what your characters are doing, saying or thinking.

Far be it from me to crap all over Chekhov, though, so I'll let Hemingway do it: "Chekhov wrote about 6 good stories. But he was an amateur writer."

 

[Steerpike]

I think the status of the moon, unless your character is a werewolf or a lunatic, is probably irrelevant to what your characters are doing, saying or thinking.

Could be, but not every detail present in your story has to be relevant to what your characters are doing, saying, or thinking.

 

[Shockley]

Could be, but not every detail present in your story has to be relevant to what your characters are doing, saying, or thinking.

Has? No. Should be? Probably.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I agree. I want to add that if you're setting your story in an exotic environment unfamiliar to your readers, limiting your description to what your in-world characters may notice could actually do a disservice to the message you're trying to communicate. If your main character is a Paleolithic forager living in the jungle, odds are she would take her habitat for granted, but this same environment could inspire awe in your readership if you describe it.

I personally prefer to write deep POV, and I get around the taking-the-exotic-for-granted issue by having a POV character or two be a newbie to the situation - either an out-of-towner or just young, something along those lines.

And, please, no Hemingway rebuttals. He thought far too highly of himself.