Don't Tell Me the Moon is Shining

[Steerpike]

Has? No. Should be? Probably.

I don't agree. Sure, if you want to write that style of story, that's fine. But there are plenty of books where this isn't the case. Within the fantasy genre, I suspect most books contain details that aren't relevant to the thoughts, acts, or pronouncements of the characters. If you look at classics, this certainly seems to me to be the case.

So no, I don't agree with 'should,' either. Some people prefer to write in a more descriptive style. Plenty of fantasy books, for example, may make mention of a type or tree, or plant, or passing animal that has no bearing on the story or direct relevance to the characters whatsoever.

 

[Shockley]

I don't agree. Sure, if you want to write that style of story, that's fine. But there are plenty of books where this isn't the case. Within the fantasy genre, I suspect most books contain details that aren't relevant to the thoughts, acts, or pronouncements of the characters. If you look at classics, this certainly seems to me to be the case.

So no, I don't agree with 'should,' either. Some people prefer to write in a more descriptive style. Plenty of fantasy books, for example, may make mention of a type or tree, or plant, or passing animal that has no bearing on the story or direct relevance to the characters whatsoever.

I would certainly agree with you in the sense that if someone wants to write a story that is very, very purple in its description and people want to read that kind of story, far be it from me to tell them that they can't or shouldn't. As to whether most fantasy books contain it, possibly - I've always been open about my inability to stand 90% of the books published as fantasy.

I think about it in terms of Robert Howard versus J. R. R. Tolkien. Howard could get very heavy in the descriptions, but if he spent a paragraph describing a stone you could be confident in the idea that the stone in question would play a role in the plot and had some relevance - Tolkien gives you a Bombadil aside and you're just left confused and wanting more. I prefer, 9/10, the method where I am not left wanting to know the relevance of something.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

...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?

I find this very interesting. In my experience, I've never seen the paraphrased quote applied as an instruction on the use of description, or at least not in the way mainly being discussed in this thread. Every time I've seen it pop up, it's been used as an illustration of the "Show don't tell" principle. Meaning, a writer should use Chekov's guidance to employ the reader's imagination to build the image of a moonlit night without simply writing "It was a moonlit night."

 

[Steerpike]

I would certainly agree with you in the sense that if someone wants to write a story that is very, very purple in its description and people want to read that kind of story, far be it from me to tell them that they can't or shouldn't. As to whether most fantasy books contain it, possibly - I've always been open about my inability to stand 90% of the books published as fantasy.

I think about it in terms of Robert Howard versus J. R. R. Tolkien. Howard could get very heavy in the descriptions, but if he spent a paragraph describing a stone you could be confident in the idea that the stone in question would play a role in the plot and had some relevance - Tolkien gives you a Bombadil aside and you're just left confused and wanting more. I prefer, 9/10, the method where I am not left wanting to know the relevance of something.

I don't think that makes them "purple." That word carries negative connotations, and seems to me to be used to refer to whatever description an individual didn't like.

Joseph Conrad, for example, used quite a bit of description and also included details not directly relevant. I wouldn't consider his writing purple. The same holds for Dostoevsky, or even Nabokov, who went much further with the language than either of those.

Yes, I think Tolkien is a good example of what I'm talking about, as you said. But of course he's been quite popular for a long time, and even if you don't like a lot of fantasy, plenty of people do. So when it comes to whether something 'should' be presented in a certain way, you have to ask from whose perspective you're talking about. Should I, as a writer, write a certain way just because one person thinks I should? Or ten? If I like a certain style, and not only that it happens to do fairly well commercially, there doesn't seem to be a strong argument in favor of me not writing that way.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I read Ellen Kushner's "Privilege of the Sword" a couple years ago. I loved it. LOVED it!!! Beautiful descriptions, compelling characters. What more could I ask for? Nothing. It's on me favorite bookshelf with all the others I loved too much to ever part with.

So a year later, I purchased her first book, "Swordspoint". It's been touted as a masterpiece and great authors have reviewed it and left comments like "It begins with a single drop of blood in the snow, a powerful image,an d just keeps getting better" (I think that was GRRM's comment, but I'm paraphrasing). Anyhoo...

I opened the book and indeed, that first image is really good. A single drop of blood in the snow. It goes on to the results of a duel, where a famous swordsman killed a noble's champion. But then, it all went downhill for me. I put it down in chapter 3 or 4 and never picked it back up again. It's in my nightstand drawer, where it's been since I put it down.

My point? that while the opening imagery was great, the opening is often the best and easiest place for such imagery. I think sometimes there's a place to put "The moon shone in the sky, casting light on a thousand pike heads..." and there's a place to put, "A thousand tiny sparkles shone in the street. Broken glass, littering the cobblestones outside the mayor's dark office." Whatever. Just that there's a time and a place to be poetic and reflective, and there are instances when being brief and setting a scene up quickly will work better.

I still believe the original message is valid and gets through even in the paraphrased version of the original thought. In fact, they both have slightly different meanings, but are both valid. most writers, I think will enjoy the paraphrased one.

 

[Steerpike]

I liked Swordspoint a lot. Also, The Fall of Kings comes in between that one and Privilege of the Sword. But I liked all three

 

[Shockley]

I don't think that makes them "purple." That word carries negative connotations, and seems to me to be used to refer to whatever description an individual didn't like.

I understand the connotations, and am not using it in a pejorative manner. Merely descriptive.

Joseph Conrad, for example, used quite a bit of description and also included details not directly relevant. I wouldn't consider his writing purple. The same holds for Dostoevsky, or even Nabokov, who went much further with the language than either of those.

I think Conrad is using it in a way that is relevant to the plot, in that he is generally introducing characters into new, foreboding areas. The descriptions in that case are reflective of what the character is experiencing and their experience in this place is critical to who they are and how they are developing. The setting of the Congo in Heart of Darkness is absolutely critical (in the same way Vietnam is critical to Apocalypse Now), so it makes sense that he spends a lot of time on that topic. It's been too long since I've read Nabokov to have any opinion on that, and I'll just have to disagree with you on Dostoevsky. I've only read the Brothers Karamazov, admittedly, but that was not a stylistic tactic of his that I noticed.

Yes, I think Tolkien is a good example of what I'm talking about, as you said. But of course he's been quite popular for a long time, and even if you don't like a lot of fantasy, plenty of people do. So when it comes to whether something 'should' be presented in a certain way, you have to ask from whose perspective you're talking about.

Tolkien is popular, but I don't think he's popular because of his writing style which wasn't all that great. He was creative, passionate, etc. and that made his work great, but it's not popular because he's a great prose worker (Oddly enough, I always found his character poetry quite good while I think Howard's is lacking).

Should I, as a writer, write a certain way just because one person thinks I should? Or ten? If I like a certain style, and not only that it happens to do fairly well commercially, there doesn't seem to be a strong argument in favor of me not writing that way.

No, you shouldn't. Nor should I embrace overly descriptive writing because that is what is popular in the genre.

 

[Steerpike]

The setting of the Congo in Heart of Darkness is absolutely critical (in the same way Vietnam is critical to Apocalypse Now), so it makes sense that he spends a lot of time on that topic. It's been too long since I've read Nabokov to have any opinion on that, and I'll just have to disagree with you on Dostoevsky. I've only read the Brothers Karamazov, admittedly, but that was not a stylistic tactic of his that I noticed.

I agree with regard to Heart of Darkness. The same argument would be true of his book Victory, and also of portions of Chance. But Conrad is quite descriptive in The Secret Agent, for example, and that is set in London.

With respect to Dostoevsky, I wouldn't go so far to call it a tactic of his, but I do think he has extraneous details in his work.

Ultimately, I enjoy a wide range of fiction, so it doesn't matter to me which style or approach an author takes (it might on a given day, depending on what I'm in the mood to read, but in the long run it doesn't matter). I think every writer should write in the style they wish, and not worry about trying to please any given person with it. There are enough readers out there to support a wide range of literary styles.

 

[Shockley]

I agree with regard to Heart of Darkness. The same argument would be true of his book Victory, and also of portions of Chance. But Conrad is quite descriptive in The Secret Agent, for example, and that is set in London.

Yes, well, I think you should get some leeway if you are writing pre-television. That's how I'm able to reconcile my style snobbery with Tolstoy, at least.

With respect to Dostoevsky, I wouldn't go so far to call it a tactic of his, but I do think he has extraneous details in his work.

Certainly, though not to the point that it ever became annoying or distracting.

Ultimately, I enjoy a wide range of fiction, so it doesn't matter to me which style or approach an author takes (it might on a given day, depending on what I'm in the mood to read, but in the long run it doesn't matter). I think every writer should write in the style they wish, and not worry about trying to please any given person with it. There are enough readers out there to support a wide range of literary styles.

Agreed. The only reason I even commented in this thread was because I thought that a certain style - Chekhov's style, which I don't particularly enjoy - was being pushed as the correct way to write.

 

[Chessie]

Personally, I think descriptive writing is fading away in the fantasy genre. At least from what I've seen with GRRM and Joe Abercrombie, for instance. Their writing is simple, straight to the point, with enough description there to set the background aura. I find their writing to be very different from Tolkien, lets say. They are all fantastic writers, with popular stories written in their own way. No way is the right/wrong way, I think everyone here can agree on that.

However, I think the fantasy genre is unique in its need for more description because of setting. We're creating magical worlds here, and readers need a bit more "oomph" to help them visualize what the hell we're talking about. Sure, it can be taken too far, but there's people out there that still want to read it.

I'd like to further Steerpike's comment on how there's mention of plants or animals in stories that have no bearing to the plot, etc. If anything, it provides the reader a deeper picture of the setting, which can be helpful in putting the entire framework of story together. Setting is part of the story, especially in fantasy.

 

[Steerpike]

Agreed. The only reason I even commented in this thread was because I thought that a certain style - Chekhov's style, which I don't particularly enjoy - was being pushed as the correct way to write.

Ah. Well, yes, I agree that no one style should be pushed as the correct way.

 

[C Hollis]

My own thoughts on the quote, the one that's been making the rounds in paraphrased form for over ten years now:

For me, it's a yes and no. One hundred years ago, that flowery prose was the norm, not so much today. Is it dead? Not by a long shot, but it is less prevalent.

In my writings, the moon shines when I want it to, and broken glass reflects moonlight when it is needed to show the character of the environment. Of course, I tend to be economical with my words, because (just a humble opinion, remember) we do live in an age where immediate satisfaction is desired. However, I do not omit a good description at the cost of the story. There is a balance to be struck.

Then again, it is MY style of writing.

I don't tend to judge stories by their long-windedness, or brevity. My only real gauge is how long it takes for me to read them. I enjoy them, or hate them, just the same. Though I do have friends on either side of the coin. A very close friend refuses to read any more Stephen King because he doesn't give a hoot what color the vase on the freaking laminated oak table is. Heck, I think I've read everything by Mr. King and never realized there was a vase in his books.

I do find the different styles of this group interesting, and refreshing. Heck, if we all followed the same path, our readers would read one book and be done. And it just bolsters my belief that what may be right or wrong for a writer, isn't necessarily right or wrong for writing.

 

[SeverinR]

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."

I think you can artistically paint the backdrop scenery, otherwise it would be pretty bland.
The brown trees,blue sky, green grass.
There is a broad spectrum between under describing and over describing the scenery behind the characters. Also taking time to smell the flowers shows a relaxed setting, running through the woods would illuminate different descriptions, rocky uneven footing, mudpuddles splashed in.
How the characters interact with the props tells about story as well as the backdrop.
****
"Rushing through the tall grass, dogs baying behind him, racing past he notices a pink flower with yellow center, and bright green leaves, a smell of sweet perfume."
****
To me the story just tripped over the description, the MC is being chased but suddenly the scene is stopped by a flower.

 

[Guru Coyote]

****
"Rushing through the tall grass, dogs baying behind him, racing past he notices a pink flower with yellow center, and bright green leaves, a smell of sweet perfume."
****
To me the story just tripped over the description, the MC is being chased but suddenly the scene is stopped by a flower.

Or... this flower is a sign of a much greater danger? Is it poisonous? Or does it tell the MC that he has just crossed into the land of the fay?

 

[Shockley]

Not to be that guy, Severin, but if I picked up a book and read that sentence I would put it down.

 

[Feo Takahari]

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but would your character notice the moon shining? If you're doing first-person or third-person limited, what your character notices may demonstrate what they find important. (For instance, I've done characters who become less observant in the presence of someone they're attracted to.)

 

[PaulineMRoss]

This is an interesting discussion. I agree with Chesterama, most fantasy really needs some description of the scenery so the reader can visualise it properly. Even in a real-world setting, I like to have some indication of where the characters are. I've just been reading J K Rowling's murder mystery (The Cuckoo's Calling), and this is something she really does well, I think. Here's a description of a pub:

"Inside the Feathers, machines were clinking and jingling and flashing primary-coloured lights; the wall-mounted plasma TVs, surrounded with padded leather, were showing West Bromwich Albion versus Chelsea with the sound off, while Amy Winehouse throbbed and moaned from hidden speakers. The names of ales were painted on the cream wall above the long bar, which faced a wide dark-wood staircase with curving steps and shining brass handrails, leading up to the first floor."

Or a garden:

"A large magnolia tree stood in the front garden of Lucy’s house in Bromley. Later in the spring it would cover the front lawn in what looked like crumpled tissues; now, in April, it was a frothy cloud of white, its petals waxy as coconut shavings."

She's even better on descriptions of people:

"The unbuttoned neck of her thin silk shirt revealed an expanse of butterscotch skin stretched over her bony sternum, giving an unattractively knobbly effect; yet two full, firm breasts jutted from her narrow ribcage, as though they had been borrowed for the day from a fuller-figured friend."

Or this:

"The dying woman wore a thick ivory-coloured bed jacket and reclined, dwarfed by her carved wooden bed, on many white pillows. No trace of Lady Bristow’s youthful prettiness remained. The raw bones of the skeleton were clearly delineated now, beneath fine skin that was shiny and flaking. Her eyes were sunken, filmy and dim, and her wispy hair, fine as a baby’s, was grey against large expanses of pink scalp. Her emaciated arms lay limp on top of the covers, a catheter protruded. Her death was an almost palpable presence in the room, as though it stood waiting patiently, politely, behind the curtains."

They're quite wordy, and maybe you'll think they're over the top, but for me they create a very effective image in my mind.

 

[Shockley]

This is an interesting discussion. I agree with Chesterama, most fantasy really needs some description of the scenery so the reader can visualise it properly. Even in a real-world setting, I like to have some indication of where the characters are. I've just been reading J K Rowling's murder mystery (The Cuckoo's Calling), and this is something she really does well, I think. Here's a description of a pub:

My objection here is that most fantasy writers are not working in a world where every tree, flower, etc. is so uniquely different from the ones on Earth that they need in-depth description. For most writers and readers, a forest is a forest is a forest. I think, that by being sparse with your words and packing as much meaning as you can into every single one of them you can write a much better story than someone who has told me all about the details of the room and not all that much about the story or the characters.

To explain this, I want to go back to Severin's example of a descriptive scene: He is describing his character as rushing, racing, etc. This is important, because it is what the character is doing and it is what hooks me in - I want to know why his character is running. Then we get the description, and it takes me out of the story - if the character can stop to note the details of this flower, they aren't really rushing and I'm taken out of the story and the pacing gets all weird.

Or to Rowling's: Most of those scenes could be cut by 50% and still have as much weight. I don't need to know about the bed, or that the magnolia tree will later shed, etc. What I need to know is the story.

 

[Guru Coyote]

My objection here is that most fantasy writers are not working in a world where every tree, flower, etc. is so uniquely different from the ones on Earth that they need in-depth description. For most writers and readers, a forest is a forest is a forest. I think, that by being sparse with your words and packing as much meaning as you can into every single one of them you can write a much better story than someone who has told me all about the details of the room and not all that much about the story or the characters.

To explain this, I want to go back to Severin's example of a descriptive scene: He is describing his character as rushing, racing, etc. This is important, because it is what the character is doing and it is what hooks me in - I want to know why his character is running. Then we get the description, and it takes me out of the story - if the character can stop to note the details of this flower, they aren't really rushing and I'm taken out of the story and the pacing gets all weird.

Or to Rowling's: Most of those scenes could be cut by 50% and still have as much weight. I don't need to know about the bed, or that the magnolia tree will later shed, etc. What I need to know is the story.

The question being: what IS the story? To different readers it will be different things.

I think this is a good place to bring up Orson Scott Card's M.I.C.E quotient... Some stories are about Milieu, some about Idea, others about character and well, some about Events.
M.I.C.E. QUOTIENT

What you stated with 'I need the story' would likely be something between Character and Event.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I guess what's important is the timing. How and when matters. I probably wouldn't want to interrupt a tense action scene with descriptions of things that aren't essential to the action. On the other hand, I don't mind fluffing out and describing a setting when things are quiet.

I think how you describe the setting for a scene can have an impact on the overall mood of it. If what's happening in the scene is slow and laid back, describe it that way. If there's going to be action, let that be reflected in how you're describing the surroundings.
Mind you, I don't have much experience with this so I could very well be wrong. It's something I'll be trying out when the time comes though.