On vivid descriptions

[skip.knox]

I'm re-reading Patrick Leigh Fermor, whose account of his walk to Istanbul (from London!) is one of my favorites. I'm reading it again to try to understand what makes his descriptions so appealing. Here's a short passage to illustrate. He approaches a country manor in Hungary.

Once through the great gates, I was lost for a moment. A forest of huge exotic trees mingled with the oaks and the limes and the chestnuts. Magnolias and tulip trees were on the point of breaking open, the branches of biblical cedars swept in low fans, all of them ringing with the songs of thrushes and blackbirds and positively slumbrous with the cooing of a thousand doves, and the house in the middle, when the trees fell back, looked more extraordinary with every step.

Now, I'm sure all the writing coaches would say that third sentence is too long, but I'll leave that aside (to my ears it is perfect). One aspect of Fermor's writing I already had recognized: his specificity. He names plants, birds, furniture. The books is a veritable dictionary of nouns, some of them very obscure. Being specific is a fine way to anchor the reader. I don't really even know what a thrush is, but I don't need to; the description is still more vivid that just "birds".

The discovery was his sense of movement. The first sentence gets us through gates, then halts. The second sentence stands still for a moment. The third, though, is filled with verbs of motion: the cedars swept low, the trees fell back, the tulip trees were on the point of breaking open. And the final clause, with the narrator once again stepping forward, leads the reader forward as well.

He does this regularly in his writing. In looking at my own writing, I'm struck by how often the descriptions are static. They may be colorful, detailed, even passionate, but they do not move. I'll be making some adjustments along those lines.

Just wanted to share.

 

[Xitra_Blud]

Yeah. This description is really lovely, and I liked it a lot.

About what you were saying about how most writing coaches would say the third sentence is too long, I personally don't have a problem with long sentences as long as the flow and sound naturally. I thought this author did a wonderful job with every sentence in this description including the third. I noticed a lot of long sentences do tend to be overwritten but I think that occurs when the author puts too much thought into it, and usually when you put too much thought into it reads just as that, like there was too much thought. Overdone. I also think it occurs when a writer attempts to write like another writer which, I think it's fine to let another piece of work influence your writing, but when it gets to the point where you try to make your pros look like theirs, that's typically where it becomes overwritten.

 

[MineOwnKing]

I also think that autobiographies get a pass.

There's likely to be less dialogue and the reader is left in the thoughts of the writer.

 

[skip.knox]

The genre does matter. Ornamentation does not lend itself to a detective novel nearly so much as it does to epic fantasy. For example. But if one is going for the vivid side, I would include both specificity and a sense of movement in one's descriptions.

 

[NerdyCavegirl]

A sense of movement is definitely important. I don't need to see the whole landscape painted before me, I want to discover it along with the characters, see what they see, smell what they smell. Why smell? Because I feel like it's an underused sensory detail. I read this one book years ago, not sure what it was, but there was this crazy evil object and what stuck with me was the smell and the visceral dread it created in me. Hell I don't even know if any smell was actually mentioned, I can't remember what it said, but it was such a vivid description that I could smell it nonetheless. xD

 

[Miskatonic]

Also be creative with similes. This is one thing that can be distracting if you get lazy with it. GRRM tends to use these a lot when I think they could be skipped quite often. His level of detail is a bit extreme overall.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

GRRM is an interesting writer. In general with his description, well, yeah, it's overwritten to death in some sections. So much so that I find myself skimming parts. In fact, if I were skimming most writers that much I would probably quit the book. But there is no way I could do that. There is something very compelling (for me) in his writing style/voice and it is not simply the action. At some point, I need to figure out exactly what he is doing and how. LOL. I picked up a book someone suggested the other day, as they called it "dense" and a bit GRRM in that way... and I made it three pages before I chuckled and tossed it to the side (figuratively, it was a digital copy, and I don't typically toss my computer around... although I have been known to do that). It was horribly written... okay, that's an overstatement, but it was not good... right down to where they started the story.

GRRM has a knack picked up over a lot of years that a lot of writers don't have. Even when his writing is driving me nuts, I keep on reading, LOL.

And I can see where a heavy use of simile could get annoying, but can't say he's driven me too nuts with them.