The Description Sweet Spot

[Shockley]

Well, first thread time.

One of the things that has become very clear to me (especially lately) is the major difference between schools of thought when it comes to describing a scene. There is, of course, the school that favors minimal description and prefer to focus all of the action on the characters. I'll admit, this is how I tend to write when I'm writing in my main genre (Westerns) but there's something different about fantasy: From the Pulp writers on, there seems to be a huge trend to describe things to the limits of your ability. There are exceptions, of course (Steinbeck describes like a mother), but that seems to be the general rule. I know there are some people who consider this to be the line where good writers and bad writers are decided, so it is somewhat important to me.

Since I'm new to writing fantasy, I need help on this. Or, at least, opinions.

What do you think of using description in your work?

Would you rather under-describe or over-describe a scene, if you couldn't find the sweet spot? As a reader, which would you prefer?

How do you, personally, know when you've gone too far?

I'm certain other questions/thoughts will pop into my head as this gets discussed.

 

[Jabrosky]

I'm one of those writers who would love to describe things in great detail but fears the accusation of purple prose or slowing the pace down. This may be part of the reason my writing style tends to be more terse than I want.

That said, a little description can be beneficial if you're writing a fantasy, sci-fi, or historical setting that most people won't know intimately. It can help set the mood or give people a feel for the world and its characters, and sometimes it's even necessary if you want your characters visualized a certain way.

As an example of the last issue, most of my fantasy and historical stories take place in non-Western settings, and since the general trend in fantasy is to use medieval European settings, I always try to fit in brief descriptions of my characters' ethnic characteristics (e.g. skin color or hair texture) to prevent people from visualizing them as European-looking. Sometimes this isn't always necessary, especially if the ethnicity I'm using is a real one familiar to most people (e.g. Chinese, Germans, or Sioux). However, if the ethnicity is instead a less familiar one or tends to be inaccurately reconstructed in popular culture (think lily-white Jesus in Renaissance art), ethnic descriptors would be helpful.

 

[Penpilot]

For me it's about getting enough description so that the reader feels like they're there. All other details will be filled in by the reader. I look to put in telling details vs. adding in everything including the kitchen sink. All the details should be meaningful, not just added for the sake of adding it. Here's a article I googled up I think it explains telling detail pretty well. The Literary Lab: Telling Details Versus Meaningless Trivia

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I tend to instinctively under-describe, and when I'm revising I will put in more description if it seems warranted.

There isn't really a definite "sweet spot"; some people like excessive description and, some people get fed up with hearing about the details of every single dress, horse, and piece of furniture.

I think if you're trying to err on one side or the other, I'd err on under-description, because people's imaginations can always fill in the blanks, but it's always annoying to have to skim over paragraphs describing the way something looks and hope you didn't miss anything.

 

[Sinitar]

Approach the matter differently; instead of focusing on details, take the big picture into account. What does this mean?

First of all, there is no such thing as a description sweet spot, because each chapter demands a different angle of approach. For experienced writers who do a good job at integrating voice into their writing, description is never homogeneous. The PoV of a stranger who is visiting a city for the first time will demand more description, while a chapter seen through the eyes of a local needs a good deal of refinement. Imagine how weird it is to include all sort of small details into your description when the character has lived in that place for a good portion of his life. We all ignore certain aspects of our surroundings, so why not have your characters do the same?

With this philosophy in mind, description must always serve two roles: Advance the plot or describe the character. Don't describe for the sake of it, because details rarely clung to readers. That's why good writers include several important details in their description, and that's it. And most importantly, make sure the description is relevant.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree with Benjamin - the issue comes down to reader tastes. There is no "sweet spot," because some people like a lot of description, some people like very lean prose, and plenty of others (like myself) are happy with either one, depending on mood at a given time.

@Jabrosky - my advice is not to change the style that seems "right" to you for fear of what others might say about it. In the end, you have to find your own voice and follow your own artistic vision. It is always best to approach the work in this way, because that is where your passion lies. If you decide, once it is complete, that it doesn't work, you can go back and fix what is bothering you, whether this relates to description or some other aspect of the work. Also, I'll note that "purple prose" is a phrase sometimes thrown around by critiquers with no real thought as to whether it applies. If they see a lot of description, they just call it that because it takes little effort to do so. The phrase is meaningless unless accompanied by more. There are very good works with high levels of detail and description in the writing, and then there are those that are "purple," wherein the author put in a lot of description and handled it badly.

 

[Sinitar]

@Steerpike: Preferences are the least of a writer's concern. Most of the time, readers do not know what they want because they're tourists. They do not know the work, so they are not allowed to object. When I read a work for the first time, I give the writer the benefit of doubt. Chunks of description may prove necessary later on, so I feel compelled to keep going.

It's only when the book ends that one can form a clear picture of a story's faults. Until then, we either wade through what I hope it is a pleasurable read, or dump the story.

 

[Caged Maiden]

When a scene is detailed to the extreme it makes me throw up in my mouth a little. I like to know which things the character notices, not every piece of furniture in the room. If you are setting a scene, make sure everything has an impact; a purpose. This is a major difference between outlining and writing for me. Sometimes I draw up blueprints of inn rooms or peoples' houses just so I know where things are happening when the action takes place. But a reader probably doesn't want relational details unless they affect the story or are something a character notices.

If your character checks the number and distances to all the exits when he enters a room... that speaks to his character and it's okay to go into that detail. If however two people are engaged in a game of chess... they might notice an uncomfortable chair or a roaring fire.... whatever adds ambiance, but noticing the doors or windows at that point (unless they're cheating or planning on making a hasty exit) is probably erroneous description. I try to stick to this rule, breaking it only when I add something to amuse myself which my characters might also find amusing or important.

On another note, static descriptions of trees, wind, etc. only work for me if it is unusual. Some people tend to write on and on about the countryside, and all I'm saying is that unless it's a gale or the trees are doing something unusual, anything more than a sentence or two is too much for me. I understand the desire to get poetic in these instances, and I give in from time to time as well... but I think mostly it does a disservice to a strong story.

Hope that helps. I am working on this very same thing with my own writing right now and have been thinking about it a lot lately. I need to find a balance too. I tend to write long dialogues followed by long introspection/ static description.

 

[Leif GS Notae]

I've said it before, let your reader use their imagination and they will build an affinity for whatever you are putting out there. Does this mean barebones all the time? No, but it does mean you should have faith your reader will understand what you are saying if you don't go into vast description.

Remember, you are competing with so many other options that if you bog your story down with idle prattle, it will things grind down and people will not want to read what you have to offer.

Only you can be the judge of this. Write it out and see how it feels, but keep some things lean and trim.

 

[Hans]

I'd say that depends very much on the style that you are writing. A pure action story would do with only the necessary minimum of scenery description. In a story in the style of a travel report, for example made by an explorer, extensive descriptions are to be expected.
Most stories will be in between of these two.

Many phantasy stories are more of the action style, but the travel report has it's place. Tolkien for example liked his sceneries.

 

[Rikilamaro]

I tend to describe just enough to get the reader's imagination going. When I am reading I hate being told exactly what the scene looks like. I have been known to skip pages of descriptions and never had a problem imagining the scene when I got back. So, in brief, give me enough to know the time and place. Point out plot crucial things, or any details that might deviate from the norm. Most detail at the beginning of a story always helps, pull back on it after you get things established.

That's my take on it. Hope it helps.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

It's only when the book ends that one can form a clear picture of a story's faults. Until then, we either wade through what I hope it is a pleasurable read, or dump the story.

I agree, but writers usually want to be cautious anyway. Most readers won't say, "Well, this is incredibly annoying to read, but maybe if I wade through the rest it'll all be justified in the end." They'll just give up.

 

[Steerpike]

I agree, but writers usually want to be cautious anyway. Most readers won't say, "Well, this is incredibly annoying to read, but maybe if I wade through the rest it'll all be justified in the end." They'll just give up.

I used to be willing to wade for quite some time before giving up. Not so anymore. I have so many books in my TBR stack that I don't have much time to waste on books I don't like. If I'm not enjoying a book for whatever reason, I'm pretty quick to put it down and move on to something I like better. If it is a "pleasurable read" then I'll continue with it even if it has faults.

 

[Rikilamaro]

I don't 'wade' well. I get bored and move on to something else. As Steer said, there's simply too many books and so little time to read. I won't waste my time on a book that doesn't hold my attention.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I used to be willing to wade for quite some time before giving up. Not so anymore. I have so many books in my TBR stack that I don't have much time to waste on books I don't like. If I'm not enjoying a book for whatever reason, I'm pretty quick to put it down and move on to something I like better. If it is a "pleasurable read" then I'll continue with it even if it has faults.

Ditto. In the past few months, I've given up on two books. One was Inheritance (Eragon book 4), the other was The Lost Fleet: Beyond the Frontier: Dreadnaught. I haven't minded the first six books in The Lost Fleet but it's really getting repetitive. I got tired of how every problem Geary faces is solved after five minutes of him discussing it with his captains. All the tension drains away because nothing really bad ever happens, even when it seems like it's going to. I said to my wife that if Bujold had written that series, he'd have lost 80% of the fleet and survived at least two mutinies in the first book alone.

 

[ascanius]

I get the impression that I am the only one who thinks lavish descriptions are a good thing. Hell in War and Peace Tolstoy goes on about the guests arriving at Anna Pavlanva's drawing room then to Princess Bolkonsky, her hand bag, twitching lip and what she is wearing. One hundred years of solitude is filled with descriptions, I think actual duologue is very rare if I remember correctly, I read that when I was thirteen so I could be wrong. But i doubt anyone would argue those were not great works, I loved One Hundred years of solitude.
Paint a Picture. A saying I follow with devotion. To me its the deference between Caravaggio's the calling of saint Matthew and a stick drawing. All those details tell something in a subtle way. I have a hard time reading books that have minimal description, I find them flat, hollow, and uninteresting. The Name of the wind by Patrick Rothfuss was like this for me, too simple, it lacked the complexity of information that I needed to keep me interested. I found the writing simple, with very little depth. The same goes for The Hunger Games, she was in a forest, what kind of forest, was the underbrush think? thin? What kind of tree? what about animals? For most of the descriptions in that book I had a generic nondescript idea that lacked any depth, it was boring. describing all the furniture in a room tells a lot about the room, the owner, everything. It tells about wealth, old, new, quality, economics, art, style, what kind of person the owner is, what he likes, is it clean, messy, cluttered. i honestly don't understand how that information is not needed, or pertinent, or valuable.

 

[Steerpike]

Actually, I like lavish description if done well. Probably the most brilliant example of that in Fantasy is Mervyn Peake's Gormenghast trilogy, from which I get my user name

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I get the impression that I am the only one who thinks lavish descriptions are a good thing. Hell in War and Peace Tolstoy goes on about the guests arriving at Anna Pavlanva's drawing room then to Princess Bolkonsky, her hand bag, twitching lip and what she is wearing. One hundred years of solitude is filled with descriptions, I think actual duologue is very rare if I remember correctly, I read that when I was thirteen so I could be wrong. But i doubt anyone would argue those were not great works, I loved One Hundred years of solitude.
Paint a Picture. A saying I follow with devotion. To me its the deference between Caravaggio's the calling of saint Matthew and a stick drawing. All those details tell something in a subtle way.

They do, but keep in mind that a lot of old great works were highly descriptive because they were not written in a culture saturated in visual media. You had to describe everything in great detail because there was a good chance the reader would not already have a visual image of that thing. These days, everyone has a lot of visual referents to draw upon. Nobody needs to spend 100 words describing a police car; we all know what police cars look like.

Obviously, for new/strange/specific things, more details can be helpful. It also depends on the importance; you also don't need to spend 100 words describing a peasant's clothes, if the peasant is a background character who has no dialogue. If instead you're describing an important duke, who has a lot of screen time and the fanciness of whose clothes actually has some impact on the story, then by all means, go nuts.

Also keep in mind that skilled storytellers do not need to massively describe everything up front; they can give a little description to start, and weave in more details as time goes on. The human mind will backfill and afterward you'll have a full, meaty picture of whatever's being described, just as if you'd gotten all the details up front—but it's a lot easier to read because most people these days do not really enjoy reading frequent, long paragraphs of description that interrupt the narrative flow.

 

[Rikilamaro]

I get the impression that I am the only one who thinks lavish descriptions are a good thing. Hell in War and Peace Tolstoy goes on about the guests arriving at Anna Pavlanva's drawing room then to Princess Bolkonsky, her hand bag, twitching lip and what she is wearing. One hundred years of solitude is filled with descriptions, I think actual duologue is very rare if I remember correctly, I read that when I was thirteen so I could be wrong. But i doubt anyone would argue those were not great works, I loved One Hundred years of solitude.
Paint a Picture. A saying I follow with devotion. To me its the deference between Caravaggio's the calling of saint Matthew and a stick drawing. All those details tell something in a subtle way. I have a hard time reading books that have minimal description, I find them flat, hollow, and uninteresting. The Name of the wind by Patrick Rothfuss was like this for me, too simple, it lacked the complexity of information that I needed to keep me interested. I found the writing simple, with very little depth. The same goes for The Hunger Games, she was in a forest, what kind of forest, was the underbrush think? thin? What kind of tree? what about animals? For most of the descriptions in that book I had a generic nondescript idea that lacked any depth, it was boring. describing all the furniture in a room tells a lot about the room, the owner, everything. It tells about wealth, old, new, quality, economics, art, style, what kind of person the owner is, what he likes, is it clean, messy, cluttered. i honestly don't understand how that information is not needed, or pertinent, or valuable.

Only difference I see is that Tolstoy is a Russian author, and he was writing for a different group of people. I, for one, prefer Anna Kareina over War and Peace. Not that he isn't just as descriptive there. Don't get me wrong, I love his work, but he's not an author in today's American fantasy realm. He could spew all sorts of description and people ate it up because it brought color to a pretty dreary world.

It really just boils down to what works best for the characters and the world you're creating. If you need to describe every glistening blade of grass and how each cricket's song reverberates with the longing of a thousand violins, etc, then by all means do so. I do agree with you about The Hunger Games though. That is a classic example of a story that needed more description. I had a good idea what it should look like but my idea completely varied from others I have discussed the book with and then I saw the movie. Perhaps the author should have given more details in that instance, because her characters needed it.

 

[Ankari]

Over describing can be a pain. Robert Jordan did it from book 5 through 10. I would skip paragraphs because they would be about the grass and trees and the stale winds, etc. I like the approach of Steven Erickson. He has a way of giving you just enough description to forge your own picture of the world.