Yup. I'd come to agree with your conclusion, Svrtnesse, simply because the alternative was incomprehensible.
Last edited:
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
What do you do to improve your descriptive writing?
- Thread starter Geo
- Start date
FifthView
Vala
I am not at all certain that two different things have been obfuscating this discussion, because a great number of examples using, effectively, a sparse descriptive style could be provided.
For me, an analogy with the subject of world building (surely a related subject) could be useful. To paint a complete picture of a fantasy world might require, at a bare minimum, something like 2.9 billion words. At least, that's the approximate number of words on the English version of Wikipedia. Perhaps that would only be required for pre-writing notes about the fantasy world, since each subject wouldn't need its own comprehensive page/entry in a novel and so things could be condensed in the writing of it.
But very few 2.9 billion-word novels exist. (Or, 2.65 million-word novels, for the condensed version.)
So it really comes down to what is required for the particular story being told.
The same holds true for description, for painting the story.
Edit: I certainly don't want to draw out a useless debate, especially if I, myself, am not seeing something that should be glaringly obvious—i.e., if I'm simply missing the point. But if the argument can be condensed to "Description needs to be adequate for the purposes of delivering a comprehensible and enjoyable story, whether it is sparse or florid or somewhere in between," well, that doesn't say much, does it, beyond the obvious?
For me, an analogy with the subject of world building (surely a related subject) could be useful. To paint a complete picture of a fantasy world might require, at a bare minimum, something like 2.9 billion words. At least, that's the approximate number of words on the English version of Wikipedia. Perhaps that would only be required for pre-writing notes about the fantasy world, since each subject wouldn't need its own comprehensive page/entry in a novel and so things could be condensed in the writing of it.
But very few 2.9 billion-word novels exist. (Or, 2.65 million-word novels, for the condensed version.)
So it really comes down to what is required for the particular story being told.
The same holds true for description, for painting the story.
Edit: I certainly don't want to draw out a useless debate, especially if I, myself, am not seeing something that should be glaringly obvious—i.e., if I'm simply missing the point. But if the argument can be condensed to "Description needs to be adequate for the purposes of delivering a comprehensible and enjoyable story, whether it is sparse or florid or somewhere in between," well, that doesn't say much, does it, beyond the obvious?
Last edited:
Logos&Eidos
Sage
Okay what have been trying to talk about?
This bit (EDIT: this is just one example, there were other statements I took to mean similar things):
When you load up the information on a flash drive on a computer it is always the same regardless of what computer you are using - provided you're using the same OS and software to decrypt it.
When you wrote that, I took it to mean that you believe that when a person reads something they will see the exact same thing in their mind as another person. I do not believe that this is the case, and that is what I've been trying to point out.
I also took it to mean that you believe that the reader has no input on what images they see in their head when they read something. I also do not believe that this is the case, and I tried to explain that too.
What do you think I've been trying to say? - And this is something that I'm asking out of curiosity, not to be snarky or rude.
Last edited:
I do believe there's a disconnect in understanding the concept. Heres why....
Take a look at the first example provided:
There are so many descriptions and actions within that example that are open to reader perception & interpretation, which would result in different imagery for each reader. The interpretations are basically the same, but with a multitude of variables.
1 - A frown
2 - a ruddy, mid-day sky
3 - scuttling servants
4 - a parasol
5 - ashfalls
6 - a fine, new suit coat
7- a red vest
The frown:
Is it tight-lipped? Does the skin around his lips wrinkle? Is one corner of his mouth lower than the other?
A ruddy, mid-day sky:
Just how red is the sky? Is it streaked with clouds? Is the sun bright? Is it closer to morning or evening, or is it precisely mid-day? What is the sun's position in the sky?
Scuttling servants:
What kind of clothes are the servants wearing? What color are the clothes? Are they uniformed? Are they both male & female? What is the roadway like that these servants are scuttling over?
A parasol:
Is it yellow, blue, green, etc? Is it elaborate of plain? What is the texture of the fabric? How large is it? Is there lace skirting the edge?
Asfalls:
How big are the flakes of ash? Is the ash gray, black, white, or a mixture? How does the ash float on the wind? Do pieces curl with a breeze, blow horizontal to the ground before settling, or fall heavily, straight downward.
A fine, new suit coat:
Wool? Cotton? Trimmed with reptile skin? What do the buttons look like? Is the stitching elaborate? Are the jacket collars wide or thin? Does it hang open, or is it buttoned tight?
A red vest:
Crimson? Scarlet? Blood-red? Is it velvet? Does the color coordinate well with the suit, or is it meant to draw attention in a flashy way? What is the hem cut like? How low does the neck dip before the first button?
All these, and potentially many, many more variables will be different for each individual reader. The author here has NOT made it so clear that the imagery may only been cast in one way. Rather, each reader will indeed fill in the blanks with their own creativity, fleshing out the details to make the scene come to life.
In that way, the reader IS an active participant in the story.
Miskatonic
Auror
I can't say I've ever read a story where I wasn't using my imagination to fill in certain blanks or to enhance what was being stated concretely.
I think avoiding a reader becoming confused is a bigger priority.
You could describe a character in vivid detail, but I will still picture the character in my head differently than what you intended, even if only a little. The same goes with buildings, scenery, etc.
Unless I'm looking at a photograph there will be some room for mental interpretation.
I think avoiding a reader becoming confused is a bigger priority.
You could describe a character in vivid detail, but I will still picture the character in my head differently than what you intended, even if only a little. The same goes with buildings, scenery, etc.
Unless I'm looking at a photograph there will be some room for mental interpretation.
FifthView
Vala
Ah, I see what you mean by that. If that passage passes the smell test for L&E, then "letting the reader fill in blanks" is the point of misunderstanding.
I'm now curious to see L&E's idea of a "bad" example of letting a reader fill in blanks.
- Thread starter
- #88
Geo
Troubadour
Thank you!
That is exactly what I mean when I talk about trusting that the reader is capable of filling the gaps, which in my opinion, is a basic element of learning how to write effective/memorable descriptions. It doesn’t matter is you use metaphor, or if you decide to use only everyday words, or if you include a whole poem, as long as you don’t underestimate your reader capabilities. A good writer knows that the reader has a vivid imagination and wants to use it.
And just to clarify what do I mean by using our imagination Logos&Eidos, from the example you gave us, we can deduce that Brandon Sanderson trusts us to fill the gaps he left with our own imagination. How do I know that? Because he didn’t have to tell us the color of the parasol, nor the gender of the servants, because he knew that as we read his description we were to create our own unique and personal image of what he told us. His description is a guideline nor a picture. We are actively connecting the dots, we are assigning a particular color to the parasol, we are deciding the gender of the servants, and each one of us is picturing a particular frown in the face of Lord Tresting. Most important, the paragraph it’s more effective because of that, because there are gaps to be filled... Could you imagine how boring this description would be if Sanderson would have provide us with every single detailed?
As T.Allen.Smith says, we became active participants, and that made the description better.
I believe (and could be wrong) that Logos&Eidos is speaking of description on a more macro level than the rest of us.
- Thread starter
- #90
Geo
Troubadour
it is possible, but Logos&Eidos also objected to examples of descriptions in the level that the rest of us appears to be referring to... so it is difficult to fully understand his point of view.
Logos&Eidos
Sage
I will try to explain my position in a clearer manor.
I believe that it is the job of the author to convey what they imagine to the audience in as clear and direct manor as possible. The author is encoding(writing) their imagination and transmitting it to the audience who then reads(decodes)it and experiencing what the author imagined.
It still could have used more description in my opinion, and perhaps more information is conveyed latter on. It would not have been boring, it would have been thoroughly described. Providing a clear image of the world,people and the events. The audience is not an active participant,they are spectators, the audience sitting in a theater that is what readers are; its just that books can convey more information than sight or sound.
I do not read the work of another to form a "own unique and personal image" based on guide lines that they have set up. I read to immerse myself in their imagination and creativity, it is their vision that I am interested in and not my own. That is part of the reason why I like description that are direct,to the point and creates a definite image rather than merely implying what something is.
What level of description are you taking about?
I'm not even sure what the levels of description are, so please explain.
I believe that each reader decodes the encoded image in a slightly different way. Do you agree with this or not?
Let's say readers may be using slightly different programs to decode the images. Overall the big picture will be the same, but there will be little details (usually stuff that isn't important) that is different from reader to reader. Does that sound reasonable to you?
Last edited:
If you read through my examples for each of the descriptions taken from the first excerpt you provided, the descriptions in the excerpt would be macro (those provided by the author), the descriptions in my examples would be micro (the fine details, based off of the author's descriptions, that add more to the scene).
The fine details are where the reader is an active participant by filling in the blanks, or to say it in another way, adding texture to the broader description. That's what makes the world and events spring to life, the author/reader collaboration.
You're doing this as a reader too. You just don't realize it.
Logos&Eidos
Sage
It is unfortunately true, if I could draw then there would be one and only one image of everything...mine. Since I can't I have try and paint a concrete image of things.
I know this, the reader isn't an active participant they are a spectator. The author creates the world and the reader partakes in that created world;if there was any collaboration every member of the audience would be a co-writer. To cut down on individual variances between different audience members, a complete description of the world must be provided by the author. Gaps lead to people filling them in themselves, which leads to forming an inaccurate picture of the author's worlds.
Perfect accuracy is only possible for author-illustrators, but those us who are only authors must see that the text is faithful to our visions.
I do not see this as something unfortunate.
Rather, I see it as something that can be used and taken advantage of. It means that I can focus on what is important for the story and for my vision of the story. I can ignore the bits that I don't think are important and I the trust the reader to fill out those unimportant bits on their own.
I can cut out descriptions that don't further my vision of the story or the world, and I can focus on making sure the readers get as clear an impression of what's important to me as possible.
See. This is where we are talking about different things. You call this being a spectator. Me and TAS (and probably others) refer to this as being an active participant in the story.
All this time, we have been using different words to mean the same thing.
This is NOT what I refer to when I'm talking about audience participation.
When I talk about audience participation, I mean filling in the blank spaces that aren't part of the description, the tiny little bits that differ from reader to reader. This is something that happens in the mind of the reader, even if it's just on a subconscious level, and that's why I call it audience participation. I think you're calling it being a spectator.
I think what you mean by audience participation is having to make up part of the actual story as a reader. Kind of like in an interactive story or a computer game. Audience participation does not have to mean collaboration (it can mean that, but I don't think anyone here has actually argued that it should).
I'd go so far as to say that perfect accuracy isn't possible at all. Even in movies, there are things that don't come through fully to the audience and which they'll have to imagine on their own.
However, if we as writers do our job right and set the right expectations for the reader, then the things they have to make up on their own will be guided by those expectations.
We set up rules for how the world is supposed to work, and when the reader has to fill in a blank on their own they're guided by those rules - provided we get it right.
I'd like to try and explain a little further why I think it's a good thing that readers have room to fill in blank spaces in descriptions.
Short version: It adds life.
Longer version:
Please note that this is my personal opinion/understanding. I'm not trying to claim any of this as indisputable fact.
The way I see it (in this context), the words and descriptions on the page are triggers and they trigger responses in our mind. The most common response would be the image, but other sensations will work as well. Same with associations.
These images and associations originate from the words I read, but when they transform from words into images, they become more than just the words.
These images that are built from simple words have all of my life's experiences behind them. Let's take the word door. I have a lot of experience with doors, and I walk through them almost every day of the year. I know what a door looks like.
Up to a point, words help me trigger images of what is described, but I think it is possible for the description to be too detailed. There can be two reasons for this:
1. The description is too long, and I lose track of what it's trying to show me.
2. The description opposes my understanding of that which is described.
In either of the two cases above, I'm forced out of the story in order to try and understand what I'm being told.
I think it's important to strike a good balance here. You need to give the reader enough information to communicate your vision, but you have to avoid distracting or confusing them. Cutting out information that isn't necessary is a good start.
I also think that when we use our own experiences to build images they feel more natural to us. This makes it easier for us to believe in them, which in turn makes them feel more alive.
Does this make sense or am I just rambling (it took me nearly 2h to write because work kept getting in the way)?
Short version: It adds life.
Longer version:
Please note that this is my personal opinion/understanding. I'm not trying to claim any of this as indisputable fact.
The way I see it (in this context), the words and descriptions on the page are triggers and they trigger responses in our mind. The most common response would be the image, but other sensations will work as well. Same with associations.
These images and associations originate from the words I read, but when they transform from words into images, they become more than just the words.
These images that are built from simple words have all of my life's experiences behind them. Let's take the word door. I have a lot of experience with doors, and I walk through them almost every day of the year. I know what a door looks like.
Up to a point, words help me trigger images of what is described, but I think it is possible for the description to be too detailed. There can be two reasons for this:
1. The description is too long, and I lose track of what it's trying to show me.
2. The description opposes my understanding of that which is described.
In either of the two cases above, I'm forced out of the story in order to try and understand what I'm being told.
I think it's important to strike a good balance here. You need to give the reader enough information to communicate your vision, but you have to avoid distracting or confusing them. Cutting out information that isn't necessary is a good start.
I also think that when we use our own experiences to build images they feel more natural to us. This makes it easier for us to believe in them, which in turn makes them feel more alive.
Does this make sense or am I just rambling (it took me nearly 2h to write because work kept getting in the way)?
Svrtnsse that reminds me of the Iceberg Theory of Writing by Hemingway. Iceberg Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Cool. I hadn't heard of that, but it largely supports my own thoughts on the matter. Thanks for sharing. 
Logos&Eidos
Sage
"A picture is worth a thousand words".
We who cannot draw are stuck trying to convey our definite visions with the abstract and subjective medium of language, greatly do I envy the illustrator though I wouldn't trade my imagination and storytelling for it. Description is a brush stroke on a blank canvas and that picture must be complete. In the interest of brevity,wieldiness and fluidity everything cannot be fully in a novel. But touches on all the things in the world must be made. So that when the book is done and reader sits down and thinks about
a complete image complies from all the descriptive elements.
The only description that can be omitted are things that exist in our world, and even then if there is something notable such as guns that fire cased/sabotted flechettes instead of bullets and use a propellant that burns blue and smells of ozone and burning metal, then it must be described.
I know that the modern style leans towards minimal description, but that is not a direction for me.
To me a coauthor is active participant,illustrators are active participants, the people sitting around a table playing a table-top rpg are active participant,interactive media such as video-games have a level of active participation. The audience are spectators and the book is the camera lens through which they see the world of story.
If you help create the story then you are active participant, other wise you are spectator. Filling the gaps in the prose isn't" active participation" its is making up for a defect inherent in the process.
To me good writing should leave as little open to interpretation as possible, unless you are deliberately creating something the is to be interpreted. The goal an of author is to create a concrete depictions of the people,places,things and events that appear with in. From your mind to the words on the page,fro, the words on the page to the mind of the reader. Things being lost in translation,gaps in the prose formed by the inability to truly convey the mind of the author to the audience. Make a clear and thorough description of things an absolute necessity.
Logos&Eidos
Sage
I understand you but it reinforces my point, that clear and concrete description is necessary. Because I read to experience the author's vision, that is what interests. I'm not interested in viewing an adaptation by me of the authors work, given how reading works that's kind of all I've got to work with. If I could run a cable between my mind and an authors that would be the ideal,or perhaps a device that can record and display mental images. What I see a story to be is merely an approximation of what it actually is, I want my own work to be as true to what I have in my mind as possible so that the audience can have as close to the truth as possible.
Learning how to do that is paramount.
I have an example for you.
The Skaa are the oppressed under class from the original Mistborn trilogy.
Assuming the Brandon Sanderson has direct input on the art direction of the Mistborn Rpg then the Skaa look like this
Given my background and experiences the Skaa look like this
Vin the heroine, who by official art looks a little Eurasian
To me she looked more like this girl
Aveline from Assassin's Creed. Just younger,shorter,slighter of build, and much lighter skinned.
Since the image that formed in my mind is so far from what the author intended, Vin the mulatto who is high-yellow enough to pass for white vs Vin the Eurasian. The author made error somewhere in their description of the world that lead me to the wrong conclusion. He should have said work camps or servants quarters instead of shack,and the Lords should have had fiefdoms instead of plantation.
Describing oppressed people,living in shacks on plantation, there really is just one way that I could view the world and the people in it after that.
That is why, we should endeavorer to leave as few gaps as possible in our description of the world.
