Writing Descriptions Without Being Boring

[Philip Overby]

i09 posted this article I thought might be helpful for people who write a lot of descriptive passages and may find some readers or critique partners pointing out they go on too long or aren't engaging enough.

How to Write Descriptive Passages Without Boring the Reader or Yourself

Here are some points below with my thoughts on them:

1. Commit to never being boring.

Well, that's easy, right? I guess this just means if you're going to write long descriptive passages, make sure they have some "oomph" to them, not just to decorate a scene because you feel you have to.

2. Engage all five senses.

The most obvious one is sight, but yeah, I agree in trying to add as many senses as I can.

3. Try being super terse.

This basically means "be vivid without being long-winded." I can vibe with that. I do like long passages of description if they're done very well. I think Steven Erikson and China Mieville excel at this.

4. Make it dynamic rather than static.

I like this one. Basically, each thing you describe has its own story. A chest with a beaten lock is much more interesting than just a regular old chest. Who was trying to beat the lock open? What's in there? Where did it come from? I think descriptions should draw enough attention with details depending on how important they are. If the chest isn't so important, then don't describe it.

5. Make fun of the thing you're describing.

I like this personally because I try to make comic fantasy at times. This is fun as it allows you to add more of a comedic voice to what is being described.

6. Project feelings onto an inanimate object.

This might be best done with something like a looming tower or a shimmering lake. A character can project their feelings onto the objects in order to give them a sense of fear or calmness.

7. Give your POV some visceral or emotional reaction.

This tends to be a practice done by many people who believe in deep POV. This is similar to the one above. If your character sees something that unnerves him, then reacting to it in a negative way does as much work as describing every single detail.

8. Use less dialogue.

I think this point means don't just use descriptions to prop up dialogue. Sometimes descriptive passages work best on their own.

9. Use description to set up a punchline in dialogue.

I like this as well. I made an example about a tower once that caused people to hate it. The character wondered what was so special about the tower until another character hurled a rock at it. Then, the character said, "Oh, now I get it." The description of the tower led to the punchline. These kind of things can allow you to interweave description and dialogue in a way in which they're working at all times and not just superfluous to the scene.

So those are my thoughts on each point in the article. Thoughts about the article or tips that help your descriptive writing shine?

 

[Penpilot]

This is kind of encapsulated in 6 and 7 but for me it's focus on the character. If a character is interested in something then the reader will be too. If a character would be bored with a description then so will the reader.

 

[Ophiucha]

Even though I didn't finish my NaNo (the last week I ended up having like four guests over daily for Thanksgiving), I had a good bit of fun doing descriptions with my main character. Third person limited, so I 'limited' it to what she could perceive, and since she was blind... I couldn't really use any visual stuff. I cheated a couple of times, had her shove her hands in someone's face to map out a few details (cheekbones, nose size, chubbiness), but I almost never used colour or descriptors like 'pretty' or 'ugly'. I'm already working on another story, so who knows when I'll come back to that one, but I felt like writing with her for 35,000 words helped me consider other ways to tackle description.

Also liked the 'dynamic' point. Might not work for a young character, but then, they're the most 'dynamic' in the average story. For a relatively static older character, as for the example of an aged bodybuilder, he may not develop much in the story itself, so giving his descriptions a little life is a nice balance for that.

 

[BWFoster78]

Like Penpilot, I agree that 6 and 7 are quite effective. I try to use description to give the reader insight into what the POV character is feeling.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I'd say 1 and 3 are also closely related. If you're being super terse, you don't really have time to bore the reader and you'll also engage their imagination. Instead of describing a thing in details, you set up a framework and let the reader fill in the blanks. Picking out the important details can be tricky, but getting it right will make a short description a lot more efficient than a long one.

I'm currently hooked on the idea of first impressions. I think that once you've created an image in the mind of the reader it will stay there and you're better off not disturbing it.

 

[Devor]

A more basic tip: Use more and better verbs, even when describing inanimate objects.

Lamps stand, chests sit, umbrellas lean, books await their readers, that kind of thing.

 

[wordwalker]

A more basic tip: Use more and better verbs, even when describing inanimate objects.

Lamps stand, chests sit, umbrellas lean, books await their readers, that kind of thing.

This is a favorite of mine. Each sentence is really a transformation, meaning a verb-- and even if you're introducing something that isn't doing much yet, it's better to replace most "there was a__" with "a _ swayed" to give some sense of it. I think of it as defining itself into existence, at least as far as the reader's concerned, so that's a transformation worth playing up too.

 

[The Dark One]

Quite honestly I find threads like this a tad bewildering. The implication seems to be that people see the work as carved up into styles and movements, like OK I've just done some dialogue, so it's time for some description...and then I might go for some action.

To me that's just plain weird. Why wouldn't you just see your work as a story that roles along scene by scene which you could maybe deconstruct later to emphasise the action, description etc?

If you completely absorb yourself in the story...live in the world of the story, as I call it...then things are described incidentally, as they need to be, in the context of the unfolding drama.

If you write a so-called 'descriptive passage' ie, a passage which has lost its connection with the rest of the unfolding story, then it will be boring no matter what tricks you employ to zap a bit of life into it.

 

[Philip Overby]

I don't think that's what the article is saying. That you should split up your writing into blocks or something. It's like any other bit of advice like "How to Make Your Dialogue more Natural." If it helps people, fine. If it doesn't and you have a different method that works for you, then even better.

I view this more as editing advice. For example, you're going through your writing and you see a section that isn't so exciting. You could employ some of these tips to make it better. I don't think stopping and saying "OK, now I need to write description" is what is being suggested.

 

[wordwalker]

Is that how these tips look to you?

I think of them as things to fit into whatever process we each have--or not. A total pantser can bone up on them before writing and hope they subconsciously make him more aware of his options in the flow. A planner could work them into her plans, and anyone could consider them out if they thought at revision that the writing needed more of that touch. But, like seasoned engineers say, no tool works well until you find a way to get comfortable with it.

The surest rule about writing is that there are no completely sure rules. Any method can look odd on its own, until we remember we're making our own choices on whether, when, and how much to use it.

 

[The Dark One]

When 'tips' are discussed in such fine detail, I can't help but suspect that they serve to compartmentalise people's approach to writing so that they write in a disaggregated style - worried about frills and flourishes instead of concentrating on the plot/story. There have been numerous threads like this where people are saying words to the effect of: I'm trying to get through this long descriptive section without losing the reader's attention.

Just look at what is happening there. What they're really saying is I've got to get from plot chunk A to plot chunk B using a scene in which nothing happens.

A reader (or more likely an agent or publisher) might put the book down when nothing happens.

Why not move directly from A to B without bothering with the descriptive nothing scene. OR use the scene to include some plot and characterisation points?

If the plot/story is working the description will take care of itself.

 

[Philip Overby]

Again, I think this kind of advice is helpful for editing purposes not for people thinking "I need to put a descriptive passage here." I mean, I never sit down and do that when I'm writing. However, when I'm editing, I always look for ways to make different parts stronger. If I have dozens of scenes like this--John nodded. "I'll take a look at it."--I may want to make it less dry is all.

Of course plot and characters are going to come first, for me anyway. But if someone is interested in spicing up their descriptive sections, what is wrong with that?

So for me, I wouldn't use such advice to break down my writing into compartments. I'd use it to strengthen or change weaker parts.

However, if people do write in compartments, who is anyone to say that is a wrong way to write? Some people write "skeleton drafts" of mostly dialogue and then they go back and add in description and such later on. Is that a wrong way to write? I mean if we're going to say "everyone writes differently" then we can't criticize the different ways people approach writing. If it works, it works.

 

[The Dark One]

I agree re editing, but that's not how the question tends to come up.

I'm the last person to tell others how they ought to write, and of course whatever works, works...but if I can help someone (maybe potentially a great writer) to be less hung up on details in order to get their first drafts down, then I've made a major contribution.

 

[Philip Overby]

Yeah, I get that. I personally don't get hung up on details during a first draft. They're pretty sparse at times actually. But when it comes time to edit, I want to have these details that pop and make my writing shine more. If this particular article seems to be saying "Write this way to make yourself better" then that's not what I got out of it.

I do tend to think that anything that verges on sounding like a "rule" or "way" of writing tends to get singled out as wrong and that people should find their own way. However, I think some people find their own way by finding helpful bits of advice here and there. For instance, I tried pantsing my writing and found it didn't work. I use outlines now. Having that structure helps me write. I'm not going to do tell everyone else to outline, but if they're struggling with pantsing then I'll say, "I tried outlining and it helped." The same as if someone feels their passages of descriptive writing are superfluous or pointless, I may point to an article like this to figure out ways to better integrate useful scenes. A descriptive bit of writing can accomplish characterization, plot, and world-building all in one if it's utilized in a good way. It doesn't all have to be wall dressing. So that's what I got out of it.

I actually think we agree with each other here for the most part. But I don't want to tell others to ignore tips or advice and find their own way because sometimes tips and advice can help someone add new tools to their toolbox, further strengthening their own way.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

When 'tips' are discussed in such fine detail, I can't help but suspect that they serve to compartmentalise people's approach to writing so that they write in a disaggregated style - worried about frills and flourishes instead of concentrating on the plot/story. There have been numerous threads like this where people are saying words to the effect of: I'm trying to get through this long descriptive section without losing the reader's attention.

Just look at what is happening there. What they're really saying is I've got to get from plot chunk A to plot chunk B using a scene in which nothing happens.

A reader (or more likely an agent or publisher) might put the book down when nothing happens.

Why not move directly from A to B without bothering with the descriptive nothing scene. OR use the scene to include some plot and characterisation points?

If the plot/story is working the description will take care of itself.

I'm not sure that's what's going on here, Dark. In fact, I think that's the opposite advice than what's being offered - and it's just advice. Personally, I'd never write a descriptive scene where nothing happens, but that's a personal stylistic choice. The reason? They drive me insane! I once read a book, which I will not name because I do not like to disparage other authors, which used such extensive, intensive, and ultimately plot-pointless detail that I now refer to all such extraneous descriptive detail as "grass." Somehow the author in question seemed to have gotten so caught up in wanting to show off her research and attention to detail that she went overboard and ended up with pages and pages and pages (I'm Irish but I'm not exaggerating here) of descriptions of prehistoric prairie grass. Not just in one section, but again and again. It's this sort of thing that advice like this tries to help a writer avoid.

Now, some writers like extensive detail like that - like I said, it's a matter of taste and style. But as a writer and a reader, I need a reason to know what the berries taste like, and what every village elder's name is, and the texture of the bark on each tree in the woods. Advice like this can help to keep us focused on the details that are important, such as cooking is not only a vital aspect of that character, but the flavor of that berry will come into play later in the book - and not just "Look at this neat-o world I made!"

It's so hard on us as writers, especially when we have these huge, developed worlds, to realize that when it comes time to write we can only show off our worlds through the keyhole of our stories. Some writers forget this and get carried away - and that's how you end up with descriptive scenes where nothing happens. That's how you end up with "grass."

 

[buyjupiter]

I was nodding along to the advice in the article when I read it a few days ago. But then I stumbled across a book where the author decided that every bit of description needed to be unique, every emotion needed to be written in a new way, and all of it was intended to be humorous. It wasn't. I've found that writing humor needs a bit of exaggeration.

I don't know that I'll read the rest of the series. There were bits similar to "the blushing apple" instead of a plain "red apple", when the apple was insignificant. Describing everything in this way: "the man stood taller than the Rhodes of Colossus" rather than just saying "he was tall", grates on my nerves.

I guess it all comes down to moderation, like any of the writing advice.

 

[Philip Overby]

Yes, I agree. With any bit of advice it's important to remember that this is something that works for one person. One writer may go overboard with it, while another writer may do it perfectly. Humor, of course, is one of the hardest things to write. I don't find books that try to make every single line funny, um, very funny.