Setting description: a Goldilocks approach?

[Feo Takahari]

I'm reading a novel called Tigerman, and it's not stultifyingly boring. This surprised me quite a bit, because it's set on a beautiful island in the middle of nowhere, and I can't remember the last time I read a story with that setting and wasn't bored. I've been thinking about why that is, and I'd like to propose an idea for you all to pick over and tell me why I'm wrong. It's in the form of two possibilities:

1): The writer doesn't live on a beautiful island in the middle of nowhere, and they assume their readers will find the setting to be strange and exotic. To reinforce this, they describe it. And describe it. And describe it, for pages at a time. Things happen, but only eventually, after a lot of establishment of just how weird this place is, seriously aren't these people so freaky, you guys? (I'll probably piss some people off by saying this, but I find it unsurprising that most of these writers are white people.)

2): The writer lives on a beautiful island in the middle of nowhere. I haven't seen this specific setup, but I've seen the equivalent, like a story about the Mexican border from a writer who lives there. They've already got a picture of the place, and it seems like they unconsciously assume the reader will, too. Things happen a lot faster, so this is generally more interesting to read, but it's also really blurry, and major locations go without any decent description.

Tigerman has much less description than the former, but noticeably more than the latter. It gives just enough to create a general picture, then once that picture is clear, it moves on with the plot. The reader's imagination is sufficient to fill in the blanks.

Is it really that simple--writing description like you're Goldilocks, finding the "just right" between "too much" and "too little"? Or is there something I'm not considering here?

 

[Nimue]

I don't know if that's the only thing that needs to be considered, but a "just right" amount of description is essential. Thing is, what's "just right" varies from reader to reader, and genre to genre. Fantasy is more of a Papa Bear than a Baby Bear, to use the Goldilocks analogy.

I think a good rule of thumb is what you've touched on there: give your best and heaviest description things that are novel to your reader. Describe the spectacle of a dragon migration in the winter--don't describe someone brushing their teeth. Or the quaint village that the farm boy has grown up in all his life, unless there's something different about this quaint village than all the others in fantasy! Please let there be something different.

Corollaries include: don't heavily describe things your character would never notice, like a very familiar setting; and don't heavily describe things that aren't important to the plot--unless they're very original, or very cool.

 

[Jabrosky]

The writer doesn't live on a beautiful island in the middle of nowhere, and they assume their readers will find the setting to be strange and exotic. To reinforce this, they describe it. And describe it. And describe it, for pages at a time. Things happen, but only eventually, after a lot of establishment of just how weird this place is, seriously aren't these people so freaky, you guys? (I'll probably piss some people off by saying this, but I find it unsurprising that most of these writers are white people.)

What counts as strange, exotic, or freaky will always be relative, my dear Feo. I'm sure Norway and its native population would appear exotic to Gabonese people.

With regards to your main topic, obviously the "just right" spot will depend on your own preferred writing style. Minimalists will lean a bit closer to 2) on your spectrum, whereas lovers of description will lean more towards 1). Then you have to consider your audience and their likely familiarity with your subject matter. Even if you live on that beautiful island yourself, you might want to give readers from all over the world what it's like to look outside your window. A Norwegian author whose island lies within the Arctic circle can't expect Gabonese readers to accurately imagine that island or the Norwegians living on it.

 

[Penpilot]

IMHO that's the simplest saying it, "Just Right."

Another thing to consider is the skill of the writer. Sometimes, a writer only needs a hundred words to get something across while other writers need a thousand to do the same thing.

Writing is not only about what's on the page but what's not on the page too. My college writing teacher said writing is like an iceberg. 90% of it sits below the surface. The 10% that's visible should lead you to the rest.

Also how much description is "just right" is very subjective. Sometimes the reader can miss something and not understand what the writer is trying to do, so they think certain bits are unimportant when they are very significant.

 

[Terry Greer]

Just how much description to write is tricky.

You don't want to give so little that the reader imagines something that is contradicted later on in a later detail - otherwise that's just causes confusion and is immersion-breaking.
On the other hand you certainly don't want to give so much that the reader has no space for their imagination, excessive detail just slows the pace down.

Getting that balance is sometimes harder in a fantasy because the possibility space is so large. With a real world setting you can hang your description on already well know period or gepographical tropes. In a fantasy setting you can end up with cliche doing exactly the same thing.

I think this is why so many fantasy writers use existing tropes such as orcs/dwarfs/elves for characters and well established environments such as generic forests and deserts etc. - It makes it easier on description and allows them to be brief so the action can move forward fast.


When I'm describing a completely new environment, such as the fractured floating islands of my world Jangada, I try to give it in bitesized chunks that pose questions to be answered I later chunks and schedule a series of gradual reveals as part of the story.
The intent is to satisfy and tantalize the reader for the next nugget of info.

 

[Mythopoet]

Is it really that simple--writing description like you're Goldilocks, finding the "just right" between "too much" and "too little"? Or is there something I'm not considering here?

No, it's not that simple, because there is no such thing as "just the right amount" of description that applies more broadly than on a story by story basis. There is no standard, there is no general answer. It depends entirely on the individual author and the individual story and even then some readers will think there's either too much or too little description based on their own personal preferences. So no, there's no such thing as "just right". It's all opinion.

What most writers don't seem to understand, in my opinion, is that description isn't a standalone element of storytelling like, say, plot or setting are. How an author describes things is (or should be) part of their unique voice and style. An author with a strong narrative voice can really use any amount of description they feel like using because if their voice is interesting enough, they will develop an audience who likes reading what they write. I think the mistake commonly made in recent decades is to think of "description" as a thing by itself that has to be done a certain way. You get too much "reporterly" description that is dry and flavorless and has no personality behind it at all. Whereas you can basically write anything you want if you can write it in an interesting way, but fewer and fewer writers do that these days, in my experience as a reader.

 

[Svrtnsse]

I'll echo a few previous posters.
To me, it's not just about describing how something looks, but also about setting the mood of the scene. When my MC wakes up happy and refreshed and wanders out into the orchard I will describe it in one way, and when he wakes up with a raging hangover and stumbles out in the same stupid orchard I will describe it in another way.
The location is still the same, and it still looks the same, but it feels very different.


EDIT:
Example:

Happy morning:

Birds sang outside in the orchard and the morning breeze played in the curtains.

Hangover:

Light streamed in through the curtains and outside in the orchard more birds than he could handle bickered about whatever stupid things birds get worked up over.

 

[wordwalker]

Something I always say about description (and many other aspects of writing) is to find your own style and amount of it, and be consistent there. Because that way:

• You write what you want, and as much of it as you want, which is better than anything at helping you keep writing.
• You learn to use that amount of it well-- more description that enhances rather than bogs down the mood, or using less but still covering the bases while keeping the story moving.
• The reader sees what style you're offering right away.
• The reader doesn't find moments where a passage stands out by being oddly brief or florid. Unless you had a reason to make it that way.

 

[spectre]

I think your audience is important. Examine a marketable approach if you're writing for pay. Writing from the self-insert perspective or an interpreted observation is only as different as introspection and analysis but in terms of light reading people don't want to indulge in complexities that will stall what can be said quickly. That becomes contrite so writers have to find a balance between their intended theme unless they just want to make an adventure and juxtaposing some kind of expository or persuasive style.

Fantasy itself isn't technical writing so it helps to just sit back and let your mind run with it until you realize what you've said and can refine your work. No one's going to do it for you so inspire yourself.

In terms of stories where fluidity of human interaction is dominant or environmental detail is a provision for immersion or those that build structural forms and complexities I think I would be hard pressed to say that you don't find that more apt by genre. I don't know the many varieties of fantasy literature, but if you think of your stories as an encompassing world then the appropriate balance is goldilocks in the sense that you need to provide atmosphere whether it be ambiance, calamity, something sultry or otherwise. Sleeping in a bed then will lend to the development of characters and people I think like to situate reactions as much as they like to react to situations.