Share your tips on how to write descriptions

[Anahid21]

I've been looking out for ideas on how professional writers describe setting and characters in their stories. Here is a set of tips and tricks I've come up with so far. Please let me know what you think:

1)Connect description with something in the plot or about a character.
example: -He didn't look like someone who would be Jane's type, because (description)
or: -The room gave her the shivers because (description)


2) Inventive ways to describe environments, for example through the reflection in the window, a shadow on the wall, silhouettes, etc. Also giving priority to other senses such as touch and scent.

3) Compare and contrast, although this should be used sparingly and inventively.
example: His long and dirty beard reminded John of the roots of an old tree.

4)Description through the interaction of a character with his/her environment (you can kill two birds with one stone.)
example: -He couldn't reach the top of the dusty shelf because of his short legs.
or: -The monster's dark skin blended against the grimy walls of the cave.

If anyone has any more ideas to add please do. I'm looking in particular for ways to make descriptions more alive so they would transport the readers into the story instead of giving news reports.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Wow. That's a lot to think about.

I just describe things.

[Slushie]

2) Inventive ways to describe environments, for example through the reflection in the window, a shadow on the wall, silhouettes, etc. Also giving priority to other senses such as touch and scent.



Emphasis. Smells, touch, and sounds can add an extra dimension to a setting; however, I don't think one should have "priority" over the other.

I agree with the reindeer ferret. If you can close your eyes and put yourself there, then the descriptions will come naturally. That's how it works for me, anyways.

[Canotila]

Read a lot, and when you find description that resonates with you sit down and figure out why. What senses does it engage? How does it enhance the mood? How is it paced? etc.

[Anahid21]

Wow. That's a lot to think about.

I just describe things.

If your descriptions don't turn into big information dumps without trying then you are a very skilled writer.

Read a lot, and when you find description that resonates with you sit down and figure out why. What senses does it engage? How does it enhance the mood? How is it paced? etc.

That's what I'm doing. The OP post is from the notes I took while reading a thriller. I just noticed some of the things the author was doing.

And I didn't mean "priority" in that sense. I just put it that way to make sure I don't forget other senses. It's easy to drown in visual descriptions.

[djf881]

You don't need to explain in great detail what a thing or a person looks like. One or two details should be enough; the reader can fill in the rest.

For example, this is overdoing it:


He was a shade under six feet, and he made himself look taller by gelling his hair so it stood straight up. His eyes were icy blue, and he had a sleek, aquiline nose and perfect white teeth. His tan was dark and deep and probably artificial. His expensive designer shirt was cut slim, to better accentuate his bulging pecs and gym-sculpted abdominals. His Japanese natural-selvage jeans were tight enough to let everyone know he was packing an eight-inch dong. His sneakers were new, spotless Nikes.


This is probably all you need:


A douchebag with frosted tips and a spray-on tan.

[Maxinquaye]

If you're using third person limited, then description will follow your character's POV. What I mean by that is that description will come as a consequence of your character's perception of his surrounding. Sort of like, to use your general setting:

Let's say your character is Karim. Then you'll have something like:


Karim slid off the camel as it bent down to the ground.

He landed on his feet in the soft sand, and then groaned and grabbed his aching back. Where was he now? He looked around, but could only see a few palms standing around a crevice in the ground. It must be an oasis, he thought. That meant that there was water! At once he felt unspeakably thirsty, and ran toward the crevice despite the pain in his back.

When he got to the crevice, he threw himself in the sand, at its edge, and looked down. Below him a wonderful clear pool flickered in the sun and beckoned him to come, like a djinn of the fables, the ones that seduced men to their deaths.


Something like that. As you can see, it all comes out of Karim's perception of his surroundings. It is (even though this passage was written on a spur, and isn't very good therefore) from his point of view. You as a writer do not pause Karim to be able to tell the reader what it looks like.

I hope that's clear. :)

[Libbie]

I don't bother to describe anything unless it's something my POV character would notice. For whatever reason -- because it's unusual, new, surprising, because she admires it, because it feels familiar and that comforts her just now, etc.

Description always feels wrong to me unless the POV character has a damn good reason for paying attention to it.

[DannySherbet]

I don't bother to describe anything unless it's something my POV character would notice. For whatever reason -- because it's unusual, new, surprising, because she admires it, because it feels familiar and that comforts her just now, etc.

Description always feels wrong to me unless the POV character has a damn good reason for paying attention to it.

True. For instance, I wouldn't describe the smell of a room unless it was a smell that would be particularly noticeable to the POV character, like the smell of something burning, or unless it had a significance to the story, like a murder scene smelling heavily of cleaning chemicals.

I use the words 'like' and 'as though / as if' a lot when writing descriptions.

'The floor was slippery under John's feet - it was like walking across an ice-skating rink.'

What I used to do, and what I try to do avoid now, is writing description as an inventory: 'John entered the room. There were two Rothko paintings on adjacent walls. The lightbulb was flickering. There was a smell of disinfectant. There was a cold draft. The floor looked slippery. There was a table in the middle with a stack of Playboy magazines and a box of tissues. John never thought going for a sperm count would be so clinical. Etc, etc.'

[djf881]

True. For instance, I wouldn't describe the smell of a room unless it was a smell that would be particularly noticeable to the POV character, like the smell of something burning, or unless it had a significance to the story, like a murder scene smelling heavily of cleaning chemicals.


If you're trying to grab the most evocative feature of a certain place, a smell might be it. Like the smell of a locker room or a hospital or a high-school cafeteria. If the smell isn't interesting or specific, leave it out.

Of course, obviously, if the smell is plot-related, like the solvents at the murder scene, or the lingering smell of another character's perfume, include it.


I use the words 'like' and 'as though / as if' a lot when writing descriptions.

'The floor was slippery under John's feet - it was like walking across an ice-skating rink.'


You want to try not to overuse these similes. And they should never be obvious. When you use them, try to make them funny. Whatever you compare the thing to should be surprising and helpful. If it's not, cut it.


What I used to do, and what I try to do avoid now, is writing description as an inventory: 'John entered the room. There were two Rothko paintings on adjacent walls. The lightbulb was flickering. There was a smell of disinfectant. There was a cold draft. The floor looked slippery. There was a table in the middle with a table. Etc, etc.'

Avoid details that are unnecessary. If nobody is going to fall down, it doesn't matter if the floor is slippery. It is unnecessary and undesirable to turn every location into a fully dressed set. If it's a hotel room with two double beds, or another character's spacious corner office with panoramic views and a heavy oak desk, that's potentially all you need to say.

It's perfectly acceptable to first mention a table when somebody leans against it, or to first mention the chair when someone sits in it. There is no need to previously establish such an object; even if three scenes have occurred in the room, if somebody casually sets a glass on the table, nobody will wonder where the table came from. The reader understands it's always been there.

The other details you mention are important only if they provide necessary information. If the perspective character is entering the apartment of another character for the first time, the fact that the place is unusually messy or unusually neat might seem to be pertinent information.

If a flickering lightbulb is throwing long shadows against a cinder-block wall, that's probably all the setting you need. If an room is lined with crowded bookshelves and there is a heavy, well-used leather chair by the window, that's all the setting you need. If an apartment is spare, clean space with angular modern furniture and lots of natural light, that sets the scene. Try to describe every setting in ten words, and see if you lose anything you end up missing.

[James D. Macdonald]

"You see, but you do not observe."

-- Sherlock Holmes

Pay attention to the world around you. The rest follows.

[Wayne K]

Cool advice, thanks.

[blacbird]

Don't be over-analytical. Don't describe stuff that won't matter to the reader. Do describe stuff that will.

Ask yourself questions, pretending that you are the reader, and not the writer: Do I need to know the color of the character's eyes? Or height? Or weight? Or car?

If the answer is No, proceed accordingly.

caw

[Anahid21]

I don't bother to describe anything unless it's something my POV character would notice. For whatever reason -- because it's unusual, new, surprising, because she admires it, because it feels familiar and that comforts her just now, etc.

Description always feels wrong to me unless the POV character has a damn good reason for paying attention to it.

I have a question for you and those who said leave it out: How do you create setting? Or mood? How do you convey the era?

In the thriller I'm reading, a few well placed descriptions at a murder scene told me it was early evening in a busy city just getting ready for nightlife. That was much better than not knowing where I was and what time it was. You don't want your readers to feel they're walking in a void with your MC, do you? Especially in a historical or fantasy piece.

Of course that doesn't mean information dumping. There's always better ways to slip in details about the setting. I'm looking for examples of that. Maxinquaye's is an interesting suggestion.

Try to describe every setting in ten words, and see if you lose anything you end up missing.
This too. I'll try that from now on.

[Cliff Face]

I don't bother to describe anything unless it's something my POV character would notice. For whatever reason -- because it's unusual, new, surprising, because she admires it, because it feels familiar and that comforts her just now, etc.

Description always feels wrong to me unless the POV character has a damn good reason for paying attention to it.

Oh thank god. I thought I was lacking in the description areas because I only included what I thought was absolutely necessary. I guess I formed the opinion that lots of description sells books, because you see so much of it around - like knowing the names of designer clothes, the specific words for a type of house style, etc. when all you really need is a few simple words and perhaps the qualifier "it looked expensive" ??

I never liked too much description in my reading, but I was beginning to get worried my (relative) lack of it would mean a harder sell. But now you've put into words what I couldn't have done - "Description always feels wrong to me unless the POV character has a damn good reason for paying attention to it."

*stops slobbering*

[sohalt]

Be aware that descriptions are never innocent.

Signs can be iconic (your photo in your facebook profile signifying you), indexical (smoke signifying fire) and metaphorical (roses signifying love, lilies signifying death). But it's not either/or. It can be all of the above. (And this is often, when it becomes literature with a capital L).

Some readers are going to try reading your signs on all these potentially available levels anyway, whether you want them to or not.

Don't disappoint them too often. Make your signs do at least double (if possible triple) duty.

There's great beauty in efficiency.

[Linda Adams]

Occasionally use the dialogue for description. Rather than describing how narrow a tunnel is, I have a character make a remark about it.

Don't try to present an exact picture of the place to try to control how the reader sees it. In a former critique group, one of the writers spent a great deal of time describing every single, excruciating detail like the angle of a character's arm as he picked up a piece of paper.

Be specific (this is from James Rollins at Thrillerfest a few years ago) i.e., if you mention a dog, don't just call it a dog--call it a Poole or a Golden Retriever.

Use the viewpoint of the scene to bring out personality in the description.

[Hip-Hop-a-potamus]

These are all great.

I try not to describe TOO much, but when I do, I always remember something that an English teacher I had years ago would try to get us to do. And I find I'm drawn to spare bits of detail that appeal to any or multiple senses....

So for an (admittedly bad and quickly done) example:
For a walk in the forest, you might mention the murmuring of the birch trees (hearing) or the crunch of the snow underfoot (feeling). The strange honks of Canadian geese overhead (more hearing), the smell of the winter air turning snot to icycles (scent and feel), or the taste of the hot cocoa you've just drunk that remains in your mouth a little while afterwards (taste).

[The Lonely One]

I've been looking out for ideas on how professional writers describe setting and characters in their stories. Here is a set of tips and tricks I've come up with so far. Please let me know what you think:

1)Connect description with something in the plot or about a character.
example: -He didn't look like someone who would be Jane's type, because (description)
or: -The room gave her the shivers because (description)


2) Inventive ways to describe environments, for example through the reflection in the window, a shadow on the wall, silhouettes, etc. Also giving priority to other senses such as touch and scent.

3) Compare and contrast, although this should be used sparingly and inventively.
example: His long and dirty beard reminded John of the roots of an old tree.

4)Description through the interaction of a character with his/her environment (you can kill two birds with one stone.)
example: -He couldn't reach the top of the dusty shelf because of his short legs.
or: -The monster's dark skin blended against the grimy walls of the cave.

If anyone has any more ideas to add please do. I'm looking in particular for ways to make descriptions more alive so they would transport the readers into the story instead of giving news reports.

I think you've sort of hit the ones I like. Especially 4 when possible.

I like the idea of throwing a character through a room, rather than having them enter it casually :)

[Phaeal]

Good description will tell us as much about the POV character as it does about the thing described:

-- What does she notice or fail to notice?
-- Why?
-- How does it make her feel?
-- How does she react?
-- What kind of comparisons does she make, if any?

For example:

Character A: The boy held red balloons.
Character B: The boy held balloons red and glossy as candy apples.
Character C: The balloons hovered over the boy like blood-swollen bladders too close to popping.
Character D: Too damn many balloon-hauling brats ran around, getting in everyone's way.

Very different characters there.

[The Lonely One]

Don't use descriptions, unless they influence or describe the POV character's emotional state. Even a gun in someone's hand doesn't deserve mention, if it doesn't scare or at least surprise the main character.

In many instances I think the gun deserves mention BECAUSE it doesn't scare or surprise the main character. That's an interesting insight into the character we might otherwise miss. What I mean is, the lack of emotion is as interesting as the emotion.

I also think description is a matter of taste and style, not an absolute. You don't *have* to leave out basic descriptions of rooms or scene-setting just because other authors do. Of course it depends on many things in context, as everything else in writing. I lean toward your style most often. But I've enjoyed books with somewhat heavy scene-setting.

[Maxinquaye]

I also think description is a matter of taste and style, not an absolute. You don't *have* to leave out basic descriptions of rooms or scene-setting just because other authors do. Of course it depends on many things in context, as everything else in writing. I lean toward your style most often. But I've enjoyed books with somewhat heavy scene-setting.

This.

I've enjoyed books with much description too. It's like everything else about human beings, tastes are different. Trying to second guess the reader will risks reducing a text to bland stage direction.

[kuwisdelu]

All of my action takes place in a void where all the characters are grey blobs.

It makes description really easy.

Most of the time.

What's hard is it's first person, and the POV character doesn't know any descriptor other than "blobby."



Well, sometimes it says "blobular" and "blobtastic."

[lucidzfl]

All of my action takes place in a void where all the characters are grey blobs.

It makes description really easy.

Most of the time.

What's hard is it's first person, and the POV character doesn't know any descriptor other than "blobby."



Well, sometimes it says "blobular" and "blobtastic."

The blob sensually extended his blobby blob to the blobby section of his partners bloblette. As his other blob clumsily blobbed at her two upper blobs. They smiled blobby smiles at each other.

...

Blob.

[kuwisdelu]

The blob sensually extended his blobby blob to the blobby section of his partners bloblette. As his other blob clumsily blobbed at her two upper blobs. They smiled blobby smiles at each other.

Pervert!

[Wayne K]

I just describe stuff.

Or not.

[Libbie]

I have a question for you and those who said leave it out: How do you create setting? Or mood? How do you convey the era?

I've been told I have no problem with mood; in fact, I've been told mood is my big strength. I guess I can't tell you specifically HOW to do this "direct-observation-only" style of describing stuff, only that it works the best for me, both as a writer and as a reader.

I'll elaborate on my thoughts on it, in hopes that it will help answer your question. Somewhat. ;)

I ask myself whether it's really important that the reader knows what details of the setting are like, or whether they'll enjoy the story just as much if I allow them to fill it in for themselves as they go along. For example, my finished novel is set in Egypt 3500 years ago. A lot of it takes place in the Pharaoh's palace. I never describe much of the palace, except for one part: The queen's chambers. I describe this part because my POV character has just been made queen (against her preferences; she wanted to be a priestess) and when she sees the queen's chambers for the first time the opulence is a shock to her. She notices this part of the palace because while the rest of the palace has been familiar to her all her life, now this incredible wealth is hers, and the huge, gorgeous chamber is what really drives that home to her.

Is it really necessary that I describe the rest of the palace to the reader? Or is the word "palace" and the knowledge that we're in Egypt 3500 years ago enough for the reader to imagine it?

According to my beta readers, I do mood really well using only this limited description. Another example from the same manuscript: My main character is walking through a garden on a day that turns out later in the chapter to be one of the worst days of her life.

The garden itself is the first clue she has that her life is about to change in a significant way. She's walked through this garden hundreds of times before, and there's nothing new about it. But it's abandoned, when usually it's full of women, and this makes her tense. I describe the garden in great detail, especially aspects of it that seem odd or distracting to my main character.

And, as the big event has to do with pregnancy and birth, I work in a few unpleasant metaphors about the potential ickiness and danger of fertility. There is a tree so heavy with fruit that its branches are bowed almost down to the ground. Rotting fruit lies beneath it, attracting flies. I lay on the description thickly in this scene, because the things my MC notices are important to her feelings about what's about to happen in her life. It was one of my most successful scenes with beta readers -- they responded very well to it and remarked specifically on the mood.

I think mood is more powerful and memorable when it's used here and there, rather than when the entire work is laden with it.

As for the era and setting, move your character through his or her daily life, and be true to your character and your setting. The little world-building details will come out as you go. In my character's world, everybody who's anybody shaves their head and wears a wig. Very fashionable! So I just showed her putting on her best wig in one scene -- no need to say, "In Egypt around 1500 B.C.E., all the upper class shaved their heads and wore wigs, so Ahmose did that, too." Boring, and info-dumping. Much more interesting to show Ahmose with her bald scalp and her wig as if nothing were out of the ordinary for her. Because nothing is. This is just life in her setting and era.

It should be noted that a lot of readers of my genre (historical fiction) don't like it when writers are spare with details, as I am. But others care more about the character and story, so I think I'll be okay. :)

In the thriller I'm reading, a few well placed descriptions at a murder scene told me it was early evening in a busy city just getting ready for nightlife. That was much better than not knowing where I was and what time it was. You don't want your readers to feel they're walking in a void with your MC, do you? Especially in a historical or fantasy piece.

Doubtless the fact that the murder takes place in a busy city at that time of the day has something to do with the story, though. You wanted to know where and when you were in order to understand the special significance of this particular murder and this particular mystery.

But does it matter what color the detective's shoes are? Or what he ate for lunch? Or what kind of music he likes? It might matter. It probably doesn't.


Of course that doesn't mean information dumping. There's always better ways to slip in details about the setting. I'm looking for examples of that. Maxinquaye's is an interesting suggestion.

That's exactly what I like to do. Slip it in, whenever it would have some kind of significance to your observing character. Significance doesn't have to be something unusual. It can be comfort, familiarity, the disappointment of having things turn out just as she feared they would, etc.

What I don't do is spend more than a sentence or two describing just for the sake of putting my special image of my world into my readers' heads. I don't care whether they think my main character is tall or short, black or white (or any other race, but not much chance of that in Egypt), fat or thin. I care whether they feel the things she feels.

[Maxinquaye]

From Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay, and it shows quite a bit of description.


Did he truly see me now? Did he see the double rubber gloves, the careful coveralls, the slick silk mask? Did he really see me? Or did that only happen in the other room, the Dark Passenger's room, the Clean Room? Painted white two nights past and swept, scrubbed, sprayed, cleaned as clean as can be. And in the middle of the room, its windows sealed with thick white rubberized sheets, under the lights in the middle of the room, did he finally see me there in the table I had made, the boxes of white garbage bags, the bottles of chemicals, and the small row of saws and knives? Did he see me at last?

[The Lonely One]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but what POV model we use is sort of crucial to how we play description also, isn't it?

Like, for instance, the kind of way Libbie describes a scene, is that more lending to a close 3rd or 1st person perspective? Would more scene-setting be more appropriate for an omniscient narrator?

[Libbie]

I never liked too much description in my reading, but I was beginning to get worried my (relative) lack of it would mean a harder sell. But now you've put into words what I couldn't have done - "Description always feels wrong to me unless the POV character has a damn good reason for paying attention to it."

*stops slobbering*

Glad I could be helpful.

I think Vladimir Nabokov is a great writer for learning description. His books are very prosey and heavy on description, but description is always used as a major mood-conveyor, and is only ever given when the main character has a reason for noticing something.

His book Bend Sinister starts with a disjointed, almost confused-feeling description of dead leaves floating on a puddle. It goes on for a couple of pages. At the end of it, you realize the POV character is staring at this puddle after just having received the news that his wife will die in the hospital. It makes the scene incredibly poignant. Vlad could have just said, "Krug's wife was going to die, and all he could think to do was sit and stare at a puddle." Instead, he fills up several paragraphs with gorgeous, flowing language, fills your head with this simple object, and once you realize why it's done, you really feel for yourself the stunned emptiness in Krug's brain.

That's how to do description, methinks. It needs to have a damn good reason, or it's superfluous. To me, anyway. And to me, "making the reader see what I see" isn't a damn good reason. "Making the reader feel what my character feels" is the only reason.

[Maxinquaye]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but POV is sort of crucial to how we play description also, isn't it?

Yes!

In my view, if it's not seen or noted by the character - and why should he note something he sees every day? - then it's not mentioned. If someone takes a bus every morning at 7, the character doesn't stop and examine the bus. It's a bus

[Libbie]

Also, do keep in mind that my fiction tends toward what you'd see on literary fiction lists. While I love "genre" fiction, I so far haven't written any, and I am going for more emotional immersion in my writing than fast-paced plot or snackable story.

[Libbie]

From Darkly Dreaming Dexter by Jeff Lindsay, and it shows quite a bit of description.

That's great description, IMO. Just how it's "supposed" to be done. (Supposed to in Libbieland.)

What I dislike is the kind you get in, oh, say Twilight. A list of attributes of the character or place, for the edification of the reader, and not to enhance mood, create character, or move plot.

[Libbie]

I don't know if anyone's mentioned this, but what POV model we use is sort of crucial to how we play description also, isn't it?

Like, for instance, the kind of way Libbie describes a scene, is that more lending to a close 3rd or 1st person perspective? Would more scene-setting be more appropriate for an omniscient narrator?

Yes, obviously this type of description I'm, uh, describing only works with certain POV. Close third and first would be the obvious ones, but I think it would work just fine in second, too. Really only omni wouldn't hack it. My book is limited third.

[Straka]

That's great description, IMO. Just how it's "supposed" to be done. (Supposed to in Libbieland.)

What I dislike is the kind you get in, oh, say Twilight. A list of attributes of the character or place, for the edification of the reader, and not to enhance mood, create character, or move plot.

When I write the first draft, that's what I tended to do: make a list of general details / impression and make a note to revisit it. When I do that I'll look through the listen, decide what's important to mention, then weave the loose strands into quilt that is a tighter description of the person or place. Or so the theory goes.

I'm also considering what to pay more attention that will reinforce the plot, mood, or whatever theme I'm working towards.

[Lady Ice]

Yes!

In my view, if it's not seen or noted by the character - and why should he note something he sees every day? - then it's not mentioned. If someone takes a bus every morning at 7, the character doesn't stop and examine the bus. It's a bus

Exactly. Experience is the key. How important to the story is this experience?

'Mary had breakfast.'
That doesn't need explaining in most stories but:

'Mary had breakfast. The soggy 'O's of her Cheerios floated about morosely. She lifted the cold spoon to her mouth and ate them, sick with the consistancy. Down they slid, just as they did every morning.'

We're guessing that Mary's life is not exactly fun-filled if eating her breakfast is an 'experience'.

[Summonere]

If you can make readers think this


...reminded John of the roots of an old tree.


by how you describe this


...dirty beard...


you will be a much cleverer writer, and you'll never once have to mention roots, or an old tree. Write that way all the time? No, probably not. But when it's important, yes. As Libbie sez of Nabokov


description is always used as a major mood-conveyor

[Fredster]

This is probably all you need:

A douchebag with frosted tips and a spray-on tan.

I think I can shorten this even more:

"a Guido (http://www.guidofistpump.com/guido%20pix/guido07.jpg)" :D


I am very sparse in my descriptions, because I feel like spending too much time painting a picture for the reader doesn't let them paint for themselves.

[Anahid21]

Arrrg, now I'm confused. On one had everyone is like "Description? Pff,yuk!" on the other hand we see them confess they do add descriptions where needed. That's obviously what I meant: Where. it's. needed.

My characters are traveling in a caravan. Everything they see everyday is new. Some of you might be able to get away without describing your world. Little chance I have because everything my characters see and feel does and will get noticed by them (unless you consider them drunk tourists.)

Then there is Summonere's suggestion. Why would I want to imply roots when describing the dirty beard? The words "old tree" and "roots" are tools to hint at the personality of the character with the beard, they are not the intended goal. What the reader needs to picture is the age and decay of the character, not trees and roots and forests.

[Anahid21]

Here is an example of what I mean by setting. I'm going to borrow the character from Max's post, even though the scene is from my story:

Karim watched the great doors of the caravanserai open and their group enter a vast and crowded landing yard. He followed the leader as he moved to a spot reserved for their caravan, where they parked the animals and unloaded the cargo. The work was back breaking, but he was happy they were at last there. He looked forward to an evening inside. The twinkling lights slowly coming on in the rooms around the yard and the smell of spiced broth sneaking through a doorway invited him in.

The highlighted sentence is purely a description chunk to set the mood and give the reader a better idea of what this particular caravanserai looks like. Lets face it, how many in the West know what a Middle Eastern (Persian in particular) caravanserai in previous centuries looks like? I can leave much to the imagination, but the fact that the structure "surrounds" the yard instead of the other way around - the way Western structures are built - seems important, even if it doesn't have a monumental impact on the plot.

[Maxinquaye]

Karim watched the great doors of the caravanserai open and their group enter a vast and crowded landing yard. He followed the leader as he moved to a spot reserved for their caravan, where they parked the animals and unloaded the cargo. The work was back breaking, but he was happy they were at last there. He looked forward to an evening inside. After weeks on the camel's back, the twinkling lights slowly coming on in the rooms around the yard and the smell of spiced broth sneaking through a doorway invited him in.

I don't see a problem with adding that kind of detail, IF it is coming from Karim's perceptions. You could add what I've added to sink it into his POV. As long as he's experiencing it, and you (the writer) is not telling it, it's fine in my book.

[Libbie]

Arrrg, now I'm confused. On one had everyone is like "Description? Pff,yuk!" on the other hand we see them confess they do add descriptions where needed. That's obviously what I meant: Where. it's. needed.

Well, of course it goes where it's "needed." The question in all our heads as we interpreted your post was, I think, whether it's needed at all, and in what form, and why.

I think when most people hear "how do you do description?" they assume the asker means "how do you make sure everything in the reader's head gels with what's in my head, as the author?" That's what many of us don't like. Is it really important that the reader see the precise image the author sees?

And whether it's needed for mood-setting or for world-building depends on the writer's tastes. For me, it's enough for me to say "Egypt" and "palace." I don't care to tell the reader what color the floors are and how many rooms it has. It doesn't alter the story at all. But I do care that the reader sees the garden as being an alien and frightening place, where once it was a familiar and comforting place, when my character walks into it on the day that will change her life forever. That does alter the story. You bet I set the mood there.

Keep in mind that we're used to answering a lot of good questions from new writers here, and that usually in the past when "how should I do description?" is asked, what's meant is, "how should I ensure the reader sees what I see?"


My characters are traveling in a caravan. Everything they see everyday is new. Some of you might be able to get away without describing your world. Little chance I have because everything my characters see and feel does and will get noticed by them (unless you consider them drunk tourists.)

Well, good! You see my -- and others' -- point, then. Everything is new and interesting to them. Then describe it. But only bother with describing how the character fixes her hair today if it's different from every other day -- or if showing how it's NOT different from every other day will impart something important about her to the reader.


Then there is Summonere's suggestion. Why would I want to imply roots when describing the dirty beard? The words "old tree" and "roots" are tools to hint at the personality of the character with the beard, they are not the intended goal. What the reader needs to picture is the age and decay of the character, not trees and roots and forests.

Why does the reader need to picture anything in particular about that character? That's not a facetious question -- is the character's appearance important to plot, character development, or mood? If so, then yes, they do need to picture it. If it's got no real bearing on the story or mood, then why bother?

And I think the person who said that was just trying to get you thinking about ways to describe without using the usual images. Nabokov is a great example in that respect. So are Ray Bradbury and Ursula LeGuin, if sci-fi and fantasy are more your style. Check out their writing, and you'll see what we mean. :D

[Linda Adams]

Would more scene-setting be more appropriate for an omniscient narrator?

Not necessarily. It would depend on what the story needs. It certainly would be done differently, since the narrator is not limited in the same way as a character. The description would also carry the voice of the narrator.

[Anahid21]

But I do care that the reader sees the garden as being an alien and frightening place, where once it was a familiar and comforting place, when my character walks into it on the day that will change her life forever. That does alter the story. You bet I set the mood there.


That's a perfect example for what I mean. What I intended with this thread is not how to insert descriptions where they aren't needed, but for places where we establish they are needed based on plot.

For instance with your garden, you want to create a gloomy, scary mood. The techniques I listed are simply ways to do that without using the words "gloomy" or "scary" or giving a police report of what was where. I'm looking for such techniques. Those who say: "We don't describe things," don't answer that question. Although they are right they misinterpret the purpose of the thread. And of course no one writes a good story without ever describing something.

[theantisplice]

I try to choose powerful, important details so I only need a few to give the proper effect. That way I won't layer on a ton of weaker details in a dragged out attempt to say the same thing.

[MicheleLee]

Word choice and sentence length can go very far to world build and character build as well as describe. The Dexter quote above is a great example, because if you look it's essentially a series of lists. This reinforces Dexter's methodical, careful, reserved approach to the world, and especially to his own crimes.

"She screamed."

is essentially the same as;

"Before she could stop it a squeal of terror spilled from her lips."

and both have their use. Personally I would use the second sentence at the beginning of a paragraph, the scream initiating some other actions (like running, or fighting back). The first I would use at the end of a paragraph, or stand alone, after sentences setting the mood like the second sentence to accent an inability to act, or a lack of action.

But that's just me.

In SF/F I find the best way to keep from over describing is to start with what the reader knows and tell them how it's different. Everyone knows what a cottage is, so to describe a strange home you might say "The cottage (which should bring up a picture in the reader's mind) stood with four econo-recycled aluminum walls in a maze of tiered, raised vegetable beds blooming with the finest novelty-colored, vitamin enhanced crops credits could buy."

So now, if I read that sentence I'd see a small "green" house, the yard only food crops, but multicolored ones and expensive ones, so I'd add on my own clean manicured paths and probably a higher income level feel. The choice in crops might also indicate that the character(s) who lived there might be whimsical, or a little crazy, or have children, yet they're not wasteful either. And because these things are common and not spectacular it helps set the world at large as well.

What you describe and how can be very important to the tone of the story and the characters.

[Lady Ice]

Here is an example of what I mean by setting. I'm going to borrow the character from Max's post, even though the scene is from my story:
The twinkling lights slowly coming on in the rooms around the yard and the smell of spiced broth sneaking through a doorway invited him in.
The highlighted sentence is purely a description chunk to set the mood and give the reader a better idea of what this particular caravanserai looks like. Lets face it, how many in the West know what a Middle Eastern (Persian in particular) caravanserai in previous centuries looks like? I can leave much to the imagination, but the fact that the structure "surrounds" the yard instead of the other way around - the way Western structures are built - seems important, even if it doesn't have a monumental impact on the plot.

Do most people know the 'smell of spiced broth'? That doesn't conjure up any smell for me. You need to use description that hits the reader- invokes a strong feeling in them. Maybe focus on the smell of the spices: what sort of spices? What's their effect?


"Before she could stop it a squeal of terror spilled from her lips."

I hate sentences like this. Squeals don't 'spill'. They are short and ear piercing. When you spray perfume you don't say 'the perfume spilled out', do you? What's wrong with writing 'She screamed' or 'Against her will/despite her best efforts, a squeal of terror escaped from her lips'. Isn't this what's termed passive writing anyway?

[Maxinquaye]

There's also a sort of "rule", or guidance, that you can follow which isn't really about description. It's more for general writing. But short sentences should go first in a paragraph, then long sentences. If you have a long sentence followed by a short, then you're mucking around with a sort of micropace. The short sentence will feel hurried, alarmed, and carry a punch it might not need.

Example:

When Luca reached the village, after a long walk down the winding path from Castello Mare's, he found Silvia in the bakery where she was haggling with baker. Luca stared at her.

As opposed to:


Luca stared at Silvia. He had found her in the bakery where she was haggling with the baker. He had reached the village after a long walk down the winding path from Castello Mare.


If you ask me, you as a reader stop and pay attention when you read the last line of the first sentence. What now? Why is he staring? What's going on? You don't do that, i feel, when you read the second para.

This is of course about description too, and it's a good thing to consider when writing description.

[gothicangel]

I mix up my description up depending on a character's psychology. Gothic Literature is my field, so I write my dark scenes through a 'gothic lens' (think Miss Haversham's wedding feast); yet other scenes set in modern day Newcastle the descriptions are very pared down.

[Summonere]

Then there is Summonere's suggestion. Why would I want to imply roots when describing the dirty beard? The words "old tree" and "roots" are tools to hint at the personality of the character with the beard, they are not the intended goal. What the reader needs to picture is the age and decay of the character, not trees and roots and forests.

Why imply? Because it's a more sophisticated way of writing, when it works. It's also harder. Which makes you a better and more entertaining writer when you pull it off. Similes are shorthand things dashed off as a quickie kind of descriptive notation. They can be very well done and entertaining, but lots and lots and lots of people do them in largely the same not-really-inventive way. Raymond Chandler was great with them, but after a while, even his became tiresome (although his description of a guy “quivering like a Chihuahua” remains forever lodged in the funny part of my brain).

Yes, similes are tools. But I want the most entertaining ones all the time when I read. Not somewhat amusing ones some of the time.

Does this mean I have a bias against similes? No. They're useful. But they're not the only tool in the kit. By the way, this notion of creating impressions without directly naming them is a variation of John Gardner's teaching exercise, which goes something like this:


Describe a barn from the perspective of a man whose son has been killed in a war. Do it without ever once mentioning war, death, or the son.


If you can do something like that, you will imbue your description with much more than mere description of the thing (“news reports,” as you say). You will use that description to color, characterize, evoke, hint at, reinforce many other parts of the story as well.

In other words, Libbie was right about my 2-cents of jabber. :)

And I think the person who said that was just trying to get you thinking about ways to describe without using the usual images.

Carry on. Have fun.

[Anahid21]

Yes, similes are tools. But I want the most entertaining ones all the time when I read. Not somewhat amusing ones some of the time.


I don't like similes much either and I hate sprinkling my writing with them. That's why in my original post I said "sparingly and inventively." I thought that would cover your concern.

So the problem is with the type of words used, i.e. "roots" and "old tree"? Would "tentacles of a swamp creature" work better? Or do you suggest using an active sentence instead? As in, "The locks of his beard seemed to have grown into the ground, feeding him nourishment from the soil." It may not sound particularly good in this case but you get my drift.

[djf881]

Describe a barn from the perspective of a man whose son has been killed in a war. Do it without ever once mentioning war, death, or the son.


I posit this: A barn look the same to a man whose son has been killed in a war as it looks to anyone else. Do you know why?

Because it's a fucking barn.

[Aidan Watson-Morris]

I make jokes about the thing, while subtly imparting information.

[Libbie]

I don't like similes much either and I hate sprinkling my writing with them. That's why in my original post I said "sparingly and inventively." I thought that would cover your concern.


If you don't like similies, use metaphors. Summonere is correct, though, that these tools add sophistication to your work, and make readers remember and appreciate your work. I do think they're important, but I write fiction of a very literary nature, so I may like them more than some other writers.


So the problem is with the type of words used, i.e. "roots" and "old tree"? Would "tentacles of a swamp creature" work better? Or do you suggest using an active sentence instead? As in, "The locks of his beard seemed to have grown into the ground, feeding him nourishment from the soil." It may not sound particularly good in this case but you get my drift.

I think you're taking the idea of simile too literally. The whole point of simile and metaphor is to NOT be too literal, to be expressive and exploratory with your words. If an old man's beard is like the roots of a tree, why does that mean they have to seem to grow into the ground? Why can't it mean they're gnarled, tangled locks? Or dark in color? Or holding a lot of dirt in them? Why should they be feeding him nourishment from the earth? No, that's too literal, and if you have a hard time interpreting simile and metaphor more loosely, you should broaden your reading before you try to use them so you get what they're all about, and how to use them to good effect.

As for tentacles of a swamp thing, would such a description be apropos to your setting and POV character? If so, go for it. If not, you'll just have a simile-fail on your hands.

[Libbie]

I posit this: A barn look the same to a man whose son has been killed in a war as it looks to anyone else. Do you know why?

Because it's a fucking barn.

You don't like literature much, do you?

[Lady Ice]

If you don't like similies, use metaphors. Summonere is correct, though, that these tools add sophistication to your work, and make readers remember and appreciate your work. I do think they're important, but I write fiction of a very literary nature, so I may like them more than some other writers.

Metaphors are more risky than similes. Borrowing the beard description:
'The gnarled tree roots of his beard yearned for water'

As a simile:
'His beard reminded Bob of the unkempt gnarliness of turnip roots.'

Metaphors can come off as unintentionally funny as they are much more sincere than a simile. A simile suggests an observation; a metaphor is a conviction.

[John61480]

I'll share one tip I learned, though its kind of useless without really knowing other things.

NAMES.

What are the one words that stick out more than any other words to bring a picture in someones mind. Names. Thats what.

When I say John or Mike, it may not bring an image, but I do pay attention. When I say McDonald Or Tyson, not so much because last names don't register to everyone because of limited exposure in different peopel's lives to these peculiar words. But John and Mike are very standard and everyone knows.

When I say dandelion vs a weed, the name of the weed will stick out.

So to use this effectively, just look at the example that Stephen King showed in his On Writing book. It is an illusion.

Rabbit munching on a carrot with a Figure Eight or whatever on his head. This pops up at the end of his little example and hits home to the reader after he is busy describing a cage.

Rabbit is the name of an animal.
Munching is a visual description that support.
Carrot is the name of a particular vegetable. Everyone knows what it looks like.
Figure Eight can be either a description or a name. Non fiction, Technical terms, and numbers stick out just as well as names.

Anything to do with generic stuff like head or eyes don't stick out. But it is possible, but just tricky if you know how.

So this is the simple magic trick I deduced after thinking in the shower after brushing my teeth one morning. It probably is so crazy, but go on, read that same passage again by Stephen King in On Writing. See what sticks out and makes you imagine. He's the one that put it out their for millions of readers to read.

However there is also words that aren't names but conjure powerful things in ones mind. For example the word Strike is far more powerful than Punch. It's the order of which it is shown but usually an unusual word like Strike will hurt the eyes a little more than a generic punch will.

Strike Out is far more potent than Punch Out. Especially in a sentence.

But I don't know why that is other than a guess that it is letter in the words that can create just as much power as names can. Vive shampoo is strong, as well as the name of the thing everybody uses on their head, shampoo. This is because everybody has common association with that word shampoo, like John or Mike or George or anybody's first name you want to write down.

I'm looney tunes, I think way too much.

Don't bother telling me I'm wrong because it won't matter, just ignoring it is fine. I don't want to debate, I'll believe in myself, not what someone needs to say to make me feel stupid.

And again, the trick is kinda useless unless figuring out other things. And if you blast page upon page of this stuff, nobody will see a darn thing. It'll be blah all over. Some people have a talent for words because thats how they grew up thinking and talking, thus they have a tendency to bring their writing to life without much trouble. It isn't dumb luck or a gift from a high power, unless the life they were born with was decided upon a higher power. Who knows.

There are other ways to bring an image in someone's mind, far more than this primitive trick, and this one is also crude as well.

But I've made my own tricks, because this one is so obvious, I didn't feel like it'd be of any use to me. Whether it gets you published or not will not matter because it just doesn't. I've read some unpublished excerpts that had strong imagery before so there are other ways to do it.

Thanks for reading.

[Slushie]

I'll share one tip I learned, though its kind of useless without really knowing other things.

NAMES.

What are the one words that stick out more than any other words to bring a picture in someones mind. Names. Thats what.

When I say John or Mike, it may not bring an image, but I do pay attention. When I say McDonald Or Tyson, not so much because last names don't register to everyone because of limited exposure in different peopel's lives to these peculiar words. But John and Mike are very standard and everyone knows.

When I say dandelion vs a weed, the name of the weed will stick out.

So to use this effectively, just look at the example that Stephen King showed in his On Writing book. It is an illusion.

Rabbit munching on a carrot with a Figure Eight or whatever on his head. This pops up at the end of his little example and hits home to the reader after he is busy describing a cage.

Rabbit is the name of an animal.
Munching is a visual description that support.
Carrot is the name of a particular vegetable. Everyone knows what it looks like.
Figure Eight can be either a description or a name. Non fiction, Technical terms, and numbers stick out just as well as names.

Anything to do with generic stuff like head or eyes don't stick out. But it is possible, but just tricky if you know how.

So this is the simple magic trick I deduced after thinking in the shower after brushing my teeth one morning. It probably is so crazy, but go on, read that same passage again by Stephen King in On Writing. See what sticks out and makes you imagine. He's the one that put it out their for millions of readers to read.

However there is also words that aren't names but conjure powerful things in ones mind. For example the word Strike is far more powerful than Punch. It's the order of which it is shown but usually an unusual word like Strike will hurt the eyes a little more than a generic punch will.

Strike Out is far more potent than Punch Out. Especially in a sentence.

But I don't know why that is other than a guess that it is letter in the words that can create just as much power as names can. Vive shampoo is strong, as well as the name of the thing everybody uses on their head, shampoo. This is because everybody has common association with that word shampoo, like John or Mike or George or anybody's first name you want to write down.

I'm looney tunes, I think way too much.

Don't bother telling me I'm wrong because it won't matter, just ignoring it is fine. I don't want to debate, I'll believe in myself, not what someone needs to say to make me feel stupid.

And again, the trick is kinda useless unless figuring out other things. And if you blast page upon page of this stuff, nobody will see a darn thing. It'll be blah all over. Some people have a talent for words because thats how they grew up thinking and talking, thus they have a tendency to bring their writing to life without much trouble. It isn't dumb luck or a gift from a high power, unless the life they were born with was decided upon a higher power. Who knows.

There are other ways to bring an image in someone's mind, far more than this primitive trick, and this one is also crude as well.

But I've made my own tricks, because this one is so obvious, I didn't feel like it'd be of any use to me. Whether it gets you published or not will not matter because it just doesn't. I've read some unpublished excerpts that had strong imagery before so there are other ways to do it.

Thanks for reading.

CliffNotes version: word choice is important.