How descriptive is your literary fiction?

gettingby said:

How do you find the balance? How much description do you write? How do you know when it is needed and when you can skip it?

Click to expand...

In short, I don't do a great job at this either. But, as someone who has been given the same advice, here was my approach to it: After writing a paragraph or two, I give it a quick read-through and try to view the story in a few different ways.

First, I try to pretend I have been reading this for the first time, or as a crit for someone else. The questions I would ask them is what I ask myself. I realize this isn't easy and I still miss a bunch of stuff.

Second, I try to place myself in the shoes of the character, and ask what is the character doing, wearing, etc... or how are they acting? Will the audience know this by the way I have written the story?

Third, I go back over it in my writer's mind (as if that actually exists) and see if it matches what I want to happen.

In the end, about the half the time, I feel satisfied with the work. With using this approach in the past few months, I have cut down on my massive re-editing quite a bit.

I try to use equal parts description and equal parts dialogue, but that doesn't pan out too much.

I don't know how much this will help, but it's what I try to do.

I tend to favor a sparse writing style (when reading as well). Sometimes, it's not just what you say, it's also what you don't. Jhumpa Lahiri is one of my favorite writers because she says so much with relatively few words.

I'm not great at descriptions either, but I tend to write in layers. I try to get the story down in the first draft, then go back and paint in the background: adding description and fleshing out scenes where needed.

If you like using a minimalist style, stick with it. I'd read it

I admit: very. I have this exact picture of things in my head, especially since I tend to base my main characters on people who've made an impression in my life. I know readers like to use their own imagination, but I'm just not that fun I'm also a visual artist and I guess I try to paint with my keyboard. How deep.

It depends on the voice I'm going for. I don't often find myself describing anything that isn't ultimately necessary. I find that language needs not to be so restrictive. You can do equally interesting things with simple sentences as you can complex.

I love description in literary fiction. Just not long blown paragraphs while I wonder where the action has gone, but if it's woven into the meat of the story, I love the stuff. I read two great novels* this year that were awash with it, but not in a "now I'll let you know how the countryside looks" or the color of the heroine's hair kind of way.

I had a workshop leader who said to use description to further characterization. The view out the window will look different to a dying man than to one just engaged. Keeping that in mind helps - the reader sees the scene AND the character's state of mind.

I also think you can use description to break up dialogue. It can work better than an adverb -- "Her ring glinted with ruby flashes when she said," rather than "she said hotly." (Not a great example but you get the point.)

None of this seems to me a function of style. Description can be done in many ways. The point of it seems to pull the reader into the world of the story. And like all the other pillars of writing, I struggle to master it.

*In case someone asks - "A Constellation of Vital Phenomena" (set in Chechnya) and "All the Light We Cannot See" (stylistically amazing.)

I don't think you have to launch into a description of every scene, but a hint of the protagonist's senses being heightened by touch, smell, sight, might give the reader a better understanding of what they are going through. Maybe the leaves of a tree are turning upside down before a storm, which reminds the protagonist of his grandfather's teaching of how to read the weather. Maybe a hint of perfume in an old dusty room helps us see how the protagonist remembers her mother's romance with her father.

I don't write long, beautiful sentences either. My lit-fic pieces have a more accessible, faster-pace. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

I am efficient with description. I make my sentences work hard. I also tend to enjoy literary fiction that is less long-winded as well. I love Sherman Alexie, Denis Johnson, Junot Diaz, Robert Olen Butler. I wouldn't say that any of these writers go overboard on description and some of their work is pretty fast paced.

I do think it's good to have some sensory details. Avoiding the abstract is good.

I'm not sure yet, my first drafts of others genres tend to need expanding. I fully expect my Lit-Fic and contemporary stories to be the same.

gettingby said:

Description is where I struggle most. I often write an entire short story before realizing I failed to offer a physical description of anything. I just get so into the plot and character development that I simply forget completely about description. I realize this is a problem.

Even though this is literary fiction, I don't write long beautiful sentences. In fact, I tend to write short sentences and direct prose. After the fact, I have been trying to add in some description, but, to be honest, I'm not sure how much of it is needed.

I got feedback from a story once where I was told the male characters in my piece didn't stand out enough from each other. So, I added some physical descriptions. I've been told something similar about a few of my settings.

I want to maintain my minimalist approach to writing, but I don't want to hurt my chances of publishing because I don't have enough description. How do you find the balance? How much description do you write? How do you know when it is needed and when you can skip it?

Click to expand...

If your characters aren't distinct enough, I don't think describing them will help. Your characters should ideally be distinguishable by their voices, their goals, lots of things before physical description.

Physical description of characters has to mesh with the POV. I recall starting a book written in close third, where the narrator launched into a lengthy description of someone the MC had known for years. I stopped reading.

Greetings Gettingby;

Thanks for starting this thread. I'm new to placing my writing on the internet for comments; and like you I am a writer who loves descriptions. I took almost the same excerpt of my novella that has descriptions and placed it on two sites. One site the commenters could not see the critiques of others until after they wrote their critique and the other they could. In general I learned between both sites I was wrong in starting my novella that way (with descriptive passages)... however only one of five critiquers at the website where they can't see other crits until later said some of my descriptive sentences were cumbersome, the others didn't show signs that they had major troubles with my descriptive passages. There was one who I think speed read the first couple of pages. That critiquer I think skipped the rest and wrote in the comments area and received the karma points they needed... yet that person didn't dislike my descriptions and said it was instead important to have a hook to the story first, then later more description, yet only some was okay. So also it seemed on in five at the non-viewing other critiques site had not read my whole excerpt.

At the site where they could see the others comments all said they couldn't make sense of it, were lost, everything is a gumbled mess, odd phrasing, and cumbersome to read; and it seemed only one in five read the whole excerpt. I think the site where they can see the other comments are maybe serious readers who know the mainstream more than maybe the pay site commenters. I don't know. I can say almost for sure all would by far most of all appreciate exactly the way you write now with action and dialogue, the Minimalist approach.

Readers can like descriptive passages I guess yet one must be very masterful in writing them. The safest way to go is action-dialogue so I've learned. Be clear and plain and simple as you can in conveying your story... but I guess that's if you want to sell your books. I'm going to have a better hook and keep it simple too... but I know later in the story... descriptions and sounds and rhythm of words mean a lot to me like I think they do for you too. I guess descriptive passages are one of the major differences with what is "literary" and what is not, however Hemingway the father of Minimalism is in the literary area. At least that's my amateur point of view... for what it's worth. If Minimalism is a trend it sure has been around for a long time....

Carpe Diem!
Winfred

gettingby said:

Description is where I struggle most. I often write an entire short story before realizing I failed to offer a physical description of anything. I just get so into the plot and character development that I simply forget completely about description. I realize this is a problem.

Even though this is literary fiction, I don't write long beautiful sentences. In fact, I tend to write short sentences and direct prose. After the fact, I have been trying to add in some description, but, to be honest, I'm not sure how much of it is needed.

I got feedback from a story once where I was told the male characters in my piece didn't stand out enough from each other. So, I added some physical descriptions. I've been told something similar about a few of my settings.

I want to maintain my minimalist approach to writing, but I don't want to hurt my chances of publishing because I don't have enough description. How do you find the balance? How much description do you write? How do you know when it is needed and when you can skip it?

Click to expand...

I use very little description, and almost no description for characters. For their personalities, I let their actions dictate that. Beyond that, I write like a reader. As as reader I am consistently disappointed by adaptations of novels because the characters don't look like how I pictured them. I think most people, or enough people, ignore whatever description you write to some extent and provide their own description. Since I usually find myself skimming over descriptive passages, in my own writing I try not to include them.

Hey, JHFC, I'm curious. Do you write literary? I think what you say is true for some genres (not disparaging - just an observation). And your comment about describing characters is right on - I see less and less of "her hair was blond, hanging down her back" type of description. However I've recently read a bunch of novels where place was almost a character and the description added to the story. I, too, skip long paragraphs of "the road wound up the hill which was covered with skinny trees bending in the wind and too the left cliffs rose majestically into the sunrise" ilk. I like it fed to me in short bursts, the same as character.

And welcome to this board.

lacygnette said:

Hey, JHFC, I'm curious. Do you write literary? I think what you say is true for some genres (not disparaging - just an observation). And your comment about describing characters is right on - I see less and less of "her hair was blond, hanging down her back" type of description. However I've recently read a bunch of novels where place was almost a character and the description added to the story. I, too, skip long paragraphs of "the road wound up the hill which was covered with skinny trees bending in the wind and too the left cliffs rose majestically into the sunrise" ilk. I like it fed to me in short bursts, the same as character.

And welcome to this board.

Click to expand...

I thought I wrote literary but I'm starting to think I have a different definition of literary than other people.

My idea of literary is Hemingway or Cormac McCarthy. Not that I'm comparing myself to them.

I describe important things if they need description.

So for the window example-- mentioning the window at all would be significant, because I could have the character look at anything. Why does he look at the window? What does he do after that. What the window looks like is less important to me than why I mentioned in the first place, since I could have had him look at anything.

And you are right about short bursts. When I do it, that's how I do it.

JHFC, I wouldn't worry about the definition of literary. There have been many discussions about it on the boards and sometimes they get quite heated. (See my careful disclaimer in parens.) And your definition is perfectly valid - those are lit guys. I, on the other hand, take V. Woolf or the 2 Anthonys (Doerr and Marra) as my touch points. Different animals, but also valid.

That makes sense. Though I suppose my comment about description makes more sense now. At least you don't think I'm lost now.

I used to be such a sucker for description. And honestly a little resentful that everyone around me seemed to be of the beefy, action-based Hemingway school of description. No surprise, my fav. author was Proust.
Of course my description-laden writing suffered.

But everyone needs to plant feet, right? In the lean writing of something like _Young God_, there are just little touchstones (the burned catsup smell, a fluorescent light) and it's completely grounding.
@lacygnette - isn't Marra so deft at that description?! Constellation was the best book I read last year. One of the things I noticed that his descriptions/scene painting nearly always had working for it was the characters _moving_ through the scenes. Like... they never stood still... they observed while the omnipresent tension either pushed or pulled them through that landscape.

Hey Saphron,
Welcome to contemp/main/lit. I do like the idea of "touchstones". Never thought of it that way.

And yes, Marra was a revelation. If you liked that one, try All the Light We Cannot See. Those were the 2 best books I'd read in a couple years. The description in it sits a little heavier, but still a fabulous read.

I think I generally prefer to characterize. Then the reader can fill in their own description. Win win, as I see it.

I'll admit that I also neglect giving physical descriptions quite a bit. I have to work at it in revisions. I try to just give some specific details about the character's looks to give the reader a picture in their mind and let the reader imagine the rest. It just seems too forced to me to give a full description of the character for me and I've never been one to really find extensive character descriptions in books helpful for me to imagine the character. I tend to use more speech patterns, character development, etc., to imagine the character than an actual description.

Djuna

Just as really long passages of descriptions bore the reader, if there is no description whatsoever, they will not get a sense of what happens. In order to find balance between the two, use description sparingly (as you say that you prefer), but do not neglect it entirely. When you need to show something important--such as an object that relates to the character's past-- you can use a few spot-on words to describe it, and it will be okay. The thing to remember though is that in fiction, there has to be analogy. This means that important concepts should be given a lot of space, while less important, should be given just a few sentences or less. This rule applies to description, too.

Another thing to ponder, is to use description in order to flesh out character. Word choice, specific details that he/she notices, things he/she remembers, all contribute to show the reader some aspects of the character's personality/past/mood/motivations/etc.

Moreover, in introducing a character, you shouldn't spend whole paragraphs describing every detail of their appearance. A few guiding words will suffice. This applies to the setting of the story, too, because readers usually get bored when they stumble upon long, languorous, detailed, nitty-gritty and meticulous description of, say, an ominous-looking dark mountain which peeks at the characters, like a frowned hungry giant (this bored you, right? ).

So, use a little description when needed but don't go overboard.

Hope this helps

I think the discussion of literary fiction and description is more apt than say, with sci-fi. Not in a snobbish sense. But literary Writers have to walk a finer line than most. Or maybe it's the opposite: maybe literary fiction authors have a more lopsided line to walk.

I think the keyword, as has been mentioned here repeatedly, is: balance. Tempo. Rhythm. A very long sentence can be tiresome paired with another long, meandering, difficult sentence, but paired with a zippy short sentence, it can be exciting and fun to read. Likewise, when it comes to lengthy description, the artful and deliberate choice of WHAT you describe is key. A well described setting matched with sparse dialogue, or vice versa (etc.) can be a pleasure to read. I think the key is in finding, again, that balance, that middle ground. Too much (or little) of anything can be tiring and annoying. So I think, especially in terms of literary fiction, where writing tends towards more, dare I say, self-indulgent language-choices (I'm guilty as the next guy--probably more-so) I think something else in a given scene has to give, if only a bit. A long, wild monologue can be paired with a simple and sparse description of something, for example. You get the idea.

Personally, I go for what I just said. I tend to be very, very sparse and simple in my dialogue. There's a lot of white space. Negative space. And I tend to bookend that sparse dialogue with meaty paragraphs describing everything else.