How do you describe your characters? I like to give a full description of them for not only the reader, but myself as well. I always like in books when an author does that. It's really a personal preference, but I was just curious.
- Status
I prefer to write using a very tight coupled 3rd person limited narrator, and so I cannot describe the characters whose POV I'm in unless I put them in front of a mirror and have them 'consider' their own appearance, which I refuse to do. In my current novel, I use another character's POV to describe my hero, since they are just meeting. In doing so, I pick out the things everyone would notice about him -- his height, build, the scars on his face and his hawk-like eyes. I try not to go into much detail because as a reader, I like to be given credit for having an imagination of my own. When writers sketch it out, I can fill in the detail and make the story "my own read." I extend to my readers the same courtesy. 
I like a brief description. Height, build, eye or hair color, maybe a comment or two on style, but not much more than a few sentences. Unless something about their appearance is important to the story, I don't go into too much detail. I like the reader to use a little imagination.
I like to develop characters through their dialogue and actions.
However, genre might come into play. A fantasy character (elves, giants, fairies), a romance character (looks), or a suspect in a detective novel (clues) might need a detailed description, but maybe a mainstream character might not need much more than the basics.
No right or wrong answer. Depends on your style. Just my thoughts
I like to develop characters through their dialogue and actions.
However, genre might come into play. A fantasy character (elves, giants, fairies), a romance character (looks), or a suspect in a detective novel (clues) might need a detailed description, but maybe a mainstream character might not need much more than the basics.
No right or wrong answer. Depends on your style. Just my thoughts
I like to describe them over time, never all at once, unless there is some distinguishing characteristic that I want to focus on for that moment. I'm not sure if I'm right in doing that but hey, I'm only on the first draft.:\
Whether you describe your characters fully, or less so, what you don't want to do is insert a long passage that interrupts the narrative flow.
So your descriptions, especially if detailed, should be somewhat partitioned out.
And try to blend the description into the narrative. Instead of this:
"She had shaggy brown hair that drooped over her eyes."
Use this:
"She brushed aside the shaggy brown hair that drooped over her eyes."
Because if flows better.
So your descriptions, especially if detailed, should be somewhat partitioned out.
And try to blend the description into the narrative. Instead of this:
"She had shaggy brown hair that drooped over her eyes."
Use this:
"She brushed aside the shaggy brown hair that drooped over her eyes."
Because if flows better.
DO WHAT WORKS.
For me, reading a long list of description is BORING. If I want to read a personal ad, I'll open the newspaper.
However, if I read something like "he sat his tree trunk of a body down on the tiny bar stool..." Now that's interesting.
For me, reading a long list of description is BORING. If I want to read a personal ad, I'll open the newspaper.
However, if I read something like "he sat his tree trunk of a body down on the tiny bar stool..." Now that's interesting.
I don't like describing characters at all, unless there's a special reason to do so. Readers are far better at imagining what a character looks like than most writers are at describing them.
Does anyone really care what color eyes or hair a character has? If a reader does care, he'll probably want the protagonist to look just like him. If you leave the description to the reader's imagination, the protagonist will look just like the reader.
I think character descriptions are best kept to an absolute minimum. If this is done, every reader will know exactly what the character looks like.
Does anyone really care what color eyes or hair a character has? If a reader does care, he'll probably want the protagonist to look just like him. If you leave the description to the reader's imagination, the protagonist will look just like the reader.
I think character descriptions are best kept to an absolute minimum. If this is done, every reader will know exactly what the character looks like.
I like to use description where it is necessary for the movement of the story.
If it is important to the plot that one of the characters wears an eye patch, I will bring it up when appropriate.
If the dynamic of the relationship between two characters is effected by their difference in height, I will describe it when it becomes part of the plot.
Anything more than that will decrease the signal to noise and risks boring the reader.
- Anatole
i actually find description that comes halfway through the book to be... irritating. okay, it would highly piss me off if, after 300 pages of having the main characters imagined in my mind i suddenly have to envision them with an eyepatch or the couple have a two foot height difference. those just aren't minour things. i need to know those when appropriate, which is as soon as possible. it's one thing if the heroine suddenly realizes the hero's pinky finger is always curled up as a result of surgery. i can get by that. but to find out the woman weighs 400 lbs. when i'm on page 237, that's just not right.
i lean more towards the minimal method of description unless there's something unusual i want to point out, and then it's typically more for side characters. if my protagonist, however, for some reason had a glass eye, i'd want to mention that. something like that i feel goes directly into how the reader should expect to feel about the character more than how he looks. i like description generally only when it's got connotative meaning, which hair colour often has. eyes, on the other hand, are fairly meaningless to me, but if i read where someone's got callouses, cuts, and hand-bitten fingernails, that's actually got some heft. 'azure eyes deep as the sky is high' is just pointless romantic tripe that tells me absolutely nothing in itself without tons of context, and how much boring context would it take to make that statement have any meaning, lol?
when i start, i prefer giving a brief general description of their physical appearance, something that borders on being generic, just to establish a base image to avoid confusion later on. even then i often edit that out, hoping that most of it can be inferred. an eyepatch, yeah, that's an important detail. i'll describe women more to a point. 'hey, ya bum, that's reducing women to a sex object!'
nah. well, maybe a little. my theory on that is if a woman is attractive, then by default the man is going to be attractive, too, and that by describing one you rather describe the other. this assumes there's no point to make by having the woman be beautiful and the man a frump. and it's simply easier to describe women, not to mention more entertaining, eh? (of course, by 'easier' i mean there are usually more options in describing women, which i reckon actually makes them harder for some people.) another part of why i try to be sparse is all the good descriptors have been used to death. how many ways has blonde hair been described? or, blech, eyes?
my WIP has little frame of reference for clothing, so that has to be established. clothing has tremendous connotative meaning, too, so half of the character's appearance and attitude can be summed up in the way they present themselves. it plays to some stereotypes, naturally, so there's a slippery slope. don't expect me to view the rich matron as dripping jewelry because from my experience i know better. i *can* expect her to drive a nice car, probably foreign, because people sometimes confuse affluence with the idea they have to drive something other american made just because they can.
just my two cents. i suppose if properly done, dragging out descriptions through the book is okay, just not major details that have a major influence on how i view the character in my mind.
i lean more towards the minimal method of description unless there's something unusual i want to point out, and then it's typically more for side characters. if my protagonist, however, for some reason had a glass eye, i'd want to mention that. something like that i feel goes directly into how the reader should expect to feel about the character more than how he looks. i like description generally only when it's got connotative meaning, which hair colour often has. eyes, on the other hand, are fairly meaningless to me, but if i read where someone's got callouses, cuts, and hand-bitten fingernails, that's actually got some heft. 'azure eyes deep as the sky is high' is just pointless romantic tripe that tells me absolutely nothing in itself without tons of context, and how much boring context would it take to make that statement have any meaning, lol?
when i start, i prefer giving a brief general description of their physical appearance, something that borders on being generic, just to establish a base image to avoid confusion later on. even then i often edit that out, hoping that most of it can be inferred. an eyepatch, yeah, that's an important detail. i'll describe women more to a point. 'hey, ya bum, that's reducing women to a sex object!'
nah. well, maybe a little. my theory on that is if a woman is attractive, then by default the man is going to be attractive, too, and that by describing one you rather describe the other. this assumes there's no point to make by having the woman be beautiful and the man a frump. and it's simply easier to describe women, not to mention more entertaining, eh? (of course, by 'easier' i mean there are usually more options in describing women, which i reckon actually makes them harder for some people.) another part of why i try to be sparse is all the good descriptors have been used to death. how many ways has blonde hair been described? or, blech, eyes?
my WIP has little frame of reference for clothing, so that has to be established. clothing has tremendous connotative meaning, too, so half of the character's appearance and attitude can be summed up in the way they present themselves. it plays to some stereotypes, naturally, so there's a slippery slope. don't expect me to view the rich matron as dripping jewelry because from my experience i know better. i *can* expect her to drive a nice car, probably foreign, because people sometimes confuse affluence with the idea they have to drive something other american made just because they can.
just my two cents.
i suppose if properly done, dragging out descriptions through the book is okay, just not major details that have a major influence on how i view the character in my mind.Sometimes one character's reaction to another gives the reader enough of a picture that a detailed description isn't necessary right away, and the writer can dribble in the details with the flow of the story.
I'm with J.A.R. You don't need much at all for descriptions because the reader's imagination will dream up a picture almost automatically.
I usually throw in a few quick details right off the bat and never worry about their looks again. Here's some examples:
I usually throw in a few quick details right off the bat and never worry about their looks again. Here's some examples:
One we're working on . . .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The father bonks the top of his oversized head with a fist, popping his dark brown eyes open too wide. The big happy orb of his right eye circles smoothly in its socket. The one on the left floats random, a fish without fins in a murky pool.
‘A nerd like me?’ he says too loud. He’s always too loud. 'That'll never happen, Rosie. You’d have to be short. And bald.’
‘Shaved. Not bald.’ Rose is a stickler. ‘And don’t call me Rosie. I’m fourteen.’
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The father bonks the top of his oversized head with a fist, popping his dark brown eyes open too wide. The big happy orb of his right eye circles smoothly in its socket. The one on the left floats random, a fish without fins in a murky pool.
‘A nerd like me?’ he says too loud. He’s always too loud. 'That'll never happen, Rosie. You’d have to be short. And bald.’
‘Shaved. Not bald.’ Rose is a stickler. ‘And don’t call me Rosie. I’m fourteen.’
I try to include important things when the character first appears, like their age and sex, height and body type if noteworthy or significant. I like to characterize through the Pov person's eyes, because it tells a lot about both characters. In one story I have one character attempting to write a poem about a beautiful girl. That was fun because it tells the reader a lot about the poet wannabe, too.
I read somewhere that the details shared should be the ones that move the story along, not the things like eye color but things that reflect character. Some readers do want eye and hair color, and I try to put it in as unobtrusively as possible.
Sol Stein does excellent characterizations, and I try to make mine as pithy and vivid. I don't know if I am right or not, but I think when a character first appears, readers accept short physical descriptions without it breaking their involvement in the story. Physical presence is usually the first thing we notice about each other, and it seems obvious to satisfy that for readers.
I read somewhere that the details shared should be the ones that move the story along, not the things like eye color but things that reflect character. Some readers do want eye and hair color, and I try to put it in as unobtrusively as possible.
Sol Stein does excellent characterizations, and I try to make mine as pithy and vivid. I don't know if I am right or not, but I think when a character first appears, readers accept short physical descriptions without it breaking their involvement in the story. Physical presence is usually the first thing we notice about each other, and it seems obvious to satisfy that for readers.
At least as often as not, such things as height and build can be shown through the character's actions, rather than by describing them. A character twoo feet taler than his girlfriend is a prime example. This doesn;t have to be stated when it can be easily shown through action. Same with a muscular character. Have the tall character pluck something from a high shelf, and have the muscular character easily lift something heavy.
Show almost always works better than tell, especially where descriptions are concerned.
As for an eye patch, sure, the reader needs to know. But again, having the character put on or take off the patch worked better than just telling teh reader he has one.
Show almost always works better than tell, especially where descriptions are concerned.
As for an eye patch, sure, the reader needs to know. But again, having the character put on or take off the patch worked better than just telling teh reader he has one.
I don't really have a standard way of doing things -- A lot depends on the type of novel I am writing and back when I had several pen names it kind of depended on that: Each pen name became a "character" with a certain style of writing.
I love descriptions. I like to do a lot of things with them. Descriptions for me have little to do with build, hair color, etc. They are an excellent place to describe mood, character, tone, setting, and a lot of other things.
I love descriptions. I like to do a lot of things with them. Descriptions for me have little to do with build, hair color, etc. They are an excellent place to describe mood, character, tone, setting, and a lot of other things.
Okay, but doesn't it come off as a bit "forced" when every incidental character has to lift something heavy, or perform some other action to indicate their physicality?
Especially when limiting the POV to a specific character, can't a quick sketch of the first impression work?
Especially when limiting the POV to a specific character, can't a quick sketch of the first impression work?
.
LOL - the old eye patch quandary! Do I put it in early and upset the eye patch contingent by appearing to exploit it for a cheap effect, or do I wait later and spring it on the reader as a surprise?!?
As I said, I favor describing it when it's appropriate... in the case of the eye patch, since it would be very noticeable and therefore odd to wait to describe it, the appropriate moment would be as soon as the character noticed it.
However, there are characteristics that can be missed at first that wouldn't be odd to mention much later... such as someone having the tick of speaking a little faster and forgetting things when nervous (you could easily miss this the first few times), or a habit of tapping his leg when he is lying... or even the color of a persons eyes, as this is something that many people might miss on not just first glance, but tenth or eleventh (I had a writing teacher suddenly close his eyes mid semester and poll the class as to their color - I was shocked to find that I was the only person to get it correct).
Also, having a character suddenly notice something can be used to relate a change in their feelings.
"She had never noticed how much it bothered her when he cracked his knuckles. It was the most repulsive sound and she never realized before, how much it had bothered her."
This would be intended to relate her falling out of love and it could be mentioned very late and not seem out of place, as she wouldn't noticed him cracking his knuckles when she was first falling in love, but she could very well noticed them was she was falling out of love.
So yes indeed, there are many qualities that could be passed over the first time a character is introduced that won't be so odd to mention later - when APPROPRIATE.
- Anatole
i have to agree with mm in that sometimes 'show, don't tell' can seem forced. overt manipulation is as bad as anything else, eh? if nothing else, a little variety is kind of nice. showing and sometimes just some old-fashioned 'this is what the guy looks like' is refreshing. if everyone showed, what's the point in creativity? lol.
this is why it's so difficult for me to find a good book-- once you know some of the gimmicks and tricks, it's a lot harder to appreciate anything less than practical genius, and then it's more more a thing where i'm looking at technical proficiency.
mm, back me up on this: music, for example, was a helluva lot more entertaining when you *didn't* know how to construct a song and realize that 99% of the stuff out there is banal tripe based on exactly the same chord progression and song structure everything else is. you kinda might feel like dorothy after the curtain's been pulled aside. once the mystery is gone and you see things for what they are....
this is why it's so difficult for me to find a good book-- once you know some of the gimmicks and tricks, it's a lot harder to appreciate anything less than practical genius, and then it's more more a thing where i'm looking at technical proficiency.
mm, back me up on this: music, for example, was a helluva lot more entertaining when you *didn't* know how to construct a song and realize that 99% of the stuff out there is banal tripe based on exactly the same chord progression and song structure everything else is. you kinda might feel like dorothy after the curtain's been pulled aside. once the mystery is gone and you see things for what they are....
I too am having this difficulty at the moment, preyer. Since I've learned a bit about writing in the last nine months or so, I've found myself reading analytically rather than simply for pleasure. I've read widely in that time, and many books have disappointed, either for their failures in structure or their formulaic and predictable adherence to it.
That's not to say that I haven't enjoyed the books or learnt a lot from them, both positive and negative, but I'm certainly much more critical than when I was an unenlightened reader. The only author I (happily) couldn't fault in that time has been Philip Roth (American Pastoral). What a master.
At the moment I'm reading The DaVinci Code, only because a friend left us a pile of her recent reading when she moved to Singapore. If ever a book was calculated to offend the critical reader, this is it. There are several book-throwing moments on every page. The cheesiness has to be seen to be believed.
I've persevered with it, partly because I want to see what happens next, but mainly because I've developed a morbid fascination with the ever-building outrages of Dan Brown's 'style', if that is the appropriate word.
Anyone who wonders why beginning a sentence with 'As...' is poor style, should read it, and see how it feels when it's on every page. Ditto the warning about beginning a sentence with the present participle, as well as those that recommend not using a rich selection of dialogue tags (exclaimed, retorted, inquired etc.), or suggest rationing of words like 'suddenly', amongst many other -ly adverbs.
But it's a best seller, and has unaccountably been praised by many people whom one might think would know better.
I wondered for a time why so few people have noticed its glaring (trumpeting, expostulating, shattering) deficiencies, and now finally understand what is the most telling factor in (everything but literary) fiction.
'It's the story, stupid.'
There's nothing wrong with a little telling. It's natural and common that when a new character enters a scene, we would note the appearance (as would the readers):
"A little man came in the bar. I could easily break his twig-like arms."
It's more natural to describe a character's attributes if you're writing in 1st person. For 3rd person, it becomes a question of whether the descriptions help or hinder the scene. For example, if you have a fight scene when ten people are holding down the main character or something, it's simply plain silly to describe these people individually.
But normally you could filter through your main characters when they first met someone. Especially in love stories or romance, I can't think of any ciricumstances where the authors don't at least give general sketches of what the hero and heroine look like. But there's a danger to that, too. For example, if your handsome prince is blond and blue eyed, some readers might say, "Hey, I don't find blond and blue eyed guys attractive." It might be better to leave that to their imagination.
"A little man came in the bar. I could easily break his twig-like arms."
It's more natural to describe a character's attributes if you're writing in 1st person. For 3rd person, it becomes a question of whether the descriptions help or hinder the scene. For example, if you have a fight scene when ten people are holding down the main character or something, it's simply plain silly to describe these people individually.
But normally you could filter through your main characters when they first met someone. Especially in love stories or romance, I can't think of any ciricumstances where the authors don't at least give general sketches of what the hero and heroine look like. But there's a danger to that, too. For example, if your handsome prince is blond and blue eyed, some readers might say, "Hey, I don't find blond and blue eyed guys attractive." It might be better to leave that to their imagination.
I used to be really hard-core against these sorts of "sins" until I realized that not only do all the best-selling writers commit them, but the sentence structures we are left with can seem dull. When every sentence in a paragraph has the subject-verb-predicate structure, it begins to sound monotonous to my ear.
I've since relaxed my adherence to the "rules" about these things and have come to the conclusion that maybe moderation and balance are the key. For those of us writing commercial fiction rather than aspiring to write literature, what matters most in the end is the reader's enjoyment of the story.
Every word used to tell that story, regardless of its part of speech, is a valuable tool. The gifted carpenter chooses the right tool for the job, and sometimes that tool is an adverb or adjective.
As long as you don't abuse anything, I think it's fine to use them. Anything can become repetitive. Variation is good. So what if you need an adverb once in a while? So what if you want to begin a sentence with "as" or a participle? Just as long as you don't make them into habits, or "crutch."
I think the danger of overusing adjectives or adverbs is the violation of show vs. tell. When you say "the woman was beautiful" or "she said happily," it's boring and lazy writing, oftentimes cliche. It doesn't draw in the readers, but leave them going "Okay, whatever." There are times when telling does the job so that you can move on.
All these tools can be your friend if you use them effectively. Think of your readers when you write. Do whatever you can to put them in the scene, make them experience your story instead of being "told." Push them through that door. Help them feel the chills. Help them see how beautiful the woman really is.
I think the danger of overusing adjectives or adverbs is the violation of show vs. tell. When you say "the woman was beautiful" or "she said happily," it's boring and lazy writing, oftentimes cliche. It doesn't draw in the readers, but leave them going "Okay, whatever." There are times when telling does the job so that you can move on.
All these tools can be your friend if you use them effectively. Think of your readers when you write. Do whatever you can to put them in the scene, make them experience your story instead of being "told." Push them through that door. Help them feel the chills. Help them see how beautiful the woman really is.
In praise of restraint
Me too. My point was that Dan Brown is clearly unfamiliar with such notions of taste or restraint. It would be ludicrous to censure the use of any particular construct, word, tense, or tool; but I can't help noticing their overuse. It smacks of clumsiness, or laziness, or lack of basic storytelling craft; and far from letting the story breathe, it sucks the life out of it. For this reader 'it doesn't work', and that is, after all, the acid test for all writing, including our own.
I guess critics notice, too, which is why so many of them are snooty about commercial fiction and refuse to review it. Storytelling talent and storytelling craft are surely not mutually exclusive, and it seems to me that to go for the lowest common denominator is to cynically underestimate the intelligence of the reader.
Me too. My point was that Dan Brown is clearly unfamiliar with such notions of taste or restraint. It would be ludicrous to censure the use of any particular construct, word, tense, or tool; but I can't help noticing their overuse. It smacks of clumsiness, or laziness, or lack of basic storytelling craft; and far from letting the story breathe, it sucks the life out of it. For this reader 'it doesn't work', and that is, after all, the acid test for all writing, including our own.
I guess critics notice, too, which is why so many of them are snooty about commercial fiction and refuse to review it. Storytelling talent and storytelling craft are surely not mutually exclusive, and it seems to me that to go for the lowest common denominator is to cynically underestimate the intelligence of the reader.
Re: In praise of restraint
The other characters, anyway. Esp if the POV character has never seen them before. But getting a description in of the POV character is hard in first person. I have my own way of doing any description (they match much of what James R says)
I work details into the story. Most of what I write lately is first person or very very tight third.
Shawn
The other characters, anyway. Esp if the POV character has never seen them before. But getting a description in of the POV character is hard in first person. I have my own way of doing any description (they match much of what James R says)
I work details into the story. Most of what I write lately is first person or very very tight third.
Shawn
- Status