How far do you go in describing your character's trappings, equipment, clothing, or gear?

[grey228]

Depending on what the focus of the story is, I've autistically described firearms, melee weapons, armors, technical equipment, vehicles, mecha, etc. and even attire and hairstyles.

What doesn't come across with dialog is shoved into a condensed, visual "first-look" (the 40 second first impression) when you see something new.

How many of you also do that?

 

[Bamagan]

I tend to avoid describing (in any significant detail) anything that a character is wearing or carrying, unless it's supposed to be part of the eroticism of the story: fetish outfits, high heels, choker, etc. or otherwise a plot device. But, I pretty much stick to reading and writing pure smut. Leaving aside whether or not readers who require gear lists and surround-sound setting details qualify as fetishists for that, I tend to gloss over such things when reading. Whatever payoff they're intended for doesn't seem likely to have much impact on the porn I'm looking for, so it saves me some time.

 

[ronde]

I write what I think is enough detail to enable the reader to form his/her own picture of the scene or character. I seldom go further with a character's appearance other than long/short (color) hair, general body type, and generic terms for clothing, i.e., jeans and shirt, shorts and halter top. Too much detail about a character tends to force the reader to see what the writer wants the reader to see. My experience tells me that readers want to fit a character into someone they can identify with or someone who fulfills a particular fantasy. Keeping the descriptions simple lets the reader do that.

 

[PennyThompson]

I think I'm a pretty visual writer, I have to picture the characters in my mind -- what they look like, what they're wearing, how they move, how they talk -- or I can't get the story out.

I'm trying to get better at doing it more naturalistically, instead of just a description dump... but I also just like writing a short paragraph of a character's style choices

And this new scifi alien thing I'm dabbling in will necessarily involve a lot of description, it's kind of a big part of the point. I'm not sure how that will land with readers, we'll see!

 

[D_K_Moon]

I write what I think is enough detail to enable the reader to form his/her own picture of the scene or character. I seldom go further with a character's appearance other than long/short (color) hair, general body type, and generic terms for clothing, i.e., jeans and shirt, shorts and halter top. Too much detail about a character tends to force the reader to see what the writer wants the reader to see. My experience tells me that readers want to fit a character into someone they can identify with or someone who fulfills a particular fantasy. Keeping the descriptions simple lets the reader do that.

I agree, I'm normally rather vague with it comes to describing what the character is wearing, using etc. I want the reader's imagination to fill in those details.

 

[NaughteeDragon]

Those things are only important if they’re important. Does it tell you something about the character? Does it tell you about the situation? Are they carrying Chekhov’s gun?

That said, the first time you meet a character those things are important because they do tell you about the character, unless something else does a better job.

Allen was glad the school year was over. College was awesome, he enjoyed his classes, his roommate was cool, frat life was good, and there was always something to do. However, summer break was even better. He’d slept in late this morning, met up with several of his friends for a pickup game of full court 5 on 5 at the park, and now he was about to see his two favorite people: his sister and his girlfriend. He took a quick whiff of himself. He should go take a shower, but he’d get to that afterward.

I could have told you he was wearing knee length basketball shorts, Air Jordan’s, and a Laker’s t-shirt, but in this case they don’t add anything of importance, so there’s no point.

However

Kaitlyn leaned forward and squeezed the excess water from her long, thick auburn hair. Cecilia, his sister, wore her sun-bleached hair shorter, but she shook her hair out as well. He was about to reach out and open the door when Kaitlyn reached behind herself and her bikini top dropped to the deck. It was quickly joined by her bottoms.

Allen took a long moment to enjoy the long lean lines of his girlfriend’s tanned athletic body, her perfectly firm grapefruit sized tits, and her waxed mound. That was new this summer, previously she had kept a nice landing strip of her thick dark hair. She was completely unconscious about her nudity, and he was sure she hadn’t known he was there, so she hadn’t done it for his benefit. The girls were talking, about what he had no idea, then he saw Kaitlyn reach over and trace the edges of his sister’s bikini. A second later she was tracing another line down the fabric of her top. After a bit more discussion, Cecilia seemed to relent, and soon her own high-waisted bikini joined the other on the deck of the pool.

This tells you a little bit about the girls, but more importantly it tells you how Allen relates to the girls.

Paragraphs like “She was 5’4”, 132 pounds with blonde hair and blue eyes. She had a D-cup chest and narrow hips at the top of long slender legs with a thigh gap.” give you a character description but tell you nothing important about the character unless their only purpose is to be eye-candy or a fuck-toy. They also take the reader out of narrative because most people don’t categorize in that way, and it’s a terrible way for a character to think about themselves unless they are describing themselves to someone else. Last but not least, blondes with skinny legs and thigh gaps don’t appeal to me, so I’m probably about one bad sentence away from finding something else to read.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Those things are only important if they’re important. Does it tell you something about the character? Does it tell you about the situation? Are they carrying Chekhov’s gun?

This!!

 

[ronde]

Paragraphs like “She was 5’4”, 132 pounds with blonde hair and blue eyes. She had a D-cup chest and narrow hips at the top of long slender legs with a thigh gap.” give you a character description but tell you nothing important about the character unless their only purpose is to be eye-candy or a fuck-toy. They also take the reader out of narrative because most people don’t categorize in that way, and it’s a terrible way for a character to think about themselves unless they are describing themselves to someone else. Last but not least, blondes with skinny legs and thigh gaps don’t appeal to me, so I’m probably about one bad sentence away from finding something else to read.

Paragraphs like “She was 5’4”, 132 pounds with blonde hair and blue eyes. She had a D-cup chest and narrow hips at the top of long slender legs with a thigh gap.” give you a character description but tell you nothing important about the character unless their only purpose is to be eye-candy or a fuck-toy. They also take the reader out of narrative because most people don’t categorize in that way, and it’s a terrible way for a character to think about themselves unless they are describing themselves to someone else. Last but not least, blondes with skinny legs and thigh gaps don’t appeal to me, so I’m probably about one bad sentence away from finding something else to read.

My rule of thump is to never give any actual dimension about a character unless the narrator, whoever that is, has a reason to know that much detail. I might make an exception about eye color if the narrator is close enough to actually see that. Anything else is just the fantasy of the writer playing out and sounds like two boys talking on a camping trip.

Never in my life have I undressed a woman and then whipped out a tape measure to check her vital measurements. No woman that I've ever been with has measured my cock either. Maybe I've just led a boring, sheltered life, but I don't believe real people would do either unless the scene is written to make that plausible.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Is it important, and how? Does it set the mood, or scene? I've always had some interest in fashion, so to some degree outfits might be mentioned. Like in the current thing I'm submitting; there's a brief shopping scene that describes the sexy clothes picked out for a person, who isn't too happy about their body at that moment. But those clothes are decribed simply. It just depends.

For example; in one story, on a date, I used decent detail with the scene where they were dancing, with the types of dancing and moves, because it's important. In another story, part of a chapter took place at prom. Dancing wasn't the big deal, and it was glossed over, so to speak. "The girls performed a dance, that was clearly practiced," is one line, "look at [character] and [character] breakdancing," was another. Back to the first example; another scene is a belly dancing scene, and it was detailed enough because it was part of the plot. Another at a strip club glossed over what the other strippers were doing, if the mc was paying attention. Only the main love interest time on stage had any decent detail.

If any of this makes sense.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

As others have said, it's largely dependent on the relevance and context.

Why go into detail on objects, environments, or character descriptions that have no bearing on the scene, plot, or theme?

I endeavor to describe my characters through how they are perceived by others, and always create an image for the readers to fill in based upon their own developed perceptions.

One example would be a wife describing her husband, "When it came to her Johnny, there were only three types of girls; the ones who found him attractive, the ones who were blind, or the ones who weren't breathing."

Readers fill in the image with their own vision of what such a man would look like.

Similarly, after his ex-girlfriend is described as the classic Scandinavian blonde goddess, the husband describes his wife by saying, "Anyone who saw the two of them side by side would agree that I definitely traded up with my wife.”

Envision what a "trade up" from a Scandinavian blonde goddess would look like and you have a description of his wife.

 

[SimonDoom]

As always, the answer is "it depends." Most of the time, I don't go into too much detail. I agree with the general rule that details of this sort should be added when they serve a purpose for the story--helping us see or understand a character, a setting, a mood, etc.

But sometimes more is better. The OP mentioned describing weaponry in details. Let's face it, some people really dig weaponry. Readers of this kind may get a thrill from reading about something they like in detail, even excessive detail. And if you know your stuff and want to show it off, so much the better. There will be readers who are just as much into that kind of thing as you are. It can have an almost pornish effect. A lot of John Clancy's military thrillers were like that-- the excruciating detail had its own pleasurable impact on the right sort of reader.

I'd say the only good "rule" is to think about it when you do it and be mindful of why you are doing it.

 

[karina_jayde]

It varies depending on the story, the character, and the context.

My current ongoing series centers around political intrigue and infighting between noble houses, so describing gear/equipment/clothing is a means to provide reminders of worldbuilding. Certain noble houses are associated with certain colors and heraldry, and I sprinkle that into the clothing to reinforce those aspects of the setting and to distinguish between people. There are also some barbarian tribes involved, so tossing in details of their gear helps set them apart.

I tend to avoid super-detailed descriptions because they can be superfluous or get glossed over. When I read stories (both erotica and otherwise) I find that my mind sort of conjures my own images of what the character looks like, so super-detailed descriptions (particularly of body type and facial features) often get glossed over. For erotica, I think there's also the factor of wish fulfillment/self-insert. So I may describe a character as a lithe, lissome blonde but not get into too much specific detail about measurements or cup size or whatever, to allow people's imagination to fill in the gaps and let their fantasies take over and help drive along their interest.

As a reader, super-detailed, expository and clumsy description can bring the momentum to a halt. So if a character is introduced and I'm describing them, I try to keep it to a minimum of a few sentences of a basic description, and reinforce certain key details as little flourishes for dialogue or actions.

And while I can certainly appreciate intricate details, I think a certain level of detail might create a distraction or even cause the reader to be diverted elsewhere. For example, if a story is describing a sword and goes into crazy detail and provides all these esoteric sword-related terms to flesh out what this sword looks like, I may find myself bouncing over to wikipedia to figure out what the hell they're talking about. For the vast majority of fantasy stories on literotica, calling it a sword is going to be sufficient. Maybe describe it as being curved or longer or shorter, or with a uniquely-adorned hilt, but most readers are here to get off or to read about interesting/horny/romantic characters, and in-depth esoteric descriptions don't really suit that.

But again, context is crucial. So if a character is meeting a blacksmith and she's admiring his handiwork, then maybe going into intricate detail as she watches him work could actually be very fitting. Hell, there's probably a way to make all those details even erotic somehow.

 

[NoTalentHack]

It's highly, highly dependent on both the character doing the narration (because of what they'll care about) and the character/gear's role in the story. However, I tend to go for the "less is more" school of thought.

I was reading (alright, if I'm honest, listening to) a very interesting book named Wired for Story (recommended by our very own @Euphony) about what we can learn from neuroscience to be better writers. One solid takeaway it mentioned was that most people can only handle so much detail all at once. I'd have to look again, but I think it essentially said that after about seven things, people's brains tend to lose track, and the reader will lose sight of what's important versus what's background.

From my own anecdotal experience, that's about right. If I do give extensive detail about something, I'll make sure to sort of break it up across different passages; for example, the house in 3BR, 2BA, 1 Story--itself a character in its own right--doesn't get a full description anywhere in the text, but the pieces I do tell about it are doled out throughout the story. By the end, the reader can know the basic layout of the house, its dimensions, a bit about each room, etc., but I very specifically skipped the real estate equivalent of "She was 5'8", 130 pounds, with XX/XX/XX measurements and..."

Told correctly, a piece of gear can be as important to the reader as the living, breathing people of the story. Supernatural, season 5, episode 22, does a great job with this. The car had been one of the most important "characters" in the series, and in telling what should have been the final story of the series, the writers put it at the fore, giving it a background beyond the boys, but that wouldn't have worked until the viewers already knew "Baby," as Dean called it.

 

[NoTalentHack]

My rule of thump is to never give any actual dimension about a character unless the narrator, whoever that is, has a reason to know that much detail.

Okay, I know it's a typo, but this is one of those things I do wish I could give some writers a thump about.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Guy's clothes are crap. Shirt pants, shoes. Maybe for a special event, a better suit or a Tux.

Women's clothes on the other hand can get a whole lot of detailed description.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

As always, the answer is "it depends." Most of the time, I don't go into too much detail. I agree with the general rule that details of this sort should be added when they serve a purpose for the story--helping us see or understand a character, a setting, a mood, etc.

But sometimes more is better. The OP mentioned describing weaponry in details. Let's face it, some people really dig weaponry. Readers of this kind may get a thrill from reading about something they like in detail, even excessive detail. And if you know your stuff and want to show it off, so much the better. There will be readers who are just as much into that kind of thing as you are. It can have an almost pornish effect. A lot of John Clancy's military thrillers were like that-- the excruciating detail had its own pleasurable impact on the right sort of reader.

I'd say the only good "rule" is to think about it when you do it and be mindful of why you are doing it.

I'm a huge gearhead, and I realized a long time ago, I needed to dial back not only fairly details car descriptions, but giving everybody some sort of performance vehicle.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Guy's clothes are crap. Shirt pants, shoes. Maybe for a special event, a better suit or a Tux.

Women's clothes on the other hand can get a whole lot of detailed description.

Yeah, but what sort of shirt, pants, etc? Do they fit? What overall impression is the guy giving? Wealthy or not? Relaxed or formal? Blends in with the crowd, or stands out in some way? Same for both women and men, though stories are more prone to the male POV which is never described, vs lots of detail of how a woman looks and what the man thinks of her, but nothing about what she might think of herself or him.

A few male descriptions for you:
Guy 1: Dan, first at home with a hangover, then later, getting ready to go out clubbing.
"this lanky laid-back lad has been a bloody excellent thing to bring into my life. ... He gets ready and dressed, usual snug T-shirt with soft old jeans and his old army boots, then an extra shirt and unzipped hoodie, seeing as the weather. Bit of gel for those short blond curls. He grins, more weakly than usual.
...
We go spruce up. Dan's got a T-shirt with extra-short sleeves that shows off his arm ink nicely. A good belt, bit of gel on his wee curls, and he's hot as fuck."

Guy 2: Kenan, morning vs about to go clubbing.
"he's really well fit. Between my age and Dan's, I reckon, glossy black hair with curls combed back, sharp angled face and glowing red-bronze skin, slim build with muscles shown off with his stonewashed probably-fake Levi's and certainly-fake Gucci belt, crisp cotton shirt unbuttoned just enough to make me desperate to rip it off him.
...
Kenan's all slicked-back curly hair and a diamond earring, with an ironed tight shirt that's a bit risqué with mesh, rapidly hidden under a respectable blazer. He grins at us."

 

[LiterallyLiterate]

I’ll usually stick with superficial descriptions, that way I can emphasize it better if a character dresses up for something particular.

I also agree with avoiding measurements, I’ll stick with descriptive words like medium this or that, or above/below average and so on. Gibe the reader’s imagination room to make the story their own in their heads.

 

[bestkeptsecret678]

I’m putting more and more effort into characters’ thoughts and feelings, meaning I’m as interesting in communicating about them as people, as I am about the (sexual) things they are doing.

So their appearance is part of that, just as it is for any of us; so I’ll sprinkle in a wardrobe inference as a side point, or a reference to hair or eye color, or overall qualities. I generally don’t devote a paragraph to such details.

 

[stickygirl]

Depending on what the focus of the story is, I've autistically described firearms, melee weapons, armors, technical equipment, vehicles, mecha, etc. and even attire and hairstyles.

What doesn't come across with dialog is shoved into a condensed, visual "first-look" (the 40 second first impression) when you see something new.

How many of you also do that?

Autistically described?

 

[bestkeptsecret678]

Autistically described?

I'll let the OP give his own answer, but I understood this to mean using extensive specific details. I'm no expert, but some individuals with autism demonstrate this trait regarding certain subjects.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

I avoid description as much as I can. When I describe characters, I focus only on a few traits that make them stand out and try to make them as vague as possible; it leaves it more open to the imagination, even when I'm "casting" someone on the role as I write. My issue with description is that it tends to slow down the story, and it can lead up to some clichés. So instead of painting a portrait with words, I'll just do what I learned from TTRPGs: just pick one to three traits from the NPC that stand out and use those to make the character stand out. That way when I say a redheaded lady in her fifties, it's obviously my character Red, which has a pretty self-descriptive name.

I kid you not, the most famous author of my country, love that guy, his books are actually great, he's had a lot of influence in my country's history too, but there is one particular book of his that it really feels like it should be a fast-paced adventure, but the incredibly detailed and beautiful description he wrote bogs down the story so bad that it makes it such a painful chore to read. A friend of mine zoned out at one point reading that book, and he remembers one entire page dedicated to a ceiling. That's why I avoid it.

Autistically described?

Yeah, we neurodivergent folks love to lore dump. It's pretty much the love language for both people in the spectrum and ADHDers as well.

 

[Voboy]

Depends.

I write in FP a lot, and the ways in which the narrator chooses to describe different things are a good way to add flavor to the character.

Suppose someone in my story pulls a gun.

If a cop is narrating (as a rough example), the gun will be named by maker and, perhaps, by caliber. If a hitman is narrating, I'd describe the gun far more precisely, but not as an "info-dump;" the narrator would be assuming the reader shares his or her viewpoint, so it'll be described offhand. Especially modifications. If a normal, non-gun person is narrating? "Big fuckin' gun!" is how it might appear, with little more elaboration.

There's no one answer. It's another of those whatever fits the story replies.

 

[Euphony]

It's highly, highly dependent on both the character doing the narration (because of what they'll care about) and the character/gear's role in the story. However, I tend to go for the "less is more" school of thought.

I was reading (alright, if I'm honest, listening to) a very interesting book named Wired for Story (recommended by our very own @Euphony) about what we can learn from neuroscience to be better writers. One solid takeaway it mentioned was that most people can only handle so much detail all at once. I'd have to look again, but I think it essentially said that after about seven things, people's brains tend to lose track, and the reader will lose sight of what's important versus what's background.

From my own anecdotal experience, that's about right. If I do give extensive detail about something, I'll make sure to sort of break it up across different passages; for example, the house in 3BR, 2BA, 1 Story--itself a character in its own right--doesn't get a full description anywhere in the text, but the pieces I do tell about it are doled out throughout the story. By the end, the reader can know the basic layout of the house, its dimensions, a bit about each room, etc., but I very specifically skipped the real estate equivalent of "She was 5'8", 130 pounds, with XX/XX/XX measurements and..."

Told correctly, a piece of gear can be as important to the reader as the living, breathing people of the story. Supernatural, season 5, episode 22, does a great job with this. The car had been one of the most important "characters" in the series, and in telling what should have been the final story of the series, the writers put it at the fore, giving it a background beyond the boys, but that wouldn't have worked until the viewers already knew "Baby," as Dean called it.

It pleases me to see Wired For Story discussion.

I've read/listened too WAY too many books on story craft and, even with Lisa's New Yawkisms, nothing has gotten me better in the story telling mindset than revisiting ol' Wired.

Story Genius is more hands on/examples based if that's suits your neurons better. Most here could prob skip Wired as the base level writer here has a decent probability of already internalized much of it's suggestions.
It, however, is a fantastic refreshers and excels as an audiobook. Like, it's my fav audiobook and I have an embarrassing collection of them.

Story or Die is application in other real world contexts, business especially. Good but clearly a move in a different direction to capture a different audience.

Writing (audio) books cover a wide spectrum from the technical to the creative ethereal (yeah, I see you Julia Cameron.)

These two stake more middle ground. Not woo woo but not a technical paint by numbers. (Story and Structure by Bickham I love and hate you in perfect, equal measure.)

If her style doesn't tweak you (doesn't seem likely but I see how it can happen), it is a beautiful mix of a bunch of author thoughts and well worth your money and time.

 

[TheOtherTeacher]

"If in the first act you have hung a pistol on the wall, then in the following one it should be fired. Otherwise don't put it there."

I try to write following "Chekhov's gun".

Don't describe anything in detail that doesn't matter.

If the furniture matters for the story (e.g. someone is going to be doing naughty things on it) I'll describe the furniture if the living room.

If not, well..."he walked into the dark living room."