Descriptions in Stories: Fine Prose or Not?

[DeeZire]

I prefer description accomplished through the use of metaphors. I don't need to know the pattern on the wallpaper, but if it's the same wallpaper that you'd find in a New York City flophouse, that would paint me a memorable picture. (Not that I can accomplish that in my own writing, but that's the kind of writing I like.)

 

[SimonBrooke]

Hi Simon, I don't believe we've met. I'd like to point out it's not my "little lecture," but rather the lecture of the author of the book from which I have posted the excerpts. If you're going to malign me for something, at least do it for something I've actually written.

My apologies - I had misinterpreted. I hate it when people say 'this thing is bad writing' or 'is a writing mistake'. Every single thing that can be done with words, someone has used well in a great story. There are no rules. There are no limits. This doesn't mean that a beginner writer can get away with the sort of spelling that Russel Hoban used in Riddley Walker or that Ian (M) Banks used in Feersum Endjinn. Bad spelling, unconventional orthography and clumsy grammar are normally faults in writing. But some people can bend them to extraordinary effect. So it is with every other thing in writing.

The bad thing about posting these excerpts is that I end up feeling personally attacked, and strangely compelled to defend the author - or, at the very least, point out different ways to interpret his advice. No one likes to be told their opus needs work; editing stings. Having someone point out our mistakes, stings. It makes us defensive. If I weren't edited every single day of my life I'd be a bit more sensitive about it, but I'm learning to grow a thick skin. That, and I'm learning when to argue it's a "stylistic choice," and not necessarily a right or wrong way of doing things.

I apologise again; I read with insufficient attention, and hence jumped ungracefully to a false conclusion.

And can people PLEASE quit picking on McKenna for being kind enough to give us thoughtful thread content to ponder? He didn't write the book, he's just been willing to repost and post a particular fiction writer's tips because we begged him to!

And once more, for good luck; McKenna, I admit my error, and beg the grace of your indulgence.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Shallow minds should play in the shallow end of the pool, and the shallow end is where everyone should begin.

 

[McKenna]

Simon, no worries. I appreciate your apology.

 

[driphoney]

And once more, for good luck; McKenna, I admit my error, and beg the grace of your indulgence.

Aww, well. Now, one sure-fire way to be completely absolved and gain untold brownie points around here is to post a very wonderful, very erotic and revealing avatar of yourself.

 

[CharleyH]

McKenna has posted #6 of common writing mistakes and points out, rightly, that "Fiction is movement. Description is static" and that "readers are interested in the story -the movement- not your fine prose."

Well, I disagree, not with fiction is movement or with Kenna personally, but with the 'description is static' part. No matter which way you cut it, writing is description (whether it be passages such as these posted by 3113, or passages of dialogue). Of course, there are static descriptions, but I wish you'd (3113) have posted at least one fabulous example of it in your pole. In any case, this is all aside. Let me answer your questions.

Do they keep the story moving or, being a description, make it go static? Each and every one of these keeps some sort of story moving. Only the last one, #4, is IMO, pure establishment setting (or establishing shot, and excuse me for thinking in film terms, but I do when reading).

Which ones do you like or don't like and why? I don't dislike any of these. I think that in a greater context they each serve a purpose to the character, the story or to a time in which they were written or written for. This being said ... Book #1: The description reads vividly and yet so beautifully poetic that I hunger, shiver and live empathetically in the cold of London while cosy and warm in whatever transportation (and ultimately status or position) is being used as the narrator moves through the streets. To me, this is window after window of description as the narrator travels through a London that perhaps he/she has not seen for a long time and that in coming home the narrator is much reminded of his/her poorer than now past.

 

[JamesSD]

The best description tells you something about the characters, the mood of the story, or foreshadows what is to come. The worst read like a laundry list.

I didn't care for #1, and liked #3. I generally don't like wordy prose. I find a lot of "important" novels to be quite dull. The Grapes of Wrath springs to mind as one I couldn't make it through. I like plot, I like dialog, and I like characters. There aren't too many authors who impress me with their descriptions. Thankfully I can skim!

Edit: I googled the four passages, and found that my enjoyment of the sample passages was pretty well in line with my enjoyment of the work/that author. #3 is from a book I love, #4 is from a book I love but skimmed the boring parts, #2 is from an author I'm kinda mixed on, and #1 is from an author who is far from my favorite (although I do enjoy movie versions of his books).

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I prefer description accomplished through the use of metaphors. I don't need to know the pattern on the wallpaper, but if it's the same wallpaper that you'd find in a New York City flophouse, that would paint me a memorable picture. (Not that I can accomplish that in my own writing, but that's the kind of writing I like.)

True DeeZire. The problem is you cannot get away from discription in one form or another. The real trick is to craft your discriptions in a why that creates more images in the mind of the reader than the words you put down on the page. To do this your discriptions are "bare bones," so to speak. Do you care that Mildred's hair is blonde or brunette? Do you care how big her boobs are? Not really. If you respect your reader and understand that he/she has a mind and experiences of his/her own, just let them fill in what you've left out.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Description ought to produce the same effect as trance induction. That is, create rapport and resonamce with the reader that amounts to a trance. Raymond Chandler is the best I've come across at using description.

 

[jomar]

True DeeZire. The problem is you cannot get away from discription in one form or another. The real trick is to craft your discriptions in a why that creates more images in the mind of the reader than the words you put down on the page. To do this your discriptions are "bare bones," so to speak. Do you care that Mildred's hair is blonde or brunette? Do you care how big her boobs are? Not really. If you respect your reader and understand that he/she has a mind and experiences of his/her own, just let them fill in what you've left out.

I like this and tend to try this way most of the time, though I do toss in hair color, sometimes length, and overall body size/shape and other details to round out characters.

As far as descriptions, I quit reading James Mitchner because it took him four pages to sip some coffee.

Welcome back, by the way.

 

[driphoney]

As far as descriptions, I quit reading James Mitchner because it took him four pages to sip some coffee.

I loved The Winds of War, did he do that? Maybe it's why I couldn't make it out of chapter one of anything else he wrote.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

I loved The Winds of War, did he do that? Maybe it's why I couldn't make it out of chapter one of anything else he wrote.

Actually, Winds of War was by Herman Wouk. All of Mitchner's book begin with the creation of the Universe in 10,000,000 words or more.

 

[driphoney]

Actually, Winds of War was by Herman Wouk. All of Mitchner's book begin with the creation of the Universe in 10,000,000 words or more.

Haha! I'm SOO very, very bad with names!! No wonder I liked it and didn't like Mitchner!

Oh! Oh! I think I know why I had that brain fart. In the movie the lead was played by Robert Mitchum. Mitchum-Mitchner. Yeah, I'm screwed up like that.