Body Language

[SecondCircle]

"An insidious way to insert adverbs, but it works for me." I looked back and added, "and here comes another." I smiled evilly.

I enjoy this dialogue construction the best. People often forget you can do this to convey a bit of action without the same ole dialogue tag formula.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Would there really be any wide eyed listeners at that campfire? Or would they be seated at the other one that made the tale sound so vivid and realistic that they thought they were IN that damn tower feeling the heat of flames and tasting the stench of singed hair?

I get told I do excellent world building and paint vivid descriptions. There's still such a thing as too much though.

"Her glossy black Jimmy Choo high heels clacked noisily down the white and grey marble hallway, drawing every eye to her sinuous yet voluptuous form. The rose taffeta gown parted scandalously across her smoky upper thigh as she stalked past Reginald; she laughed unsteadily in cruel derision, and the echo of her voice turned the hallway into a theater of mockery."

I mean, shoot me now, just for writing that. Sure I painted an image, but why did I bother? We don't need to know her brand of shoes and the color of the floor isn't meaningful. The key point - she dissed Reginald - is nearly lost in the thicket of adjectives. Plus, in the rush to adjectivise, I managed to imply she has a piebald thigh.

 

[SecondCircle]

Well met indeed. And thanks. Good topic. "Well met" happens to be a greeting I use regularly, so I am pleased to have it offered up in my direction.

As I consider your earlier post, I thought of something I tend to do when writing a story. (Note that I do not "consciously" outline this or anything, it's just how I write naturally I guess.)

When I read, because I was always a reader first, I noticed something about the dialogue in many stories. It's like, you'll be reading about the setting, what the character is doing, what they are thinking, reading, reading, reading... then bam, time for talking. Now when the talking starts, it's almost like we've panned only to that conversation and the rest of the world is just "accepted" as being in the background. As a reader, the text becomes so zoned in on those quotes that it seems like the rest of the story world just paused or faded entirely. Sometimes, stories I'd read went on so long with the dialogue, I'd even forget details about what was actually going on. Oh, right they're on the phone. Wait, weren't they in the lobby? They're already looking out the window of the room? Hmm? Oh right. They are fucking. Shouldn't they be panting? Or are they just laying on top of each other talking now?

When I write, I subconciously avoid this now. I don't want it to seem like when the dialogue starts that everything else stops. This is why I think tossing in tiny pieces of body language or setting or action keeps that conversation rooted in the story, and keeps it from feeling like an aside from the other elements in the story. Like if the characters were at Mardi Gras walking through the streets talking about something relevant to the plot. Would they not be shouting over the noise? Hard pressed to navigate the crowds? Smelling or seeing things? There is (if you picked such a location for the story) at least a reason for them to be in this area talking, or you at least picked this area for some pertinent reason as a writer right? Why say they were there only to not flash out that scene in realistic dialogue there at all? If you don't... well couldn't they just very well be hsving that conversation in a closet?

I try to seamlessly include the dialogue rather than "cut away" to it so to speak. There's a scene I wrote in one of my Halloween stories where two guys (on a fishing trip) are getting things off of their boat. Mid conversation you're learning things. It's Autumn. It's warm in the day, chill at night. They work a lot, this trip is a vacation for them and their wives. They plan to do some drinking. They are chatting about the fish they cooked, all while reloading the cooler with drinks and offloading it from the boat. I attempted to make this seamless, so that you are still STANDING with them in this setting, feeling the sun, drinking a beer, getting ready to camp out for the night, all while learning the point of said conversation. (They are nervous about the "swapping" and swinging that's going to happen in the tent later that night.)

Dunno if it was that successful but it's the approach I take. I feel like the scene should evolve naturally, like you just walked up and saw those characters chatting. Not like someone told you what everything looked like and recited what the characters said.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I see your point but I have to say I'm not sure I would notice, as long as the dialogue was riveting. If its good and importan and the emotions are flying, then why does it matter if background fades away for a moment? If you're noticing its absence, it's probably because the interaction between characters is not strong enough. But if you're fully tuned in with the passions of the dialogue, you stay immersed. If not in a particular setting, in an emotional reality.

I love passionate dialogue. Can take place anywhere.

In one story I have a violent argument take place in a city on fire. It was fun. I used the flames in the night creeping closer to underscore the intensity, but I don't think I needed it. It was an "artistic" touch I guess, but the "meat" was the pain and accusations being hurled back and forth. If I hadn't earned that, made it believable by that point, the fire would've seemed too "try hard."

As I consider your earlier post, I thought of something I tend to do when writing a story. (Note that I do not "consciously" outline this or anything, it's just how I write naturally I guess.)

When I read, because I was always a reader first, I noticed something about the dialogue in many stories. It's like, you'll be reading about the setting, what the character is doing, what they are thinking, reading, reading, reading... then bam, time for talking. Now when the talking starts, it's almost like we've panned only to that conversation and the rest of the world is just "accepted" as being in the background. As a reader, the text becomes so zoned in on those quotes that it seems like the rest of the story world just paused or faded entirely. Sometimes, stories I'd read went on so long with the dialogue, I'd even forget details about what was actually going on. Oh, right they're on the phone. Wait, weren't they in the lobby? They're already looking out the window of the room? Hmm? Oh right. They are fucking. Shouldn't they be panting? Or are they just laying on top of each other talking now?

When I write, I subconciously avoid this now. I don't want it to seem like when the dialogue starts that everything else stops. This is why I think tossing in tiny pieces of body language or setting or action keeps that conversation rooted in the story, and keeps it from feeling like an aside from the other elements in the story. Like if the characters were at Mardi Gras walking through the streets talking about something relevant to the plot. Would they not be shouting over the noise? Hard pressed to navigate the crowds? Smelling or seeing things? There is (if you picked such a location for the story) at least a reason for them to be in this area talking, or you at least picked this area for some pertinent reason as a writer right? Why say they were there only to not flash out that scene in realistic dialogue there at all? If you don't... well couldn't they just very well be hsving that conversation in a closet?

I try to seamlessly include the dialogue rather than "cut away" to it so to speak. There's a scene I wrote in one of my Halloween stories where two guys (on a fishing trip) are getting things off of their boat. Mid conversation you're learning things. It's Autumn. It's warm in the day, chill at night. They work a lot, this trip is a vacation for them and their wives. They plan to do some drinking. They are chatting about the fish they cooked, all while reloading the cooler with drinks and offloading it from the boat. I attempted to make this seamless, so that you are still STANDING with them in this setting, feeling the sun, drinking a beer, getting ready to camp out for the night, all while learning the point of said conversation. (They are nervous about the "swapping" and swinging that's going to happen in the tent later that night.)

Dunno if it was that successful but it's the approach I take. I feel like the scene should evolve naturally, like you just walked up and saw those characters chatting. Not like someone told you what everything looked like and recited what the characters said.

 

[SecondCircle]

I see your point but I have to say I'm not sure I would notice, as long as the dialogue was riveting. If its good and importan and the emotions are flying, then why does it matter if background fades away for a moment? If you're noticing its absence, it's probably because the interaction between characters is not strong enough. But if you're fully tuned in with the passions of the dialogue, you stay immersed. If not in a particular setting, in an emotional reality.

I love passionate dialogue. Can take place anywhere.

In one story I have a violent argument take place in a city on fire. It was fun. I used the flames in the night creeping closer to underscore the intensity, but I don't think I needed it. It was an "artistic" touch I guess, but the "meat" was the pain and accusations being hurled back and forth. If I hadn't earned that, made it believable by that point, the fire would've seemed too "try hard."

I agree. But technically, you could apply this logic to very many things across the board in writing.

Is it NEEDED? No it isn't absolutely necessary. And you're correct about the dialogue can be interesting and riveting enough to get the meat of the idea across. We also don't NEED to marinate steaks or add our own spices to chilli. Technically, to gain nurishment, we just need to eat something that will provide energy and the nutrients we need to live. But... I doubt that's why we have millions of recipes.

For me it's about immersion. The conversation could be intriguing and handled beautifully (the spoken words themselves, I mean), but I might hear them and never see the broken heart in a woman's eyes when she chooses to say nothing. Have you ever "seen" how someone feels? When they say nothing at all? Someone says something hurtful to them and you can see the look on their face like they've been slapped?

Immersion for me means that I forget I'm reading words. I forget that this is just spoken words in quotes. Immersion means I feel like I'm there, inside the story, watching the conversation, or HAVING that conversation, rather than simply reading about it. The conversation itself could be wonderful, and as you said, that could be ENOUGH. Certainly.

A better question would be... why do ENOUGH?

Her words alone can clue me in that she's heartbroken... but to the five senses, I'm only getting to HEAR that. What about her body language? What if you could also SEE her broken heart? What if you could watch the color drain from her face? What if she's at the beach? Heartbroken at the beach, are you serious? How would that contrast to her broken heart? Everyone have a good time, the wind in her hair, yet she feels like a pale ghost sucked dry of joy and love? Just because of what a guy said to her?

Tell me she's heartbroken. By all means. Let HER tell me she's heartbroken. If the dialogue is done right, I will believe it.

Or show me she's heartbroken. Let me absorb that with all of my senses, little bit at a time. Let me, the reader, hear what is said, see how she fights the tears, see her choke down the knot in her throat while He rambles on about needing space and being too young. Let me wonder what her watery eyes are looking for on the horizon. Make me feel like if I could just reach out to her, I could do something to comfort her... if anything.

For me, those special little touches will never be "needed", no. But they will make the difference between reading a story, and experiencing it.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

I just got this as a Feedback the other day:

I love your writing style, it feels effortless and so natural. As a reader I appreciate this because it allows me to fully immerse myself in the story and characters. Your stories are my getaways from reality. I'm truly grateful.

I've apparently immersed someone. I don't ever think of the body language angle, but I love concrete images, scents, colors, settings, etc. It's not a conscious choice, tho, just what comes naturally to do.

I don't have much to add to what you're saying, except that I can think of many writers who really aren't that sensual in their approach--they're much more abstract, philosophical or psychological, and that has its own flavor and style of immersion, too. A story could take place entirely in someone's head and it still be just as engrossing.

I'm thinking of my favorite novel, Moby Dick. It's a veritable buffet of writing styles. At times its a straightforward action story. You're on the ocean, in the boat, chasing the whale. And at other times, its just him rambling some bizarre, totally subjective train of thought. Or reading a dictionary. I like it all.

I agree. But technically, you could apply this logic to very many things across the board in writing.

Is it NEEDED? No it isn't absolutely necessary. And you're correct about the dialogue can be interesting and riveting enough to get the meat of the idea across. We also don't NEED to marinate steaks or add our own spices to chilli. Technically, to gain nurishment, we just need to eat something that will provide energy and the nutrients we need to live. But... I doubt that's why we have millions of recipes.

For me it's about immersion. The conversation could be intriguing and handled beautifully (the spoken words themselves, I mean), but I might hear them and never see the broken heart in a woman's eyes when she chooses to say nothing. Have you ever "seen" how someone feels? When they say nothing at all? Someone says something hurtful to them and you can see the look on their face like they've been slapped?

Immersion for me means that I forget I'm reading words. I forget that this is just spoken words in quotes. Immersion means I feel like I'm there, inside the story, watching the conversation, or HAVING that conversation, rather than simply reading about it. The conversation itself could be wonderful, and as you said, that could be ENOUGH. Certainly.

A better question would be... why do ENOUGH?

Her words alone can clue me in that she's heartbroken... but to the five senses, I'm only getting to HEAR that. What about her body language? What if you could also SEE her broken heart? What if you could watch the color drain from her face? What if she's at the beach? Heartbroken at the beach, are you serious? How would that contrast to her broken heart? Everyone have a good time, the wind in her hair, yet she feels like a pale ghost sucked dry of joy and love? Just because of what a guy said to her?

Tell me she's heartbroken. By all means. Let HER tell me she's heartbroken. If the dialogue is done right, I will believe it.

Or show me she's heartbroken. Let me absorb that with all of my senses, little bit at a time. Let me, the reader, hear what is said, see how she fights the tears, see her choke down the knot in her throat while He rambles on about needing space and being too young. Let me wonder what her watery eyes are looking for on the horizon. Make me feel like if I could just reach out to her, I could do something to comfort her... if anything.

For me, those special little touches will never be "needed", no. But they will make the difference between reading a story, and experiencing it.

 

[Gorza]

I've apparently immersed someone. I don't ever think of the body language angle, but I love concrete images, scents, colors, settings, etc. It's not a conscious choice, tho, just what comes naturally to do.

I don't have much to add to what you're saying, except that I can think of many writers who really aren't that sensual in their approach--they're much more abstract, philosophical or psychological, and that has its own flavor and style of immersion, too. A story could take place entirely in someone's head and it still be just as engrossing.

I'm thinking of my favorite novel, Moby Dick. It's a veritable buffet of writing styles. At times its a straightforward action story. You're on the ocean, in the boat, chasing the whale. And at other times, its just him rambling some bizarre, totally subjective train of thought. Or reading a dictionary. I like it all.

I'm in the same boat (!). I write descriptively, and I've had readers comment on being immersed in the story. I've read some stories on Lit of late that are low on description yet in which I became immersed. The style of these stories (all by women writers) is more psychological. They present desire as emerging from deep-seared need, which makes its eventual fulfilment so much more satisfying. It would be too simplistic to say that men are more visual, women more psychological in writing style. I, for one, would like to develop a more psychological writing style. Being psychological and descriptive is surely the way to give readers to full 'surround' experience.

 

[Hypoxia]

Various readers are totally immersed in or totally repulsed by the same story. Go figure.

I mean, literally. Some comments are "Among the best I've ever read on LIT" and others are "What worthless crap, go kill yourself." Same story.

Moral of the lesson: Write what you want. Readers can go stroke or fuck themselves. Whatever.

 

[oggbashan]

Various readers are totally immersed in or totally repulsed by the same story. Go figure.

I mean, literally. Some comments are "Among the best I've ever read on LIT" and others are "What worthless crap, go kill yourself." Same story.

Moral of the lesson: Write what you want. Readers can go stroke or fuck themselves. Whatever.

One of my best comments was on a story currently rated 3.84.

At least one person liked it!

 

[NOIRTRASH]

I just got this as a Feedback the other day:

I love your writing style, it feels effortless and so natural. As a reader I appreciate this because it allows me to fully immerse myself in the story and characters. Your stories are my getaways from reality. I'm truly grateful.

I've apparently immersed someone. I don't ever think of the body language angle, but I love concrete images, scents, colors, settings, etc. It's not a conscious choice, tho, just what comes naturally to do.

I don't have much to add to what you're saying, except that I can think of many writers who really aren't that sensual in their approach--they're much more abstract, philosophical or psychological, and that has its own flavor and style of immersion, too. A story could take place entirely in someone's head and it still be just as engrossing.

I'm thinking of my favorite novel, Moby Dick. It's a veritable buffet of writing styles. At times its a straightforward action story. You're on the ocean, in the boat, chasing the whale. And at other times, its just him rambling some bizarre, totally subjective train of thought. Or reading a dictionary. I like it all.

Many readers have no imagination and must be fed imagery.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Theres a school of thought where clear and concise and laconic is enough.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I've had readers say that I write too much descriptive detail into stories - "you wouldn't have time to see all that detail in a glance"; to which I respond, yes, if you look closely and have a visual mind, you can. That's how I see.

When I was eighteen, when I looked at a tree, I saw a tree. When I was nineteen, I dropped a few mushroom trips and ever since, when I look at a tree I see the leaves and branches, the things that make up that tree. My way of seeing shifted. At the same time, my understanding of tiny moments in time also shifted. Ever since, I've held the view that life is a collection of short, peak moments (that look, that touch, that orgasm) with a hell of a lot of space in between.

If you then describe those tiny details you see, those momentary moments, with words, there's my style. Some like it, some don't. "Omigosh. Exquisite, I needed that. More."

I've had other readers who have commented, "I love your slow, languid style, it's like poetry", "it's like hearing a story by a crackling fire with a whiskey in your hand", "it's a rambling slow memory". Noir would hate it. But that's OK, sometimes less isn't enough.

As CF notes above, it's immersion. Body language, dialogue, a sense of place (my "primal city" is quite often as important as a character), all of the senses evoked, invoked, and conjured with.

Some readers want to bathe in it like Cleopatra in her asses milk. Others don't even want to get their feet wet. Which means there are enough styles for all of us, thank god, or we'd all be the same. Nothing could be worse, than to all be the same. That's the good thing about words. There are lots of them, and everyone treats them differently.

 

[Hypoxia]

When I was eighteen, when I looked at a tree, I saw a tree. When I was nineteen, I dropped a few mushroom trips and ever since, when I look at a tree I see the leaves and branches, the things that make up that tree. My way of seeing shifted.

As a child my family often sped on wheels from Los Angeles to Phoenix and back across SouthWestern deserts. When you're whizzing along in air-conditioned comfort at 70 mph, everything outside the windows is mere stinking desert.

As a youngish adult I lived a couple of years near Joshua Tree, CA and took environmental classes putting me out there afoot. I saw the clear relationships between many desert species, the details of their interconnected lives, the ephemeral beauties and delicate structures that escape casual view.

Look closely and it's all deep.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Various readers are totally immersed in or totally repulsed by the same story. Go figure.

I mean, literally. Some comments are "Among the best I've ever read on LIT" and others are "What worthless crap, go kill yourself." Same story.

Moral of the lesson: Write what you want. Readers can go stroke or fuck themselves. Whatever.

Comments on stories may be the most fun thing an author gets, but they are the least useful. Sometimes I'll open a random story here with a rating in the high 3s or low 4s. I'll see grammar problems, unrealistic characters, plodding descriptions, claims about the real world that aren't true, plot that's literally impossible... and the comments will say stuff like "Best shit eva! So true! So hot! 5 starz!"

I like getting comments, but I don't believe them.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

In that vein, the one I immersed also said "I want to marry you! Even tho I'm not a lesbian." Heh

Comments on stories may be the most fun thing an author gets, but they are the least useful. Sometimes I'll open a random story here with a rating in the high 3s or low 4s. I'll see grammar problems, unrealistic characters, plodding descriptions, claims about the real world that aren't true, plot that's literally impossible... and the comments will say stuff like "Best shit eva! So true! So hot! 5 starz!"

I like getting comments, but I don't believe them.

 

[Hypoxia]

Comments on stories may be the most fun thing an author gets, but they are the least useful. <...> I like getting comments, but I don't believe them.

No, they're not useful per se, but they show we've provoked a reader sufficiently that they react. I value comments more than votes (although high votes are nice). I'm especially intrigued when a low-scoring story gains many faves and positive comments, or a high-scorer gets savaged in the comments. It's like yin-and-yang.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

For me it's about immersion.

I believe that's key and it starts with the tone and POV the author chooses. A first person story with all of its "I this" and "I that" has a big impact on how the author creates immersion. Is a first person POV story's protagonist a generic Everyman or a real person whose skin you get to live inside of for a while?

With crisscrossed arms and narrowed eyes, she spat at me, "Not if you were the last man on Earth!"​

vs.

Yeah, so then she propped her perfect boobs on her arms and squinted as if she couldn't quite see me without her glasses before lying as she sarcastically said, "Not if you were the last man on Earth!"​

Here's what I like about those two examples, the woman in question makes the same gestures, but with two completely different interpretations thanks to the writer.

In general, I think little, physical flourishes informs a reader, but it's up to the author to make sure the reader interprets those flourishes correctly.

 

[Kethandra]

Comments on stories may be the most fun thing an author gets, but they are the least useful. Sometimes I'll open a random story here with a rating in the high 3s or low 4s. I'll see grammar problems, unrealistic characters, plodding descriptions, claims about the real world that aren't true, plot that's literally impossible... and the comments will say stuff like "Best shit eva! So true! So hot! 5 starz!"

I like getting comments, but I don't believe them.

Yup. Like the emailed one I got recently, very complimentary, with details on the sender's educational and professional qualifications to be able comment in a scholarly manner on my fiction. I searched my emails as it sounded familiar, and found an identical complimentary email for a completely different story. Not a word changed in the copy-and-paste response.

My biggest take away from the comments is this: if I only get one or two, readers probably didn't connect with the story or characters enough to care, even if the score is high.

 

[Kethandra]

I believe that's key and it starts with the tone and POV the author chooses. A first person story with all of its "I this" and "I that" has a big impact on how the author creates immersion. Is a first person POV story's protagonist a generic Everyman or a real person whose skin you get to live inside of for a while?

With crisscrossed arms and narrowed eyes, she spat at me, "Not if you were the last man on Earth!"​

vs.

Yeah, so then she propped her perfect boobs on her arms and squinted as if she couldn't quite see me without her glasses before lying as she sarcastically said, "Not if you were the last man on Earth!"​

Here's what I like about those two examples, the woman in question makes the same gestures, but with two completely different interpretations thanks to the writer.

In general, I think little, physical flourishes informs a reader, but it's up to the author to make sure the reader interprets those flourishes correctly.

Good examples. That is one of the things I like best about first person POV: the narrator is inherently untrustworthy. We learn about them from their descriptions of others and themselves, but not necessarily what they 'want' us to learn.

My personally least favorite part of first person narration, especially in erotica: that too common paragraph, usually the third or fourth, where the narrator sez, "Oh yeah, let me tell you about me. I'm five foot-two and, since my boobs grew this summer my 38dd bras just can't contain them. I have blond hair down to my perfect heart-shaped ass and ..."
I make a point of describing a first person narrator either not at all, or through other voices and the story, not their own description, because in my experience, people don't describe themselves, comfortably or accurately. Instead, if the example above threw down her bra in disgust that it no longer fit and perhaps tried and failed to reach something from a high shelf, we know she is short and had recently growing boobies.

 

[ElectricBlue]

That's a real back-handed compliment, that one.

Did they manage to personalise it with "Dear Kethandra" or was it "Dear author"?

Yup. Like the emailed one I got recently, very complimentary, with details on the sender's educational and professional qualifications to be able comment in a scholarly manner on my fiction. I searched my emails as it sounded familiar, and found an identical complimentary email for a completely different story. Not a word changed in the copy-and-paste response.
.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

My personally least favorite part of first person narration, especially in erotica: that too common paragraph, usually the third or fourth, where the narrator sez, "Oh yeah, let me tell you about me. I'm five foot-two and, since my boobs grew this summer my 38dd bras just can't contain them. I have blond hair down to my perfect heart-shaped ass and ..."

I make a point of describing a first person narrator either not at all, or through other voices and the story, not their own description, because in my experience, people don't describe themselves, comfortably or accurately. Instead, if the example above threw down her bra in disgust that it no longer fit and perhaps tried and failed to reach something from a high shelf, we know she is short and had recently growing boobies.

This!

I find it interesting when a writer spends a bunch of time describing a character in detail, including measurements, regardless of POV. There's painting a picture and then there's losing the point as Hands illustrated when he said:

I get told I do excellent world building and paint vivid descriptions. There's still such a thing as too much though.

"Her glossy black Jimmy Choo high heels clacked noisily down the white and grey marble hallway, drawing every eye to her sinuous yet voluptuous form. The rose taffeta gown parted scandalously across her smoky upper thigh as she stalked past Reginald; she laughed unsteadily in cruel derision, and the echo of her voice turned the hallway into a theater of mockery."

I mean, shoot me now, just for writing that. Sure I painted an image, but why did I bother? We don't need to know her brand of shoes and the color of the floor isn't meaningful. The key point - she dissed Reginald - is nearly lost in the thicket of adjectives. Plus, in the rush to adjectivise, I managed to imply she has a piebald thigh.

Whether it's listing a shoe brand or the size of her boobs, I think we're right to question if it's needed.

The same probably applies to whether she crosses her legs or not.

 

[Kethandra]

That's a real back-handed compliment, that one.

Did they manage to personalise it with "Dear Kethandra" or was it "Dear author"?

Ah hah. That's the one thing he did change. The first one, in February, was addressed to
Kutie Kethandra and the one last month was to Kharismatic Kethandra.
Followed by an identical paragraph and signature. The note itself is not outlandish except in describing the reader's own expertise, is very encouraging and positive with nothing crude or unduly intimate, but it ended up coming across as a cheap pickup line because it was repeated verbatim.
Maybe he has physical challenges and can't type easily and even the paste/send was a huge effort. I don't know. But that's how it felt to me.
Still, I'd much rather get a well-intentioned form letter from a reader than nothing at all.

 

[Kethandra]

This!


Whether it's listing a shoe brand or the size of her boobs, I think we're right to question if it's needed.

The same probably applies to whether she crosses her legs or not.

Sure, always always question if it's needed, but shoe brand can be a very telling detail, much more so in my mind than a specific measurement of a prick or a boob. I notice people's shoes in person, and sometimes judge them over their choices, so it carries over to fiction. And a pair of blue Topsiders was featured in one of my stories not long ago.
Misused, such details (designer brands or 44GEE bra sizes) seem to tell more about the author than the character.

 

[Gorza]

Sure, always always question if it's needed, but shoe brand can be a very telling detail, much more so in my mind than a specific measurement of a prick or a boob. I notice people's shoes in person, and sometimes judge them over their choices, so it carries over to fiction. And a pair of blue Topsiders was featured in one of my stories not long ago.
Misused, such details (designer brands or 44GEE bra sizes) seem to tell more about the author than the character.

Yes, this! Some readers love these little details. I believe in telling a character through their shoes. An Irish free-spirit in green ballet flats, a disciplined businesswoman in indigo kitten heels. Lingerie as well can tell a tale. Does a woman always wear their sexiest set, or is there that time when the unexpected encounter comes and she's wearing superhero boyshorts? Perhaps we should start a thread on shoes/lingerie and their meaning.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

rrator either not at all, or through other voices and the story, not their own description, because in my experience, people don't describe themselves, comfortably or accurately. Instead, if the example above threw down her bra in disgust that it no longer fit and perhaps tried and failed to reach something from a high shelf, we know she is short and had recently growing boobies.

This. Pet peeve of mine. In first person, no one describes themselves in detail and even doing it in general terms (claiming to be attractive) has to be handled carefully. In any other form, anyone describing anyone else as a 36C 5'4" 112# had better be an expert dressmaker by trade.

Beauty is a matter of proportion and balance, and I've seen some pig-ugly women with 36C chest and a 24" waist. If you try to sell me on how hot a character is with a bunch of numbers on page one, I'm already gone; if that's how you describe beauty I'm not hanging around to see how you describe sex.