Character description. . .a question

[kiten69]

So I am rewriting one of my stories, making it significantly longer. I've played around with the idea of describing my characters, what they look like. . .etc.

What are your opinions? Do you like to know what the characters look like? Do you prefer no physical descriptions so you can imagine on your own what the characters look like?

 

[Stella_Omega]

I like to write descriptions that seem detailed but are still generic.
A "mop of hair" says anything the reader wants it to.
Mostly, what I try for is an emotional response-- "a pair of disgracefully long legs" "his wild blue gaze" "the mystery of her shoulders."... that sort of junk In one story, I described the man with a "little boy's chin, Chinese eyebrows" and got an email saying "I know exactly what he looks like!"

 

[The_Fool]

So I am rewriting one of my stories, making it significantly longer. I've played around with the idea of describing my characters, what they look like. . .etc.

What are your opinions? Do you like to know what the characters look like? Do you prefer no physical descriptions so you can imagine on your own what the characters look like?

I think as both a writer and a reader I prefer to see characterizations built with guidelines and broad strokes rather than the detail Warhol used to paint soup cans. From those frameworks, let me build my own visual image of the characters to fit my desires. That makes the relationship with the characters that much more intimate for the reader. At least in my opinion. For instance, large breasts as a description gets it done rather than saying Bra size blah blah blah blah. (Substitute the latest blah that fits.)

 

[TxRad]

Very good advice above..... stay away from laundry lists. Fit the descriptions in as needed... and above all else, never use a mirror, unless it's an actual part of the story.

Oh and by the way Fool, that bra thing is correct unless the blah size you're referring to is a 38 long.....

 

[jomar]

I try to do the same as Stella and Fool - broad strokes and let the reader fill in the details. Though in a story I'm working on I've said things like: his tousled brown hair, broad shoulders tapering to a narrow waist, taller than average, hook-nosed, athletic physique, a huge barrel-chested man. I've also mentioned eye color. I hope it gives the reader a direction but plenty of room for them to fill in their own details

 

[TheeGoatPig]

One of my first stories didn't describe much of the main character at all. I wanted her to be whoever the reader wanted her to be.

However, I have grown out of that. I feel that as the writer, I am creating the entire world that you are reading about, and if I find something to be important and have a certain characteristic, I will will describe the way that I see it.

You can describe a person, place, or anything with as much detail as is possible. Every reader is still going to have a different mental picture of what you are describing. I have given up being ambiguous, and would rather go for blunt details.

 

[Liar]

When it's relevant for the plot, character development (not sure if that differs from plot, but anyway) or ambience, say it.

When it's not, don't.

If Dude needs a special reason to notice Dudette, make him have a weak spot for freckles and give her freckles.

Seems like I've grown the opposite way than TheeGP. My first stories were miniscule on describing every detail, and I was very concerned that my world would be the one that my readers experienced.

 

[MarshAlien]

Every single one of my stories so far has been written in the first person. I seldom describe myself, but I often describe others, particularly if they're people that the story's "I" is attracted to. If I've set up the story properly, I think people want to know why "I'm" attracted, and want to know whether the physical qualities had anything to do with that. Can't help you with third person stories; I haven't tried being omniscient yet.

 

[kiten69]

Thanks, all.

 

[3113]

What are your opinions? Do you like to know what the characters look like? Do you prefer no physical descriptions so you can imagine on your own what the characters look like?

Just to add...if you *are* going to describe them, do so early on in the story. I don' t know if this happens with all readers, but once a story starts, I begin to get an image in my head of the characters. I've no problem if such characters are never described and I can just run with what I've got--but it bugs me to no end to learn, somewhere in the middle of the story that this character or that is very tall or fat or a redhead when all this time I've been seeing him/her as short and dark.

Now as mentioned, you don't have to do a laundry list. You can be vague, even dripple it in--someone has heavy steps, we assume they might be large, if they play professional basketball, they're likely tall, if people turn admiring glances their way, they're likely good looking.

I like the broad strokes idea. It's also useful in distinguishing characters: The redhead/the stocky fellow/the elderly gentleman--instead of he/she.

 

[elsol]

ElSol sayeth:

Describe.

The people who don't want you to describe the character will generally ignore your description anyway; therefore it's best to serve those who do want the description.

Here's an exampe, my own girlfriend who KNOWS my characters are modeled after me physically... once waxed poetic about one of my characters with a description far different than me.

When I asked WTF?

She replied: That's your David... I'm talking about my David.

Lesson learned... if they like the character, they will build it. If they don't or they do not have the imagination, it's better to give them a crutch.

 

[gauchecritic]

Liar said it...

Relevance is what matters.

Guy likes skinny girls with blonde hair and no tits and suddenly falls for a rubenesque red head, then there's a requirement.

 

[Weird Harold]

What are your opinions? Do you like to know what the characters look like? Do you prefer no physical descriptions so you can imagine on your own what the characters look like?

As a reader, I like to learn about the characters the same way I learn about people in R/L -- a little bit here and a little bit there, a bit of cliche or stereoype here and a bit of individuality there, etc.

Sometimes the character's appearance is really important and sometimes it's just window dressing.

As a writer, I tend to describe the females in more detail than the males, but that's because I spend more time looking at women than I do looking at men.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

ElSol sayeth:

Describe.

The people who don't want you to describe the character will generally ignore your description anyway; therefore it's best to serve those who do want the description.

I respectfully disagree with my learned fellow writer. Each author has their own style and there is no "right or wrong" way to do things. However, ElSol's approach runs counter to two of Elmore Leonard's rules for writing success:

8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.

In Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” what do the “American and the girl with him” look like? “She had taken off her hat and put it on the table.” That’s the only reference to a physical description in the story, and yet we see the couple and know them by their tones of voice, with not one adverb in sight.

10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

A rule that came to mind in 1983. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them. What the writer is doing, he’s writing, perpetrating hooptedoodle, perhaps taking another shot at the weather, or has gone into the character’s head, and the reader either knows what the guy’s thinking or doesn’t care. I’ll bet you don’t skip dialogue.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Caitano]

Make them see them. Whose story is it anyway?

 

[S-Des]

I respectfully disagree with my learned fellow writer. Each author has their own style and there is no "right or wrong" way to do things. However, ElSol's approach runs counter to two of Elmore Leonard's rules for writing success:

8. Avoid detailed descriptions of characters.

In Ernest Hemingway’s “Hills Like White Elephants” what do the “American and the girl with him” look like? “She had taken off her hat and put it on the table.” That’s the only reference to a physical description in the story, and yet we see the couple and know them by their tones of voice, with not one adverb in sight.

10. Try to leave out the part that readers tend to skip.

A rule that came to mind in 1983. Think of what you skip reading a novel: thick paragraphs of prose you can see have too many words in them. What the writer is doing, he’s writing, perpetrating hooptedoodle, perhaps taking another shot at the weather, or has gone into the character’s head, and the reader either knows what the guy’s thinking or doesn’t care. I’ll bet you don’t skip dialogue.

Rumple Foreskin

While I understand the sentiment, I'm more of a fan of descriptions. Perhaps it's the TV addict in me, but I like to hear what the author has to say about his characters...both their thoughts and how he physically sees them. My descriptions tend to be a bit vague (you won't often hear me talking about someone's dimple or the way their nose crinkles when they smile), but that may be due more to my limitations as a writer. Longhorn made me fall in love with his lead character in Seperate Lives and it remains my favorite Lit story to this day. Much of it was the way he painted her, positive and negative. It made her real to me and made me see her in a way very few authors have done (in any work, published or not). I think being over descriptive can be a negative, especially if it's not the writer's strong suit, but I enjoy the descriptions...especially in a work designed to arouse me.

 

[MrsDeathlynx]

Me I like to lay down the basics, such as hair color and eye color and perhaps a vague description of their shape. But I don't go into long details about it, perhaps using the word curly or straight when refering to their hair and describing the length. I also think that it can be done one of two ways, depending on what the writer is comfortable with. I find myself either spending time at the beginning or throughout the story making these descriptions, either giving a clear picture right away or discovering it throughout the story. It all depends on how it comes to me I guess, sometimes I don't put much effort into it at all. Though I do find it easier if I have a picture of what the person looks like, I think it's all a matter of personal preference.

My only peeve when it comes to this is when people spend paragraph upon paragraph doing such things, when I say this I mean pages on it. I guess that's why I haven't been able to read certain authors, because they get too wordy and tend, at least to me, to lose focus on the story itself.

 

[Caitano]

Me I like to lay down the basics, such as hair color and eye color and perhaps a vague description of their shape. But I don't go into long details about it, perhaps using the word curly or straight when refering to their hair and describing the length. I also think that it can be done one of two ways, depending on what the writer is comfortable with. I find myself either spending time at the beginning or throughout the story making these descriptions, either giving a clear picture right away or discovering it throughout the story. It all depends on how it comes to me I guess, sometimes I don't put much effort into it at all. Though I do find it easier if I have a picture of what the person looks like, I think it's all a matter of personal preference.

My only peeve when it comes to this is when people spend paragraph upon paragraph doing such things, when I say this I mean pages on it. I guess that's why I haven't been able to read certain authors, because they get too wordy and tend, at least to me, to lose focus on the story itself.

Yeah. Less is more. Twain had a Rule Fourteen about leaving it out if it doesn't do anything.

 

[MrsDeathlynx]

Yeah. Less is more. Twain had a Rule Fourteen about leaving it out if it doesn't do anything.

I will admit I started reading some Tolkein, couldn't get very far cause he spent way too much time and too many words on describing a lot of things...

 

[S-Des]

I will admit I started reading some Tolkein, couldn't get very far cause he spent way too much time and too many words on describing a lot of things...

Yet his silly little books managed a few fans.

 

[MrsDeathlynx]

Yet his silly little books managed a few fans.

My dad is one of them, lol.

I love to read, don't get me wrong, but I love the simplicity of Authors like R. A. Salvator and the like. I also do really like Anne Rice, especially the vamp chronicals. But when someone spends pages describing someone's lineage back a thousand years when it isn't integral to the story it makes it a little hard to read for me.

 

[Guest]

I like a few details on what the character looks like, however, described with a light touch so I can enhance him/her in my mind as I read the story. I would rather an author not impose a list on me, telling me this is what the character is suppose to look like. I want to use my imagination so I can fully be in the story.

 

[neonlyte]

Rarely describe characters, I prefer to let their voices project an image comfortable to the reader. Drop little hints now and then

 

[Caitano]

Rarely describe characters, I prefer to let their voices project an image comfortable to the reader. Drop little hints now and then

Voices and dialogue build an image, I agree.

I will admit I started reading some Tolkein, couldn't get very far cause he spent way too much time and too many words on describing a lot of things...

For me, it was Bombadil. Gawd. I read that trilogy to my children, and I left Bombadil out. Didn't lose a thing. Picked up the story where he puts them on the Road.

Tolkien made a lot of gaffes, by a modern writer's way of looking at it. But he had been reading and studying older stuff, Beowulf and whatnot, where time is taken for lineages and such nuance. The greater part of the sixth "book" is anticlimax and foreshadows a history we, the readers, do not have. And we still read it.

Except Bombadil, whom I do not read. I was extremely gratified to note the New Zealand movies left Bombadil out, also.

 

[MrsDeathlynx]

Voices and dialogue build an image, I agree.

For me, it was Bombadil. Gawd. I read that trilogy to my children, and I left Bombadil out. Didn't lose a thing. Picked up the story where he puts them on the Road.

Tolkien made a lot of gaffes, by a modern writer's way of looking at it. But he had been reading and studying older stuff, Beowulf and whatnot, where time is taken for lineages and such nuance. The greater part of the sixth "book" is anticlimax and foreshadows a history we, the readers, do not have. And we still read it.

Except Bombadil, whom I do not read. I was extremely gratified to note the New Zealand movies left Bombadil out, also.

I read up until and including Bombadil in the Hobbit and stopped reading at that point, just couldn't get into it.