Character's physical descriptions

[NotWise]

I'd have to decide whether to do it as straight, GM, or lesbian. GM would probably get the highest ratings, because in GM measurements DO matter to the largest proportion of the readers.

The idea bends my imagination. Would it work something like this (translated to 3rd person)?

Straight: Stocky woman in a hard hat and sweat-stained blue shirt sits on the wall with her pastrami on rye and a pickle. She slaps the inside of her thigh, "Oh man! I think I see a good nine inches in those Levis! Bring that hanger to Mama!"

GM: All yours.

Lesbian: Stocky woman in a hard hat and sweat-stained blue shirt sits on the wall with her pastrami on rye and a pickle. She slaps the inside of her thigh. "Oh girl! I think I see a sweaty DD under that blouse! Bring those hangers to Mama!"

Eh, or something like that. Correct me if I'm off-base.

 

[sr71plt]

The idea bends my imagination. Would it work something like this (translated to 3rd person)?

Straight: Stocky woman in a hard hat and sweat-stained blue shirt sits on the wall with her pastrami on rye and a pickle. She slaps the inside of her thigh, "Oh man! I think I see a good nine inches in those Levis! Bring that hanger to Mama!"

GM: All yours.

Lesbian: Stocky woman in a hard hat and sweat-stained blue shirt sits on the wall with her pastrami on rye and a pickle. She slaps the inside of her thigh. "Oh girl! I think I see a sweaty DD under that blouse! Bring those hangers to Mama!"

Eh, or something like that. Correct me if I'm off-base.

Not the straight one, no. That would be a male construction worker ogling women walking by. You seem to be avoiding what is a real type of personality that actually does think in terms of measurements--a lot of men actually do think and speak in terms of measurements, without needing to actually know what those measurements precisely measure out to be.

Posters to the forum seem to go out of their way to avoid that this is a real type of male thinking and that in very likely predominates in those both reading and writing to the Literotica story file. Twice a month we have posters to the forum flipping their nose up at writing and reading that actually, I think, predominates in the Lit. story file--and does so because it turns the writers who are writing it and the readers who are reading it on.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

But your female characters don't? Kinda damning, what you're saying about your own writing...

I'm saying there's a fair amount a guy will forgive in a girl if she fills out a bikini well - at least for a while.

That said, no one's ever castigated me on character development; it's probably what I do best. Look at my Chosen, in non-erotic, for an example of my characters - Adrienne is about the weakest female character I have.

 

[CeasarBoobage]

One thing I'm struggling with is figuring out how much detail with which to describe my characters. For me, when I'm reading erotica, I like to visualize the characters myself, and detailed descriptions get in the way of that. One example of this is I'm not that into blonds, but the erotica I read is full of them. So when I'm writing, I find I tend to avoid giving detailed descriptions so I'm not pushing my own image of the characters on the readers.

I'm worried though that this is just a weird hangup I have, and most readers would prefer to have me describe the characters in more detail. which do you think it is?

The obligatory "write for yourself" goes first, but of course if you're writing for a specific audience, then the amount of detail depends on the kink.

If you're talking about a lady flashing her boobs by bending over so guys can see down her tank top, then you need some sizes. "Smaller", or "most of a handful" works because it's nearly impossible for a woman to bend over and have her 34DDD breasts fully exposed swaying in the breeze.

When a woman has big nipples, that's awesome, and that's all you need to say. If you are writing about a kink for "pencil erasers", then you may be tempted to say they stand out a full half inch. Ditto for her clit. Some folks get off by picturing giving a woman's clit or nipples a "blowjob" and diving between her legs to ravage her three inch long dangling nether lips.

For most stories though, less is more. Most of the posters have already said this, and if you read a lot of the higher-rated stories here, you'll see that there's more time spent on building out the character, not describing details that don't matter for any purpose other than creating the specific image the author wanted you to see.

I may not know someone that looks exactly like many of the people described, so it can be hard to visualize the author's specific picture. With less detail, I can now easily picture the characters by attaching a person I know to each of them. What I try to do is create a mental movie from my words, but by creating only the framework and letting the reader flesh out all the pieces, makes for a better read.

YMMV, that's only my $0.02.

 

[OmnislashXX]

No, I have to describe my characters, especially if they are going to be the protagonists. Most people get turned on, I believe, by visual aides. So, I'm sure when people are attracted to each other, they tend to observe the details of the other's body or physical attributes. They take notice of clothes and such.

Then of course if the story starts to move into voyeurism, then I believe it's important to call attention to detail. Progressing the story slowly through the acts of stripping off clothes might require you to visualize just how it's being done.

Like honestly would it make you hornier if instead of just saying, "He unzipped her fly," it went "His fingertips caught onto the metal catch of the zipper and then tugged at it."

 

[sr71plt]

Like honestly would it make you hornier if instead of just saying, "He unzipped her fly," it went "His fingertips caught onto the metal catch of the zipper and then tugged at it."

That's not a description of physical characteristics. They also aren't describing the same action. So, I don't see the relevance to the discussion. The first is a completed action; the second isn't.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

most of my female characters have a significant feature in common. i mention large breasts, after that, the reader can make up the rest.

pretty much.

 

[OmnislashXX]

That's not a description of physical characteristics. They also aren't describing the same action. So, I don't see the relevance to the discussion. The first is a completed action; the second isn't.

It's a physical characteristic of a metal zipper. Yes, I would probably add the sound of the teeth making that "zzz" sound as it passed through the catch.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

The relevance of the description is its significance. Otherwise its filler.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

I go into the entire DNA coding - I supply the entire DNA genome specifics for the individual character concerned, and then I also mail a copy in a USB stick with precise instructions for these latest digital printers they have that do organics and wet-ware.

And then you can have the whole person right there in front of you.

And I also supply a two year warranty that includes options for you to modify the coding so that the person can be fat in place of the skinny one I originally provided. ...that kind of thing.

But for the US market I send only a packet of yoghurt. You know, for living culture.

 

[rutger5]

Every writer has to decide for themselves how much they wish to describe the physical characteristics of their creations but I don’t believe there is a ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way to do so, rather it is a matter of personal preference most of the time. There may be limited situations where it’s essential to the plot to give some description, say if someone wrote about the female lead, Ann Darrow, from the movie King Kong having blond hair for example. But such cases will be in the minority, I believe, though that doesn’t mean you have to be deliberately vague.

In general I don’t think giving a laundry list of attributes is the best way though I’ve seen it often. Writing in the first person and saying ‘I’m 5’10”, 165 pounds with brown hair and eyes, washboard abs and a seven inch dick while my girlfriend Alexa is 5’2” 100 pounds with black hair and brown eyes, 34C-25-32 and a shaved pussy’ is not what I’m looking to read though some readers may like that.

But if I’m writing in first person and male character just meets a potential love/sex interest and all he relays is she is attractive or hot doesn’t ring true either, especially if it is erotica/sex story. There are subtle ways to get out how someone looks during the course of the story as others have pointed out without just giving a list.

Speaking from my own experience I’ve never had a reader say I gave too much in the way of physical description but I have been told they would have liked more detail. I’ve also had women say they liked a particular female character because the description reminded them of them self, never has one said I didn’t like because she doesn’t look like me.

More often than not it’s ‘authors’ who feel this way as far as not giving descriptions, not readers. Again one should write for one’s self but if you’re going to share with the world there is nothing wrong with giving people what they like as well, as long as you’re not compromising on your writing.
r5

 

[DPMaster]

oggbashan has pretty much nailed my take on character descriptions. I write short stories, not novels. The goal of one is not typically the same as the goal of the other. My stories are written so the reader can plug him or herself in to the scene, and providing too much description throws that off. Age, breast size, hair and eye color, weight... these are all things that can throw a reader out of the game. Unless they're relevant to the story, I let my reader decide if she's blond or brunette, or if he's tall or short. If I want the reader to empathize more deeply with a character, then I try to more fully play that out by establishing the character's personality or motivation.

All that said, it's all based on who your target audience is. I don't expect an audience who thrives on vividly described characters to read my stories. Those readers want different things than I provide. It all boils down to preference - both the writer's and the reader's. Both methods of description have their place.

 

[SimonDoom]

I completely understand the philosophy underlying this theory of description, and it makes sense for a lot of stories, but it doesn't quite work for me.

I'm very visual, and I often write characters who are visually-oriented and into voyeurism and exhibitionism. Physical details are part of that. I enjoy them as a writer and I think readers of certain kinds of stories like them too. I generally steer clear of the bust-waist-hips/cup size/weight/height numbers, but I often like to let my readers know if my character is blond or brunette, thin or voluptuous, fat or muscular, short or tall, busty or small-breasted, etc. I think a certain amount of these sorts of details fill out the story I'm trying to tell. So it gets back to the same basic principle people are gravitating to here -- convey only the details that complete the story -- but the amount of detail that's useful will vary a lot from the types of characters and storylines involved. I think the category comes into play as well. Physical details may be more important in a voyeur-exhibitionism story than in one in a romance or first-time story.

 

[My I]

My characters come to life in the dialogue. I rarely give any physical description. When the character speaks the reader will associate the the attitude and general nature of the character with someone they know or have seen. Maybe they associate it with a character from a movie or TV. Doesn't matter.

What matters is that by that association they can picture the character in their own mind as they would LIKE to see them. Detailed descriptions just kill the reader's image.

Prob'ly the most detailed description I have ever used was in "Safety Net" and it left plenty of room for the reader's imagination.

The click of her high heels on the hardwood floor drew his attention downward to the slender but shapely legs. He followed them up to the hem of her snug black skirt; the fabric shifting with the movement of her thighs mesmerized him. A thin leather belt accented the line of contrast of her silky red blouse and her cleavage peeked out at the top of a line of buttons that were not fastened above her breasts. Raven black hair draped over her shoulders and framed a face that surely belonged on a magazine cover. Piercing blue eyes set above high cheekbones and cherry red lips so glossy they begged to be kissed.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm very visual, and I often write characters who are visually-oriented ... Physical details are part of that.

I'm the same, very visual, but tend to use a tiny detail to trigger an image - like a curl of hair on her neck, or a small scar or blemish that means there has been a very close, intimate look. It's a bit like a little splash of colour in a black and white photograph.

I wrote a whole story cycle that was triggered by a barista making coffee for me - just the image of her fingers so still on the cup and the look of quiet concentration on her face. Turned into one of my best rated stories, so readers liked my description too.

 

[TamLin01]

Just like with everything else in a story, physical descriptions should provide only what the reader really needs to know.

And how much does the reader ever really need to know about how most characters look?

 

[oggbashan]

One thing that can put me off in mainstream fiction is illustrations.

I can read a book and construct my own visualisation of the characters from the author's description and the character's actions. If the illustration doesn't match my visualisation? I either have to ignore it, which can be difficult, or try to adapt my visualisation to fit the artist's take on the character.

It can be interesting to compare different artists versions of the same character. For example Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland was told/written for Alice Liddell.

She's nothing like the Disney version.

The versions by Tenniel and Rackham are more like Alice Liddell but many later illustrators have changed the depiction of Alice significantly.

I see Alice as an intelligent young girl with a strong sense of curiousity and a love of the ridiculous. Some of the illustrators go a long way from the story or the real Alice Liddell.

For some of the illustrations I wonder whether the artist ever read the book.

The illustrations for Sir H Rider Haggard's She and Ayesha are sometimes very odd. For most of the first book she is veiled and ends up as a very decrepit crone. One cover shows her almost as a shrivelled mummy - giving the denoument away. Several show Ursula Andress. But most are the artist's idea of a perfect woman and that has changed significantly since the book's first publication...

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm the same, very visual, but tend to use a tiny detail to trigger an image - like a curl of hair on her neck, or a small scar or blemish that means there has been a very close, intimate look. It's a bit like a little splash of colour in a black and white photograph.

I wrote a whole story cycle that was triggered by a barista making coffee for me - just the image of her fingers so still on the cup and the look of quiet concentration on her face. Turned into one of my best rated stories, so readers liked my description too.

This technique can be extremely effective, because it zeroes in on the way people often see one another -- they don't take stock of cumulative measurements like they're doing a fitting for a dress or suit; instead, some particular visual thing leaps out at them. And a single detail, if rendered well by the author, can tell more about a character than a laundry list of physical characteristics.

 

[KenNicottii]

No, I have to describe my characters, especially if they are going to be the protagonists. Most people get turned on, I believe, by visual aides. So, I'm sure when people are attracted to each other, they tend to observe the details of the other's body or physical attributes. They take notice of clothes and such. ...

... But if I’m writing in first person and male character just meets a potential love/sex interest and all he relays is she is attractive or hot doesn’t ring true either, especially if it is erotica/sex story. There are subtle ways to get out how someone looks during the course of the story as others have pointed out without just giving a list. ...

These 2 comments sum it up for me. And writing erotica as a straight male, I want to talk about boobs - whatever size. It's one of the few perks of uncompensated authorship.

I've created 5 major female characters in the 4 stories I've submitted: 3 small-breasted and 2 large. I've only mentioned a bra size once ("Term Paper Blues"), and that was in dialogue by a female character who had recovered from her emaciated state when she was on hard drugs and was proud she was back up to her "fighting weight" (as an exotic dancer).

Now if had submitted that story to The New Yorker, and their in-house editor told me "We don't use lingerie sizes in our stories. You'll have to use a descriptive adjective instead," I would have gladly made the change.

 

[sr71plt]

My stories are more plot, setting, and sex act driven than character driven and I tend not to describe characters beyond a broad stereotype suited to the action that allows the reader to plop in his/her own details.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm the same, very visual, but tend to use a tiny detail to trigger an image - like a curl of hair on her neck, or a small scar or blemish that means there has been a very close, intimate look. It's a bit like a little splash of colour in a black and white photograph.

I like that technique. I used something similar in a story where one character is physically undescribable:

I know I had a tremendous crush on Mel. She was attractive enough to make my "no co-workers" rule fly out the window. But the only thing I can say for sure about how she looked is the scarf she always wore, an eye-catching pattern of black and gray diamonds like a pantomime Harlequin's checks in monochrome.

Was it a scarf? I'm not sure it was. Could have been a jacket, or a skirt. But whatever it was, she always wore it. I remember the pattern, the way those dappled shapes slid around her as she moved. It made me think of cold evenings, of chessboards, of piano keys and the Moonlight Sonata.

The harlequin pattern started out as a motif that got stuck in my head, and then it turned out to be useful for other purposes too.

 

[colddiesel]

One thing I'm struggling with is figuring out how much detail with which to describe my characters. For me, when I'm reading erotica, I like to visualize the characters myself, and detailed descriptions get in the way of that. One example of this is I'm not that into blonds, but the erotica I read is full of them.

Unless you write mainly gay male stories, you are probably into blondes rather than blonds.

 

[LeandraNyx]

Deleted

 

[patdown]

I find that in many of my stories it's important to describe the physical dimensions of characters. I really dislike how some stories feature women with absolutely perfect bodies or 40 year old women who have the same body they had in college or the could be in Playboy stuff, and too many feature men who workout hourly and look like models or body builders. It's unrealistic and distracting.

I tend to write about everyday people who are wider and thicker than teenagers, hey they get plenty f action too. So describing how a woman has thick thighs or a soft roll of belly, is bigger than the man she's with sets the story apart from either or both of them being straight out of a catalog.

 

[sr71plt]

I really dislike how some stories feature women with absolutely perfect bodies or 40 year old women who have the same body they had in college or the could be in Playboy stuff, and too many feature men who workout hourly and look like models or body builders. It's unrealistic and distracting.

Umm, no it's not. A lot of women are in better shape at 40 than they were in college. And a lot of men work out hourly and look like models or body builders. And it shouldn't be a surprise that such characters wind up in erotica. Erotica is about sexual arousal and fantasy, largely based on esthetics, not plumbing contracting.