Descriptions...too much...too little?

[Guest]

Had another thought I wanted to ask everyone about. And this is one that probably will cross over several lines. I know for myself when writing a story that I don't like going into minute explicit detail when describing a particular character. Often, I will simply indicate the color of a person's hair perhaps...or their eyes if I feel it is germain to the character's personality.

Personally, I prefer using my own imagination to describe for myself what someone looks like whenever I'm reading a story. I've read several books (not necessarily everything I read is on LIT...lol) where the author describes for the reader in nearly every detail imaginable what someone looks like. Now obviously, in some "few" stories I have no problem with that. But if there are several character's involved, it would seem to me you could write an entire chapter just describing someone.

For me anyway...being put in a "box" where I am "required" to visualize a character a certain specific way...I find I have trouble concentrating on the story as much as I find myself suddenly focusing on trying to make the character or individual look like the way the writer wanted me to see him, rather than in my seeing him the way I wanted to. (Gee...hope THAT wasn't too confusing).

But my point is.........how much is just that....too much. And on the flip side....when is a description simply too little?

I prefer to hint at generality's and let the reader take it from there.

Sometimes the height, weight of a person's important to the story. So I'll use it. Often I don't. As I mentioned, sometimes its the hair color, or the eyes...maybe a broken nose for character.

And besides the obvious.....what else do you feel is important when giving birth to a male or female character in order to make them real as well as imaginable?

I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts.

I remain,

 

[Weird Harold]

And besides the obvious.....what else do you feel is important when giving birth to a male or female character in order to make them real as well as imaginable?

Realism.

Describe what a character notices about another character, when the character notices it. The POV of the story does have a lot of bearing on how much is described of a character -- an omniscient narrator is bound to notice more than a first person narrator would.

Avoid "reward posters" like the plague -- unless there really is a reward poster in your story.

 

[Wicked-N-Erotic]

I don't tend to use character description, hair color, eye color etc. I have on a few but generally no. I usually describe just the feel of a person, how soft their skin is, the creamy complexion, round butt (almost everyone has a round butt) and so on. I like for the reader to put what ever image they see as a physical description into it without me telling them what to see. It's easier to put myself into it as a character that way so I figure it would be for others too.
Wicked

 

[wildsweetone]

Hiya Sandman

you've managed to pinpoint one of my own problems with my writing. how much description is not enough?

i'm watching this with interest.

i tend to err on the side of 'not enough' description. i have the full image of a character in my head, but only a miniscule amount of what they actually look like gets transferred to the screen/paper.

(if you feel like it or have time, have a quick squizz at 'Lifeless' --- not plugging, only chosen because it's a short piece --- you'll see i hardly have any description of the actual characters in the story. there are many questions unanswered within the story itself (purposely), and perhaps that's the reason nobody mentioned they don't know what the characters actually looked like.)

anyway, great thread dear. hope there's lots of responses

 

[karmadog]

I think it depends. Like almost any question you could ask about writing. A skillful writer can use physical descriptions to illuminate character and sometimes even plot.

Nineteenth century novels spent a lot more time on physical descriptions than is common now. That doesn't necessarily mean that description should be discounted from a writer's arsenal.

 

[Guest]

Already delighted..........

Karmadog:

As you stated, I tend to use descriptions primarily to identify a character's personality rather than in creating an apperance unless its an integral part of the story. And only then if I feel without such a description, the reader will miss what it is I am hoping they will see in that character's purpose.

Wildsweetone:

I immediately went to read "lifeless" (Voted too BTW lol). For starters, enjoyed the story. Truly. I agree with you. I think about the ONLY description you even came close to was in describing the fact Sandra had long hair. Almost immediately I envisioned her as normally having almost coal black(blue) hair for some reason, lusterless...as you then described changing it for me anyway to a dusty gray dulling the normally shinning black. I state that...simply so you can see how my own mind's eye worked for me on this. Others of course may see it differently. You didn't describe her physically at all, yet again...based on the personality you painted, the image that came to life for me was a tall woman, fair skinned who perhaps wore a bit too much makeup for my tastes. LOL.

But there again...you proved my personal preference for not being put inside a box and having to envision an individual in some precise way that the author's intent was to accomplish.

I like your style kiddo!

Wicked-N-Erotic: <wink>

There again...another reason I enjoy reading your stories. The imagery for me comes more in the description of the senses. Touch...taste...smell...and yes, occasionally a "look" though more if its only hinted at. (Ok...I like soft gently sloped boobs). Good enough...I can take that particular image and run with it. Just don't give me the fucking bra size. (Thank you for not doing so BTW) LOL....drives me nuts when I see that.

Weird Harold:

As always...you do indeed have great answers to most every question. For me...the realism of a character's personality...humor even which is what I tend to focus on in most of my stories, gives for me at least, a greater appreciation of depth into the person whom the writer has created. It's that sort of realism that allows me to see the person as I have created them in my mind, even though it's another authors story I am reading. Taking that small bit of gently hinted information, perhaps adding in "cobalt blue eyes" as about the only major contribution to a character's description...and I can create enough from all that to have a perfectly clear view as to how I see that author's particular character.

Although in Wicked's case...I keep seeing everyone running around with well-rounded butts too. Added to gently sloped boobs I tend to put on women....makes for an interesting combination.

Thank god for hair color or I'd be looking at clones I guess.

Love this......thank you everyone. Looking forward to more responses..........

 

[wildsweetone]

Re: Already delighted..........

Wildsweetone:

I immediately went to read "lifeless" (Voted too BTW lol). For starters, enjoyed the story. Truly. I agree with you. I think about the ONLY description you even came close to was in describing the fact Sandra had long hair. Almost immediately I envisioned her as normally having almost coal black(blue) hair for some reason, lusterless...as you then described changing it for me anyway to a dusty gray dulling the normally shinning black. I state that...simply so you can see how my own mind's eye worked for me on this. Others of course may see it differently. You didn't describe her physically at all, yet again...based on the personality you painted, the image that came to life for me was a tall woman, fair skinned who perhaps wore a bit too much makeup for my tastes. LOL.

But there again...you proved my personal preference for not being put inside a box and having to envision an individual in some precise way that the author's intent was to accomplish.

I like your style kiddo!

oh gee whizz i didn't mean for you to worry about voting on it dearest, just wanted a quick way of explaining what i was meaning...

interesting though how you got 'dusty gray' from 'dull and lank'... see so little descriptions gives each and every reader a very personal story.

i do so love leaving information out

 

[Guest]

LOL......Wild

Kiddo.....I vote on "every" story or poem that I read. I don't care if it was written two years ago. I still do. Just another way of me telling the writer how much I did...or didn't enjoy reading it.

But as far as reading it went...again, I like being able to use my own imagination when seeing an author's character developed.

Hell....I've even changed the way I view the same character mid-way through a story if I like the "new" look better.

 

[TheEarl]

I tend to veer towards too little (or in some cases none at all). I did get a barrage of feedback asking that I put in more so that the readers could visualise my characters better, so I'm making a conscious effort now, but I'd never stoop as low as the reward poster. Usually its just the first 3 or so points I see in my mind's eye. Sometimes I spread them out across a story and sometimes I put them into one para.

Usually I come up with: hair colour, slim/fat and a general facial description (eg. elfin, aquiline, big and ugly, etc.).

IMHO the worst description crime you can do is give the reader a detail too late in a story. I was reading over a story for a friend and it was 3/4 of the way through the story until I was told the female character had blonde hair. I thought she had black hair. I know it sounds a bit silly to disagree with her creator, but as there'd been little description given up until that point, I'd created my own mental picture of her. When I was contradicted, it broke the telepathic spell between me and the writer.

The Earl

 

[Chicklet]

I prefer to hint at generality's and let the reader take it from there.

I received a complaint that I needed to describe my characters more so that the reader *didn't have to use their imagination*

ugh.

Chicklet

 

[BigTexan]

Description: I think I've said this before but I'll say it again.

Put in enough that every reader can build a picture in his mind, but not so much that the picture is the same for each reader.

Different characters will require different amounts of description. Imagine if Mary Shelly had refused to describe Frankensteins monster? Yet read the book, you'll find she gives little detail about Dr. Frankenstein himself, and yet spends a great deal of time describing the monster.

This is the way it should be. The good doctor didn't need to be described because the reader could easily build a picture of his character. Readers are familier with that type of character. But readers weren't familier with his monster. They needed more information to build the picture in their minds.

In erotica, we rarely deal with characters who need a great deal of description. Even when we do, that description should be images, not statistics.

"He towered over her."

is a description. It helps the reader build a picture of him and possibly of her.

"Her breasts hung like small fried eggs, clinging to her chest in desperation as if they feared sliding down to her navel."

is a description. It helps the reader build a picture. But even with this description, I bet that if you compared notes with others, you would find differences in your pictures.

"Her 32b chest heaved." is not good description, it is statistics. No one wants to read statistics, except maybe that shriveled old man teaching the college course on them.

Anyways, this is my take on description. Take it or leave it, it's my opinion.

BigTexan

 

[wildsweetone]

"Her breasts hung like small fried eggs, clinging to her chest in desperation as if they feared sliding down to her navel."

BigTexan

this is such a vivid picture, fried egg or poached egg breasts. it turns my stomach. lol


getting my own back now...


"He stood in front of the mirror, his penis limp and hanging as a dead worm dangling on a rusted fisherman's hook."

 

[TheEarl]

"Her 32b chest heaved." is not good description, it is statistics. No one wants to read statistics, except maybe that shriveled old man teaching the college course on them.

Plus I'd bet that if you put the average man in front of a pair of breasts he wouldn't be able to identify their size. It always amazes me how some characters are blessed with the ability to identify breasts that are under clothing and quite possibly a padded bra.

The Earl

 

[BigTexan]

this is such a vivid picture, fried egg or poached egg breasts. it turns my stomach. lol


getting my own back now...


"He stood in front of the mirror, his penis limp and hanging as a dead worm dangling on a rusted fisherman's hook."

Yeah, but remember what Mr. King told us. You must tell the truth. If that is what her breasts are like, that is what you should say, eh?

About the limp penis, Poor man doesn't even have a nightcrawler, just a dead worm. Poor, poor, man.

But I love it as description.

BigTexan

 

[MaxSebastian]

Re: Re: Descriptions...too much...too little?

Avoid "reward posters" like the plague -- unless there really is a reward poster in your story.

"Reward posters" I like that term. I never heard them called that before, whenever I've advised against doing it, I've never been able to sum it up so succinctly.

I think description depends on a writer's style. Too much description is going to get a lot of readers bored, it slows down the pace too much. There should always be something going on, and if there isn't something going on in each paragraph, there's too much description as far as I'm concerned.

Pace vs Description, the eternal question.

It's like most aspects of writing, a balance. Up to you to get it right.

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Re: Descriptions...too much...too little?

I think description depends on a writer's style. ...

Pace vs Description, the eternal question.

It's like most aspects of writing, a balance. Up to you to get it right.

If I remember correctly, the "Reward Poster" tag is something I stole from WhisperSecret in another discussion on this topic a couple of years ago.

Like so many other aspects of writing that are discussed here, the needs of the story dictate the balance of of all the various components -- dialogue, description, action, narrative, POV, etc.

Questions to ask yourself:

How important is the character (and the character's appearance) to the story? -- two paragraphs of description for a tertiary character is way too much, because tertiary characters are just stage props for the story.

How "Descriptive" is the narration? Are you expounding on the beauty of the scenery and ignoring the characters? Are you getting flowery and eloquent just in the important scenes?

 

[MWG]

To tell you the truth, I don't usually describe people in my stories in very vivid detail, at least from the point-of-view of the narrative. Say for instance, my story's protagonist is a female. I might describe her lover, the object of her lust, so that a person will get a feel for what she's going after...but the main character herself, I usually neglect to describe except for age, maybe a few minute details. I don't think I've ever been one to use lines like, "Creamy white skin, fiery auburn hair, exactly 5'7 tall," etc. 'Erotic' is in the mind of the reader, usually. The more universal the material, the wider the audience to which the story will appeal. The main gripe of mine in a lot of author's stories on Literotica is that I have to pick through all of them to find one which entices my own personal preferences. The less you give your reader, the more they have to fill in for themselves, thereby making the story a lot more of an imaginative ride rather than just "They meet, they fuck".

I'd say, your complaint is more than justified.

Another thing that is good about those who don't go into full detail about at least the story's protagonist is that erotic stories these days are filled with so many, "Perfect 36-25-34, flawless skin, enormous breasts" that it's getting hard to believe. To tell you the truth, someone is a lot sexier, in my opinion, when they have a little flaw or two...something that kind of reminds the reader that it isn't just a fantasy or something which might only happen in a fantasy, but could actually happen. Sure, people dream and perhaps dream of 16" cocks and women with no head and a massive set of breasts. However, I think the closer something is to reality, the sexier, or scarier, or more thrilling, or funnier it is. So it goes with comedy--true stuff is always the most hilarious--and horror (the scariest things are those which could actually happen), and every other genre. Keep it real. Consistent with the abovementioned point, the less you detail for someone, the more realistic it is to the reader as they can color in the fine details to match what THEY want, what THEY think is sexy.

Okay. I'm done now.

 

[TheEarl]

The less you give your reader, the more they have to fill in for themselves, thereby making the story a lot more of an imaginative ride rather than just "They meet, they fuck".

Completely agree. Personally I think readers get a lot more out of the story if they can identify with the characters. It can be done by throwing in random details and hoping, but the more details you give them, the higher the chance that one of them will contradict what they're thinking.

If that makes any sense at all. Weird Harold! You're needed.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

Reward Poster.......

Well Kudo's to Whisper Secret for thinking up the term then.

But thanks to Weird Harold for bringing such a delightful...precise anaolgy into the fray.........

I remain,

 

[Weird Harold]

Completely agree. Personally I think readers get a lot more out of the story if they can identify with the characters. It can be done by throwing in random details and hoping, but the more details you give them, the higher the chance that one of them will contradict what they're thinking.

A somewhat wordy way of saying that authors need find the right balance between too much and too little description.

 

[Guest]

I like the detail...

I personally like the descriptions, partly because I enjoy a ‘visually’ and stimulating aspects of a story (yeah, I’m a guy). Sure, one can leave a lot to the reader to use her/his imagination, and I like that also.

But what I find myself MOST attracted to story with details is my opportunity to peek into the mind of a creative author (who permits us entry) and describes, for me, and on paper, the revealing, sexy, visual snapshots from her/his mind. It’s voyeuristic! (Yum!) Yes, some of it can be overdone in clinical detail to the detriment of the story, and that too often, is a shame.

The devil is in the subtle details, at least for me—I want to have a clear image of the story’s characters, certainly before the climax of a story. What mechanisms are used are reserved for the style of a writer (it can be done all at once, or over the course of the story, etc., etc.); my preference is a mix. So for those that write erotica with the vivid descriptions, kudos!—I selfishly encourage the detail—tell me what’s on your mind.

However, there is that balance that has to be considered: what do Lit’s readers want? What is interesting here, on this very visual site (I think), is a bias to keep the erotic descriptions somewhat lean and to leave a larger portion of the fill-in-the-blank imagination up to the reader.

LOL! What’s a writer to do? Strike a balance you’re satisfied with. I do, because I write for me, also!

 

[TheEarl]

Thanks WH.

 

[Guest]

POV considerations

Sandman-

Great thread! I have really enjoyed and learned from the posts.

One consideration that I think needs to be raised is the significance of POV. The details that a first person POV story focuses on in description serve two purposes: the obvious, describing the other character and, IMHO the more important, giving the reader insight into what the narrator notices and how he reacts to those details.

Also, I don't think elaborate descriptions work for 1st person unless the narrator is that type of person. The exception would be when a guy is fantasizing about the object of his lust.

I avoid physical descriptions in my second person stories so as not to alienate the reader. In my third person, I am with the majority here and give limited descriptions.

I appreciate Proofread's admonitions to give enough to get the "visual" reader hot. I will seek to proof my stories with this "eye".

b

 

[gauchecritic]

this is such a vivid picture, fried egg or poached egg breasts. it turns my stomach. lol


getting my own back now...


"He stood in front of the mirror, his penis limp and hanging as a dead worm dangling on a rusted fisherman's hook."

Sorry Sweet one but I had to smile imagining what this 'rusted fisherman' looked like.

Gauche

 

[Diane Marie]

I’m not at all sure there is a right or a wrong. Add into the mix that each writer has their own style, and their own abilities. Some writers can, and do, give very good descriptions in just a paragraph or two. Other do so in short burst during the progression of a story. In both cases their main characters are rather well described.

Others, like sandman, don’t want their character well defined physically.

Then there are those who just can’t seem to give the reader a description no matter how hard they try. Yet they write a wonderful story.

Further complicating the matter is your audience. As a general rule I’d say a male audience is going to be more visual, wanting better descriptions. For a female audience, I believe we tend to want to fill in the details ourselves. This is only a general rule, if we’re well read, I’m sure we have novels we love that go both ways.