How much do you assume (writerly)

[gauchecritic]

Last year some time TheEarl asked how much of making a cup of tea can you imply rather than describe.

Does going from warming the pot straight to pouring the tea assume too much knowledge of tea making from your reader? Does it matter?

Using this as an analogy I'd like to ask how much do you have to tell your reader about anything. How much can you imply? How much do you make them infer?

I've had it pointed out to me several times that I miss details in my stories which only serves to confuse and makes reading difficult. For instance, (in a simple way) I might say:

Her slavic cheekbones made her innocent eyes appear deep and menacing.

I'm assuming two things. That the reader knows what Slavic cheekbones look like (or indeed what Slavic means) and that her eyes have the appearance of a Manga drawn face.

So, do I need to add that she has Manga eyes and change Slavic to "Russian" or "Mongol", to give a clearer picture? or are my readers as conversant as me about non-western facial structure?

Gauche

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Last year some time TheEarl asked how much of making a cup of tea can you imply rather than describe.

Does going from warming the pot straight to pouring the tea assume too much knowledge of tea making from your reader? Does it matter?

Using this as an analogy I'd like to ask how much do you have to tell your reader about anything. How much can you imply? How much do you make them infer?

I've had it pointed out to me several times that I miss details in my stories which only serves to confuse and makes reading difficult. For instance, (in a simple way) I might say:

Her slavic cheekbones made her innocent eyes appear deep and menacing.

I'm assuming two things. That the reader knows what Slavic cheekbones look like (or indeed what Slavic means) and that her eyes have the appearance of a Manga drawn face.

So, do I need to add that she has Manga eyes and change Slavic to "Russian" or "Mongol", to give a clearer picture? or are my readers as conversant as me about non-western facial structure?

Gauche

Depends totally on what and where you are assuming. I tend to go overboard with detail, assuming as little as I can about the reader's and my own shared points of reference.

In you rexample, I can assume what slavic cheekbones are, but unless I know before hand you are seeing a manga chick, I won't assume that.

-Colly

 

[tolyk]

How much people assume is entirely random. You'll have some people who understand a statement exactly how you meant it, and you'll have others who get a blank look on thier faces.

You'll even get some people who argue over the intended meaning, as many people do with Shakespeare's writings.

It is as varied an answer as there are types of people in the world, unfortunately. And the old saying remains true for this, "You can't please everyone."


I know, I wasn't exactly very helpful.. So, I'll make up for it a bit. In your example, slavic cheekbones, I think that is descriptive enough. If someone doesn't understand it as such, they can look it up.

I personally don't think a writer should describe everything, down to the precise details. If we all did that, we'd end up being like "The Lord of the Rings" which is a fine book and all, but entirely too descriptive and wordy. Besides, who would want to read "The Lord of the Porns" ??

 

[Belegon]

Well, the facial features thing, or even body style, I tend to be deliberately vauge most of the time. I want the reader to fill in details based on their own standards, etc. My most recent story was an exception because the genesis of the entire story was a physical description of a girl that I jotted down at a yogurt shop.

I think there is a balance to be struck, as I am sure we all do. The question is where to strike it. I tend to describe the actual physical actions in sex scenes more than in non-sex scenes. I am not sure if it is because I feel it is necessary for the genre or if I am just not good enough yet to not use them.

 

[TheEarl]

Last year some time TheEarl asked how much of making a cup of tea can you imply rather than describe.

Does going from warming the pot straight to pouring the tea assume too much knowledge of tea making from your reader? Does it matter?

Using this as an analogy I'd like to ask how much do you have to tell your reader about anything. How much can you imply? How much do you make them infer?

I've had it pointed out to me several times that I miss details in my stories which only serves to confuse and makes reading difficult. For instance, (in a simple way) I might say:

Her slavic cheekbones made her innocent eyes appear deep and menacing.

I'm assuming two things. That the reader knows what Slavic cheekbones look like (or indeed what Slavic means) and that her eyes have the appearance of a Manga drawn face.

So, do I need to add that she has Manga eyes and change Slavic to "Russian" or "Mongol", to give a clearer picture? or are my readers as conversant as me about non-western facial structure?

Gauche

Bloody hell Gauche, you've got a better memory than me. I struggled to remember saying that. I stand by my opinion which was that you can usually assume the reader has a good knowledge base. I wouldn't imagine a Manga girl from your description, but I get the rough picture and that's all that you need.

The Earl

 

[Guest]

Hombre, you didn't clarify but it seems you are asking about assumptions for Lit. readers. I'd say assume nothing here. Then it's your decision whether to care or not.

Otherwise, for me it isn't a matter of assuming anything about my reader(s). I use whatever words I want and/or judge that my ms. needs. Fuck if they're unrecognizable or confusing to anyone.

Perdita

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Her slavic cheekbones made her innocent eyes appear deep and menacing.

So, do I need to add that she has Manga eyes and change Slavic to "Russian" or "Mongol", to give a clearer picture? or are my readers as conversant as me about non-western facial structure?

IMHO, what you've done, or may do, with this example is use labels (Slavic, Russian, Mongol, Manga, innocent, menacing) to SHOW (ugh, gag, shudder) instead of taking the time to TELL readers about the character's eyes. And, of course, you've also contradicted yourself by saying they are "innocent" but also "menacing". "Innocent" needs some modifier, such as "otherwise."

Those quibbles aside, there is no hard and fast answer to your question. It depends on the target audience. Connie Willie, an oft-awarded sci/fi writer pointed out in a recent interview that sci/fi readers aren't as troubled about not understanding something as are mainstream readers. The sci/fi folks assume the unknown will be made known and the mystery is part of the story. Mainstream readers can't be sure the writer hasn't screwed up.

The same applies to you qeestion about how much detail to include. As for the making tea example, if the reader needs to know how it's done, then probably, yes. add more description. If the info is just scene-setting, then probably let well enough alone.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I've managed to survive for years not knowing what an "aquiline" nose was. Dracula had one, and I read that whole book as a kid without ever looking it up. I made out all right.

In your example, you mention that the effect of the slavic cheekbones was to make her eyes appear menacing, so I don't think youhave to go into details about what exactly slavic cheekbones are.

Just as long as you don't give her an aquiline nose.

---dr.M.

 

[Lisa Denton]

I was reading a book not long ago (no titles or author names) and the first couple times he described what clothes the characters were wearing I was impressed how it seemed to add into the picture the writer was painting.


Less than halfway through the book I would dread when a room-full of people would be together and I would hope he wouldn't do it again, he would.

I can't say if I'm a fair writer, but I am an excellent reader and he went overboard. Though it was nice at first.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

... I've had it pointed out to me several times that I miss details in my stories which only serves to confuse and makes reading difficult. For instance, (in a simple way) I might say:

Her slavic cheekbones made her innocent eyes appear deep and menacing.

I'm assuming two things. That the reader knows what Slavic cheekbones look like (or indeed what Slavic means) and that her eyes have the appearance of a Manga drawn face.

So, do I need to add that she has Manga eyes and change Slavic to "Russian" or "Mongol", to give a clearer picture? ... Gauche

Either way, you are assuming some previous knowledge.

Some readers might not know what a Slav is, or how one looks, while others may not be familiar with the term Manga, or have seen any.

Russia, unless I have been misinformed, is made up of several ethnic tribes of varying appearance. I am not certain that saying someone looked Russian is very helpful.

Mongol implies more than merely epicanthal folds on slanted eyes. Some reader may even misunderstand you to mean that your character had Downs Syndrome, and either for effect, or through ignorance, you were employing an offensive term.

Of course, description – as your example demonstrates – does not have to be restricted to actual physicality. What are “innocent eyes?” It could be that you are describing demeanor, or merely making an attempt at creating tention between characterizing your subject as innocent, while also declaring that the shape of her face made her appear menacing.

What you describe, how you describe it, and how much you describe is part of your style. The readers who understand you will be more apt to appreciate your style.

The readers who don’t understand you will be less apt to appreciate your style, but may still enjoy your writing for other qualities — or not.

 

[TheEarl]

I've managed to survive for years not knowing what an "aquiline" nose was. Dracula had one, and I read that whole book as a kid without ever looking it up. I made out all right.

In your example, you mention that the effect of the slavic cheekbones was to make her eyes appear menacing, so I don't think youhave to go into details about what exactly slavic cheekbones are.

Just as long as you don't give her an aquiline nose.

---dr.M.

Lol - Had exactly the same experience with Duke Leto Atreides being described as aquiline in Dune. Not a scoob what it meant until 3-4 years ago.

The Earl

 

[R. Richard]

I've managed to survive for years not knowing what an "aquiline" nose was. Dracula had one, and I read that whole book as a kid without ever looking it up. I made out all right.

In your example, you mention that the effect of the slavic cheekbones was to make her eyes appear menacing, so I don't think youhave to go into details about what exactly slavic cheekbones are.

Just as long as you don't give her an aquiline nose.

---dr.M.

Actually the matter is very simple. Aquline comes from Latin aquila = eagle. Thus, an aquiline nose is curved or hooked like the beak of an eagle. If someone described me as having an aquline nose, they might well wind up with a broken nose.

JMHO.

 

[Weird Harold]

Last year some time TheEarl asked how much of making a cup of tea can you imply rather than describe.

Does going from warming the pot straight to pouring the tea assume too much knowledge of tea making from your reader? Does it matter?

Using this as an analogy I'd like to ask how much do you have to tell your reader about anything. How much can you imply? How much do you make them infer?

I think it all depends on what you're trying to accomplish wih any given description.

In the example of making tea, I'd jump from putting the pot on to pouring unless I wanted to make a point about the character's OCD tendencies or highlight that the tea was just a way to avoid or delay a confrontation.

As for describing "Slavic cheekbones" I wouldn't unless there was more than her cheekbones that being "slavic" involved.

I would probbly describe cheekbones that shadowed the eyes, as "high-cheeked, Exotic facial structure" or somthing more generic and let the reader infer a defintion of "exotic" rather than depending on them to recognise a specific bone structure implied by the term "Slavic."

 

[scheherazade_79]

I don't think you should hand everything to the reader on a plate. If what you've written interests them enough, then they'll go and look up what they don't understand. My favourite authors tend to be the ones who do this. If I understand absolutely everything, it takes away the challenge and isn't as much fun.

 

[oggbashan]

A word or two that isn't understood doesn't matter.

A culture that isn't recognised does matter.

The Literotica readers are not all US citizens. I think I have had feedback from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, CANADA, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Holland, Hungary, India, Japan, New Zealand, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, The Ukraine, and of course the UK and US. Apologies if I've missed someone's country.

It is difficult to assume a common culture that covers all those countries. If I used Cricket metaphors (or Baseball ones) then how would people follow my thinking?

A simile can be confusing. Even a landscape description. I know what I mean when I refer to the Welsh mountains. 'Mountains' are very different in Australia or New Zealand. A 'mountain' in Australia would be a hill in New Zealand. A City of London park such as Hayes or Keston Common means something to me. What does it mean to someone who has never seen them? A formal set of gardens? An open field? They are nothing like the central London parks - Regent's Park or Hyde Park; nor like Central Park in New York.

All that we have in common is probably human interaction. People are similar wherever they live. Their differences can be important to a story. An Australian might react differently to a Greek (unless the Australian was a Greek Australian).

What makes Shakespeare great (and Chaucer) is that the people can be seen around us today. I can recognise Cordelia and Mistress Quickly (and The Wife of Bath) in people I know. I wish that the people in my stories could be as recognisable. They are not. I don't have the skills or genius of Shakespeare or Chaucer.

Everytime we make an allusion to something that has significant meaning to us, and sometimes our 'best' sentences, can lose the reader because there is no common reference. Even the much maligned 38DDs don't always convey the same meaning to someone used to metric measurements.

Og

Edited to add Canada - sorry Tolyk.

 

[steve w]

Am enjoying this thread. A couple of minor points -

1 Reading is mainly about using the imagination. In doing so, the reader draws on his/her own experiences, circumstances and understanding. That is what makes reading active, whereas watching TV/movies is largely passive. So, in theory, the reader should have to infer something from what's on the written page.

2 I think it's largely a question of consistent style. If you're writing lots of description, go with that. If you think description slows down what you are trying to achieve, go with that. The key is not jumping from style to style during the course of the book/story. If you do, it interrupts the flow and jars with the reader.

 

[Guest]

one thing i detest is an author that leaves nothing to the reader's imagination. Ann Rice is one that goes into a detailed description of nearly everything. somethings need it, while others do not.
i say its better not to bog down the story with too much over-decription. this is from my own perspective as a reader.

 

[tolyk]

one thing i detest is an author that leaves nothing to the reader's imagination. Ann Rice is one that goes into a detailed description of nearly everything. somethings need it, while others do not.
i say its better not to bog down the story with too much over-decription. this is from my own perspective as a reader.

Huh, maybe that is why I wasn't able to read Anne Rice (I tried once, for my ex.. thats her favorite author, I just couldn't get into it)


And Ogg, you missed Canada

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I've always been of different minds over description. I tend towards the less is better view though and the quality over quantity argument. I've always disliked the old "greats" and how they'd take forever to describe an area with as many big words as they can and thus kill all momentum and interest in a story. Still, I appreciate good description in the vein of Ray Bradbury.

In fact, I think Ray Bradbury exemplifies my ideal view of description. Describing some as a mood and scene emplacement while sacrificing none of the momentum and allowing the reader's imagination to finish any of the small detail holes.

In my own personal writing style, I think I'm probably a little on the danger side of not enough description. I have written sections and stories where the look of the main character is not even described or where entire scenes are only pieced together by people's biases. I'm a little better in my fantastical stories, but I still have those tendencies.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I wouldn't have the first idea about manga or slavic anything.

and I'd like to think I'm pretty smart.

As much as we don't want "Lord of the Porn" we also don't want 'check the reference books' porn.

I would perfer that physical descriptions described *appearence* and not origin. It would be ok for me if you used 'slavic' but in another passage clarified what that meant without saying 'slavic means..." remember learning about 'context clues' in elementary school? One time when you refer to her cheeks call them slavic, the next time say something more picturesque. that's pretty much how I built up my vocabulary, not with a dictionary.

I would think that describing a person's looks or features purely on the basis of ethinicity as a shortcut and kind of lazy. (no offense) It's not really descriptive at all, and in my opinion, yes, assumes to much.

saying 'slavic' or 'african-american' or 'asian' features is an example of 'telling not showing' and is probably ok in some instances but not the best way to describe someone.

So in short, it would be ok to use it, but only in combination with some more descriptive words. This would probably strike a fair ballance between those who understood it the first time and those who didn't.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Actually the matter is very simple. Aquline comes from Latin aquila = eagle. Thus, an aquiline nose is curved or hooked like the beak of an eagle. If someone described me as having an aquline nose, they might well wind up with a broken nose.

JMHO.

I alway picture it to mean a really straight Roman nose.

see how far off i was?

if the hooked nose matters to the plot somehow, I think you should definatly say 'hooked' otherwise if it's just description, and you don't care if I picture him incorrectly, I guess it doesn't matter.

I had no idea that dracula had a hooked nose.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I've always been of different minds over description. I tend towards the less is better view though and the quality over quantity argument. I've always disliked the old "greats" and how they'd take forever to describe an area with as many big words as they can and thus kill all momentum and interest in a story. Still, I appreciate good description in the vein of Ray Bradbury.

In fact, I think Ray Bradbury exemplifies my ideal view of description. Describing some as a mood and scene emplacement while sacrificing none of the momentum and allowing the reader's imagination to finish any of the small detail holes.

In my own personal writing style, I think I'm probably a little on the danger side of not enough description. I have written sections and stories where the look of the main character is not even described or where entire scenes are only pieced together by people's biases. I'm a little better in my fantastical stories, but I still have those tendencies.

This makes me curious to read your stories.

I think physical descriptions often times aren't as necessary as we would tend to think. I've long thought about writing a whole story without any physical description of my characters whatsoever, just to see if anyone would notice. (I don't think they would)

I suppose this completly contradicts my last post.

Oh well.

 

[tolyk]

This makes me curious to read your stories.

I think physical descriptions often times aren't as necessary as we would tend to think. I've long thought about writing a whole story without any physical description of my characters whatsoever, just to see if anyone would notice. (I don't think they would)

I suppose this completly contradicts my last post.

Oh well.

When reading, a lot of time people get a feel for what the character would look like just from thier actions/choices. I have read a couple things that paint no character portraits and you can still usually see them, though everyone will depict them differently, but even an accurate portrayal brings different images to varying people's minds.

For example: If someone described a tall, buxom redhead.. you might have an image of a friend called to mind, while another person sees something similiar to their own mother.. etc etc.

You know what I mean

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Description masterpiece:

"Fruit at the Bottom of the Bowl" by Ray Bradbury

A story whose main movement is describing the house after the narrator has killed someone in it. The descriptions do not mention the appearance of the narrator or much of the appearance of the victim. The description also is entirely used as a tool to describe the decline of the narrator's mental health in much the same way as the plot description in "A Tell Tale Heart" by Poe does. In all, you don't get too much of a sense of the house and need to piece together the mental image by yourself, but it is easy and natural to do so. Overall, a masterpiece of descriptive writing.

 

[pop_54]

Re: Re: How much do you assume (writerly)

Bloody hell Gauche, you've got a better memory than me. I struggled to remember saying that. I stand by my opinion which was that you can usually assume the reader has a good knowledge base. I wouldn't imagine a Manga girl from your description, but I get the rough picture and that's all that you need.

The Earl

Memory loss hey young man, all that high living at Uni