Is there such as too much detail?

[PennameWombat]

This is where you and I are going to disagree. When I went to Paris for the first time the sound the subway trains made was seriously important to my experience. Not how the train moved faster or slower, but the sound. It changed the entire sensory processing of the experience and the ambience.

Then there was also the ride. Not so much clacky-clack and jerky, jerky. How do you put people in a world if they don't live in it and experience it? The subways look, smells, sounds, the touching sensation of crowds and strangers. The light. How elements go in and out of the shadows, or how the light flickers or glistens upon the tile walls. The reflections in the windows. The furtive glances of strangers. The temperature, hot, cold, muggy. Do your clothes feel clammy, or are you embarrassed because you feel under-dressed.

We are sensory animals and all of that feeds into our experiences, attractions, and libidos, and desires.

That's you.

Congrats. I noticed the tires, the change in ride, but analyzing the engineering. I'd worked on a track gang in my way younger days, so had noticed the differences in track work while at the platform. I always notice rails (bolted, welded, continuous lengths), ties (wood, concrete) and fastenings, the plate, spikes or screws or springs, rail breakage jumpers... I try not to foist such unless I have good reason. That's how I see the world.

This highlights that how folks will experience the same thing will differ. A bored commuter who rides the line every day... or tourists who are focused on getting to Notre Dame, will not experience it the same way as each other as well as how you might. If my nose is buried in my guide book, all of what you describe barely exists.

And the light. There's also the case where a line crosses from under-ground to above-ground. Not unique to Paris, but you could do an entire revelatory scene triggered by making that crossing.

Or, you blink in the sudden sunshine and go back to being bored.

All reactions are valid. And when it comes to a story, we want to reflect what works for that story.

 

[SimonDoom]

This is where you and I are going to disagree. When I went to Paris for the first time the sound the subway trains made was seriously important to my experience. Not how the train moved faster or slower, but the sound. It changed the entire sensory processing of the experience and the ambience.

Then there was also the ride. Not so much clacky-clack and jerky, jerky. How do you put people in a world if they don't live in it and experience it? The subways look, smells, sounds, the touching sensation of crowds and strangers. The light. How elements go in and out of the shadows, or how the light flickers or glistens upon the tile walls. The reflections in the windows. The furtive glances of strangers. The temperature, hot, cold, muggy. Do your clothes feel clammy, or are you embarrassed because you feel under-dressed.

We are sensory animals and all of that feeds into our experiences, attractions, and libidos, and desires.

All of this is true but the essential question is whether "putting people in the world" is important to the particular story. It may be. It may not be. There are many great novels and stories about Paris that don't go into detail like this. There are some that do. The key is what is the point of your story.

Everybody, even people who haven't been there (like me), thinks of Paris as a romantic city. So details about the city may be helpful to establish setting and mood. Or maybe not. It all depends upon the story. The sound of the subway may have nothing to do with the essence of the story.

 

[Weird Harold]

,,, I saw a woman in a cafe a few months ago and decided that what she was wearing was what my protagonist had on when she boarded a plane in a hurry, and wound up describing it down to the socks. And then took most of it out again.


I guess the description in the text is a kind of note-taking, first time through.

this...

For a firs inculd everythi

 

[CyranoJ]

I'm in the middle of writing my fourth story, and I'm fearing it might end up being too long because I get carried away with describing things that the reader probably doesn't care about.

I'm definitely someone who goes way overboard on a first draft, so I feel you. I mean hell, just look at half my comments on AH. I do go on.

And I'm also absolutely not a "less is more" writer: my style is very much more-is-more, as witnessed by the fact that my best-performing stories on Lit are not the ones where I tried to be economical and concise.

That said, I agree FWIW with the advice here that says it's about the quality of description, not specific prescriptions of quantity.

If your descriptions move the story, characters, or setting forward in ways that enhance the action when it comes (or "cums") then I wouldn't fret too much unless you're working to a word count specified by someone else to make a sale.

If you're just writing for your own and your readers' pleasure, then disregard the clause starting with "unless" in that last sentence. Above all, what you write has to be hot and engaging for you if it's going to find an audience with anyone else. That should be your first priority, IMO. Fine-tune and trim it afterwards if you feel the need to.

Good luck.

 

[BiscuitHammer]

It really depends on the story, and, more importantly, your established readership. I'm a history, politics, and science wonk, and I go into a much detail as I figure I can get away with before I begin boring the reader. The trick is to keep it entertaining, so that it doesn't feel like they're learning. Basically, Lewis Carrol was onto something, sneaking advanced math into what were supposed to be children's books. Same praise for Madeleine L'engle.

I had someone message me to tell me they didn't realize I'd been teaching them to speak Klingon until they'd used it one day. They also know where to buy an amazing zoot suit if they're ever visiting Denver. I'm currently teaching my readers how to make a rail gun at home, not to mention oobleck. XD

Teach 'em all you want, use a much intricate detail as you can. Just don't bore them. Keep it fun and they'll let you write about advanced algebra and appreciate you for it.

 

[CyranoJ]

I had someone message me to tell me they didn't realize I'd been teaching them to speak Klingon until they'd used it one day.

*double takes in Trekkie*

I am interested in your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

 

[RichardWark]

First, no, there is never too much description; however, there is often too much badly written description. Does your story say "My son was wearing a Spiderman T-shirt" or does it say "My son tugged at his Spiderman T-shirt as he flew into the room?" Describe everything, if you want, just keep your descriptions moving and part of the action; that way your audience doesn't know you've consciously given them details.

Second, DON'T APOLOGIZE FOR YOUR DESCRIPTIONS! Not too long ago I saw (not here) a story where the author describes a couch in a hospital waiting room with a tear in the cushion. A nice, telling detail. But then the author actually took a step back and said something to the effect of "Isn't it strange the details you notice at a time like this." To my mind, this was an embarrassed apology for giving a detail to the reader. As long as the details are in the action keep them there. (NOTABLE EXCEPTIONS: If your name is J.D.Salinger and you're writing "Franny and Zooey," keep that description of the bathroom shelf there. If your name is John Updike and you're writing "Rabbit, Run" don't leave out any of those descriptions of the drive south, or sex with Ruth, or the drowning baby.)

The adverb/adjective complaint is null and void if good adjectives and adverbs are used. But that can be difficult.

Write every detail you can imagine. It is far easier to remove things from a draft than it is to add them.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

First, no, there is never too much description; however, there is often too much badly written description. Does your story say "My son was wearing a Spiderman T-shirt" or does it say "My son tugged at his Spiderman T-shirt as he flew into the room?" Describe everything, if you want, just keep your descriptions moving and part of the action; that way your audience doesn't know you've consciously given them details.

This, so much.
Mention a character waiting for a Metro in Paris, the strong rubber smell reminding him he's in an alien city, and also of that time he went to a fetish club where...

The rubber-tyred wheels made the trains quieter than the NY Subway, too, so the platform felt somehow peaceful, like a collective Gallic shrug, protected from the screeches of metal on metal. Joe relaxed as he awaited the Ligne 4 going in Diréction Porte de Clignacourt; only twenty minutes and he would be home. Which might be why he didn't notice...

Anythjng woven in is better than a paragraph of infodump - the worst being the classic 'Let me tell you about myself.' No, please don't!

 

[Rustyoznail]

I like a story with details, but in a way that is in context. A RAF WW2 story that goes into an extensive description about the new Spitfire Mk IX is fine, but a detailed description about a room the character enters, then immediately leaves is just pointless.

I try and carry that theory across to my work.

 

[Jada59]

For me, yes. I read one story that gave intricate details of every room in the house. I felt like I was living there. But the plot escaped me. Too many details, not enough plot.

 

[tomlitilia]

Do I bother to describe what the bathroom looks like if it's only used in the story for three paragraphs?

Describing details of a room can be useful to set a scene, especially if it's something the main character is observing and/or it describes something more than the objects themselves. The way a character looks at details can tell readers something about the character, and what's in the bathroom can say something about the person who lives there. But if it's just a passing section where the bathroom is just like any other bathroom, I would guess most readers have a sufficient understanding of what a bathroom looks like.

Do I bother mentioning that my son is wearing a Spiderman shirt when he isn't even mentioned again for the rest of the chapter?

If the spiderman aspect tells us something about the son that is important for the story, it could be useful. Or it could say something about the person who bought the shirt for him. But otherwise, no, it doesn't sound like useful details. Unlike the real world, stories need to make sense, and the details mentioned are assumed to hold some meaning. Unnecessary details can cause damage to the story beyond just unnecessary text. It can distract the reader from paying attention to the details that are meaningful.

With erotic literature, I'm sure it's safe to assume that most readers only care about one thing in particular, but to me it's important to know the setting as well. But how much is too much?

I think readers care about the sex (assuming that's the "one thing" you mean), but they also care about who's having sex, and the right details are crucial to establishing personalities.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I suspect that the intended audience is also something to be considered. Yes, virtually all Lit readers are here for some Sexy, but there's more too it.

If you are intending a story to be read by automobile enthusiasts (and they are certainly here; check out 'The Pantheon Hates a Pussy' thread in the General Board), then including extensive detail in a story about your car or truck, the type of tyres, the after-market carb and shifter, the 12 coats of paint and how you applied them, the type of paste wax you use to keep it pretty - all that stuff might pay off. For most readers, no matter how well-written, it would be too much, distracting at best and boring at worst.

 

[SimonDoom]

Thanks everyone for all the great advice! I haven't really written anything at all in the last 20 years. I aced my high school Creative Writing course but zoned out during college English and definitely don't recall the term "participial adjective" lol

This advice was all great and I appreciate it all

Take the plunge. Until I published my first Literotica story in December 2016, I had done no creative writing of any kind since high school, over three decades earlier. I had forgotten how much fun it was, and it continues to be fun and rewarding.

Handle your details the way you wish to and see how people react. You won't know until you publish your story.

 

[karaline]

Anyway, I digress... back to the topic question. I'm in the middle of writing my fourth story, and I'm fearing it might end up being too long because I get carried away with describing things that the reader probably doesn't care about. Do I bother to describe what the bathroom looks like if it's only used in the story for three paragraphs? Do I bother mentioning that my son is wearing a Spiderman shirt when he isn't even mentioned again for the rest of the chapter?

With erotic literature, I'm sure it's safe to assume that most readers only care about one thing in particular, but to me it's important to know the setting as well. But how much is too much?

I haven't read all the replies, so apologies if i'm repeating what someone else already said.

For me detail, and its inclusion goes hand in hand with that elusive thing called pacing, which i'm fairly certain i don't always get right.

There are times to include description: when your narrator has sees something for the first time, or they're trying to solve a problem which involves getting an accurate measure of their surroundings, when you are trying to slow things down, in order to let the reader know something significant is about to happen, or during slow and lazy sex.

there are times when detail is not at all appropriate: during a fight scene, when you're writing from the perspective of someone who isn't detail orientated, when sex is fast or angry, when someone is in a hurry to get somewhere, or distracted.

Some people's style of writing isn't descriptive and that's okay too, it depends on your voice, what ever works for you, i guess its a good idea to be consistent though.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

And just by the length of the advice given you can probably tell which author(s) is/are long winded.

Simple answers were given by a lot of authors, K.I.S.S Keep it simple stupid. In most cases less is more. The end.

 

[LAHomedog]

And just by the length of the advice given you can probably tell which author(s) is/are long winded.

Simple answers were given by a lot of authors, K.I.S.S Keep it simple stupid. In most cases less is more. The end.

Sometimes, yes, but tell that to the late, great Tom Wolfe, Robert Ludlum, or even Patricia Cornwell.

 

[Handley_Page]

Definitely. Overwriting is annoying. Such writing is tiring and boring. Leads to skipping and skimming. Steer clear of it! (Counter-check not only the amount of description but also adjectives in your manuscript.)

IMO, that's true, particularly where there's loads of 'technical detail' (4 paragraphs on the duties of 2nd base ?), but normally, it's useful !

That's you.

Congrats. I noticed the tires, the change in ride, but analyzing the engineering. I'd worked on a track gang in my way younger days, so had noticed the differences in track work while at the platform. I always notice rails (bolted, welded, continuous lengths), ties (wood, concrete) and fastenings, the plate, spikes or screws or springs, rail breakage jumpers... I try not to foist such unless I have good reason. That's how I see the world.

This highlights that how folks will experience the same thing will differ. A bored commuter who rides the line every day... or tourists who are focused on getting to Notre Dame, will not experience it the same way as each other as well as how you might. If my nose is buried in my guide book, all of what you describe barely exists.

And the light. There's also the case where a line crosses from under-ground to above-ground. Not unique to Paris, but you could do an entire revelatory scene triggered by making that crossing.

Or, you blink in the sudden sunshine and go back to being bored.

All reactions are valid. And when it comes to a story, we want to reflect what works for that story.

Agreed !

 

[ChloeTzang]

Fine details add to the authenticity of the story, but you need to work them in so that they add to what you're trying to say, rather than take attention away from the story. It's those little things that draw the reader in and immerse them in the story, allowing them to suspend disbelief and stay in the moment with whatever's happening.

I always use that Heinlein example of "the door dilated" as an example. Three words that we use all the time, but the way he used them conveys something.... different, but with minimal wording and no unnecessary explanation. Tom Clancy would have written a 100 pages on the guy that designed dilating doors, and the science behind it, but that would all be unnecessary to the story.

So yeah, love the detail, but use it to add to the story, not to lecture the reader.

 

[leespiked]

And just by the length of the advice given you can probably tell which author(s) is/are long winded.

Simple answers were given by a lot of authors, K.I.S.S Keep it simple stupid. In most cases less is more. The end.

I'll say, I had to comment. Perhaps the most erotic thing I've ever read here was a 3 or 4 line paragraph.
it painted such a frustratingly detail sparse description of a long weekend that I have been filling in blanks ever since.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I recall Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. talking about writing pulps where he learned every word had to propel the plot. So, if you're describing something in detail, why? Does it serve the story? Does it tell the reader something special about the character? If it doesn't add, get rid of it.

 

[SimonDoom]

I suspect that the intended audience is also something to be considered. Yes, virtually all Lit readers are here for some Sexy, but there's more too it.

If you are intending a story to be read by automobile enthusiasts (and they are certainly here; check out 'The Pantheon Hates a Pussy' thread in the General Board), then including extensive detail in a story about your car or truck, the type of tyres, the after-market carb and shifter, the 12 coats of paint and how you applied them, the type of paste wax you use to keep it pretty - all that stuff might pay off. For most readers, no matter how well-written, it would be too much, distracting at best and boring at worst.

I agree the audience is a factor.

Consider Tom Clancy. I imagine his reading audience skews heavily male. I imagine also that there is a big chunk of that audience that really digs all the details he puts in his stories -- that for them it's almost a form of "military hardware porn." Readers can be fetishy like that.

There is no universally correct amount of detail for all stories. But I DO believe that there is a principle that applies to all stories -- that every word should serve a purpose, and that the author should keep that purpose in mind while writing. It's the quality, not the quantity, of details that usually matters, but sometimes quantity of detail can serve a legitimate purpose, too.

 

[LAHomedog]

I agree the audience is a factor.

Consider Tom Clancy. I imagine his reading audience skews heavily male. I imagine also that there is a big chunk of that audience that really digs all the details he puts in his stories -- that for them it's almost a form of "military hardware porn." Readers can be fetishy like that.

Yep. I have a friend who is an author on here who is a fully transitioned transwoman. She puts a tremendous amount of details in clothes, designers, and accessories starting with the underpinnings to which designer's shoes. It's what her readers want. She knows her audience. Fashion porn, I guess. Actually a lot of fetishes in there.