Must I

[Moon Dragon]

include names and descriptive qualities in my stories? Sometime I would prefer to let the reader choose these things. I don't think it is wrong to want them to use their imagination like this because I can hope that they might be able to place themselves as one of the characters in this way.

Whatcha think?

 

[impressive]

include names and descriptive qualities in my stories? Sometime I would prefer to let the reader choose these things. I don't think it is wrong to want them to use their imagination like this because I can hope that they might be able to place themselves as one of the characters in this way.

Whatcha think?

Nope. Do your own thing. I sometimes leave it ALL out.

In fact, two of my most highly rated stories ("Allure" and "Decisions") are completely void of names or physical descriptors.

Haven't seen you here before. Welcome to the AH.

 

[rgraham666]

It's possible you can do that. I believe you would have to be a very, very good writer though to pull it off consistently.

Without a name it will be difficult for readers to differentiate between characters unless you very clearly delineate them through description and dialogue.

If you can do so, go ahead.

 

[Moon Dragon]

Thank you both for your responses and the welcome.

My first Lit story was accepted not too many days ago and one person seemed to feel no connection to the characters because I chose this route. I felt it was the right thing to do and that it fit the feel of the story, but I am always willing to accept constructive criticism. It has been bugging me a little so I thought I'd ask my peers for input.

Anyway, I'm off to bed. Hopefully I'll have more replies waiting for me when I get up. Thanks again.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Saying that you don't use names and that you invite the readers to identify makes me wonder whether you're writing in the dreaded second-person voice (I/you) as opposed to first person (I/she) or third (He/she).

A lot of new writers write in second-person, believing it makes the story more intimate and pulls the reader in, as if you're talking to and making love to them personally. Actually, it seems to have the opposite effect, and readers balk at being told what they're doing and what their reactions are.

I haven't seen your story (you didn't give a link!) so I don't know for sure, but second person stories generally don't generate as many reads or as much feedback as writing in first- or third-person. Readers by and large just don't seem to like them.

--dr.M.

 

[elsol]

If you're writing in the first person, you can bury the description and name so only someone that needs it uses it.

In the first person, someone rarely thinks of themselves by name... so it's easiest to not use it until someone else is in a conversation.

I do think a name is important though... in the first person, it creates a necessary distance between reader and narrator.

As for description, it depends on length of story. For the most part, a reader will displace YOUR description with their own after a while.

I always model my main character after myself in my longer stories; the girlfriend though always has WILDLY different view of the main character even though she KNOWS who it's modeled after.

When I called her on it once, her reply was "Shut up! This is my fantasy, not yours! He looks how I want him to."

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I think descriptions are essential, names only slightly less so. To me, "leaving it to the reader's imagination" is another way to describe a lazy author. The degree to which you describe someone can varry, but to leave it devoid of description makes the reader do the writing. Some people CAN do it and pull it of, witness Imp, but for most authors I think it would leave a reader feeling like they are having to do too much work.

One of the pros of written erotica is that the reader can use their imagination. That only goes so far, however. They generally wish to have somone lead them through a scenario. If they have to do all the imagining, would't they be better off just masturbating to their own fantasy?

 

[impressive]

Some people CAN do it and pull it of, witness Imp ...

Thanks, dear. However, it must be noted that both pieces are in the Letters & Transcripts category which -- I believe -- is conducive to that style.

Saying that you don't use names and that you invite the readers to identify makes me wonder whether you're writing in the dreaded second-person voice (I/you) as opposed to first person (I/she) or third (He/she).

In both examples I gave, this is true. (It's almost mandatory in the L&T category.) However, even in my other work, I rarely use more than names as descriptors. Occasionally, a hair or eye color. Perhaps a vague reference to age. I steer so far away from the "laundry list" of physical descriptors that even gender is sometimes in question. It's a style that has served me well, and I've never had feedback asking for more detail.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

In both examples I gave, this is true. (It's almost mandatory in the L&T category.) However, even in my other work, I rarely use more than names as descriptors. Occasionally, a hair or eye color. Perhaps a vague reference to age. I steer so far away from the "laundry list" of physical descriptors that even gender is sometimes in question. It's a style that has served me well, and I've never had feedback asking for more detail.

I've never read a story where a physical description of a character made them more real or alive. Characters describe themselves in what they do and say and the way they do and say it, just like real people.

Contrary to popular belief, the fact that he's 6'2", 190 lb with piercing blue eyes won't make him a stud if he talks and acts like a stiff and has the personality of a piece of lox. On the other hand, give him some charm and sexuality and he'll be sexy whether we know what he looks like or not.

 

[silverwhisper]

i think some sort of description is useful, b/c at some point, the action or dialogue is going to hinge on details, personally. and i definitely think that names are necessary in some regard. heck, even harper lee in to kill a mockingbid could only pull that off for a few chapters. i think protagonists need names for the most part: supporting characters may not, depending on the kind of story you're writing.

all of that assumes you're using a third person perspective. if you aren't, then you can be more creative w/ your narrative voice. if you're telling a first person tale of a loving couple, then you obviously don't really need names for the point to come across. but then, i think your dialogue might suffer if you assiduously avoid description of all type.

of course, i'm speaking in generalities here: it's entirely possible that the one reviewer is atypical. to be honest, it's hard to say w/out seeing the piece myself.

ed

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

Here is a link to A Virgin Again Moon Dragon's story.



ADDED


I certainly didn't miss the use of character names. (To be precise, the charater names were I or me and she or her.)

The only false step (and I have an AH Prejudice about this) was the use of the "D" of her breast.

 

[Boota]

In the Man In The Woods I intentionally left the characters nameless, but it was easy. There are only two characters, a man and a woman. As far as physical description, I went very light on it. But I had to have some. The story just wouldn't have felt right to me without some physical description. The main thing I wanted to avoid was describing perfect bodies to the nth degree and specifying how big his cock and her tits were. To that end I wanted to leave it to the reader. Any less I wouldn't have felt like I was doing my job.

 

[silverwhisper]

given the length of the piece, then in my considered opinion, i'd have to say that the reviewer is a twit. :>

ed

 

[matriarch]

given the length of the piece, then in my considered opinion, i'd have to say that the reviewer is a twit. :>

ed

I couldn't agree more.
A very enjoyable tale for a first effort.

Mat

 

[BlackShanglan]

Names are generally useful just so that readers can keep track of who is who, and because they tend to come up in conversation - but if it flows naturally without them, I wouldn't make a major point of revising to add them in.

On descriptions, I'm in the "doesn't really matter" camp, with a few reservations. There are times when the story's focus needs the reader to see the character - for example, in a "non-human" story when the object of interest is an unusual alien race, or when the character's appearance is somehow intrinsic to the plot (I'm thinking of one of mine that involves a character who is physically disabled; it substantially affects his life and his self-image). But I think that for many stories the character's appearance isn't that vital; we have an idea that there's something attractive about the character, and if it's physical, we'll hear something about it. No need to give a head-to-toe run-down. In fact, I find it distracting when each character is introduced with a "vital stats" sheet - "Lisa was a bubbly redhead, 5' 5" and about 130 pounds, with long curling hair and an amazing 38-D chest" - because it feels like the writer is in a hurry to get the description done with and out of the way. It doesn't feel rooted in the story itself; it's more like it's tacked on.

Good description is rooted in point of view, voice, and perspective; it tells us not only what the character looks like, but who is looking at him/her and what that person notices. While recognizing that some of my audience may be more visually focused than I am and might want to know more about what the characters look like, I think it's important to allow voice and context to limit what is said. Using examples from my own stories, I'd say that when a man is wistfully watching the subject of his sexual fantasies walking across a lobby, then yes, the full physical description is appropriate. It's in third person but voiced from his point of view, and he's really looking at and thinking about those things. However, in another story where a sentient horse is sizing up her new owner, she's not really thinking about what he looks like from a sexual point of view. All we see of his physical appearance is that he's medium height and has brown hair; the speaker is more focused on the fact that he's touching her feet and she's not sure that she trusts him. For a third example, the character who's writing a series of letters home to his wife never gets physically described at all. He's the one doing the writing; why would he stop in the middle of letter to describe what he looks like to someone who already knows? He wouldn't, and so he doesn't. I think that that sort of concern has to govern description; it has to fit with the context of the story and with the perceptions of the characters. Otherwise it not only feels gratuitous, but also begins to distort the perspective of the story; it pulls the point of view out of focus and warps character voice.

And I'm with Dr. M on the dreaded 2nd-person story - although Impressive did a rather hot little number recently just to show that it *can* be done well.

Shanglan

 

[gauchecritic]

There is a reason that there is no need for names and so little physical description in your story MD, it's because it's a sex scene rather than a story as such.

A great many casual readers actually look for exactly that at Lit. and those of us who sweat buckets over characterisation, plot and the whole shebang do so with little reward from those readers.

I enjoyed your story (maybe vignette would describe it better) and got into the characters quite well. There was tension, there were happenings but there was no conclusion, no denoument. I still thoroughly enjoyed it and hope you enjoyed writing it. That's what counts.

 

[Moon Dragon]

I do find 2nd person writing difficult. I avoid it unless I am writing a "love letter" to someone I know.

I certainly didn't miss the use of character names. (To be precise, the charater names were I or me and she or her.)

The only false step (and I have an AH Prejudice about this) was the use of the "D" of her breast.

This is true. In a way the pronouns were their names.

I had questioned myself about putting in the breast size. I debated removing it and actually wish I had.

There is a reason that there is no need for names and so little physical description in your story MD, it's because it's a sex scene rather than a story as such.

Yes, this is part of why I chose to tell the story in this way.

Thank you all so much for your replies. You have given me some things to chew on and helped me believe that my choice of style was correct for the story.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

No. This one didn't need names. In fact, I think it's better without names. It makes it more delicate and dreamlike.

 

[Rubyb]

Moon Dragon,

It's a nice little tale. No names were ever needed.

Now about those descriptions. Instead of bra sizes which don't translate well, or exact sizes, it's easier to say things like

...her breasts were large and beautiful...

...her large breasts were beautiful...

You get the idea.

As a side comment - watch for the overuse of semicolons and exclamation points.
It's okay to have a string of short sentences to keep the tension up and use long flowing sentences when you want to slow it down a bit.

Looking foward to seeing more of your writing,

Ruby

 

[Sabledrake]

With one of my entries for last fall's Halloween contest, "Spectral," I experimented with second-person and descriptive vagueness ... characters so nebulously described that it isn't even clear who's male or who's female.

It was an interesting challenge, and got some good feedback, but overall it is among my lowest-rated tales. I think such a thing can be taken too far, especially on a site like this, where many readers are looking for something a little more visual and tactile.

But every story has to be written the way it demands to be, in whatever way feels right to the author.

-- Sabledrake

 

[artphootmike]

No names needed

I liked your story. I call this kind of story a Vignette, or a slice of a story that can stand on its own or could be expanded into a larger piece. I definately think your story doesn't hurt for lack of names or descriptions; it allows people to plug themselves into the story.

I just posted a similar style piece (my first too) "Public Photoshoot", though I am working on a sequel and plan on expanding it into a much longer story.

Mike

 

[wishfulthinking]

include names and descriptive qualities in my stories? Sometime I would prefer to let the reader choose these things. I don't think it is wrong to want them to use their imagination like this because I can hope that they might be able to place themselves as one of the characters in this way.

Whatcha think?

Do you mean excluding names & descripttions in this particular story, or something you plan to do in all your stories?

I kind of get the feeling that you've read a few stories on here and got put off by the 'I'm a 36-24-36 blond blue eyed 5"6 bubbly cheerleader with 46DDDDDD breasts' description in the first para

As a reader, images scattered around a story give me the freedom to imagine what I want, but also guarantees that the author is still in the driver seat leading me where they want to go. Eg. he tugged on her long pony tail or her breasts spilled over his warm hands. The ability of a writer to give a description while not giving a description is something I aspire to!

As a reader, I do like knowing names generally, but not if it isn't strictly necessary and there is no confusion created, or if the names are Billy Bo and Mary Jo etc

Otherwise, next you will be expecting the reader to write the story themselves as well

Welcome to the AH