Preferences in Imagery

[LunarSolstice]

One of my major flaws in writing is that I have a hard time with imagery, which is why I'm trying to perfect writing erotica. I mean, without imagery, you are going to write one short/crappy ass erotica story:

------------
So I met this chick at a bar and we went home and bashed uglies for a while until we both got kinda sleepy and took a nap...uh, the end?
------------

However, recently in non-erotic literature, Ive noticed a delineation from using imagery in many works, and I was wondering what readers at Lit preferred. Personally, over complification of characters and scenes with adjectives etc. cause me to compulsively shut the book and dispose of it with a backhand throwing motion. It has to do with the attention deficit.

But I was just wondering how other people felt about the subject...maybe even a Discussion article would be in order?

 

[ronde]

I'm not certain of your definition of imagery. My definition - the characteristics of writing that convey dimension and life to the characters, action, and setting.

Reading a piece of writing that contains little imagery is like looking at a photograph of a painting. The subject is still the same, but without the texture of the brush strokes, the picture is flat and uninteresting. With the brush strokes, the painting comes to life. Writing without imagery is a dull report of something that happened, and since the report is dull, the happening will also seem dull.

If, by imagery, you mean the overt description of a character or scene, I would agree that this technique should be used much less than is common. It has been said many times on this board that it is better to show than to tell. Imagery can be generated by inferrence, i.e. the way in which a character responds to a particular happening, or how others react to the character. I think physical descriptions are often best done with subtle hints that let the reader form his/her own image.

 

[LunarSolstice]

I think maybe you set out to dissuade my arguement, but I agree totally with what you say, and I think in my ineffectual way that was what I was trying to get at.

Ive just seen less and less of the over descriptive writing in favor for a less fancy wrapping, more content style. You say that without using imagery a work is left bland and journalistic, however, I can think of several authors whose styles are simply more bauhaus than anything. Hunter S. Thompson for one, he doesnt over analyze things, when he says he checks into a hotel, he assumes that your typical American rationalizes the interior of a hotel. Danielewski's House of Leaves was an entire work on the aspect of complete darkness and the human psyche, and though it afforded skant moments for imagery, was a great book...

 

[Guest]

Personally, I enjoy farely descriptive imagery. Of course, this might be my preference because I consider myself to be farely descriptive in most of my works.

I agree when you said that there does seem to be a decline in imagery within the many short stories here at Lit. I will automatically back click a story if it starts out with, "Linda Johnson, a hot 38 year old mother, looked at herself in the mirror to see her 32 DD breasts, thin waist, and long legs." Or, even, "John climbed on the bed and got ontop of Suzie, and began to fuck her like an animal."

For me, this just doesn't do it, and can often times (at least in my own opinion) foreshadow the tone of the rest of the tale.

Although I like descriptive writing, that doesn't mean that I enjoy John Steinbeck details on what the inside of someone's house looks like.

What I -do- like to see is the description of the way someone feels, the way someone reacts, the way someone sees another person-- much like Ronde said.

Of course, this is all just my opinon. Fortunately, Literotica writers produce a wide array of literature when it comes to detail vs. not so much detail, and there is something (hopefully) everyone can enjoy.

Sati

 

[Uther_Pendragon]

One of my major flaws in writing is that I have a hard time with imagery, which is why I'm trying to perfect writing erotica. I mean, without imagery, you are going to write one short/crappy ass erotica story:

------------
So I met this chick at a bar and we went home and bashed uglies for a while until we both got kinda sleepy and took a nap...uh, the end?
------------

However, recently in non-erotic literature, Ive noticed a delineation from using imagery in many works, and I was wondering what readers at Lit preferred. Personally, over complification of characters and scenes with adjectives etc. cause me to compulsively shut the book and dispose of it with a backhand throwing motion. It has to do with the attention deficit.

But I was just wondering how other people felt about the subject...maybe even a Discussion article would be in order?

:
I think you're assuming a choice which the English language
does not impose. Yes, you can get across a peersonality or
a realationship with direct description, loads of adverbs
and adjectives.
No, that is not the only way to do it. Try letting us see
your characters by the dialogue between them.

 

[lustforlife74]

example

I just walked in the door dirty grime covering my body from a day of work. She was wearing sweat-pants and nothing else. Her lips met mine, our tounges made cirlcles in each others mouth. She led me by the hand to the shower.

Writen in five minutes. Just write it like you see it. If you haven't read them yet read Bukowski and Henry Miller. No BS writers.

 

[WinterSolstice]

Balancing imagery and "action"

I have to agree with Sati - for me, the aspect of writing that makes a story come alive is when an author is successfully able to make me understand or relate to the characters. If this happens then it isn't necessarily terribly important whether I know what color the curtains were...or even worse, the exact size of his/her anatomy.

I find it much more interesting to experience the excitement of a scene through the character than by having the author try to convey enough information to make me experience it first hand.

However, some balance is still needed. Unlike what you mention, I find it very difficult to write "action." I fight constantly to try to keep "image" and "plot/action" in balance. When I re-read my drafts I usually find myself saying 'so what?' or 'neat character - but not even remotely arousing.' Yeah, its neat to know that she swooned in passion...but sometimes its more satisfying to know that there was some "bumpin' -n- a shakin' goin' on."

I personally find it difficult to address any sex play without being uselessly superficial or getting horribly bogged down in dispassionate details. I guess thats why I am a beginner, eh?

If you get the chance to offer any criticism of any of my stories feel free, I will be appreciative.

Thanks for posting. This is a good topic of discussion that I think many people struggle with.

- WinterSolstice

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think what you're talking about is overt decription, not imagery. 'Imagery' is a pretty nebulous term than can describe anything from a figure of speech to the setting of a story. I guess you could say that newswriting--the field Thompson came from--contains no imagery, while poetry is almost entirely imagery.

The use and technique of imagery in writing is a fundamental problem, kind of analgous to the use of color in painting. All writers wrestle with the problem and find their own solutions, and maybe fool with it over the course of their career.

Overt description--telling exactly what someone looked like, how a room was furnished, someone's clothes--is a different matter. I know what you're talking about though. A lot of beginners feel that they have to describe things--especially characters--exactly as they picture them, which makes their stuff seem amateurish. Knowing what to describe and how much description to use takes a long time to learnm but in the best authors it's almost always done with a certain amount of subtely during the course of a story. They don't just stop and describe something to you.

A lot of contemporary authors get away with very little description because their stories are set in the world most of us know. When Thompson mentions the lobby of a Holiday Inn, we know what it looks like; description would be superfluous. However if his story were taking place in some Inn on the old silk road, he might want to tell us something about what it looked like.

---dr.M.

 

[Alex756]

A lot of contemporary authors get away with very little description because their stories are set in the world most of us know. When Thompson mentions the lobby of a Holiday Inn, we know what it looks like; description would be superfluous. However if his story were taking place in some Inn on the old silk road, he might want to tell us something about what it looked like.

---dr.M.

This is something that kinda bugs me. I mean, What if HOliday in went out of business tonight and say someone was reading that story in 10 years. The grabby wooden furnature with the not quite matching the green and burgandy carpet and the over polished desk would NOT be the things that come to a person's mind. I'm not advocating some obsessive character describing the patern of the worn carpet and the lenght of the fake velvet curtains. Perhaps a bit of description is a good thing though, I mean things change

I think a balance is really hard though. I mean wyhat is needed to know what a place is like even if you hadn't been to such a place, without over doing it?

And even if most people know what a holiday in is like (Its a great example so I'm using it Dr. M) There are people that don't, I mean A> places that don't have holiday inns and B> people that have still never been to one. I mean add that into the possibility of things changing and I think its a reasonable arguement for adding more description, but I think the art lies in how to add it and how to add the critical pieces without adding too much.


Sorry for rambling but I'm writing this way too early and should have learned not to repsond to threads before 6:30 AM

~alex756

 

[bipolarbitch]

So I met this chick at a bar and we went home and bashed uglies for a while until we both got kinda sleepy and took a nap...uh, the end?

That is descriptive, in a way. I get a good picture of the speaker from it, even though I don't exactly get a good picture of the people bashing uglies. I get an image of a Mo the Bartender (from the Simpsons) character describing a hot date.

So you shouldn't necessarily reject that. That sentence has a certain voice to it, and voice is worth more than all the adjectives in the world.

ennui