What's your philosophy on details?

[HeyAll]

I've seen this discussion here a few times.

Character Description

Generally speaking, there seems to be two schools of thought: One is that the more details there are, the better. The other is that certain details should be left up to the readers imagination, such as what the female character looks like.

Then of course, there's everything in between.

I've certainly evolved on this since I started writing years ago. Before, I tried to paint a picture of what the female character looks like, in terms of height, exact age, bra size, ect...

Now I use more of a minimalist approach. I leave numbers and exact details out. Instead I try to use buzzwords so that the reader can fill in the blanks. ie "she wore a nice suit to work." or "her body was tall and thin." or "she was voluptuous."

Basically I try to give brief generalized descriptions of the female character and the reader can use their imagination to visualize it how they want. Then I try to reflect the character's personality through the dialogue.

***

Story, Feelings & Sex

When it comes to providing a narrative for storyline, feelings of the characters, and sex, I try to be more expansive. For instance, if someone is shocked, I'll try my best to describe a shocked reaction on someone's face. If the story is 1st person, I try my best to tell the reader what the character is thinking during everything that goes on.

But at the same time, I try to avoid long drawn-out narratives because I think I'm better with dialogue.

My weakness is describing the details during sex. I'm not as good as other people are regarding sex.

Your thoughts? Have you evolved on this?

 

[Flidarjosh]

I find it horrible to write how the characters look during a conversation (and I write f*ckloads of dialogue), cause most expression don't even have a word. When you try to describe it, it looks and feels clunky instead.

I have similar problems regarding sex scenes and sometimes I need several days (!) for a single one, writing and rewriting constantly. I haven't written much and only submitted a single story so far, though.

When it comes to describing character, I try to find a middle ground, dscribing things as the narrator sees them or feels the need to explain, like hair color, eye color, noticeables and the like.

I still have a long way to go, I think. And as a reader, I fondly remember the Cuddle Slut story by Xarth, that had next to none descriptions of the characters (I think), but I still had a very precise image of them in my head. A strong character alone can sometimes substitute for descriptions just fine.

 

[Sammael Bard]

I like slightly vague.

Exact Character description (34B, 5'6") feels cheap. Kinks of the author might not be shared by everyone.

Leaving a small gap in character description is what works best for me as a reader. Leaving something to the reader's imagination is a good idea.

I like the sexual imagery in the writings of wishtfulthinking. They are absolutely hot, in my opinion.

 

[sr71plt]

I try to include enough to propel the plot or give the character the necessary substance for the storline and throw out the rest.

 

[SecondCircle]

I approach description as I do most things. With moderation in using both ends of the spectrum. Somewhere in the middle.

You're right, there are arguments for both ways. Stories can get over burdened and suffocated in description. Sometimes one can describe so much in detail, that it makes the pacing drag, leaves nothing for imagination, robs a bit of mystery from things, gets too robotic and monotonous, etc, etc. So, many will lean the opposite way and say, "No, don't give details, don't describe so much, imply things, leave appearances to the imagination...."

On the other hand, you have stories where it feels what I call "skeletal". You just get a glance or a whisper, and no more. Stories can suffer from too little description, overly vague detail. To the point where you cannot even immerse yourself in the story. Mood, setting, theme, atmospherics, and mouthwatering vivid imagery are all lost if this extreme is taken.

So I fall right in between.

Characters? No, I don't wanna read a head to toe police report on how a man or woman looks. It feels robotic and uncreative. But I also personally do not like, "she was a tall redhead with long legs and a short skirt." Yes that leaves plenty to my imagination... but too much I think. Sometimes I don't want such a blank canvas like that. If you're really telling me a story about a character, an individual, then make her look like one too. It doesn't have to be head to toe detail, but I don't want crows on a powerline that could very well look the same. The one I'm gonna look at personally? The crow with the gash in it's beak, the one with a whole patch of feathers missing.

One way I enjoy describing characters is to embed those descriptions within other parts of the story, piece by piece. "She brushed a lock of red hair from her eyes...." or "his eye lingered on her jiggling ass as they climbed the steps...."
You can "suggest" the way a character looks without coming out and stating "she was a redhead and had a big ass". This way, it feels like the reader is inside the story, looking around and touching and feeling things. They learn for themselves, "ooh, she's got herself a big booty" and they get that enticing image of how it looks when she goes up the steps. It's the difference of being told something and listening, to actually having the illusion of experiencing something.

And sex scenes and feelings and all that? Here I like a little back and forth of this and that. I don't like when sex focuses 100% on the physical actions taking place. His hand went here, her legs did this, his finger there, she screamed, he grunted, he thrust, she wiggled. Don't get me wrong, all that is fine, but I don't like when its all run together like that and for the next ten paragraphs straight. Someone made the joke a while back that it starts to sound like sports commentators giving you a play by play. "He reaches around and places his hand on her ample breasts, she leans back and moans, John, she looks like she's liking that nipple squeeze. Oh, now he's thrusting vigorously, any more of this and he will be ready to drop his load in her anal cavity, John."

Give me some action yes. I do want to visualize. But we don't just fuck because it looks pretty cool. Give me emotion too. I wanna feel it when he slides in. I wanna see her nervousness in the tremble of her lip. I want to be in her head when her logic is screaming "what the hell! Oh my god! What the fuck am I doing, he's my boss, what the fuck am I doing?" I wanna feel the sting of a slap on her ass, the rubber knees he gets when he's so close. I certainly do not enjoy, "they got all hot and bothered, he pulled out his dick and they fucked right there in the living room." Not enough. Woop-de-doo. They fucked. I don't wanna hear bout it, I wanna be hiding under the bed like a creep. (Shit I typed that out loud.)

This bleeds from my horror a lot, because there's a line you gotta tread with fear. I don't care how vividly you describe your spooky scary monster to me, description alone is not going to convince me I'm scared. To the other end of our spectrum, if you don't describe the trembling, the shallow gasping breaths, the tricks that the shadows are playing on his mind, the sound of a hushed snicker from somewhere in the darkness, then you aren't going to immerse me in fear. You can't just say "it was dark and scary" and convince me that it was. I wanna experience it.

But we gotta remember both ways can work. Especially if you're pulling off some unique effect. One extreme may fly smoothly in a particular story, and another may do great in another. The only mistake that can be made in my opinion, is to assume that there is only ever one way a story can be done.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Character Descriptions...

Female: As little as I think I can get away with. Basics, Auburn hair, clear brown eyes with little flecks of gold, pretty face, killer figure. Then let the reader fill in the rest or picture his fantasy brunette/redhead.

Male: Even less than females. Crystal Blue eyes, blond hair, chiseled features.

Scenery Description...

Background/Environment: Where they are, what it looks like, time of season...sure describe it. The scenery flowed past the window, flat, dark and desolate with no vegetation for a far as the eye could see. The beige sand kicked up by the passing of the vehicles tires left little dust devils twirling in the wind.

 

[Serafina1210]

A lot depends on the kind of story you're writing. The medieval fabliaux (sexy-funny tales) were ruthless in their use of detail: they included nothing that wasn't going to play a role in the story. That sounds right for a stroker.

In a romance, on the other hand, you want some atmospherics. Imagine your lovers are in a living room. In the stroker all you care about is the sofa where the lovers snog and the shag rug where they end up fucking. In the romance you don't want an inventory of furniture, but maybe the sort of impression the room makes. A few details will convey it. There's a big fireplace in which a cheery fire is crackling; there's a ticking clock on the mantlepiece . . .

In some stories, you want characters who appear to have depth. In others, types will do just fine. I was just looking at how I described some characters I like. Here's a whore facing a roomful of men. She's just made them all strip, and she's starting to stir them up to make them gangbang her:

Their cocks were getting hard already. I’ve noticed that men like to look at me. I’m five foot two and slender, with long blond hair. I have a thin face with small features, except my eyes. I’m fair-skinned and I’ve never had any problems with acne or eczema. Just now I didn’t even have any bruises. When you’re a whore it saves a lot of time and effort if men just look at you and get hard. It’s a thing I like about myself.

There's really not a whole lot there. I liked the idea of being small and slender and yet tough enough to stand up to the kind of action that's about to take place. But what I was really after was her practical take on her own beauty: it's good for business.

You can characterize people by making them describe each other. Here's one naked BDSM slave describing another (3rd person with Pipit's POV):

Famula wasn’t better looking than Pipit—not by a long shot. She had this ridiculous dyed hair with a purple streak, idiotic emo makeup, and this gaudy rose tattoo over half her body. Her features weren’t special either—cutesy-poo nose, body a shade too thick if you knew how to look, puffy nipples and labia that stuck out unevenly.

The description isn't meant as an accurate guide to how Famula looks. It's not to be trusted: its bias is obvious. Its purpose is more to characterize Pipit than to describe Famula.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

I can't say that I have a philosophy on character description details. And I wouldn't say that I follow a set pattern, either. I avoid numbers as much as possible, but if one character is sizing up another, then weight or especially height might be mentioned. I will almost always specify hair color, hair length, and body type. A large portion of my stories feature women who do not conform to conventional standards of beauty. In those cases I go into more detail than where the women are more likely to end up on a magazine cover.

I don't spend much time at all describing the men. I have received complaints about that.

 

[StrangeLife]

I can't say that I have a philosophy on character description details. And I wouldn't say that I follow a set pattern, either. I avoid numbers as much as possible...

I must concur wholeheartedly. Numbers are poison to the immersiveness of a story. Nobody thinks or talks that way outside a clothes store.

A man will think "Wow! Ginormous hooters!"

... not...

"Wow! 44DDDs!"

 

[callmeismael]

It entirely depends on how the character is being used. Here are my general approaches:

Main character: describe only the parts of the main character that either the main character is conscious of, or that other characters react to. If my MFC is looking in the mirror, she would not see a pretty blond milfy sort of woman with blue eyes; instead, she might focus on the slightest appearance of wrinkles around the corner of her mouth. Men noticing her and following her with their eyes paints a better picture of her being beautiful than me simply describing her as beautiful to the reader. Pulling on her jeans and knowing that they've become a size too small and wearing them anyway, creates a better image than telling the reader that she's put on a little weight.

Secondary, familiar characters: These are people who probably make multiple appearances in the story or has prolonged scenes, but whom the character already knows at outset of the story. It's not as though your MC sees these people and immediately notices everything about them; she's going to notice changes in them, or elements that are in some way important to the relationship between the characters. Jackie was wearing a low-cut top again. Of course she could get away with it, but upon seeing her my first reaction was to cross my arms infront of myself. Such a description has done a bunch of things: Jackie has bewbs. She likes to show them off. The MC is not so well equipped, is self-conscious about it. The description of a secondary character's outfit then becomes a reference to the main character's weaknesses.

Secondary, unfamiliar characters: These are important characters that the main character is meeting for the first time. Here, you can put in more detail upfront if it makes sense for your main character to spend some time observing them. If she's noticing a guy on the bus, then it makes sense she might take account of the style of hair, what he's wearing. Perhaps she's asking herself questions about him as she observes. If, on the other hand, she literally bumps into the guy on the street, she's going to be too flustered for many observations. Perhaps only in recounting it later does she recall specific features. But recalling the way that he looked at her, the way that this look makes her feel counts for more than trying to describe the features of his face. And as with SFMs, contrast with other people in the story is an excellent way to handle observations. And if it's a recurring character, you've got the whole story to paint that total picture of them, and it makes sense for the nature of the observations to change based on the developing relationship. (For example, keeping the observations of a love interest very idealistic early on, and then after the first sex scene, starting to notice the flaws -- both physical and internal -- in the character).

Colourful tertiary characters: characters that sort of fill in the world. These can be quite richly drawn, but don't necessarily focus on physical features. Sometimes a person's voice or the way that they move is the more interesting than simply what they look like. These people are, in some ways, part of setting. What makes a seedy dive bar different from a hipster dive bar? They're going to be much the same place if you focus on describing the physical surroundings. But describing the characters inhabiting your bar will clearly show exactly what type of dive bar it is. Again, it depends on familiarity. If your MC spends the whole story in familiar settings, skip these guys entirely. If you need to put your MC in unfamiliar settings, then you might find CTCs useful.

Utilitarian tertiary characters: characters who exist only to move the plot in some way. Get 'em in and out fast. One or two details are all you need, and even then only if you can bring them up naturally. Don't feel that just because they're in the story they need to be filled in.


The way in which your viewpoint character sees other characters says a lot about the character. Phillip Marlowe's clever, wry metaphors show him to be the sort of smart guy you want to be sitting next to in a bar, swapping stories. In American Psycho Patrick Bateman's fixation on everyone's wardrobe shows him as a sociopath who can't even slightly empathize with others.

 

[sr71plt]

Nobody thinks or talks that way outside a clothes store.
[/I]

You've never walked by a construction site behind a stacked woman, have you?

 

[sethp]

I'm finding that when I put less details, the story flows better and the story is better. I used to define every feature of each character..."He was a rough man, red haired, blue eyed, about six feet 2 inches tall with handle bar mustaches and glasses.' Now its "He was a tall, rough man," The readers fill in the details themselves and the story is better that way!

Instead of every detail of my female protagonists, now I just tell them how big their breasts are! LOL I usually don't even mention hair or eye color...the less details the better in most cases.

 

[JagFarlane]

In the end I think I let the story dictate how detailed I get into it. Generally I prefer more details to help flush out the story and give it a little depth. Writing sex scenes I generally get more detailed, partly to help lengthen the scenes a little as many readers here are after all, looking for sex scenes.

Numbers wise, generally I avoid them more due to the diverse nature of the Lit audience. Don't want them to have to figure out conversions of US bra sizes to UK for example. Kinda kills the mood...

 

[RoyceConnors]

I detail characters as features become a part of the story. I start with a general description and add to it as the story moves along and that part is highlighted and needs detailing. Anything can be detailed, including the proverbial "list" as long as it is added correctly.

'I hated looking at my body and how it had become. Years of neglect and child-bearing had taken their toll on me. My firm breasts weren't so firm and my cup size had gone from a sexy C, to a sloppy D and getting worse. My pretty blue eyes were now surrounded by the ravages of time and age and by forty seven, I looked like fifty seven and aging faster than I was."

In that instance, a detailed description is part of the story as she looks at herself and comes to a decision on what to do. It allows you to detail a great amount of information about your character, without it becoming a "list"

That technique might work for you in detailing characters better.

 

[squirrelzo]

Character descriptions...for women I spend the most time on their hair. I pour it on. Long and lustrous; professional and short; tendrils, color. Hair reveals character.

For men I tend to focus on clothes and be quite specific.

For both I follow the suggestively vague rule for height, weight, boob size etc. but eye color is vivid. Why not toss it in?

Sex scenes: I hear all the time from readers-well male readers-that they prefer women writers because they are more detailed. Not saying its true or not, but that's what I constantly hear. And they want details!! Every tiny nuanced unique detail of thought, feeling, body. They always want more. Its never enough.

 

[Equinoxe]

Firstly: Oh so "male gaze"…

That out of the way, allow me to answer the question.

I've always found the primary arguments against detailed description to be a bit silly, to be honest,—it's not an author's job to write a story that everyone can fit their fantasies into—but that is not to say that details are always necessary or worthwhile. In any case, one has to make a very important distinction between good description and bad description.

"Numbers" are inherently bad descriptors. 5'3", 34DD may well be exact, but it is not description—and most certainly not good description. They tell the reader everything without telling the reader anything at all. It would seem to be the case that some audience members want to see numbers nonetheless; if one is absolutely insistent upon indulging them, the way to do so is not through description but through dialogue, or some other way internally, so that it is something which is important to the characters and not just magically known or something the narration informs the audience of as though it explains something to them.

If physical details are important enough to warrant mentioning they are important enough to treat as though they are important. Good writing does not dump a bunch of details on the reader at the beginning of a story and expect this to mean something; good writing introduces details in a manner that draws the reader in and lets the reader feel their significance as the story progresses.

So should it be with character description.

People interact with others differently based upon their appearance; people think of themselves differently based upon their own appearance. Indeed, a person's physical appearance has a profound impact upon their behaviour and the behaviour of others towards them. And this should inform any physical description of a character in a story.

This is perhaps most obviously true for things like general body type—skinny people and larger people are used to being treated radically differently and have radically different expectations regarding certain aspects of sexual and romantic relationships as a result. Breast size, similarly, obviously alters the way people interact with each other in a sexual manner—not only the preferences of men and women for women, but small-breasted women and large-breasted women have different experiences, and as a result different expectations, and often even flirt very differently—and bust-size and preferences therefor have some effect on physical acts of intimacy. Much the same thing could be said for male characters and the size of their genitalia. But it is true of things that people might not always think of. Hair colour, for example, affects people's lives far more than people tend to realise. When you have red hair, you will have grown up with people paying an inordinate amount of attention to the colour of your hair. If you have blonde hair, you will have spent your whole life dealing with the cultural aspects of blonde hair—blonde stereotypes, blonde jokes, "blondes have more fun", etc. Of course, that only applies to natural hair colours; but dyeing your hair entails making a conscious choice about your appearance and its significance. Similarly, people will have certain impressions, interests, and preferences regarding others based upon their hair colour.

A number of significant questions arise from a character's appearance and many are answered by a skillful description of it:
Do they like their appearance? Do they put a lot of effort into how they dress? Are they insecure about it or are they comfortable and confident about it? Do they like to show off or are they shy? Do they like parts of their body? Which and why? How does their appearance affect the way other people treat them? How does it affect the way they treat others? Do people talk about their appearance often? What kind of people? What kind of person is usually attracted to them? Is the other major character/are the other major characters that type or different? How does that affect their relationship (whatever sort of relationship it is)?

These are all important implications of a character's physical description—and should be dealt with when their description is important enough to the story to merit being detailed. Even if a writer decides not to make detailed descriptions of characters, they should nevertheless be aware of the ramifications of a character's appearance upon their life.

The physical fundamentally affects the emotional; details of the physical should serve the emotional—both with regard to the characters in the story and the readers of it. And I think this same principle can be applied to details and description of every other element of a story.


So I think that covered about half of it. That's what happens when you go with the short version.

 

[FantasyXY]

For character descriptions I like to be on the minimalist side. I give just enough information so that the reader can compare the character to someone they know or a TV personality. For example: I wrote a story where the female character was introduced as a 40 something brunette that looked ever bit a suburban mom. I think everyone knows a person like that. One more thing I do with characters is I tell little bits and pieces about the character as the story progresses. I am careful not to take this overboard either.

As for the sex scenes, I like to write what the participants feel, taste, their emotions, what they smell, and see; in that order of importance. Just describing the action doesn't do it for me anymore. Personally I find this type of writing to be quite a challenge. I am currently working on a story that has a character telling about a past sexual experience while engaging is a present sexual experience. I have the framework and about 80% of the story done, but can't seem to get the last bits tied together so that it will make sense to the readers.

 

[sr71plt]

"Numbers" are inherently bad descriptors. 5'3", 34DD may well be exact, but it is not description—and most certainly not good description.

Yet again I'll note that blanket statements like this about "everyone's" perceptions of numbers just don't wash. There is a type of man (at least) who perceives in terms of numbers and who will, in fact, still think and talk in terms of measurements (even if they don't really know what the real measurements are). The very fact that the universal "we don't do that" commenters haven't managed to stamp the use of measurements out in the story file here is evidence of that.

I don't have that mind-set, so I rarely use measurements, but if I have a construction worker character sitting on a wall with other construction workers and ogling women parading by the construction site, I very well may have him discuss the women in terms of measurements--because despite all of the attempts of writers on this Web site to say no one does that, there are character types who most certainly do use and respond to measurements--and there are readers coming here in that mind-set.

(I might add that there are a great number of gay men who are fixated on a specific measurement too--and no one telling them that "no one does that" is going to make them stop either doing it or using a measurement as an arousal factor in reading a GM story.)

 

[jomar]

I'm in the less is more, broad strokes camp. But it depends on what your shooting for...didn't American Psycho go over the top on consumerism details...

And Lee Child always notes Reacher is 6' 5" and hard as steel.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Yet again I'll note that blanket statements like this about "everyone's" perceptions of numbers just don't wash. There is a type of man (at least) who perceives in terms of numbers and who will, in fact, still think and talk in terms of measurements (even if they don't really know what the real measurements are). The very fact that the universal "we don't do that" commenters haven't managed to stamp the use of measurements out in the story file here is evidence of that.

I don't have that mind-set, so I rarely use measurements, but if I have a construction worker character sitting on a wall with other construction workers and ogling women parading by the construction site, I very well may have him discuss the women in terms of measurements--because despite all of the attempts of writers on this Web site to say no one does that, there are character types who most certainly do use and respond to measurements--and there are readers coming here in that mind-set.

(I might add that there are a great number of gay men who are fixated on a specific measurement too--and no one telling them that "no one does that" is going to make them stop either doing it or using a measurement as an arousal factor in reading a GM story.)

I'm in agreement with the gist of your statement. It's not.just construction workers and gay men who obsess over numbers. Anyone who has ever visited a dating site or a chat room knows that after hello and where do you live, the next question is inevitably "what are your stats?" It's silly to think these same people are not Lit. readers. I still think numbers don't usually make good writing, but it's ridiculous to say that people don't talk or think that way.

 

[Hypoxia]

Easy answer: It depends.

Real answer: It depends on the context and desired effects. In many tales, I fragment and drag-out the description, with bits and pieces of details scattered about, maybe to catch the reader unawares. In THAT'S MY GIRL we only gradually learn that Randy is about 6.5 feet tall, lean and fit, with a shaved skull and a steel-grey moustache. My model here is Heinlein's STARSHIP TROOPERS where we're deep into the book before we learn the protagonist's ethnicity.

My philosophy? Give readers a quick sketch and let them revise the image in their mind's eye. OR, throw a description out and be done with it. It depends -- that latter works well in satires.

 

[sethp]

I'm in the less is more, broad strokes camp. But it depends on what your shooting for...didn't American Psycho go over the top on consumerism details...

And Lee Child always notes Reacher is 6' 5" and hard as steel.

I love lee Child! I stole his best line in my new stories!


"...he paused a beat..."

Speaking of stealing, I Finally stole your plot device. the under the table blowjob while the wife is standing in the room. Thank you!

 

[sr71plt]

I still think numbers don't usually make good writing, but it's ridiculous to say that people don't talk or think that way.

Or that it isn't an arousal factor for some. And if you are writing to that target audience intending arousal or include a character with that mind-set, I don't think it's bad writing if you use it.

 

[Equinoxe]

Yet again I'll note that blanket statements like this about "everyone's" perceptions of numbers just don't wash.…

I kind of want to make a snarky comment about reading comprehension, but that would be rude. I understand that you are trying to counter a popular misconception amongst a certain segment of writers here.

But allow me to point out that I never said anything about "everyone's" perceptions of numbers—technically, I never even said anything about my perception of numbers (but I certainly implied it). In fact, I explicitly said that some readers want to read about numbers:

It would seem to be the case that some audience members want to see numbers nonetheless…

Now, granted, I may have been somewhat dismissive of their taste (I don't apologise). Some readers and writers—and people who have nothing at all to do with erotic fiction—are very much interested in the "vital statistics" of a woman or man. Again, I never said anything to the contrary.

I even gave advice on how to use numbers in a story:

… the way to do so is not through description but through dialogue, or some other way internally, so that it is something which is important to the characters and not just magically known or something the narration informs the audience of as though it explains something to them.…

Obviously, in first person, it's a somewhat different matter, since the reader is reading the thoughts of a character, who may well think about these things in such a way—which admittedly I probably should have addressed.

This does not negate the fact that they are inherently bad descriptors—especially so in the context of third person omniscient narration. But characters are perfectly free to be bad describers. Most people are.

For an example of a fantastic use of numbers in a story, I offer this:
http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=16837618&postcount=10

 

[Bramblethorn]

I've seen this discussion here a few times.

Character Description

Generally speaking, there seems to be two schools of thought: One is that the more details there are, the better. The other is that certain details should be left up to the readers imagination, such as what the female character looks like...

Your thoughts? Have you evolved on this?

I lean towards minimal description. I'll include description that helps understanding the story (e.g. how somebody dresses can be an effective way of conveying what sort of person they are) and maybe one or two eye-catching details to get the reader's imagination started, but beyond that I try to keep it sparse and let imagination fill in the blanks.

Oh, and hair, because it's likely to factor into the sex one way or another.