When is it too late for character descriptions?

[rikaaim]

I was thinking about this while doing some writing. I know everyone struggles to incorporate creative and unique character descriptions. Meaning, not describing a character in a cliche way. With such a dilema on my mind, I began to just go into the story and describe the characters as I go. Seems simple enough. Have one character comment on the hair of another. Maybe something like, "Hey, Janice. What happened to your normally beuatiful long flowing radiant blonde hair?"

That's overexagerated of course. My point is, when is it too late to do that?

Myself, whenever I first see a character's name I already have an image of them. I see the name Jack. I have an idea already of what Jack looks like.

Same with Quentin. Anyone really.

So, with this sorta mental picture already formed in mind just from a name alone, how much description is really needed? Is it even necessary at all?

Myself, I hardly remember ANY character description I've ever read. I remember a sort of essence about the character. Who they are. What they did. That sort of thing. Only in the most rare circumstance will I remember that Janice had blonde hair. Is anyone else like this?

If not, and character descriptions really are needed, how long after introducing the character must they be describe?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I was thinking about this while doing some writing. I know everyone struggles to incorporate creative and unique character descriptions. Meaning, not describing a character in a cliche way. With such a dilema on my mind, I began to just go into the story and describe the characters as I go. Seems simple enough. Have one character comment on the hair of another. Maybe something like, "Hey, Janice. What happened to your normally beuatiful long flowing radiant blonde hair?"

That's overexagerated of course. My point is, when is it too late to do that?

Myself, whenever I first see a character's name I already have an image of them. I see the name Jack. I have an idea already of what Jack looks like.

Same with Quentin. Anyone really.

So, with this sorta mental picture already formed in mind just from a name alone, how much description is really needed? Is it even necessary at all?

Myself, I hardly remember ANY character description I've ever read. I remember a sort of essence about the character. Who they are. What they did. That sort of thing. Only in the most rare circumstance will I remember that Janice had blonde hair. Is anyone else like this?

If not, and character descriptions really are needed, how long after introducing the character must they be describe?

It depends on your style of writing. Some writers prefer to leave description to the readers imagination, so the details are very sparce to non existant, some like to go into great detail, so a read can see the person the writer iss seeing as he/she writes.

You can interspace it gradually and in an understated way. If I don't find out character X is blonde until her pubes are exposed there might be a little problem there, but really, if you write it with skill and in your own voice, when and how much you describe is open ended.

 

[cloudy]

I use very little physical description, and in some cases none at all, and have yet to have someone complain about it.

I think VERY general descriptions are cool, but the laundry list absolutely turns me off - it's a no-fail backclick trigger:

Janice flicked her long, blonde hair over her shoulder and thrust out her 77 DDDDD breasts. It strained the material at her waist, accenting its tiny shape. Long legs led to a tight ass, thrusting out away from the rest of her body.

Gimme a break.

 

[rikaaim]

It depends on your style of writing. Some writers prefer to leave description to the readers imagination, so the details are very sparce to non existant, some like to go into great detail, so a read can see the person the writer iss seeing as he/she writes.

You can interspace it gradually and in an understated way. If I don't find out character X is blonde until her pubes are exposed there might be a little problem there, but really, if you write it with skill and in your own voice, when and how much you describe is open ended.

The only thing I was conernced about this is the whole shopping list of character details. She stood there before me, 5'3", blonde hair, blue eyes, a rack like the Rocky Moutains, and lips as plush as pillows, waiting to rub her hands through my brown hair, as I stood towering over her in my 6'7" frame staring at her with my blue eyes.


Man, I could barely write that crap. That's awful. Well, at least I know what NOT to do. Colly, you're always quick with a response. Thank you. Your response also always seems to be, be you. Do what works for you and what you feel comfortable with. In the end it's your own voice that writes and makes up the story anyway.

That I think really is the best approach to writing. I just need to stop the circular logic sometimes. Writers write. Not think about writing.



Anyone else have any thoughts? Favorite styles? I know everyone is different and will prefer different things, but I like the variety.

Does anyone have a story where they thought the description was exceptionally well done? I could check it out and see why.

 

[rikaaim]

Cloudy, you responded before I did. I agree with you completely. I couldn't even stand to write the list. *shudders*

 

[cloudy]

Cloudy, you responded before I did. I agree with you completely. I couldn't even stand to write the list. *shudders*

In The Warrior's Song, which I consider my best story so far, Sherry has long black hair, and a nice body - that's it. Joseph has long black hair - that's it.

No one's complained.

 

[rikaaim]

In The Warrior's Song, which I consider my best story so far, Sherry has long black hair, and a nice body - that's it. Joseph has long black hair - that's it.

No one's complained.

I think that may be in part because the lack of description makes it stand out more. That's a good point. If all I say about a female character is that she has red hair that shines like an angel in the sun, that single visual will tie the reader's memory of her name with her hair. Thanks Cloudy. Seems rather simple, but I missed it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The only thing I was conernced about this is the whole shopping list of character details. She stood there before me, 5'3", blonde hair, blue eyes, a rack like the Rocky Moutains, and lips as plush as pillows, waiting to rub her hands through my brown hair, as I stood towering over her in my 6'7" frame staring at her with my blue eyes.


Man, I could barely write that crap. That's awful. Well, at least I know what NOT to do. Colly, you're always quick with a response. Thank you. Your response also always seems to be, be you. Do what works for you and what you feel comfortable with. In the end it's your own voice that writes and makes up the story anyway.

That I think really is the best approach to writing. I just need to stop the circular logic sometimes. Writers write. Not think about writing.



Anyone else have any thoughts? Favorite styles? I know everyone is different and will prefer different things, but I like the variety.

Does anyone have a story where they thought the description was exceptionally well done? I could check it out and see why.

Sometimes a laundry list is the best way to go. It depends on you, the writer, the situation and the character.

If your main character is drunk at the Old tyme Saloon with his buddies and looking to hook up when a girl walks in, you can use the laundry list approach, because that's in keeping with the character, his state ofmind and how he would most likely percieve her.

Every technique has its uses. Dismissing any of them out of hand simply limits what you can do and n some cases, the proscribed method, might just be the one that does you the best job.

 

[rikaaim]

That too makes sense Colly.

That's what can be so difficult about writing. It all makes sense, yet at the same time there seems to be a rightness to it. What may seem right at the time may make sense, but won't necessarily be write...ermm...right.

I know, I just think about it too much. Just shut up and right. Yet, these dicussions really clear things up for me and make things go smoother. I think it's a great sign that I'm able to focus on the detail stuff now instead of main structure issues, layer issues, and all that. I know I still have that stuff, but it's getting easier.

The reason I haven't posted any new stories in forever is because I'm working on so many at one time, as well as time constraints. Thanks again laidies for your contributions to quelling the writing madness in my mind.

 

[elsol]

After the reader has built their own 'image' of the character.

Then you're description and their fantasy collide.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Rik,

In some cases, the description of a character is just to help the reader identify with them

There are other situation, however, when a character's looks impacts the story.

Hemingway gives almost no description of Lady Brett Ashley in The Sun Also Rises. Tolstoy gives readers a detailed description of Anna Karinina and Hemingway was a big admirer of Tolstoy.

In short, (and MHO) there is no clear-cut, one-size-fits-all answer.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[rikaaim]

Elsol, this is my biggest fear. I know this much. I feel the same way. If I'm reading a story and have my own idea, suddenly this "this is how it is" description comes into play and either I get disheartened, or I ignore the description anyway.

My question is then, when is this point reached. I seem to have a better understanding based on some of the comments made.

Rumple, I agree with you. I think it's the same with all writing. There is no clear cut answer. Hemingway's sentence structure is very pointed, very bland almost. When I first started reading Hemingway I immediately thought of stero instructions. Insert speaker wire A into receving slot B. Very direct. Very short. However, after really getting into some of his stories, I really like his style.

Everyone is different. Reader and writing alike. I think I'm trying to write like a reading, and read like a writer. In the end though I do both the same. So, the only issue that remains is someone will either like what I do or not. It's that simple. I think.

 

[Stella_Omega]

In The Warrior's Song, which I consider my best story so far, Sherry has long black hair, and a nice body - that's it. Joseph has long black hair - that's it.

No one's complained.

NOt only that- but you'll get responses telling you how well you described the character.
I got one the other day telling me how much Gloria made her drool.
My whole description of Gloria said that she had freckled breasts, ash blond curls and muscular arms.

 

[cloudy]

NOt only that- but you'll get responses telling you how well you described the character.
I got one the other day telling me how much Gloria made her drool.
My whole description of Gloria said that she had freckled breasts, ash blond curls and muscular arms.

Yep.

the obvious answer to that is because the scant description allowed the reader to envision the character in the precise way that turned THEM on.

It works for me.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

It sounds like we're all on about the same page.

Seconding what Cloudy said earlier, my Halloween contest entry is very short, just over 1000 words. The only description of a character in it is a generic one, "tall and impossibly beautiful." So far no one has complained.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[rikaaim]

It sounds like we're all on about the same page.

Seconding what Cloudy said earlier, my Halloween contest entry is very short, just over 1000 words. The only description of a character in it is a generic one, "tall and impossibly beautiful." So far no one has complained.

Rumple Foreskin

Impossibly beautiful?! What the fuck is that? And what the Hell is tall? I mean anything could be tall! Dammit, I need more detail. Hmph.

Is that better? A complaint. Just for you Rumple. See, I am a nice guy.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Elsol, this is my biggest fear. I know this much. I feel the same way. If I'm reading a story and have my own idea, suddenly this "this is how it is" description comes into play and either I get disheartened, or I ignore the description anyway.

Then, in my opinion, the writer didn't quite do their job. I think it's fine to add description later- as long as it jives with the details that have already been given. If you KNOW she's a bottle blond, you won't be surprised to know that her pubes are black, right? At least I hope so... And keeping the descriptions small and a little vague helps. I said someone had "Chinese eyebrows" and a "little boy chin" and a reader told me that put him right into view for her. I was proud of that one!

My question is then, when is this point reached. I seem to have a better understanding based on some of the comments made.

Rumple, I agree with you. I think it's the same with all writing. There is no clear cut answer. Hemingway's sentence structure is very pointed, very bland almost. When I first started reading Hemingway I immediately thought of stero instructions. Insert speaker wire A into receving slot B. Very direct. Very short. However, after really getting into some of his stories, I really like his style.

I find myself writing more and more like Hemingway, myself! LOL but I think my real writing idol might be Norman Mailor.

Everyone is different. Reader and writingalike. I think I'm trying to write like a reading, and read like a writer. In the end though I do both the same. So, the only issue that remains is someone will either like what I do or not. It's that simple. I think.

absolutely, rikaaim!

 

[rikaaim]

I find myself writing more and more like Hemingway, myself! LOL but I think my real writing idol might be Norman Mailor.

I'm not sure who my writing idol would be. I used to look up to and read all of Dean Koontz's stuff. Then something just happened and I couldn't read it anymore. I was so turned off by his telling of backstory in the middle of a current plot that I just couldn't put up with it any longer.

I've been reading some James Kellerman. Great author. Found him by a friend who gave me one of his books. I would have never gotten anything of his on my own, but am glad to have read something by him. Again, not idol material for me though. An influence, yes, to an extent.

I just haven't quite found that author that I read and say, "Yes, this is the guy!"

I probably never will. That's okay too.


On a side note, I love your current AV. It's so much better than the black & white one. This one's sexy. The other one was rather creepy.

 

[cloudy]

I want to write like Sherman Alexie, but I just don't think it's within my grasp.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oscar Wilde was creepy- that erudite, sweet-natured (more or less) writer of conventional (more or less) love stories...
And a Cuban drag queen played by Jo9hnny Depp is not??
ooh, you are sick, sick...

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

Impossibly beautiful?! What the fuck is that? And what the Hell is tall? I mean anything could be tall! Dammit, I need more detail. Hmph.

Is that better? A complaint. Just for you Rumple. See, I am a nice guy.

You might, but the POV character didn't. Especially since at the time the character in question was a ghost. Makes precise measurements tricky.

But semi-seriously, that brings up another point. Who is giving the description? A character or an authorial narrator.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[rikaaim]

Oscar Wilde was creepy- that erudite, sweet-natured (more or less) writer of conventional (more or less) love stories...
And a Cuban drag queen played by Jo9hnny Depp is not??
ooh, you are sick, sick...

Of course dear Johnny boy is creepy. That's what makes him sexy. It's all about a slick, sly, half smile. Full smiles make someone the "nice guy". Ugh. Once nice guy, forget about it. Half sly smirks full of sadistic mystery, there's the money maker.

 

[rikaaim]

But semi-seriously, that brings up another point. Who is giving the description? A character or an authorial narrator.

Rumple Foreskin

That's what I'm mean. If the authorial narrator wants to give the description. I have no qualms about a character saying or doing anything. The reader will understand that as the character. You either like or hate the character. That's fine. Hate the character all you want.

If I make a statement or comment as an authorial narrator, that reflects me. No one else. Just me.

As I said, I became completely turned off by Koontz's style because of his narrative comments. He would go on to describe in narrative prose how Junior like to constantly look forward. Never look back.

He wouldn't let Junior explain that. He wouldn't let Junior show those actions. It was all here it is. Like it or leave it. I left it.

I'm just trying to avoid the same like it or leave it style. I think knowing what I don't like helps me write what I do like. I hope I'm a better author for it, but I don't know.

I know descriptions have come up before. That's why I was curious as to what some people thought about them. Saying what a characteris, what they like, what they do, how they act, who they are, without the character explainging that is a big turn off for me. I think descriptions can and tend to have a little bit more leway, which is good to know.

 

[Stella_Omega]

It's fun to have a character give description details.

"But– you got a girl handcuffed to your bed, and she ain't got a stitch on." Sheba advanced into the room. "How you doin', mamacita? Ooh, she ain't got no hair on her pussy, either. Ooh, look at that pinocha pelon'– Maybe you always watch T.V. like this?"

That describes three people- Sheba, the girl, (and her top, who is the kind to chain her like that) AND a little bit about the room, inferring that the TV is on.
And it's a little humorous, which has been a personal erotic fetish, ever since the "Rocky Horror Show" first arrived on the scene

(edited to add-
We cross posted, Rikaaim.
I see what you mean, and I absolutely agree with you!
I had that same problem with Stephen King, too.
And my feeling still, is if you add details as an author, make them short and sweet...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I'm very stingy with descriptions and try to use them only when they're essential to the story. Above all, I avoid the "wanted-poster" description: "He was 6'2", 190 lbs with black hair and piercing blue eyes and not an ounce of fat on him..." Even when I read those, I gloss over them because they never stick in my mind. I form my own image of the character based on what they say and do and the way they do it. You can tell me she's a sophisticated knock-out, but if she scratches herself in public, I'm going to form my own opinion of what she looks like. ANd that 6'2" guy? If he stops and puts his finger to his lips when he thinks, there's no way I'm going to see him as a he-man.

So that's point number one: what we see is ten times more important than what we're told. You show us what a character looks like in the things they do and how they do them. That's what fiction is: describing things through action.

Take a look at the things you notice next time you're people watching. Chances are it isn't hair or eye color, or whether their lips are sensual. It's their general mannerism, their rhythm, the way they fill space, their sense of themselves, the messages their clothes send. If you can capture those things, descriptions are entirely unnecessary and just get in the way.

Stories are ultimately about the things people do, not the way they look. Only in porn are looks important, and even here they're not as necessary as most people think.