I'm trying hard not to use the word "orgasmic," but yesterday's comments were exciting. I was up late thinking about this new idea that physical description is not only less important, but even unwanted by some readers. Thanks for all the great comments and ideas Rick, Lady Glamis, beth, Justus, scott, Crimogenic, Robyn, Anette, Reason Reanimator!
To quickly repeat my original point. I was saying that I think most readers have a certain average person in mind when they read a story with no physical character details. This isn't necessarily a problem, but I think it's good to be aware of it whether you want to change that image or not. Justus and Scott, you mentioned that some of your favorite characters are only minimally described. That struck me as very interesting. I'd love to hear who those characters are. Scott, you mentioned some favorite stories. Those are some of my favorites too. Do they also contain your favorite characters? I went through my list: Mahlke from Cat and Mouse, Brod from Everything Is Illuminated, Anna Karenina from a book I promised myself not to mention this week. All of them are very visual for me, described with a set of key descriptions. Yes, as many people brought up, detail overload is never the goal.
I think it's time to launch our first official Literary Lab Experiment.
Experiment #1
Question: Do physical descriptions help or hinder the ability of a person to interact with the story?
Background: Some comments from yesterday's post suggested that physical descriptions can get in the way of the movement, depth, action of the story, and that details make it harder for the reader to interact with the story. I think we all agree that physical descriptions should be relevant. The more important issue is whether or not leaving out details allows the reader to engage more with the story by being able to add their own information and by being able to avoid getting bored. I'll try to present both sides of the case so that each writer can make up his or her own mind. And, I'm currently undecided, so this will be good for me.
Materials and Methods: Rick Daley posed some great Why's and How's to the scene about the suicidal man and the woman watching. I'll use his suggestions to flesh out the all important action and motivation of the scene. I'll use one of Robyn's details too. Then, I'll write the scene again and add physical descriptions of the characters.
Results:
First, the no physical description version.
A man stood stiff and determined on the window ledge of a three story building. It was early in the morning, and there weren't any cars in the road below. He thought of his Ponzi scheme that had just been discovered the night before, the panicked calls that came into his office phone, his cell phone, his home phone. He had only answered one of them, a call from a father of four. That was all it took for him to decide to end his life. He shuffled his feet closer to the edge. His hands fell away from the brick wall behind him so that he teetered unsteadily. He had been calm before, but at that dizzying height his breathing grew unsteady. As if seeking one last vision to die on, he noticed a woman walking down the street in his direction. He thought of all the women he had flirted with in those blue-lit, gin-smelling clubs he frequented, how that lifestyle was gone for him now. At first the woman did not notice him. Her stride was casual, carefree. Then, she stopped and looked up. It seemed to take a moment for her body to react to what he knew she saw. Her form tensed. She shouted, "Don't do it!" to which the man replied, "It's too late," before dropping. His eyes stayed open. In the three seconds of freefall, he watched the ground. Each time he blinked, he got a snapshot of the gray mass of the asphalt speeding toward him, and each snapshot was a closer view of what he had done and who he truly was.
Second, the version with the physical descriptions.
A man stood stiff and determined on the window ledge of a three story building. He was twenty-something, trim, scruffy but handsome -- he looked like a man who could go places. It was early in the morning, and there weren't any cars in the road below. He thought of his Ponzi scheme that had just been discovered the night before, the panicked calls that came into his office phone, his cell phone, his home phone. He had only answered one of them, his voice unusually timid as he listened to a panicked father of four. That was all it took for him to decide to end his life. He shuffled his feet closer to the edge. His hands fell away from the brick wall behind him so that he teetered unsteadily. He had been calm before, but at that dizzying height his breathing grew unsteady. His face -- the clear eyes that had never encountered defeat before -- suddenly widened with shock. As if seeking one last vision to die on, he noticed a woman walking down the street in his direction. He thought of all the perfect women he had flirted with in those blue-lit, gin-smelling clubs he frequented, how that lifestyle was gone for him now. At first the woman did not notice him. Her stride was casual, carefree. She looked more wholesome than the women in the clubs. Even from this distance he saw that her face was warm, loving. She looked like someone who could make a good wife someday. She stopped and looked up. It seemed to take a moment for her body to react to what he knew she saw. Her form tensed. She shouted, "Don't do it!" to which the man replied, "It's too late," before dropping. His eyes stayed open. In the three seconds of freefall, he watched the ground. Each time he blinked, he got a snapshot of the gray mass of the asphalt speeding toward him, and each snapshot was a closer view of what he had done and who he truly was.
Conclusion: ???
Thanks for the props ;-)
ReplyDeleteI think the physical description does influence my perception. In the first passage, I thought him to be older and balding. The description in the second makes him younger with a full head of hair.
I think you did a good job with both, the differences are very subtle. You also let the description carry the story, here in particular:
"the clear eyes that had never encountered defeat before"
Swap clear for a color, and you have a better physical description, but it still describes his motives better than it describes his eyes.
I think descriptions that are tied into some form of action work best:
- She tied her long brown hair into a pony tail.
- The lines in his face deepened as he laughed.
- The buttons on his shirt strained to hold back his gut as he bent down.
Unless it's something like this:
- He studied himself in the mirror. His blue eyes he recognized from this youth. But the furrowed brow, the bald head, the cheeks and nose flushed red from drink; they were somehow foreign.
I agree with Rick. When descriptions are tied to actions, or even emotions, it gives the story depth and roots without slowing anything down. I find it challenging to slip concrete physical details into action sentences, but I'm working on it.
ReplyDeleteHere's the thing (for me). It depends entirely on whether or not the physical description is essential to the character. You mentioned race--that's one's important. But also--Harry Potter needs his lightning bolt scar, black glasses, and green eyes. Hassan from An Abundance of Katherines needs to be fat. Aerin from The Hero and the Crown needs to have red hair.
ReplyDeleteThe most important thing is: does this physical detail about the character become an essential part of the character? Because otherwise, I skip it. It fades to background noise. But if it's part of the plot, then it becomes necessary, and I care.
I like both of your examples. I really don't mind how the physical descriptions unfolds in the second example. It's wasn't in your face, It worked in with all character's motivations.
ReplyDeleteRick gave an good example of how to work descriptions in with actions.
This post brings up a great idea for a post for my blog... :)
One character I am fond of is the Prodigal Son.
ReplyDeleteWhat color eyes does he have? Is his hair fluffy? Does his right toe poke out of his shoe?
You can't accurately answer those questions because he's everyone who's ever needed forgiveness.
Sure, I'm talking about a parable rather than a novel, but I think it's a powerful example of how a character's character can eliminate (or at least reduce) the need for physical description.
I remember a college professor who asked my class questions about the Prodigal Son's physical description, and it upset me. I couldn't believe she was willing to ruin an amazing story simply to discover the right or left-handedness of the characters.
One of my favorite novels is The Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov. A few of the more outlandish characters' clothes are described in some detail, but in general the reader gets precious little description. Here is what Bulgakov tells us of the Master:
ReplyDelete"He was aged about thirty-eight, clean-shaven and dark, with a sharp nose, restless eyes and a lock of hair that tumbled over his forehead."
And here is Margarita, the protagonist of the Moscow portions of the book:
"Thirty years old and childless."
And while you don't get much in the way of physical description (no character is given more than a sentence of this sort of detail), the book is filled with memorable people.
Similarly, I don't think we know much more of Charles Darnay and Sidney Carton from A Tale of Two Cities aside from the fact that they could be twins. I have a vivid memory of Sidney, drunk on wine, wrapping his head in towels to keep his skull from overheating, though. But I do think we get a pretty full physical description of Jarvis Lorry, the banker, with his outdated wig and clothes, and his vanity about his fine legs despite his age.
Your Tolstoy excerpt from a few days ago isn't--in my opinion--so much a list of physical qualities as it is a sort of illustrated list of personal qualities.
I'm not ready to draw any conclusions, but I teeter on the edge of forming another irritating provisional maxim, which is far more dangerous than a theory.
Rick, you're more than welcome. I agree that it's important to keep your details tied to something, whether it be action or anything else. It keeps the story moving.
ReplyDeleteAnette, yup. I agree. Maybe you can study some writers that you think are doing it well and figure out what they're doing.
beth, really good point. For me, it becomes a chicken or the egg argument. In a character-driven story presumably, a person's physical attributes will affect how they get around in the world, which affect the plot. Vice versa, the plot can also determine which of the person's physical attributes matters.
Crimogenic, I'm looking forward to checking out your post!
Justus, You bring up a good point. I think it definitely depends on what you want out of a story. If it's a message it may really help to keep the character vague. Still, it stands out to me that artists already try to visualize these important people in our history. I think some people need to see them and others don't.
scott, I haven't read The Master and Margarita, but it sounds interesting. I'll get to it, probably after I'm back in LA since I don't want anymore books to carry back. Regarding Tolstoy, I think it is absolutely essential that the detail is doing more than just being a detail. That's the key to keep descriptions from getting boring. I can't say I can accomplish that, but that is the goal.
I'm going to post here the longest pieces of physical description in my recently-completed novel. They are for a secondary characters. None of the main characters get this much detail. Possibly it's exposition overload; I can't tell, but both examples seem to violate my own rules.
ReplyDeleteThe rider slid from his saddle and stepped to the lip of the moat. This, then, was Laertes: tall and lean like his father, movements lithe and rolling like a cat on the hunt, long black hair flowing over his shoulders, and an elaborate moustache growing over a cruel, thin-lipped mouth. There was a feral, animal look in Laertes’ eyes, which were narrow slits beneath heavy black brows. He was dressed in all shades of blue: sky, sea and misery; he wore tall French riding boots, a half cloak thrown back over his shoulders, and a wide-brimmed hat with an immense blue feather adorning it. Though foolishly attired in this Parisian fashion, Laertes was yet impressive: he stood half a head taller than any man with him. Bernardo had warned me that Laertes knew which end of a rapier was which; he appraised us with all the confidence of a man who knew he was a dangerous foe.
and
Osric was dressed in all finery: scarlet and gold with white brocade and emerald ribbon worked into his sleeves, a crimson hat with white feathers topping him off. The cuffs of his gloves were embroidered with gold thread, and over the fingers of these gloves he wore gaudy rings of precious metals and stones. Osric had a pointed, goatlike beard and his small black eyes squinted at us when he and Laertes were close.
Reason Reanimator,
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I can't remember who said it first, but I once read the comment that the mre specific you are abuot a character and about details (again, not abundance but specificity), the more a reader will be able to relate to them. It seems counter intuitive, but I think it's true, at least for me.
scott,
For me, both of these descriptions are great. They are longer, but I feel like the details help to reveal the character and there isn't anything that I felt was redundant or extraneous. Based on discussions here, I wonder how other people would feel about it.
I scrolled through my novel. This is the longest description I found:
A towering, lanky boy about Jaroen’s age stumbles forward from the crowd. He’s skinny and easily a foot taller than anyone else in the courtyard. Jaroen is surprised he didn’t notice him before.
King wears a tattered camouflage muscle shirt and a pair of dirty blue shorts, both of which are too small for him. They manage to make his long, knobby limbs seem even more awkward as he stands with his hands on his hips and surveys the contents of the truck bed.
Most of my readers have told me that King is the most vivid character in the book, maybe because he gets this long description. Thanks so much for posting your own examples! That's really great.
You're good!! The physical description though creates the description that the author has in his or her mind. I the reader might have another. So in a way the description could hinder the reader from forming the pictures in his/her mind. Which would lead to the reader never becoming engaged and throwing the book on the floor out of frustration. Because the reader wants to form the pictures in their minds themselves.
ReplyDeleteRobyn
Great posts and really got me to thinking!!:)
I like both your examples, but I think the one with the descriptions pulls me in more. I agree with Beth, though. It does depend on whether or not those descriptions matter to the character and their interaction with the story. A few descriptions never hurt, in my opinion. Fleshing someone out is always good. The trick is in how you do it and what you choose to reveal.
ReplyDeleteLong "dumps" of information rarely work for me, but interspersed with the action is always good, as what you have you done in the second example.
Great job! I will be thinking more about this. I was going to do a character description post, but you've done such a good job on these I'm thinking I'll move on to something else. :)
Thanks a lot, Robyn! I really love the differences of opinion among all of your writers. We definitely want to avoid having our books be thrown if at all possible!
ReplyDeleteLady Glamis, I have a feeling if you also wrote on character description it would be different enough to be interesting and informative. If you do it, I'd love to read it.