I read the line
"It had a perfectly round door like a porthole, painted green, with a shiny yellow brass knob in the exact middle. The door opened on to a tube-shaped hall like a tunnel: a very comfortable tunnel without smoke, with panelled walls, and floors tiled and carpeted, provided with polished chairs, and lots and lots of pegs for hats and coats - the hobbit was fond of visitors."
my brain thinks
Oh, great description. I like the use of "shiny yellow brass" against the word "green."I like the colon placement.
The structure in this sentence works well, etc., etc....
then my brain switches to this
Or something like it.
See, I think in words first. Since I'm a writer, I usually analyze word use and structure before I let an image crowd my brain. This all happens boom, boom, boom, really fast. The point is that I first internalize and analyze the words - probably more than I should if I'm trying to casually read. Do all readers do this? Only writers? I'm trying to get past this and just read the dang story, but I'm finding it difficult. I've always read this way, even during my 5-year hiatus from writing.
I know a reader must first read the words, of course, and their brain must translate them into meaning and images, but how many of you analyze the words before finally settling on the image and moving onto the next sentence or paragraph?
It depends, when I first begin reading a piece I start analyzing, then once i get attached to a character, usually within the first pages or chapter, I stop analyzing and go right into pictures until something pulls me out like a really nifty idea of what the character might do next, or possibly I slightly notice a good choice of description. Then I go back to analyze stage, write the nifty thing down, and head back into the book and the process repeats itself.
ReplyDeleteI don't really see full pictures. I love the words and I envision the people sometimes, but mostly I read the words and just feel the emotions. Is that odd? I have a very hard time putting a real picture with words.
ReplyDeleteI see the words at first, but once I'm into a story I don't see the words anymore I only see images - like I'm watching a movie - sometimes it's hard to reach that place when I read, but when I do it's awesome.
ReplyDeleteWell, as a reader, and not a writer, once I get into a story, and I mean really get hooked in it, it's like I'm watching movie playing in my mind and I hardly notice the words.
ReplyDeleteI don't analyze what I'm reading; I mostly visualize. Possibly because I was an artist long before I was a writer. My brain works more in pictures than words.
ReplyDeleteI almost never pause when reading to think about what the author is doing -- that would pull me out of the story. I prefer to get completely pulled in and to leave my editorial/analytic mind outside the door.
-Alex MacKenzie
Reading or writing - the scenes play out like a movie for me. I don't analyze the words when I'm reading as a general rule unless I read something particularly jarring (continuity issue, big grammar slip, etc). I have to consciously be reading with the intent to analyze before I'll really take much stock in the actual words, and even then I see the image first, and then go back to analyze the words. The translation to image is pretty much instantaneous in my head, even if I'm analyzing. It's always a movie, for better or worse.
ReplyDeleteWhile writing, the story plays like a movie in my head and I transcribe it to the page. Because I hate major revisions, I write more deliberately these days and force myself to transcribe more accurately the first time around, but it always starts as an image, never words for me.
Fascinating how differently our minds can work, isn't it?
I see mostly pictures...but also just enjoy the fluid line of words. If the sentences flow then I can relax and enjoy a train of thought. If the wording is off, it's like a pot hole filled road, ya know?
ReplyDeleteUsually I see the words first and then construct the images. But, I notice that with some writers, it's almost impossible for me to see the words. I think these writers do such a good job of pulling me into the fiction that I only see the images. Those tend to be the writers I admire the most.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm reading for pleasure, I only see the words if the prose really strikes me--I suppose that's me always looking for the visual.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read, trying to glean what works and what doesn't (so that I can improve my own work), it seems that all I see are words. Not such a pleasurable experience, especially since it tends to make me second-guess my own prose...
I hardly visualize at all, except occasional still images. Mostly it stays as beautiful, glorious words.
ReplyDeleteI hate descriptions and tend to skim over them to get on with the story. In my previous books I’ve gone out of my way to provide descriptions but they were a real chore to write because I basically don’t care. So, when I read this I went, "It had a perfectly round door like a porthole … irrelevant … irrelevant … irrelevant … irrelevant … right, so this is where the hobbit lives.” I’ve read the words before and I did exactly the same then. It doesn’t matter how closely I read the words by the time I’m onto the next page they’re gone. The hobbit has to live somewhere, what happens over the next few pages happens where he lives; that’s all I need to know. Did you ever see a film called Dogville? There is no set as such, just a few props and the outline of buildings. I loved that. That was all I needed.
ReplyDeleteI get both the words and the image at the same time, I think. And sometimes--if the words or the image are surprising and new--I stop and loop back through and admire and wonder how the author did it and consider if I want to try something like that myself. Because I want to get lost in the story, but I also want to be dazzled by the writer's prose. If a novel doesn't give me both (and more than just that), I don't want to read it.
ReplyDelete@ Jim Murdoch: That's a curious way to read, if you ask me. You seem to be treating a novel not as a narrative (which is a complex work of art having many layers and elements) but rather as some kind of story delivery system where "story" excludes ideas of setting. A narrative contains a story, and much more. Also, a lot of setting (even Tolkien's) shades the narrative's themes and characterizations. Bilbo's hobbit hole tells you about Bilbo's character, and themes of being underground run through "The Hobbit." So you're missing a lot of the narrative's meaning by calling all the setting details "irrelevant."
Scott: I'm with you on the "setting-shows-character" notion. Certainly some description can be skimmed if it's not illuminating anything, but how could you skim something like this, taken at random from the book I'm reading right now ("Bryant & May on the Loose" by Christopher Fowler):
ReplyDeleteThe little house on Avenell Road, Finsbury Park, had been painted a hideous shade of mauve since he was last here. The bell didn't work and the knocker seemed to be welded to the door, so Bryant tried to rattle the letterbox, only to find that this too was stuck fast. Looking around the chaotic front garden (home to a mangle, a half-burnt chest of drawers, a gigantic dead aspidistra and a table lamp made out of a cow's leg), his gaze alighted on a hanging basket blighted with a single sickly nasturtium. The front-door key was sticking out of the pot, so he let himself in.
Now that certainly puts a strong image in my mind and tells me about the home's inhabitant. Wouldn't want to miss out on it.
I'm not sure I skip it like Jim does, but I'll admit... I want to care about setting when I'm reading, but so many authors, perhaps especially in genre fiction, use setting description as filler or a lazy way to convey mood, that I find myself almost daring authors to make me want to read their setting stuff.
ReplyDeleteProbably doesn't help that visualization does nothing for me, admittedly.
Yeah, I'm with Nevets. I do read everything, but for some authors, detail adds very little. I don't like these writers nearly as much.
ReplyDeleteThis is not a criticism or an argument or anything, but I've also always found this idea of reading the book for the words and reading the book for the story troublesome. I sort of hate that dichotomy and wish both could be experienced at once. It's almost like you have to let your ears listen to the words without you paying TOO much attention to them and then dive into the story at the same time. I can't always do that.
ReplyDelete@Scott – I don’t deny it. Of course, I exaggerate here for effect. The simple fact is I tend to avoid books that are heavy on description. I’m not saying there should be no description - you can describe a personality simply by describing someone’s dress sense – but I do think some authors overdo it.
ReplyDeleteAlex: Exactly. Or in Lovecraft, say, where setting is character and atmosphere and the plot is just a narrator moving confusedly through this atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteJim et al: I agree that some writers pile on the descriptions and often it doesn't really add up to anything and I've found myself skimming past the author's lovingly-wrought pages. So it depends.
ReplyDeleteDomey: I can't really separate the words from the story; it's all one piece for me unless either the writing or the story is weak. The more I think in terms of a single entity called "narrative" rather than separating things into "story" and "prose" or whatever, the more inclined I am to just say that either the "story works" or it doesn't, whether I mean the prose or the characters or the plot or whatever. "Story" is part of a novel, but it's all done with words. In the end there's naught else.
@Domey - I don't separate words and story either. For me, the words are the means of the experiential encounter with everything that Scott pulls under the term narrative. I don't go beyond the words much, because encountering the words means for encountering the story and everything else.
ReplyDeleteLots of thinking here. I've enjoyed the comments today! Sadly, my brain is too tired to think past what I put in the post.
ReplyDeleteI always try to visualize the description. I usually won't pick up on a beautifully written sentence, but a poorly written one will stand out and distract me.
ReplyDeleteI agree with another comment made. I care more about analyzing emotions and interactions between people than analyzing descriptions and pictures. A lot of times, I skim over huge chunks of description unless I think the description is going to be vital to my understanding of the story. Sometimes, if a description isn't written the way I've already seen it in my head (for example, the way a person looks or is dressed), it kinda ruins the whole picture for me. Therefore, I ignore the author's description and continue picturing what I'd already pictured anyway.
ReplyDeleteAshley, I think that's awesome. It's cool to think that people read our books their own way.
ReplyDeleteToo much onfo. Like the first sentence. Would like a concise sentence as to how it drew visitors in, tiles, carpets and hooks don't do it. Love the line The hobbit was fond of visitors.
ReplyDeleteI have had similar experiences, Michelle. I thought it was bad when I was just writing, but now that I'm editing for others it's just a little ridiculous. I'm looking for the track changes button on my paperback. It does make it very difficult to read for pleasure sometimes.
ReplyDeleteThough there have been some stories that transcended it for me. The Mortal Instruments trilogy was like that. At points I was so caught up in the story I barely even noticed the words, so eager was I to see what happened next. It was like they blurred against the page and I was absorbing the events rather than reading the words.
Maybe that's how you know it's a really good book, when it's loud enough to outscream your inner editor.
~Tara
I have no idea what I do. I just know I read fast. I still notice the writing, though. I can't turn that part of my brain off, nowadays.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think I could live in a hobbit-hole. They look comfy. (No height jokes, knuckleheads. I've heard 'em all before....)
:)
Too much description. I skim for keywords: door, hallway, coat pegs for visitors. Everything else gets ignored.
ReplyDeleteGiven my avowed distaste for unwieldy and superfluous description, let explain why I don't dislike the description of Bilbo's home:
ReplyDeleteIt had a perfectly round door like a porthole, painted green, with a shiny yellow brass knob in the exact middle.
Show the Hobbit love of order, and tidiness, and things being just-so. This sets up, right from the start, one of main tensions within Bilbo through the rest of the story. Adventures aren't just-so. They're disorderly and imprecise.
a very comfortable tunnel without smoke, with panelled walls, and floors tiled and carpeted, provided with polished chairs
And this establishes very early on the Hobbit's love of comfort. Even though he lives in what looks like a tunnel, it's rather push and cozy. This, of course, is one of the other strains of Bilbo's tension. Adventures are not comfortable. They are not carpeted and do not always have places to sit.
lots and lots of pegs for hats and coats
And this is, of course, great fore-shadowing of the vistor invasion that will soon fall upon Bilbo.
Finally all the circles and roundness provide an anchor and a line of continuity.
So, while I often find Tolkien's descriptions burdensome, I find this passage a perfect example of how description is important part of the narrative.
Everyone, your comments have been fascinating, thank you! I do think that when I reach a certain point in a book my brain will shut off the analyzing part. But the book has to be really good for that to happen. I'm trying to get to this point more often, especially as I learn to appreciate more types of writing.
ReplyDeleteSimon: I could live in a hobbit hole. I'm very short.
I am so claustrophobic I think I would freak out in a hobbit hole, even if I were the right size.
ReplyDeleteI sort of do the same... I definitely consider the words before I see images, but it also depends on the book. If I get into the story right away, I'm willing to forgo analysis. But if there are grammar or copy editing flaws, well... Once that pen comes out, it takes a lot to make me drop it and read for pleasure [g] Copy editing is its own pleasure!
ReplyDelete