hatmaster

Okay...here's my first posted excerpt. <gulp!>

I just finished the description of a main character, and it's okay, I guess. But, I'm not quite satisfied with it, and I'm wracking my brain as to why this bit doesn't work as well as I want it to:

Thoughts? Thanks ahead of time.

hatmaster

__________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

Hodge

Maybe instead of describing him in one block (truth be told, in big blocks of description my eyes tend to skip to every fourth word so I just get the gist of it) you could introduce description into dialogue or action?

Example:

"I do not like them in a house," he said while tossing back his raven black hair. "I will not eat them with a mouse."

"But would you could you in a box? Or with a fox?" she said, her green eyes twinkling.

"I do not like green eggs and ham, I do not like them Sam I am. I do not like them here or there I do not like them anywhere!" As if to punctuate his point, he waved his wood handled axe menacingly.

__________________
Science

hatmaster

Hatmaster's blue eyes were wide with amazement.

"Dang, you're good, Hodge", he said, running his hand through thinning hair. "Thanks. That helped a lot."

__________________
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds" - Albert Einstein

Hodge

Ah, that's all from Dr. Seuss' Green Eggs and Ham, of course (except for the descriptions). I love Green Eggs and Ham. I love Dr. Seuss.

__________________
Science

Hodge

I also have a personal preference concerning description, but I don't think anyone else shares it.

Not a big fan of it at all. When I read something, I immediately form a mental image of the characters, and it irritates me to no end when Stephen King insists that a character is black and I disagree.

I'm a hypocrite, of course, because my writing is full of description...

__________________
Science

Kikster

he he hodge, you're not the only one. I get mad too when a character doesn't fit the picture I have in my head... and I tend to skip long descriptions too. it's bad, but I can't help it.

I think short, fragmented descriptions are the best. the reader doesn't need to know EVERYTHING about the charcater's appearence in one setting. it's nice to discover details a little bit at a time.

__________________
I have bursts of being a lady, but it doesn’t last long. (Shelly Winters)

Saponification

I never provide physical descriptions of characters unless they're really important for some reason. Why do I give a shit if someone's hair is black or brown?

__________________
Metta.

lisajane

I don't think putting all that description in all at once is necessary. I'm bound just to skim through the paragraph than actually read it, but I'd take more notice if you dropped little bits of character description as you went along.

__________________
'Beauty stands and waits with gravity to start her death-defying leap. And he, a little charleychaplin man, who may or may not catch her fair eternal form spreadeagled in the empty air of existence.' - Laurence Felinghetti, 'The Acrobat'

Verago

I totally agree.

Shaehl

I agree that you should describe more of your character through indirect means. Instead of tellings us what he looks like you can show us through actions or similar things. You could also delve into describing your character's personality as well intead of just the physical appearance.

Oracle

I know exactly what you mean!

That's why I hate when I have to describe things in my book, because I'd rather leave it to the reader to imagine it for themself. I think the most effective description of a character is their name. The look and sound of the name is what the reader will identify the character with. I don't like to go in depth with imagery (even though I know that for setting, I probably should). And as for personality, I prefer to portray it through action rather than tell the reader what a character is like.

__________________
The bubble is round.

Chris

I'll echo everyone else here and say you don't need to go into that much detail. Less is more, as the saying goes.

If you don't mind, I rewrote your description as an example.

It's not great, but it's basically just putting forward the essential attributes of this young man that need to be known.
Also, by having Barin sizing him up, tension and character is added.
I hope that made sense.

__________________
"...Biting my truant pen, beating myself for spite:
Fool! said my Muse to me, look in thy heart and write. - Sir Philip Sidney

Kane

I don't get it Hodge. If a character is black, then a character is black. What are you talking about?

Speaking of King though, I was going to reiterate what he says about description, and that is to let the reader develop their own image. He often does not describe the minute physicalities of a character because he doesn't want to discourage readers from connecting with the characters. Everyone breaks their own rules sometimes, but I've noticed him use this practice a lot.

Hodge

I sort of missed it the first time around, and my mental image of a character is, by default, white, because most books written by white people are made up of white characters, and most authors are white. Halfway through the book some comment is made about his skin, and since I already had a mental image of the character, I couldn't visualize him as black.

__________________
Science

Kane

Ahh, which book was that?