The most annoying thing - Writers Forum

ampersand · 05-11-2006, 02:48 AM

Why do writers have this need to describe place when it adds little to the point of the story? Every time I come across a passage like this it bores me to tears, I will simply skim it while thinking about what groceries to buy.
My advice as a reader: Do not describe how the eucalyptus trees in the neighborhood swayed that windy night, or whatever, just because you feel there has to be some kind of setting. No one will remember any of it, and frankly, there is nothing duller.

Aevin · 05-11-2006, 03:20 AM

I have to disagree. It's certainly a challenge to write memorable and unique descriptions, but some concept of place is needed. If no one bothered to describe their settings, we'd have characters running around in a completely blank world. Instead of omitting descriptions, try to omit clichéd descriptions. Describe things in a way which puts a new spin on them and makes the reader see or think about them in a way they usually don't.

Mike C · 05-11-2006, 03:27 AM

I'll side with ampersand. Obviously you can't have NO description, but keep it brief and keep it relevant. It's all too easy, and it's a common noobie pitfall, to waste three paragraphs describing, say, a room interior, when a few words will do.

Don't forget - your reader has an imagination. Give them a couple of pointers, and they'll fill in the gaps for themselves.

I'd go as far as to say it's more of a challenge NOT to write memorable and unique descriptions. If, when your reader finishes your story, the thing they remember is the scenery, and not the characters, you screwed up royally.

Think of your story like a stage production. The scenery is there to create an illusion, but the story is happening between people interacting on the stage. That's how your story should be.

Aevin · 05-11-2006, 03:46 AM

Well, it's true you don't want to focus so much on description that the story is lost.

Still ... A lot can be conveyed through description. It can be used to reveal character emotions and motives. There are certainly times when brief descriptions are best. But to always use short descriptions and leave the reader to imagine the rest is leaving out a lot of opportunities.

Of course, part of this has to do with writing style and preference ... The real trick is not to "always use short descriptions," or to "describe every detail to force the reader to see it," but to know when to use either approach as a tool to add meaning to the story.

annalaurab · 05-11-2006, 09:07 AM

I personally love reading nature scenes like you have discribed. I think they are fascinating and also relaxing. They help the reader to imagine what the environment is like.

FrankBlissett · 05-11-2006, 09:39 AM

The utility for a reader will depend on the individual reader (and the mood that reader's in). Some will like long, colorful passages about the scenery - others will want "just the facts m'am".

For the writer, it's a chance to break loose from the more mechanical aspects of writing for a bit. Although, that doesn't mean that all such passages need to make it into the final edit.

-Frank

Urric Arkardy · 05-11-2006, 09:43 AM

I think descriptions should be minimum unless they are necesary for later on in the story. For example, in my novel The Bluefire, I described a city district-by-district. It's nescesary because later on in the novel, the city will be under seige and I think it's nescary that the reader knows the basic structure of the city so they can picture the battle.

....Then again I take up half a page just describing one charecter....

Quillqueen · 05-11-2006, 10:28 AM

Hmmm..... Well, you know what i think the most annoying thing is: no description. I was reading a book...yesterday, and there was a part in which two characters were having a discussion in some sort of room, and there was basically very little to no description of the room, and I had no reference point to where they were in relation to one another, were they in a house or a castle? Of course imagination fills in the gaps, but its nice to have something to base it on. Especially if I picture them in a one-room cottage, and then it's like WHOAH! He lives in a mansion! Also, it's all right to have some description of places and things, especially between and after battles or intense scenes or character interactions. In a way it clears the palate for the next course of action....

Cheers,

Quillqueen

bob rulz · 05-11-2006, 03:41 PM

I agree with Qillqueen. I hate it when stories leave you to fill in all of the blanks. I've read a few stories where the description of the surroundings is difficult to comprehend, and I read something completely contradictory to where I thought they were by filling in the blanks. It doesn't have to be an exhaustive description, just one that's easy to understand and gives a general feel for the place without leaving too much out.

suzakugaiden · 05-11-2006, 05:09 PM

It's not so much a matter of place descriptions. It's the detached, dissembodied approach a lot of writers take. More importantly, simply describing a place is merely showing. Instead, describe the character's REACTION to the place.

Also, place is only as important as it is to your characters. If your characters neither notices nor cares about the details, then don't get hung up on them. On the other hand, if your character is more prone to focus on the plants then the conversation at hand, well... you get where I'm going

This also implies very much to interactive fiction. A lot of IF writers don't get this, though, which is why I'm not fond of the more popular IF works.

Quillqueen · 05-11-2006, 06:25 PM

Suzaku, what you're saying has a nice ring to it. I see what you're saying. However, there is something...
When the character focuses more on the plant than the convo at hand, then it's the writer's choice whether or not to snap them back, make it relevant, or to say "The lazy afternoon glittered in colorful shadows across the jade plant in the corner. Tanith began to steadily lose interest in the 'important' discussion Martine and Guile were having, and her eyelids began to droop..." And then you can flip it around, maybe Tanith hears a name that brings her back, or something. It can be turned into material, you know, rather than a burden. Then, like you said, that's a reaction to the plant. The surroundings.
OR: Time to get out of your chair and go for a walk! Then come back and read that paragraph again, and see that your description of the pretty jade plant was really just yourself drifting off into la-la land.

Cheers--

AtlanteanTapir · 05-11-2006, 06:32 PM

well, i think you shouldnt have like practically no description, i mean, how much is 2 sentences, really?

longer than 2 sentences describing 1 OBJECT is too much. for example:

"The massive pine tree outside of BLANK's house had an indiscriptable feature. The whole structure itself looked like a cat, with some needles near the ground, the tree's front end round like a face."

that is acceptable for me. anything longer is bad

mammamaia · 05-11-2006, 06:35 PM

the problem really just lies with the talent and skill of the writer... a good writer can draw you into the scene with a detailed description, while a poor one can lose you by doing the same...

a good writer can give you a vivid image of the scene in just a few words and a poor one can bore you with too many, and still not let you picture it well...

Mike C · 05-11-2006, 06:59 PM

Read Hemingway. He uses very little description but paints the picture through the characters.

Soccah · 05-11-2006, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

I'll side with ampersand. Obviously you can't have NO description, but keep it brief and keep it relevant. It's all too easy, and it's a common noobie pitfall, to waste three paragraphs describing, say, a room interior, when a few words will do.

Don't forget - your reader has an imagination. Give them a couple of pointers, and they'll fill in the gaps for themselves.

I'd go as far as to say it's more of a challenge NOT to write memorable and unique descriptions. If, when your reader finishes your story, the thing they remember is the scenery, and not the characters, you screwed up royally.

Think of your story like a stage production. The scenery is there to create an illusion, but the story is happening between people interacting on the stage. That's how your story should be.

Unless the scenery is the focus of your book, and your main "character."