Is it wise to be vague on physical descriptions?

[LightningSword]

As a reader, I've always skimmed over character descriptions. I usually hash together what I think the character looks like in my head, and ignore the author's carefully worded comments about the height of somebody's cheekbones. It's just a reflex I've had for as long as I can remember. And, in the interest of writing what you know, I try to be intentionally vague about my character's appearance. Aside from hair color and length, maybe something about body type/height/general 'look,' the only time I discuss specifics of how a character appears is when I write about whether they have pockmarks, or are missing an ear, or apply too much makeup.

In reading things from other writers, however, I've often heard this practice described as a flat-out bad choice.

So, I'd like to get some input from the other readers and writers on this forum: is omitting physical details about a character a stylistic choice, or a huge mistake I'm not yet experienced enough to recognize?

[Daedalus]

Most writers will create their own image of characters, so describing them to a tee is oftentimes counter-productive. That's not to say you can't describe, but the key is knowing how much is too much.

Scars, moles, and under distinguishing features add character to a character. There's nothing wrong with describing them. Over-appliance of makeup is a habit. Habits make your characters more than just a cardboard cut-out.

[LightningSword]

As an example, one of my favorite characters in my current project has thusfar been physically described as a woman with close-cropped blonde hair, two missing fingers, a few dozen scars, and one metal incisor. I really have no plan to describe her further.

[HoiLei]

I'm much more interested in descriptions that add character. Eye-color doesn't matter to me, unless it establishes a family resemblance or something. Descriptions of movement, habit, bitten nails, etc. tell me a lot more about the person, so I like to read those.

[Morechoiriel]

When I write, I will usually give a few descriptive words about the character, maybe mention hair color or body type, or whatever. But I leave most of it up to imagination. When I read, I usually find that regardless of what a physical description may be, once I get a picture in my head, it doesn't change.

[malicant]

It depends on how you choose to do it. Something I had to grow out of was halting a story for a paragraph of description which is totally unnecessary. I think what most writers will do is work description into the story.

Something from my own work;

Arifen Thyfeius was sixteen years old. Were she not sworn to rites which demanded, among other things, chastity, she would be eligible for a suitor to court. And with skin the colour of milk and eyes the purest cerulean, there would have been shortage of young men for her father to chase away had her calling not been of a different kind.

I'm not putting my stuff up on a pedestal or anything but rather than simply saying that the young lady here has black hair (mentioned this earlier), blue eyes, pale skin and is pretty I wove that into the story and got across other info. The info being that she is celibate and that normally, girls at her age would be courting.

That aside, I like to know what a character looks like but the very nature of writing is that you can never inject something into a readers head totally. Even with a great and detailed description, people will always make up the character for themselves and that, I think, is all good fun.

That's the idea, in general, I would say. *A few deft touches. * I just read something that said a character was: *"A raven girl, with crow's wing hair and skin so white it was startling." **

What you DON'T want to do is get cute and try to "surreptiously" work this stuff in. *I see SO MUCH--especially fantasy and historical--doing things like: *"As he ran across the battlefield, his white, shoulder-length flying behind him, Eystewrtce cast his silver-colored eyes from side to side, looking for a place to shelter for his lean, six-foot body from the enemy arrows."

That said, some writers pour on description and people love it. * *Here's Ross Thomas on a guy's eyes *(I'm remembering this from years ago, so won't get it exact): *"The boyish fun of the smile was spoiled by the eyes. *There was no fun in them whatsever. *They were the color of urban rain in the gutter, carried the conviction of having examined the world and found it to be a shabby place of shoddy worksmanship and populated by second-rate tenants behind on their rent."

[Naranwien]

I have to say I am debating whether to try and describe how someone looks or not. I posted an excerpt out of my novel, and because I have read that it's a bit bad to pour a fully dedicated paragraph in the beginning of a story about how a person looks I waited a bit, but then it became redundant. The reply I got was that by the time this person had read through and come to the part where I began to explain the looks he/she had already painted up an image of the character, and my description mattered little.

I think I would, myself, if there were no explanation of how the character looked, I would imagine it anyway, according to my own imagination and where the story plays out, what century/decade it is, etc. Or on the other hand, I have ignored descriptions of characters if I feel my own image fits better.
So, if I think it's not essential to the story then why do I squirm so much myself about how to stick in some details here and there about my characters' looks'? Maybe because I like describing, but then again, am I describing it well enough without branding it "cliché"? I'm sure I will come to a conclusion one of these days, but until then I will try not to think too much about it, because then when I do get to a moment where I want to describe an appearance I overthink it, and the text gets clunky.

[kimba]

I think it depends on the medium. I know in film, physical description should be left as brief as possible unless there is a specific object/person the writer has in mind. Otherwise, it takes up too much space on the page - which could be utilised for dialogue.

[Nemesis]

As informative as this thread was... I have to ask... where the heck does Lin find his avatars? :P

My family album. * We're a very tight nuclear group

[just a NiceGirl]

Usually by reading I skip such descriptions myself, but I also know people who do not, so if that is a novel I would keep a normal (say: traditional) description and let the readers decide if they want to read it or not. If that is a shorter piece, then a vague description would be fine.

[Nemesis]

Meh, just go with the flow. As long as it's done well, it doesn't matter how long or detailed it is, or whether it's lacking entirely. And as someone far wiser than I once said: if it doesn't feel right, don't do it!

Lin, I find the fat stormtrooper in his undies oddly distracting.

Down girl! *These didies are strictly combat-tested.

[winterstorm]

In the historical romance novels that I've read, the authors write a lot of details about their characters. How the character look when the smile, laugh, think; to the way they sit and stand.
In fiction, drama, and such, eh, not too often.
Besides, whether you flood the novel with descriptions or not I don't think it matters because if ten people read that the table cloth was red, they'd be seeing ten different shades.
I find writing physical descriptions a job for me, so i just avoid it when i can or say he's cowboy.

[FK7]

In most recent self-help books I've read, including Self-Editing for Fiction Writers and King's memoir On Writing, the trend seems to say long pages of description à la J.R.R. Tolkien are no longer desirable.

Give enough details so that the readers can paint a picture of the setting in their mind, but not so much that you annihilate the reader's imagination. Be it physical description of people, or places, unless of course the detail is meant to be used to advance the story further (and isn't completely gratuitous).

I myself skip lengthy descriptions in novels, they tend to annoy me.

My 2¢

[CTK]

It depends on the character for me and the flavor of the story, in a romance I am sure that a vivid description of the characters might be more appropriate. Eye color plays a huge role in my writing (because of what it means) but in many worlds its just unnecessary to give the detail in an over abundance.

I do tend to like what the people I am reading about look like to some degree, not sure why but I just do. Many of the books I have read recently gave enough, but not too much. I posted a description of Alaska from Looking for Alaska a while back and it was pretty long winded, but I really didn't mind.

[Simon John Cox]

I go with "less is more" in terms of explicit physical descriptions myself, and I agree with those that say that a character's actions and reactions do more to paint a picture of him than a summary of his appearance.

One of the comments on my novel (sadly as yet unpublished) was that I hardly describe my characters...but for me, their personalities are far more interesting (and much more important) than their hair colour.

Obviously, though, some appearances have cultural significance and can be used as "shorthand" for some aspects of character: tattoos, piercings, scars, baldness, liver spots, freckles etc. can be used to make us perceive a character in a certain way.

So, in summary, yes and no.

[Nemesis]

Do you think, Simon, that maybe you get too sparse on your description if someone has commented on it in regards to your writing in specific? Not trying to put you on the spot here, but was just curious whether or not that made you want to change anything.

I think a writer should write for their own enjoyment, publishing be damned. But genres seem to play a big part in what's the norm for description. Just want some different takes on it.

[Simon John Cox]

Originally Posted by Nemesis

Do you think, Simon, that maybe you get too sparse on your description if someone has commented on it in regards to your writing in specific? Not trying to put you on the spot here, but was just curious whether or not that made you want to change anything.

Not consciously, no. I don't set out to be sparse on character description - Lord knows, I couldn't usually be accused of being sparse with the rest of my descriptions! - it just comes out that way.

I've not really thought about it before...maybe I just don't think that the look of a character is particularly important to the narrative. I certainly spend much more time on trying to get across how the character thinks and feels.

I should point out though that when people have told me I've overwritten something and I've left it for a while and come back to it, I usually find that I agree with them...so I know that I do overwrite (the problem being, of course, that when you're close to your writing it's hard to view it objectively, as a reader might).

Originally Posted by Nemesis

I think a writer should write for their own enjoyment, publishing be damned. But genres seem to play a big part in what's the norm for description. Just want some different takes on it.

Oh, I do! But I've found more and more that although I like what I write and I enjoy writing it, in the long term I always like it more once I've edited it in line with people's comments. There's always room for improvement.

[CTK]

Originally Posted by Simon John Cox

I go with "less is more" in terms of explicit physical descriptions myself, and I agree with those that say that a character's actions and reactions do more to paint a picture of him than a summary of his appearance.

One of the comments on my novel (sadly as yet unpublished) was that I hardly describe my characters...but for me, their personalities are far more interesting (and much more important) than their hair colour.

Obviously, though, some appearances have cultural significance and can be used as "shorthand" for some aspects of character: tattoos, piercings, scars, baldness, liver spots, freckles etc. can be used to make us perceive a character in a certain way.

So, in summary, yes and no.

It really varies with me, I tend to describe some characters A LOT and others I do very little of it with. But I try not to use physical looks to say much. It seems too much like Chaucer to me and I hated having to learn what each little physical quirk was said to have meant.

But your character's personalities should come through in their actions, so I don't see the harm in taking a line or two to describe them when you have the whole book to let their actions define them.

[El902]

I'm on the fence about it. I've been keeping up with Laurall K. Hamilton's Anita Blake series for several years, and after fifteen or so of them, she's given such vivid descriptions of the characters that I can picture them perfectly.

But on the other hand, 80% of the books have become erotica, and another 10% goes to describing Nathanial's violet eyes, or Micha's carved chest of wonder. That leaves 10% for any half decent writing, and that's never a good percentage.

So, I can picture them perfectly, but the plot suffers. In that example, any way.

In other instances, I enjoy knowing what the author pictured their character to look like. Despite the author's intentions, however, I always build a mental image anyway, and I think I like having things like appearance left to my own imagination. That way, I'm not constantly trying to remember who it was who had the amazingly high cheekbones, and who it was with the too-small nose.

[SophiVengeance]

Usually, I think it's best to define your character overtime throughout the writing, instead of describing it all in one page. Just a thought.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by El902

she's given such vivid descriptions of the characters...
80% of the books have become erotica... I can picture them perfectly...

Hmmm... how do you picture them - copulating?

[CTK]

I remember some book had a description of someone that conflicted another description of the same someone.

Hmmm... how do you picture them - copulating?

80% copulating.




20% smoking cigarettes

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by Lin

80% copulating.




20% smoking cigarettes

The ideal lifestyle, in fact.

[Mike C]

Originally Posted by CTK

I remember some book had a description of someone that conflicted another description of the same someone.

A truly startling revelation.

[CTK]

It's just to say, if you're going to describe someone you just need to keep it consistent.

Another dumbfounding newsbreak.