Fiction once began with the face, with the act of observation of the faces of others. Does it still? It’s arguable. I can imagine a skeptic wondering what difference it makes whether writers describe faces or not. Does anything of importance really hang in the balance? Who cares? Does it make any difference to the operations of the world? Who cares about the face anymore? Is reading the face still a survival skill... and if so, for whom? —Charles Baxter in The Art of Subtext: Beyond PlotIn recent years, a minimalist trend has surfaced regarding character descriptions. Common opinion these days states that physical descriptions are unnecessary, distracting, and even poor writing. “Dickens,” these minimalists claim, “might have been able to get away with a page and a half of in-depth description, but that sort of verbosity is not only intolerable in modern fiction but even retroactively ridiculous.” Having read far too many novelists who abuse and misuse the art of description, I’m in utter sympathy with whoever decided the character description was passé. But I’m not in agreement.
Most of the fuss over descriptions is primarily the result of two pitfalls:
1. Clichéd descriptions that add nothing to the characters, but rather render them as caricatures.
2. Inappropriate usage, placement, and emphasis.
Let me address these one at a time.
Clichés
The only reason any description deserves to be included in a novel is because it adds something vital to the narrative. A romantic heroine with Barbie blonde hair and a super-model figure doesn’t add much. Telling the reader that the bad guy in a western is squinty-eyed, dark-browed, and narrow-lipped does nothing to bring freshness to the story. (But, of course, this is a problem that goes much deeper than simply description and probably finds its root in a clichéd character.) But to take the other extreme and delete description entirely adds nothing either. You can’t put nothing into a story, and expect the reader to gain something.
As readers, we read in order to be told about people other than ourselves. Can our understanding of these people really be complete without some concept of their appearance— and thus how other people perceive them and how they perceive themselves?
Inappropriate usage
The length of descriptions need not be long; sometimes a single detail can anchor a character more firmly in the reader’s mind than a list of attributes two paragraphs long. Avoid “laundry lists” at all costs. Rattling off a character’s hair color, eye color, height, and weight isn’t going to bring the reader any closer to the character. Strive instead for “telling details” that highlight not only appearance but the character they represent.
As a child, I remember being fascinated with the phrase “Grecian nose,” and I felt quite sophisticated whenever I managed to work it into my stories. Never mind the fact that I had no idea what a Grecian nose looked like. I’m still not sure what it looks like, but I do know that it’s a nonstarter as a descriptive aid, not only because it is unrecognizable to most readers, but because it brings nothing to the characterization table.
Inappropriate placement
I’ve heard the arguments that suggest readers don’t like authors to describe characters because it interferes with the reader’s preconceived image of the character. But I’m here to tell you that I want to know how the writer perceives the character. It is important, however, to make sure that the description is dropped into the narrative early enough to shape the reader’s preconception. Don’t wait until Chapter 15 to tell the reader that the hero is cross-eyed and has red and green striped hair.
Inappropriate emphasis
The amount of description we give any character needs to be in direct proportion to his importance in the story. Spending two paragraphs on a throwaway character will do nothing but misdirect—and probably frustrate—the reader. Outline your minor characters with one or two modifiers, and save your most impressive descriptive powers for the protagonists.
Character descriptions are great fun to craft, and when used correctly they can’t help but hone the cutting edge of your story.
Story by K.M. Weiland
Tags: Characters , Description
Great, informative, and spot on stuff here.
And the "Wordplay" logo at the top is very cool.
Mike
Wow. My humble blog is always honored whenever you stop by!
Funny how passe becomes trendy becomes passe in cycles.
I've been an avid Sci-Fi and Fantasy and Western reader (with a bit of Mystery thrown in) and just lately transformed into a writer.
As a reader, I love getting a description early on so I can envision the character.
Your points make sense - a late description bothers me, because I've already imagined the character as portly with jet-black hair, and now I read that he's pole-thin with a carrot top.
No description is bothersome too because the reader has to imagine the character in their entirety. Too much of nothing can distract from getting 'IN' the book.
As a writer now, I'm always wanting to 'paint my canvas' with the characters in the action. Your first quote offended me, as both a reader and writer. Characters matter, and their descriptions can add depth and dimension to them.
Often I find myself in a public place now, examining the people who walk by or are eating at the restaurant, and compose a character sketch on them - are they secretly a spy family? Under the Witness Protection Program? Will they go home to find their home burglarized or burned down? Is the dad a professor of theology at the local seminary, hanging onto his job by a thread? Or a mechanic who discovers a bomb under the car he's working on?
It is a fun game to play, bet you sometimes play it too...
Charles Baxter, who I quoted at the beginning of the post, is actually arguing in favor of descriptions. His essay on "Loss of Face" is very thought-provoking, as is his entire book. I'd certainly recommend reading it.
I agree with your that it is critical that the writer gives the reader a clear description of her characters. I love the talent that you have doing this.
Thank you. You're very kind. :D
Looks like this post was an attention grabber, Katie!
I've had folks say I don't describe enough, and some have said I describe too much. I'm trying to get more subtle and imaginitive with my descriptions, but I'm simply not good at it. At least I've moved beyond writing paragraphs devoted to description.
Good post!
Well, you'll never please everybody... so you might as well try to please yourself. I always pay attention to what descriptions work for me in other authors' works - and then attempt to duplicate the same effect in my own writing.
I'm one of the people who say you need to describe your characters and do so in the first couple chapters. In doing so, it adds so much more depth and realism to the whole story. Plus as I read a book I appreciate knowing what the writer wanted his characters to like.
Yep, I too prefer to see the author's vision, as much as possible, instead of my own. I've always enjoyed detailed character descriptions of the Dickensian nature - although I know better than think I can mimic Dickens myself!
Great! You communicated your point most effectively.
Thanks for reading!
To me – Grecian nose - not much indent from forehead to top of the nose (Scott Bakula). I much prefer simplicity. For a title character (heroine or hero) I like a few details like hair color and is it cropped or long, eye color (dark or bright blue?), stature (weave it in, don’t plop it all in one paragraph). I don’t want it to read like it’s a police file. For other characters, I prefer a few words like “pinched and agitated,” “flushed and portly,” or “superior-like snobbery” … and then weave a few other characteristics if you have to. The rest I can – and prefer to - imagine on my own.
When all is said and done, a book is a partnership between writer and reader. The writer gives the reader the clues, and it's up to the reader to fill in his own unique perspective of the story. The tricky part for the writer is figuring out the *right* clues.