Basically what the title says, how much detail is too much or too little. Whether it be for a character's look, description of a location, the powers the character may have, their personality or just about anything. For my Awakening story, I sometimes feel I'm describing too much or too little, and wasting time, or not wasting time. So, I figured I'd get opinions from others.
I try to give the details that are key, and let the others either flow from actions or words, or leave it to the reader's imagination. The latter works well and it helps them relate to the story more to see a character through both their eyes and mine.
or leave it to the reader's imagination. The latter works well and it helps them relate to the story more to see a character through both their eyes and mine.
With some but not all readers.
I try to give the details that are key, and let the others either flow from actions or words, or leave it to the reader's imagination. The latter works well and it helps them relate to the story more to see a character through both their eyes and mine.
If you could point to a place in one of your stories where that's what you did, it would provide an example for those of trying to learn.
If you could point to a place in one of your stories where that's what you did, it would provide an example for those of trying to learn.
Good Medicine - Freshman Year Chapter 35 when Angie is introduced.
Same book, Chapter 53, when Clarissa is introduced.
In both cases, it takes dozens of chapters before the full picture is painted.
How big is too big?
There is no answer. It's not black and white. It's what works for the situation/story.
If the reader starts skimming, it's too much.
If the reader doesn't feel like they're seeing the story, it's too little.
If the reader starts skimming, it's too much.
If the reader doesn't feel like they're seeing the story, it's too little.
And you might get very different responses from different readers to the same level of description. One might start to skip while another doesn't feel like they're seeing the story.
As a reader, my general preference is for somewhat more description of characters and scenery.
If the reader starts skimming
'skimming' is also a technical term for readers who are reading very quickly because they are enjoying the story so much they are keen to see how it progresses as soon as possible.
AJ
'skimming' is also a technical term for readers who are reading very quickly because they are enjoying the story
I meant skimming as being bored (like people here say they skim over sex scenes).
My $0.02:
How important is the character (or the location) to the story?
A character central to the story should be more extensively described than a random extra that is little more than background scenery.
A character central to the story should be more extensively described than a random extra that is little more than background scenery.
I don't remember the novel (it may have been "Treasure Island"), but a pirate walked into the bar. The pirate was only a minor character in the story, but the description was in great detail and very good. I saw the pirate walk into the bar the same way everyone else in the bar did, with the same trepidation.
I find I don't describe enough when writing and add description while editing. That's why my stories get longer when editing when most people's get shorter.
Minor character is still more than a random extra that is little more than scenery and the description was likely necessary to the impact of the scene.
Aside from what others have said, a lot will depend on an individual author's style and ability.
Description is a very good example of this. I've read authors who spend three pages describing a feast, form the place settings, to the dishes, to where characters are sitting and it is glorious. Other authors will spend a paragraph describing the same subject and it's a bore.
What's the pacing of your story? Is the structure mostly driven by plot or character arcs or is it heavily reliant on setting? A story with lots of world-building will benefit more from description than one where the setting is easily understood.
It also matters where the descriptive passages are. If writing an action story you want a lot of description of the action, but probably don't need to describe minor characters in detail. In a mystery, it's the personalities of all the characters interactive that tells the story. While setting matters, readers need to understand the characters well enough as to predict and understand their behaviours and motivations.
What's the pacing of your story?
Honestly, I don't know what the actually pacing is. Weirdly enough. Sometimes I think it's slow, and other times I think its fast. But I can never tell for my own work.
Is the structure mostly driven by plot or character arcs or is it heavily reliant on setting?
Plot and character. Most of the story, right now, revolve arround the MC learning to use to his new found powers, and why he has them. At the current stage the setting isn't really important -- because it's set in the real world -- but I like describing some of it so that people don't just read words on paper.
A story with lots of world-building will benefit more from description than one where the setting is easily understood.
This is the tricky part, for me, its not really world-building right now. It's mostly only about the powers in the story, as well as the MC's normal life. In the second part of the story, it's suppose to go to a different world -- where the actual story will take place -- And I'd have to describe everything there. But I'm not sure if I should start describing a lot now, so that people won't be blindsided by multiple paragraphs of just describing the location, clothes, and what not, later on.
From what your saying I'd suggest that you need to do the most description on the character's powers, their own reactions to and feelings about those powers, how other characters react to those powers, and, to whatever extent it is known, why those powers work like they do and how they fit in to other things in the world, or don't fit in if they are completely alien.
Think of this in terms of Chekhov's Law (aka Chekhov's Gun). Anton Chekov wrote plays and short stories and said:
"One must never place a loaded rifle on the stage if it isn't going to go off. It's wrong to make promises you don't mean to keep."
In other words, don't include unnecessary details. If what the characters are wearing isn't necessary to the story, then you don't need to describe the clothing. If it is necessary to the story long-term, you can describe it in a way that fits better with the overall style.
For example, rather than spending a paragraph describing a rich merchant's dress, your character could inadvertently set them on fire at which point you'd describe how the fine silks of the merchants finery went up like a flash, but the brocaded tunic was clearly made of a cheaper, rougher material that didn't burn. This lets you describe the clothing as part of an action scene and also give insight on the character of the merchant: he want to look more refined than he actually is. Or perhaps he's not as successful as he pretends to be.
Generally speaking, you want style to be roughly consistent within a novel or trilogy. There are exceptions, but it's not something you want to play around with unless you really know what you're doing. So if you expect to have long, necessary descriptive passages in later books then you should probably also have them in the early book.
Yes, having them may drive off some potential readers, but you should think of the early book as advertising for what's to come. If the first book is written in a radically different style than the second book, then not only will you lose some readers with the second but the people who would have enjoyed the second will have never started reading since the first book is not the same style.
Think of this in terms of Chekhov's Law (aka Chekhov's Gun). Anton Chekov wrote plays and short stories and said:
"One must never place a loaded rifle on the stage if it isn't going to go off. It's wrong to make promises you don't mean to keep."
Since he wrote plays and explicitly mentions the stage in that quote, he may have been more concerned about actual theater props rather than descriptions in stories.
I think the key is to avoid large blocks of exposition, static descriptions or other explanation. The presentation of facts, visuals or relations is at least as important as the amount for this, too much -- too little discussion. The same old show not tell routine.
Instead of outright telling he's often staying too late in office, the door guard may question him about it. Instead of telling what college he's in, he may turn down invitation to a card game at a frat house. Such interactions may pack way more useful information than plain biography, while excluding all the filler that's otherwise there just for the sense of completeness.
Describing every piece of furniture in a room with exact dimensions before even entering it is hardly interesting to read and thus a waste. But having that description or a sketch at hand aside for the author themselves may be helpful to understand is that person in that corner visible behind the bookshelf between the multi-monitor workstations by someone standing at the printer. Perhaps that is the moment then to mention said bookshelf blocking the view.
The room may emerge piece by piece in interactions as the action unfolds, and it's probably wrong to be afraid that the corner to the left of the door was left undescribed if nothing there had any material impact on the events.
But if familiarity with that may be useful to not return to specifically describing it all later anew, maybe someone may hurl something over there with a bang, or instead, it may be mentioned in passing that in all the chaos the bookkeeper's table was left untouched with him still sitting gaping after everyone else had already left. Even without specifically mentioning where it was, the spatially aware will likely figure, and others can't be helped anyway.
Instead of a tour guide pitch description of a monument on the street corner, perhaps someone may comment on their attitude towards the event or persons commemorated and opinion about adequacy of the artistic form chosen to do so. Even the narrator can do so in his own inner monologue hurrying by, or even instead of answering a particularly though question to his companion, conveying his wandering gaze and adding context and depth to the world he's living in.
Instead of writing out a unit properties card a superhero may perhaps find someone to tell the amusing story of his first experiments with his abilities, or at worst do just that in narrative. While that may even increase the total word count, it may find use and integration for otherwise overwhelming details of necessary background.
But the most important filter is of course the,
Why?
Unlike the chaos and abundance of life, in a good story there needs to be reason for every word told. "I thought it's funny thing to say" may or may not be enough.
And yes, reader may only be happy to be left some things to figure out by implied clues and disjointed pieces of a puzzle, as long the general comprehension of the story isn't too dependent on too much of such effort. And that too much is where it starts to become a question of particular taste.
But it's easy peasy to spew theory like that. Going and trying to do is something else.
I have read stories where I think, "Damn, that's interesting" and read every word. I have also read stories where I think, "Come on, get on with the story" So, I think it depends on what the reader finds interesting.
