I was commenting on someone's piece earlier today and it got me thinking about what is an appropriate level of description in the modern written story, in light of the fact that everyone now is familiar with so many visual images from film and TV. Obviously, before film, there was a need for novelists to provide plenty of description, simply because their readers would, on the whole, not be familiar with the story's surroundings. So what do you think is the role of description in the modern novel?

Obviously, there are extremes to consider; on the one hand, it doesn't seem necessary any more to describe in detail what Trafalgar Square looks like, on the other you shouldn't fill your novel with movie short-hand descriptions, e.g. I recently read the first few pages of a thriller where the President's bodyguard was described as a 'Harrison Ford look-alike'. This is patently stupid, a) because Harrison Ford plays different kinds of roles, and b) Harrison Ford, the human, looks quite different to Harrison Ford, the actor. But there is a perhaps a more fundamental question in this kind of lazy description, which is whether the author really has control over his book. If he is willing to grab for such a loose tool in describing a minor character, can you trust that he really knows how to build authentic characters and plots? Also, he's signalling that he's writing a disposable, temporary, story.

This led me to thinking about what is the purpose in writing a novel? In Dickens day, at least a part of the purpose would have been the description itself, i.e. the very fact of showing his readers what a factory looked like would have served a purpose, in that many of them wouldn't have known. In art, too, before the invention of the camera, a lot of painting was done to simply show people what other people and places looked like (although there have always been artists who made comment too). After the camera, artists had to think harder about the purpose of art and so you got movements like Impressionism, Cubism, etc, where art no longer described the world literally but tried instead to show causes, effects and underlying structures.

So, apologies for being somewhat long-winded here, but I guess my question in full is: what do you think is the right level of description in the modern novel (allowing for specific genre requirements) and how does it relate to the purpose of the novel?

Terry

Terry, hopefully all of us in here are familiar with the concept of there only being seven basic plots (or whatever number you wish to argue). Even if this were not the case, surely the way a book is written is just as important as the content or plot and description must be a major element in distinctive writing.

Even if we all know (or can at least imagine) what a 'country cottage' looks like, in my opinion the way a writer describes that building is vitally important, if only at a subconcious level while reading. Of course there needs to be an appropriate level of detail in any descriptive writing; go too far and you remove the element of imagination, leave too much out and the reader might justifiably claim he was mis-informed when a particular detail becomes important later.

On the whole, I tend not to describe characters much beyond a vague idea of their age and gross physical stature. I've always thought that this element is the one most likely to be open to the imagination of the reader, allowing them to imagine themselves as heros.

Jon

doesn't it depend on who you're aiming it at?

the Janice Galloway for sinstance that Anna has reviewed is basically all description, vey detailed - but it works - for this reader at least! but for my father?

and also depends on what you as a writer want? again we come to the question of who are you writing for? yourself first or publication?

Jon,

Good points. I agree that the way a book is written is very important. I think the reason I raised this issue is because description – the content, placing and the amount of it – is something that new writers seem to struggle with. Well, I struggle with it too.

You use the word 'appropriate', which is a good one here. Obviously, there is an element of personal taste and preference in this, but I believe that good writers develop the ability to select appropriate descriptions while bad writers simply bung in as much as they can in the hope that some of it will stick (which is a form of 'tell' rather than 'show'.

I'm not sure if I agree with only providing a vague idea of age and gross physical stature for characters. I think a good story-teller gets hold of the core essence of a character – whether that be kindness, humour, treachery, braveness, or combinations of – and imparts it to the reader. You say that leaving characters more open to the imagination allows the reader to imagine themselves as the hero. That's interesting ... I think I tend to more compare myself with the lead character, as I'm reading - would I have done something different there? – rather than actually being them. But I guess this is just down to the different ways different people read books.

This raises a slightly different question, which is to do with the author's authority for selection. Obviously, the author is God as far as a novel is concerned, in that he selects/creates everything that the reader gets to see and know about in the story. But we don't often question the author's ability to do this, and to what end. The question is perhaps more obvious in non-fiction. For instance, at the moment I'm reading a book by someone who was Carlos Castenada's lover and who joined his inner circle of 'warriors'. Because it's a subject I'm very interested in, I find myself not just taking everything she says as gospel, but constantly trying to see what her unspoken motivations may be – what isn't she telling us about herself, either consciously or unconsciously? But with fiction, we tend to trust any author, I guess because we feel it's his story to tell whatever way he chooses. I'm not so sure.

Terry

I agree with Jon's points - although I'm changing my mind about physical description of a character. When I began writing, as current thinking seems to be to avoid description of all kinds, I didn't describe characters; but I'm beginning to think I will/should.

I wonder if the reason description is currently a no-no is because it is so obviously authorial and alerts the reader to the presence of an author, which is currently a no-no (although I'm open to suggestions on it)? Description is very prescriptive, and denies the reader the opportunity to create that world for themselves. But I think I prefer a book where I feel the author is unobtrusive but in control, so I can sit back, knowing I'm in good hands, and enjoy the experience rather than share in creating it. So if I'd prefer that an author lays it all out before me, I guess I feel that's what I should do as an author when I write.

Having said that, I hate reading descriptive passages (and agree with Terry that maybe it's just lazy, flinging the mud and hoping some will stick) and skim them, or skip them all together.

To me, it's just the few telling details I require, the ones that will evoke this particular country cottage and not another, and the atmosphere of the cottage and its surroundings, perhaps giving a clue as to what I'm likely to find inside it. But to accomplish that they do, as Terry says, need to be very carefully selected - as Jon says, they need to be appropriate.

<Added>

eg I want to know that the paint on the door is peeling, rather than that it's blue

But with fiction, we tend to trust any author, I guess because we feel it's his story to tell whatever way he chooses. I'm not so sure.

Surely it is entirely up to the author to tell a story the way they want to, and to inject as much description as they so desire. Just as it is entirely up to the reader to decide whether to read it, or like it, and entirely up to the publisher to publish or reject it.

Maybe I'm being green, but I don't think it's fair to say what an appropriate level of description is in a modern novel, or any novel. Surely it is a matter of taste, and does depend heavily on the genre, and on the particular story or scene. Of course it would be good to know what the average publisher sees as appropriate, and again it's then up to the writer to choose whether to follow those 'rules' or not.

I think the role of description is the same as it's always been; to paint the scene or the character in the reader's mind. If an author chooses to leave some of that detail to the reader, because he believes it's commonplace, then he is allowing the reader to be in a slightly, or possibly very, different world to the one he intended. And that's his choice.

Derek

If an author chooses to leave some of that detail to the reader, because he believes it's commonplace, then he is allowing the reader to be in a slightly, or possibly very, different world to the one he intended

Spot on, Dezza - and as I prefer to enter a created, rather than interactive, world when I read, I've made the decision that (in future ) I'll be more prescriptive.

I guess as writers we'll all make the decision to write as we prefer to read. But if we aim for publication, we're probably as well to bear in mind the current vagaries of publishing - if for no other reason that modern readers are being weaned on a diet of spare description, and might find excess description indigestible (where the hell did that eating metaphor come from?)

I agree, genre is vital - one thing I think is strange at the moment is the fatwa on description in children's publishing. I know when I was a child I just couldn't get it until I knew what a room looked like, what a character looked like, and I was very frustrated until I could see it. When I redrafted my first attempt at a novel, I added description (not that much, but some), because my 12 year old son complained of the first draft that I hadn't told him what the characters & places looked like. A friend of mine then passed the description-included version anonymously to her son - his first comment on finishing it was that he loved the descriptions. It came back from an agent complaining about all the description.

Go figure.

Whatever, it's going to be a personal decision, but using description is a skill to be honed like any other, and if readers generally are telling us we use too much or too little then maybe we should listen to that, because at the end of the day its readers we're writing for, and (if we write to be read) they who judge whether we're succeeding as writers.

Anj,

Spot on, Dezza - and as I prefer to enter a created, rather than interactive, world when I read, I've made the decision that (in future ) I'll be more prescriptive.

But if you try to create exactly the world you're seeing when you write the book, it'd end up all description and 20,000 pages long. Surely if you have a character walking down a tree lined path, you don't have to describe exactly what that looks like (depending of course on whether and to what degree it is relevant to the plot). It's hard to say exactly but when I read I think I subconsciously superimpose elements of my neighbourhood and experiences onto the scenes described. I truly believe that it's possible to go too far with description, not just from a length or readability point of view but also because it takes away the element of imagination.

Terry,

I was perhaps too restrictive saying that I only described my characters vaguely. What I meant was that I wouldn't attempt to build a precise image of the character in the way that your author did with comparing someone to Harrison Ford. Obviously, as a novel progresses, such elements as height, weight, clothing, etc. are likely to form part of the plot or descriptive writing. I dislike novels that have a hair by hair description of a character that reads like a police report. I think this attempts to force the reader into seeing a character in a particular way when there may be no reason. As Jardinery has said it is dependent upon the audience and a shedload of other factors - it's all about doing it in the right way at the right time.

Jon

Jon,

But if you try to create exactly the world you're seeing when you write the book, it'd end up all description and 20,000 pages long.

No, because I'm talking about eschewing descriptive passages and searching for the telling details, the few, very-carefully-chosen words to evoke the image - hence my saying I need to know the paint is peeling, because that implies the rest of the cottage will be shabby, inside and out, which tells the reader something about the owners and their lives ... thus saving countless other words used to relate those other details.

It's precisely not about describing the world exactly, but choosing only the important details that will evoke the world I'm trying to communicate.

Of course, every text, no matter how hard the author works, is open to misinterpretation - but adding "description" wouldn't help there. I could say the paint was blue, but every reader's idea of "blue" (or even "prussian blue") will be slightly different.

So I agree entirely it's possible to go too far with description (as I said, I skim/skip descriptive passages).

So far as "but also because it takes away the element of imagination" - but it helps to communicate what's in my imagination.

Depends whether you think reading should be an interactive process (in which the author and reader co-create the world) or whether you think it should be a two-way process (in which the author attempts to communicate so the reader can receive and hopefully enjoy). It's never quite one or the other, but as a reader, I prefer the latter, so as a writer, that's what I'm going to attempt to do.

Just to say, my intention with this was simply to open up the subject, so thanks to everyone for doing just that. I guess we all know there are no absolute answers here, but airing the questions causes us at least to think about why we're writing, which is always a good thing.

I sympathise with Andrea, about what publishers want, or say they want. The problem here is often the split between editors and marketing people. Children's fiction editors tend to like spare, economic, evocative writing, rather than 'old-fashioned' stuff that's full of description and tell-not-show. But then they get caught out by things like Harry Potter – which every editor I've spoken to has either turned down or would have turned down, mainly because it's full of pointless description and tell-not-show. Marketing people are not interested in whether or not a book is well written, only if it will sell. So editors then find themselves grasping hold of sensationalist stuff, despite their own better judgement. One of the best examples of this split is in the adult fantasy genre, where editors will tell you that they're looking for something different to the sword and sorcery, elves and dwarves, magic quest type stuff, but they actually want to keep on doing just that because it's what the punters want, or at least it's what the punters will buy because that's what's available.

I go along with Derek, that the author's job is to paint pictures in the reader's mind. The fact that quite a few best-selling authors simply do not do this very well, or do it in a messy, contradictory way, is no reason to not do your best to find words that convey what you want to convey clearly and unambiguously. The stance I've come to here is that good writing won't necessarily make any difference to you selling books, but it is an advantage and can never be a disadvantage. And it's fair to say, I think, that most editors still look for the holy grail: a book that is exciting, original, popular and well written.

I'm not sure I completely agree with Derek's point about it being entirely up to the author to tell a story the way he wants to. Apart from commercial considerations that a publisher must have, the author also needs to think about just how much interest there is in stuff that may be important only to him. For example, a life long interest of mine has been earth mysteries, for want of a better title – or the relationship between person and place, including folk lore, so-called leylines, etc. Now, personally, I would love to fill every novel I write with this stuff, but I know that the majority of people simply aren't interested. Well, they may be interested to a certain level – say, a story about UFOs flying along 'energy lines' and blowing up Stone Henge or whatever – so the writer's job then becomes to work around that level. Similarly, I would have preferred the Star Wars films to have been 90% about Jedi training – 'we are luminous beings, my son' – but I appreciate that the 90% probably needs actually to be about big bangs and repressed incestuous relationships.

All in all, I'd say that good descriptive writing is that which conveys the maximum imagery with the minimum words. Why minimum? Because it doesn't get in the way of the story. Oh, and timing is important. I think the author should get across descriptions of characters and places right at the beginning. There's nothing worse than the reader having to do it himself early on because the writer hasn't, only for the writer to do it later and contradict the reader's imagery.

Terry