Do You Like Character Descriptions?

[pink_silk_glove]

When people issue diktats like this, I always find it interesting to check their own writing and see how they apply those principles to their own work. Sometimes it helps me understand their point of view. Sometimes it just makes me think "maybe this isn't a person who should be giving writing advice".

https://www.literotica.com/s/dark-bush

As mentioned previously, I don't usually visualise characters when I'm reading, but since the author is extolling high-visual writing, I'm going to make the effort to do so for this one.



This immediately trips me up on figuring out how she can be "naked" when she's wearing a cloak "wrapped around her body" and a sash. After re-reading a couple of times to see if I've missed anything, I'm going to assume that I'm meant to visualise her as being naked under her cloak, and pale aside from the ink on her hands.

"Re-reading a couple of times to see if I've missed anything" is not a good reaction for me as a reader. Every time it happens, it breaks whatever momentum the story might have built up, and snaps me out of the story to think about the author's intentions.



And now I have to revise the mental image that "naked and pale" created earlier, because you've just added a great big detail of body paint that wasn't in the original description. This also confirms that she was wearing clothing that covered most of her body up to this point, so why was that "naked and pale" in the earlier description at all?

I also have to figure out whether her "robe" is the same thing as the "cloak" mentioned earlier. A "cloak" is a sleeveless garment; robes are usually sleeved. There are a few cases where one garment might be described as both, but nothing in the intro suggests those kinds of designs, so I visualised a typical cloak. However, the story seems to be treating them as the same garment, so I now I need to revise my visualisation of "cloak".

All this creates the same problem that you were talking about in other writers, forcing readers to visualise something and then contradicting that visualisation.



...and she's also wearing a collar? Or are you using "collar" to mean "collarbone"? I might have guessed at just "neck", but another passage mentions her washing the guy's "neck and collar", so I guess these are two distinct body parts.



I'm not sure what "faded into clarity" is meant to look like, and "the righteous face of a novice" creates further confusion. Presumably you're using it in the specific meaning of one preparing to become a monk, rather than the more general meaning of somebody new at something. But does this mean that he is a novice, and that somehow she can tell this? Or merely that he looks like novices she's seen?

Because the story opens in medias res, and pays much more attention to describing his appearance than telling us who he is (not even a name), or why he's in this wood without being aware there's a resident witch, this makes me pause to figure it out. Momentum broken again.



One of the perils of high-description writing is that it becomes hard to avoid repetition or thesauritis. Having mentioned three times that the guy is "blonde", using it a fourth time for his pubes would be overkill. Instead, you've picked a word that's extremely obscure to those who haven't studied Latin or chemistry.

This one's particularly problematic because even if a reader were to look it up, they'd find different definitions depending on which dictionary they used. For instance, Collins defines "auric" only as "of or containing gold in the trivalent state" (a specifically chemical meaning); Oxford Languages defines it as "relating to the aura supposedly surrounding a living creature". Wiktionary has two definitions similar to those and also an obsolete "of, or pertaining to the ear". Some others do include a simple "of or related to gold", but there's no guarantee your readers will go to those particular sources first.

If you really wanted to invoke a comparison to gold, and were confident in your readers' ability to recognise that "aur-" stem, "aureate" might've been a better option here. But it would've been easier just to cut down on "blonde" earlier on to save yourself one for use here.

Some passages relevant to his clothing:



A "tunic" is typically knee-length or longer, and you've already established that his is long enough to sit on. So it's not clear why his buttocks would be exposed here.

With a fire to run away from, it seems like a peculiar choice for him to put his tunic on before boots or belt. Both of those are important to getting away; the tunic isn't. If he feels the need to cover his torso, faster to throw on the cloak. Again, not the sort of thing you want readers stalling to figure out in a scene that's meant to feel urgent.

If you want to write high description and make it work, it needs to be consistent.

But for me, my biggest issue with this piece is that despite all the visuals, it does almost nothing to flesh them out as personalities. Who is this guy? Why is he wandering through the forest with a sword? At the end of the story, about all I can say about him is that he's the kind of guy who doesn't like the idea of burning to death, and does like the idea of fucking an attractive woman, which is 90% of guys on the planet. Similarly for her, apparently she likes doing witchy things and fucking dudes she finds in the forest and laughing an eeeeeevil laugh, but I've got no real feel for what she's feeling here. Is she fucking him because she's bored? Or because she needs sex magic to power some ritual? Or because she and her forest-witch girlfriend really want a baby witch? I have no idea what her investment is in all that.

Without that, for me, this story falls just as flat as low-visual-description stories do for you. Because being able to relate to at least one of the characters in a story is as important for me as being able to visualise them is for you. That doesn't make you a lazy writer with no interest in the craft; it just makes us different people with different preferences, and it'd be great if you could comprehend that your preferences aren't universal.

Speaking of "craft", though:

Somebody who's tripping up on "it's" vs. "its" and on how to punctuate untagged speech probably shouldn't be getting too high-and-mighty about lecturing others on "craft".

You got me. I suck. (eyeroll)

 

[Paul_Chance]

I tend to be a minimalist when it comes to physical character descriptions, unless some physical attribute is relevant to the story. Sort of a Chekhov's Gun approach to character description.

 

[ronde]

I use what some might call the "IKEA" approach to character descriptions. I give the reader enough pieces he or she can put together the character as they see fit. I think most readers like that. It lets them identify with one of the characters and another will probably look a lot like someone they already know.

I rarely used dimensional aspects when describing a character unless that character has a legitimate reason for knowing those dimensions. If I read a male character saying, "I saw her big 44DDD tits bouncing as she jogged...", I stop reading because it probably isn't going to get any better. Now, if he'd said, when I used her bathroom, I saw that her 44DDD bra was hanging over the shower curtain, he has a legitimate reason to know.

A woman would never gasp, "I need your ten inch cock" on the first date. A woman would have no reason to know how long a man's cock is or how thick it is unless right in the middle of getting it on, she whipped out a tape measure and measured him. I'd never say a woman wouldn't want to measure her man when he's hard, but it probably wouldn't happen when she's really getting into things. Most guys wouldn't enjoy being measured before they were allowed to enter the woman. It would feel like, "Let me see how big you are before I let you do this."

I also have somewhat of a rant about dimensions used by some writers, especially bra sizes. Usually, writers who feel the need to use them get the numbers all wrong, or at least what they write seems to be pretty unreasonable. They'll describe the woman as hot or some other adjective that indicates she has a fantastic figure, and then bring up her 44DDD breasts. Bra sizes are based on two dimensions - the dimension of the woman's chest under her breasts - the band size, the "44" number above. The cup size - the "DDD" above is determined by the measurement over the largest part of her breasts. DDD cups would measure 6 inches larger than the band size. A woman could need DDD cup bras no matter the band size, but a woman who needed a 44 inch band would be a pretty large woman, and chances are, the rest of her will be pretty big as well. To put that in perspective, a guy with a 44 inch chest would be wearing large or extra large shirts depending upon the manufacturer. The average woman in the us has a 34 inch chest measurement. That's not to say there might be a 44DDD-26-36 woman out there somewhere, but they're few and far between.

 

[Paul_Chance]

I use what some might call the "IKEA" approach to character descriptions. I give the reader enough pieces he or she can put together the character as they see fit. I think most readers like that. It lets them identify with one of the characters and another will probably look a lot like someone they already know.

I rarely used dimensional aspects when describing a character unless that character has a legitimate reason for knowing those dimensions. If I read a male character saying, "I saw her big 44DDD tits bouncing as she jogged...", I stop reading because it probably isn't going to get any better. Now, if he'd said, when I used her bathroom, I saw that her 44DDD bra was hanging over the shower curtain, he has a legitimate reason to know.

A woman would never gasp, "I need your ten inch cock" on the first date. A woman would have no reason to know how long a man's cock is or how thick it is unless right in the middle of getting it on, she whipped out a tape measure and measured him. I'd never say a woman wouldn't want to measure her man when he's hard, but it probably wouldn't happen when she's really getting into things. Most guys wouldn't enjoy being measured before they were allowed to enter the woman. It would feel like, "Let me see how big you are before I let you do this."

I also have somewhat of a rant about dimensions used by some writers, especially bra sizes. Usually, writers who feel the need to use them get the numbers all wrong, or at least what they write seems to be pretty unreasonable. They'll describe the woman as hot or some other adjective that indicates she has a fantastic figure, and then bring up her 44DDD breasts. Bra sizes are based on two dimensions - the dimension of the woman's chest under her breasts - the band size, the "44" number above. The cup size - the "DDD" above is determined by the measurement over the largest part of her breasts. DDD cups would measure 6 inches larger than the band size. A woman could need DDD cup bras no matter the band size, but a woman who needed a 44 inch band would be a pretty large woman, and chances are, the rest of her will be pretty big as well. To put that in perspective, a guy with a 44 inch chest would be wearing large or extra large shirts depending upon the manufacturer. The average woman in the us has a 34 inch chest measurement. That's not to say there might be a 44DDD-26-36 woman out there somewhere, but they're few and far between.

But, but - what if the POV characters a bra and jock salesman! (LOL - just kidding.)

 

[mildlyaroused]

I also have somewhat of a rant about dimensions used by some writers, especially bra sizes. Usually, writers who feel the need to use them get the numbers all wrong, or at least what they write seems to be pretty unreasonable. They'll describe the woman as hot or some other adjective that indicates she has a fantastic figure, and then bring up her 44DDD breasts. Bra sizes are based on two dimensions - the dimension of the woman's chest under her breasts - the band size, the "44" number above. The cup size - the "DDD" above is determined by the measurement over the largest part of her breasts. DDD cups would measure 6 inches larger than the band size. A woman could need DDD cup bras no matter the band size, but a woman who needed a 44 inch band would be a pretty large woman, and chances are, the rest of her will be pretty big as well. To put that in perspective, a guy with a 44 inch chest would be wearing large or extra large shirts depending upon the manufacturer. The average woman in the us has a 34 inch chest measurement. That's not to say there might be a 44DDD-26-36 woman out there somewhere, but they're few and far between.

Haha I second this. Usually, I think, this is courtesy of male writers who quickly Google how bra sizes work and choose something oh so alluring, forgetting that humans aren't a pick-and-mix of body parts. Facets of our bodies correlate.

Bonus points when unrealistic/illogical descriptions are followed by something along the lines of "but I'd love her all the same [if this woman did not possess this unrealistic, super enticing body trait]."

Really interesting to hear other authors' thoughts in this thread, and pretty typical that the consensus seems to come down to "Idk man, everything in writing is subjective." I guess that's writing for you.

Still fun to hear from others.

 

[ChloeTzang]

If it's written into the story, sure. "She cozied up on the couch and rested her head in my lap; I pounced at the chance to run my fingers through those dark frizzy curls of hers".

Vs

"Jenny was tall. She had perfect 58-12-64 measurements and if her cup sizes were grades then she'd been held back in school."

Exactly. Descriptions are just narrative and they lose me every time when it's someone elses story. For my own, I do my best to work it in rather than spell it out.

I dropped the pretense of the timid Asian girl and stopped smiling as I stepped into her space. I gave her the real Aphrodite for just a second instead.
The Aphrodite that usually only the victims of a terribly unfortunate but well-deserved accident saw.

She stepped back quickly, and I followed, crowding her, in her space and in her face. Well, her boobs anyhow. She was taller than me, but it’s the fight in the dog, not the dog in the fight. That, and for just a second she was seeing the real Aphrodite. Just for a second, and what she was seeing made her step back real quick.

So you get to visualize how tall she is (well, how short) without spelling out her height at all.

 

[vagrantx]

[snip]

In their defence, I'd like to invoke the age-old adage, those who cannot do—teach. I myself have been an avid reader for the better part of four decades, and my library usually turns a few heads whenever I have new guests.
By now I'd like to think I can recognize good writing, and its counterpart, but does that mean I can write?

Heeeeeeeell no Writing is a whole 'nother skill on its own, as I've come to realize lately. I know what I'd like to write, but it's so much harder to get it onto paper than it is to visualize it in my mind, or, to critizise someone elses words.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

In their defence, I'd like to invoke the age-old adage, those who cannot do—teach. I myself have been an avid reader for the better part of four decades, and my library usually turns a few heads whenever I have new guests.
By now I'd like to think I can recognize good writing, and its counterpart, but does that mean I can write?

Heeeeeeeell no Writing is a whole 'nother skill on its own, as I've come to realize lately. I know what I'd like to write, but it's so much harder to get it onto paper than it is to visualize it in my mind, or, to critizise someone elses words.

but I'm just going to drop this sisyphean stone of an argument and head off.

Ahh, you've picked up your stone again, I see.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I also have somewhat of a rant about dimensions used by some writers, especially bra sizes. Usually, writers who feel the need to use them get the numbers all wrong, or at least what they write seems to be pretty unreasonable. They'll describe the woman as hot or some other adjective that indicates she has a fantastic figure, and then bring up her 44DDD breasts. Bra sizes are based on two dimensions - the dimension of the woman's chest under her breasts - the band size, the "44" number above. The cup size - the "DDD" above is determined by the measurement over the largest part of her breasts. DDD cups would measure 6 inches larger than the band size. A woman could need DDD cup bras no matter the band size, but a woman who needed a 44 inch band would be a pretty large woman, and chances are, the rest of her will be pretty big as well. To put that in perspective, a guy with a 44 inch chest would be wearing large or extra large shirts depending upon the manufacturer. The average woman in the us has a 34 inch chest measurement. That's not to say there might be a 44DDD-26-36 woman out there somewhere, but they're few and far between.

I've come to think of "Literotica bra size" as something almost completely divorced from "real world bra size", in the same kind of way that a "size 10" dress doesn't mean the same thing in Australia that it does in the USA.

I still don't read those kinds of stories, because bra measurements in the intro are a reliable signal that this story isn't going to be my kind of thing. But it saves me some irritation if I tell myself that the guy writing about "44DDD breasts" isn't actually describing a woman with a 44-inch band, he's just working in a different language where "44DDD" means "big boobies".

It's a simple enough language to understand. Almost everything means "big boobies" except for a couple of things that mean "very small boobies".

 

[StillStunned]

the guy writing about "44DDD breasts" isn't actually describing a woman with a 44-inch band, he's just working in a different language where "44DDD" means "big boobies"

I'll go one further, and say that a guy writing about "44DDD breasts" isn't describing a woman at all, but a sex toy that happens to be made of flesh and blood instead of silicon.

 

[joy_of_cooking]

the thirty-something woman with expensively-styled blonde hair, or the tall, angular, gawky man, or the girl with emerald-green eyes.

Hmmm. I'm going to guess Jodie and Quinn, but I don't know the third. Based on the "world of hurt," Lily?

 

[HordHolm]

I'll go one further, and say that a guy writing about "44DDD breasts" isn't describing a woman at all, but a sex toy that happens to be made of flesh and blood instead of silicon.

Oh, I think there's probably some silicon in there somewhere...

 

[Scarla]

I like hinting at what my characters might look like. Sometimes I'll give a little more info, sometimes it's vague. I don't mind character description when I read, but it has to feel natural. Anytime I see "Her D-cup breasts" or similar I don't want to continue reading.

 

[LonRivers]

For me it comes down to the importance of that character. For the main characters it is important to describe them as early as you can without going overboard on the details. Leave some of it to stretch out over the course of the story.

I may give a brief description of a Main Character to start and slowly add details as they are needed. In some cases the author writing the story hasn't mapped out the character yet other than a basic look. He or she may add in details as they are writing.

For non-important characters, a brief, basic description is needed. "Tall, handsome with a beard" or "Blonde with large breasts and hips to die for".

Sometimes it doesn't matter how a character is described. The reader decides once that character develops in his or her mind. A perfect example would be John Sandford's "Prey" series where he describes the main character of Lucas Davenport one way each time, and the readers go in a completely opposite direction. Sandford describes him as "He was slender and dark-complexioned, with straight black hair going gray at the temples and a long nose over a crooked smile. One of his central upper incisors had been chipped and he never had it capped. He might have been an Indian except for his blue eyes." but readers picture Tommy Lee Jones. They got Mark Harmon to portray him in a movie. And Eric LeSalle in another movie.

So I think it is up to the reader regardless. Our own description just gives the reader a base appearance to start.

 

[32aa]

Detailed descriptions are all about immersing the reader into the scene and story, making them feel like the action is all around them, which connects them more emotionally to the words and keeps them engaged and makes it harder for them to put your story down. In erotica you have people and their bodies in close proximity to one another, in each other's space. In most cases you likely want to try to put the reader into that same space. You will almost certainly need physical descriptions.

Totally agree. I may tend to go overboard in my descriptions of my characters and what they are feeling for and with each other. Like pink_silk_glove said "it keeps them engaged and makes it harder for them to put your story down."

 

[oneagainst]

Hmmm. I'm going to guess Jodie and Quinn, but I don't know the third. Based on the "world of hurt," Lily?

The green eyes are the thing... you know it's Lily. I've got one storyline in development at the moment, and all you have to go on is that the antagonist's eyes are dark grey, because everything else about their appearance can shift. Reducing a major character to a single data point of description is really bloody interesting to write.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Doesn't need to look like Sherlocks notes, but a general idea is nice... a little fucking something to err on the side of an imagination. I'll read something about characters I'm not attracted to, before I read something about vague lady with hair and a vagina, and alleged man with arms and a penis.

 

[8letters]

The beginning of my story, Giving Thanks for Lingerie:

“Hey, everyone!” called out my sister Erica as she entered my parents’ house. “We’re here!”

“Oh, that’s wonderful,” said my Aunt Rose as she moved toward the front door.

Erica stayed at the door with her boyfriend Aaron as the family gathered around. She and Aaron made a good-looking couple. Erica had blue eyes and wavy dark brown hair that stayed close to her head as it tumbled down to her shoulders. She was wearing a thin black leather jacket, a white cotton blouse, and a long, gray wool skirt. Aaron had light brown eyes, dark brown hair that was cut fairly short, and a full beard and mustache. He had gold wire-rimmed glasses with small lenses and was wearing a tweed driving cap, a tweed jacket, a light blue business shirt, and gray wool pants. They were both dressed as if they had left directly from work, which they probably had. They both looked smart and professional.

Erica is based on Erica Bella in the Italian porn film "La Sposa" (The Bride):

This is a pretty typical introductory description of the main female character for me. Just a few details, enough to plant a seed of what she looks like, but allows the reader a lot of latitude. No mention of the size of her tits. I used as many words to describe her clothes as her looks. I try to get across her personality - she's a smart, successful professional - through the description.

I'll typically add details to the description as the story goes along that are compatible with each other. In my story, My Cookie-Baking Sister, the initial description of Kate is:

She was, as usual, dressed in an oversized sweatshirt and shorts which was mostly covered by the sweatshirt. Her thick brown hair came down to her shoulder blades.

Two scenes later:

Kate was good-looking but also bookish, shy, and spent a lot of time reading romance novels. She was a lot like Belle from Disney’s animated The Beauty and The Beast.

Later in that same scene:

Beauty and The Beast was such a touchstone for Kate and was still her favorite movie. To me, Kate physically resembled Belle. Whenever I had mentioned the resemblance to Kate, she’d retort she had blue eyes instead of Belle’s hazel.

A little later:

Kate normally wore baggy tops, but tonight she was wearing a tight T-shirt that really showed off that she was well-endowed. As Kate was my sister, I never thought about her body and I don’t think I fully realized how nice of a body she had until now. Broad shoulders, a small waist, curvy hips, and long legs filled out the package. I don’t think Travis had any idea of how big she was on top until this moment and his eyes were glued to her chest the whole time she talked to him.

 

[AlexBailey]

I like it both ways.

I like detailed descriptions and I like fill-in-the-blanks. When the author provides details I’m on their ride, when it’s a fill-in-the-blank I get to apply my own tastes.

Years ago in the only formal creative writing class I was in, the professor asked us to create a scene with some brief introductions of characters where we provide a mental picture without any physical description of the characters themselves.

It was a great exercise, here’s what I came up with. (I’ve posted this before)

*****

My brother pulls up the gravel driveway in his ragged old 4x4 pickup truck. He rolls into the yard in a cloud of dust and parks in front of the shop. No sooner has he opened the door when his huge black lab with a red bandana for a collar jumps over his lap and runs toward me with ears flopping and tail wagging.


My sister shows up next, struggling up the grade in her wheezing VW bug. She's had that thing since going away to college fifteen years ago. God, I hope she didn't bring that obnoxious Pomeranian with her!


In the distance is an approaching dust-storm, lead by a gleaming Mercedes Benz, which could only either be my late mother's greedy brother, or the attorney for the estate -- something tells me they might be one in the same.

******


Did it work? Can you begin to imagine the characters? I can easily fill in the blanks, and even the smallest additional details can go a long way.

 

[Mogrem]

3 - When you read and get no description early in the story, you end up putting your own face to the name just to keep things straight. Then three-quarters of the way through the author finally mentions shaved head and red beard and this looks absolutely nothing like the face that you've been putting to this character all along. This is not a pleasant experience for most readers. They have to go back and reimagine all the scenes so far with the new face.

That's a very important one! Another related issue can be to describe early on, but not to reinforce the description. If you casually describe someone in their introductory line in Act I as a ginger, but its neither referenced again nor does it impact on the narrative at all until the start of Act III, then the chances are some of your readers will have forgotten, have settled on a brunette in their mind's eye, and get some whiplash. My personal view is if you can't find a way to reinforce the description through narrative then its better left up to the reader, but I can see how some people could alternatively take from that that reinforcing descriptions is essential instead.

Think about it: "loved the movie but I really would have preferred the female lead to have been blonde and had bigger tits because that's my ideal fantasy". Never. You're perfectly fine with what Selma Hayek or Megan Fox or Zooey Deschanel looks like in the movie. You never question it and you never try to insert the girl that you want into the movie. You just sit back and enjoy the movie. So why should you expect to do it in a story?

This is why I find films more relaxing to watch than books are to read, but I love my favourite books far more deeply and are far more moved by them than I'll ever love a film. That's because I have created my own images for the characters and landscapes, either in the spaces generously left by the authors, or by conveniently forgetting a description that didn't stick for me. This applies to erotica too, including pieces on this site that didn't bother much or at all with character descriptions. It probably has a lot to do with how one visualises things, which is a fascinating subject (in short, there are a lot of different ways, including people who don't visualise at all).

 

[cababge]

It lies entirely in execution I think.

You can get really precise with it - i.e. what clothes they wear, the precise colour and length of their hear, exact dimensions - but you have to do it as they come up. If two bodies are entwined you can clearly paint a picture of their comparative sizes through how they fit against one another without being intrusive and explicitly descriptive.

You can even turn it into a source of erotica - hands running down the length of an arm or torso, over the ridges of bodies. Etc.