Descriptions, and how we go about them

[AwkwardlySet]

A Lit story I just started reading has inspired me to make this thread. The author has a very descriptive style that focuses on details and colors, and that's fine. I prefer a bit more toned-down approach, but I can read stories with varying levels of description as long as the author doesn't drown you with endless paragraphs of colors and details.

Anyway, I am barely one Lit page into the story, and I feel irritated. The author has made sure to let us know what the female college professor looks like in detail, together with her wife, but among all that description, the author didn't think to include at least an approximate idea of their age. From the description, they could be anywhere between 26 and 56. It's just impossible to tell.
Well, okay, there are some small hints at them being on the younger part of the spectrum, but they are open to interpretation.

Descriptions are supposed to help us form images and ideas, to let us know what the author saw in their mind. And I am struggling to form an image because, even if I know what their earrings look like, I've no idea whether I should imagine them as relatively young, middle-aged, or mature. If you put this much attention into describing, failing to tell us at least some approximate age feels like a huge oversight.


So, what are your thoughts on doing descriptions right? I'm not just asking about your tastes - whether you like little or plenty of description, but how you want that description delivered too. What do you think is a good way to describe, and what do you feel should be avoided?

 

[anthrodisiac]

Descriptions, for the most part, ought to be doing something useful to the reader. I don't think it's very useful to go into massive depth when it comes to describing people and places, because you want to leave some room for the reader to create their own version, so that each read story is unique within the mind of that particular reader. I tend to look at it, as always, from the lens of what work is it doing? Why am I bothering to include this? — same as I do for just about everything else. When I write humans, my descriptions are incredibly minimalistic; similarly, my places tend to be no more than a paragraph or two unless it's doing something beyond setting a scene (though I've gotten more detailed at times depending on the POV, which, to me, is one of the core lenses through which description and why it's being included ought to be considered through).

The descriptions for my anthros are much more detailed, though, and there are three reasons:
1. People are less familiar with them and there's a huge range of variability within anthro stories about what they actually are and look like. So, to help ground the reader, I go into detail about morphology and coloration and anatomy so readers have an idea what the hell they're dealing with.
2. Those anatomies and morphologies tend to be pretty involved in the story, so it's not different from someone having red hair being a major point in a story and making sure you're very clear that person has red hair ASAP.
3. Anatomy and morphology are one of the most fun parts of writing non-human stories when the non-humans in question aren't humans, but blue. The audience of the niche appreciates creature creation, and creature creation is one of my favorite things about writing anything with non-humans.

But for the most part, with the exception of non-humans and sex scenes (the reason for heavy description being titillation, and also to help keep it from being purely utilitarian and focused on the plot and character development elements, which can be kinda dry), I tend to keep my descriptions on the low side, because I want the reader to be a partner in creating this world with me, not for me to hand them a 4k UHD photograph and tell them this is exactly how it's supposed to look. It's more paint-by-numbers. I give them the outline, the reader fills in the colors and maybe adds a few things of their own if they want. It helps keep them more involved when they can tailor their experience to their own preference, rather than be told exactly how every tiny little detail ought to be.

 

[TheDok]

My thoughts as a reader and writer _ don't drown people with minutiae but give the just enough detail to let folk sketch in what is unsaid in their own minds .Obviously Sex age etc are important if they cannot be figured out through context. For me detailed anatomical descriptions only become important if they add to the story- maybe as a hot scene We are writing to entertain folk, not to demonstrate how clever we are.

 

[TheLobster]

Precise and detailed descriptions are less important than conveying how your PoV characters feels about the appearance of the other character and what kind of impression is (s)he making on them. If an author fails to do that, and instead provides a long plodding enumeration of every photographic minutiae of a character's appearance, it's only going to make readers glaze over and, at best, subconsciously cherry-pick one or two traits and build their entire mental image of the character based around them.

Should a very detailed description be necessary, it's best to weave it into the action the same you would any other infodumpy passage.

 

[onehitwanda]

In Architecture, Mies van der Rohe championed the ideal that "Less is more."

I feel this is applicable to many things. Some times there's a call for an extravagant croque-en-bouche of paragraph upon paragraph of description. But there comes a point where I put the book down or close the window in irritation. Don't describe Thag the Mighty, first of his name. Name him, and let ME construct him in my mind.

 

[Writer61]

So, what are your thoughts on doing descriptions right? I'm not just asking about your tastes - whether you like little or plenty of description, but how you want that description delivered too. What do you think is a good way to describe, and what do you feel should be avoided?

It's a good question. Like you, I prefer a minimal approach, so I normally give:

• Gender
• Approximate age
• Approximate height
• Indication of body shape (NEVER exact measurements)
• Hair style & colour (more for women than men)
• Eye colour (not always)
• Skin colour (although I prefer to say something like Asian or African)
• Clothes (not always and more likely something like 'smartly dressed' than specifics)

I figure that's enough for somebody to have an image in their mind.

 

[yowser]

It's the extraneous descriptions that need to go. Does that detail suggest something significant about that character (or otherwise contribute to the plot/story movement?) Otherwise ditch it. Age matters when it matters, earrings less so unless they tell you something about the character (or illuminate how another character reacts to them.)

I am a big fan of small and significant. Close-set beady eyes that look untrustworthy. A disingenuous smile. Someone's habit of having fists clenched is far more telling than their height or weight. Give a detail a reader can identify quickly and intuitively, no bludgeoning please.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Precise and detailed descriptions are less important than conveying how your PoV characters feels about the appearance of the other character and what kind of impression is (s)he making on them. If an author fails to do that, and instead provides a long plodding enumeration of every photographic minutiae of a character's appearance, it's only going to make readers glaze over and, at best, subconsciously cherry-pick one or two traits and build their entire mental image of the character based around them.

Should a very detailed description be necessary, it's best to weave it into the action the same you would any other infodumpy passage.

My tastes align pretty much with yours. I also see that every reply so far has been leaning toward less description.

I would also say that, in my opinion, the opposite approach has a lot of merit when done right. Description without purpose in a "L'art pour l'art" kind of way.
Yet if the author chooses such an approach, I feel they need to be very selective. Like, take time to describe a plot-wise useless, but still wonderful sunset, if you want to do that. Describe it vividly, poetically even.
Or the way dusk settles over the woods. Or the way the first light of dawn bathes a stone castle.
Or even something less grandiose, like the sight of a small bird hopping from branch to branch, looking for food.

Now, do that too often, and the reader is going to start skipping the descriptions altogether. They will become tedious. But time them right, and you'll have small pieces of art interwoven throughout your story.

From everything I've seen in the AH, most authors take the utilitarian approach. I lean that way too. But the above approach can be exceptional when done right.

 

[spiralholly]

Description of the scene in detail should be reflecting or contrasting the mood of the character in that scene. Excess detail while brawling is a mess, though if the POV is with a skilled combatant, they might include quick assessments. The rest of us just know what they felt and how they reacted and the panic it generated.

I've seen a good description explain how a person is grieving while their dog hops about, oblivious, and I and the POV character are drawn to the details to explain what isn't being said.

I tend to write too much dialog, but I'm stuck a little in thinking descriptions of setting are only preparation for the speaking and acting parts of the story.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

We've talked about this quite a bit. Maybe not as much as ratings and comments, but still.


I go very general, approximate age (late thirties, early forties), general height and build (tall, slim, athletic), some hint at attractive enough to turn heads. I may do hair color if it will matter later on.

But there is no data dump. That is all built in to some other part of the story.

 

[TheseThings]

A question for you.

If you have a story series and you give an outline description of a character in chapter 02.
And that character latter becomes more important in chapter 05, then should you give a brief reminder or aid memoir?

Personally i think Writer61’s minimal approach is ideal, unless the whole point of a work of fiction is to fully revel in the close observation of someone.

Like i have attempted here https://www.literotica.com/s/tommy-road-king

It's a good question. Like you, I prefer a minimal approach, so I normally give:

• Gender
• Approximate age
• Approximate height
• Indication of body shape (NEVER exact measurements)
• Hair style & colour (more for women than men)
• Eye colour (not always)
• Skin colour (although I prefer to say something like Asian or African)
• Clothes (not always and more likely something like 'smartly dressed' than specifics)

I figure that's enough for somebody to have an image in their mind.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm a visual writer, often described as "cinematic", "like a movie", but like most others, I'm minimalistic with it. Enough to give readers a visual sense, but focussed on what I call "grace notes" that reveal something about character.

A bell jangled when he pushed the door open, but the counter was deserted.

"Sorry, I was out back in the kitchen, what will you have?"

You, he thought, caught instantly by her grace and shy smile.

"A medium latte, take away, please."

"OK, my pleasure," she replied, turning to the espresso machine; her hands busy, her long hair twisting outwards with the turn of her body.

No, mine, Adam thought, as he watched her precise movements, her slim fingers reaching for a paper cup then gripping the tamper, pressing down the coffee, flicking the tap. As the steam rushed into the milk, her hands became still as she held the stainless steel jug, both hands around its body, judging the temperature. Perfection. The woman became a moment in time in front of him, and Adam gazed upon her. The second hand on the wall clock froze, tick but no tock. The ceremony had begun.

Adam watched the woman as she concentrated on serving him, her hands slow, her eyes ever so slightly narrowed in a small frown and her lips ever so slightly parted. She was slender, narrow hipped with a slim waist, her breasts barely shaping the front of her waitress tunic. Her hair was long, coiled black falling down her back, falling to the line of her hips. Adam imagined that silken black hair wrapping over his arm, if he could take her by the waist and escort her to a dance floor.

Feeling herself observed, the woman turned to her customer. "I have not seen you here before, have I?"

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

A question for you.

If you have a story series and you give an outline description of a character in chapter 02.
And that character latter becomes more important in chapter 05, then should you give a brief reminder or aid memoir?

Not unless it really matters.

Maybe they've changed somehow.

 

[Writer61]

If you have a story series and you give an outline description of a character in chapter 02.
And that character latter becomes more important in chapter 05, then should you give a brief reminder or aid memoir?

Another good question.

Most of my series are episodic, with a consistent MC and some recurring characters. It should be possible to read each standalone, which implies that every recurring characteristic is described again. In practice, I don't, and I haven't had any complaints so far.

 

[Rob_Royale]

It's a good question. Like you, I prefer a minimal approach, so I normally give:

• Gender
• Approximate age
• Approximate height
• Indication of body shape (NEVER exact measurements)
• Hair style & colour (more for women than men)
• Eye colour (not always)
• Skin colour (although I prefer to say something like Asian or African)
• Clothes (not always and more likely something like 'smartly dressed' than specifics)

I figure that's enough for somebody to have an image in their mind.

Agreed. I think that's enough for the reader to recall someone with that description and plug them into the story. In my opinion that's a lot sexier then forcing my version on the reader.

 

[Stanfield2025]

I don't think it's very useful to go into massive depth when it comes to describing people and places, because you want to leave some room for the reader to create their own version, so that each read story is unique within the mind of that particular reader.

I've gone with this philosophy for some time, but I think I went overboard with it to the point that I've gotten feedback from people not knowing how to picture certain characters even if I launder bits of description here and there in the narrative. Evidently, people are consistently missing the laundered bits for some reason.

I don't think the philosophy is incorrect (though I am starting to have my doubts about it) but description in and of itself seems to be valuable to readers.

 

[PapaRomantic]

I don't want to see anybody writing like it's the J. Peterman Collection.

 

[Erozetta]

Unless body worship is in play, less is more for me.

If something is important to a character (like putting a lot of effort into her outfit or an obvious age gap that heightens interest or creates a "oh we shouldn't do this" element) then it will get details as needed. But I don't detail for the sake of details.

 

[Britva415]

So, what are your thoughts on doing descriptions right? I'm not just asking about your tastes - whether you like little or plenty of description, but how you want that description delivered too. What do you think is a good way to describe, and what do you feel should be avoided?

I like when descriptions are related to stuff that's happening. Thick steaming slabs of prose in which nothing happens but description proliferates are super boring.

 

[Britva415]

Descriptions are supposed to help us form images and ideas, to let us know what the author saw in their mind.

I don't care what the author sees in their mind. I don't read fiction for the impressionism of it, I read it for the plot. An author who isn't satisfied with getting description "close enough" and moving on is very alienating to me. I call that kind of over-describing, and that kind of attempt to go on and on until the author finally runs out of gas and has the mistaken belief that the reader is going to get it sooo perfect, "police-sketch" narration.

I think the author would be better off evoking something about the character rather than over-doing describing them. Excessive description is the opposite of evocative.

 

[crookedletter]

I wouldn't say one approach is necessarily better than the other. If specific details of a character's appearance are important for the story, if they're important to the other characters (especially the perspective character), then it makes sense to provide those details to the reader.

Often they're not important. As a reader I don't have a problem with conjuring my own images of characters based on other cues. What annoys me is when I've done that and 50 pages later there's a line like "A strand of her golden hair came loose to fall over her blue eyes," or whatever, and I've been picturing her with dark hair and dark eyes. If you're going to provide those details, provide them early.

As with anything, either approach can be done well, and can be done poorly. It comes down to execution.

 

[TropicalTwist]

I'm having trouble answering this because I can easily see myself enjoying a story that does things that annoy me.
Typically, I agree with many here that the non-relevant ongoing ultra description (and I would apply this also to way too vague) gets tiring. But what if that day I'm randomly in the mood for it? @.@

I guess this just boils down to I try to be open and give things a chance even if it swims upstream in my preferences.

 

[Katie_Mae]

I don't form pictures in my mind as I read. Unless the author provides character art, I won't really have much idea of what the characters look like, especially if they're human. One human pretty much looks like the other, and an author can describe them all they want, I'll probably retain very, very little of the physical visual description.

The way a character looks is important to me when it's relevant.

eg:

She's taller than average, which is why she was the one chosen to climb the rope ladder to the ship, the rungs of which were far apart and it was a struggle even for her.

She's self conscious about her breasts, which impacts the way she acts in a situation. She could be self conscious because they're too big or too small, it doesn't really matter what they look like, it's the way it impacts here which matters.

He has two cocks. That will need a little description, to understand if they're side by side or on top of each other etc, because it makes a difference when it comes to the sex. But I don't care about the look of the two cocks, as such, but the imagining of how they'd both feel inside me.

When it's not relevant, I don't feel the need for much physical description at all. I especially don't care what the women look like. I guess I'd sometimes like to know what the men look like a little. But, honestly, it's just fine if the author says they're "hot" and leaves it at that.

I'm working on a story right now. Thinking about it, the main character has no physical visual description at all. The only hint to her age is she's a biologist. However the plant gets a bit of description. This is because it's a plant fucking story. As a reader I need enough detail that I can go away and imagine what it would be like if I were fucked by this plant, and it doesn't matter if the human character in the story is blonde or a red head or 30 or 40 or whatever.

__

But not everyone reads like I do. Not everyone experiences the world as I do. Other people can see subtle differences in faces that I can't; they can see an actor in one movie and recognise them from another. Other people form pictures in their minds and find they need this to understand the story, or to find it erotic.

And that's fine. There's writers for those readers. I'm not one of them.

While I will never be the writer for a reader who requires in-depth physical description, I do acknowledge I'm probably on one far end of the scale. I do try to remember to add some visual appearances into my stories. It's part of what got me back into drawing again; if I draw my characters then I can know what they look like, which can help me remember to describe them a little.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I've gone with this philosophy for some time, but I think I went overboard with it to the point that I've gotten feedback from people not knowing how to picture certain characters even if I launder bits of description here and there in the narrative. Evidently, people are consistently missing the laundered bits for some reason.

I don't think the philosophy is incorrect (though I am starting to have my doubts about it) but description in and of itself seems to be valuable to readers.

It's possible to go overboard with it. Like @crookedletter says though, it's important to set up what those features are if you're going to bring them into play. I think it's good to get a rough shape of someone so the reader can construct them with regards to how they interact with the world, and how the world interacts with them, but I rarely think most readers need more than that. There are those who read like they're taking in a movie or TV show, and thus want everything spelled out for them, and those tend to be people who like high-description narratives.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I don't form pictures in my mind as I read. Unless the author provides character art, I won't really have much idea of what the characters look like, especially if they're human. One human pretty much looks like the other, and an author can describe them all they want, I'll probably retain very, very little of the physical visual description.

I also, perhaps ironically, am borderline aphantasic. It's probably why I don't really enjoy slogging through highly visual descriptive segments unless it's something cool and I can appreciate the creativity that went into it — like creature creation. I take all descriptions as abstractions, both in writing/reading and in real life, which tends to make when I do high description somewhat tedious because I'm trying to figure out what important details to include, but not only focus on those because it becomes too utilitarian. Her Forest Bloom and OYGA are both experiments in high-descriptive writing for me, and I'm fairly ambivalent toward having to do it. It's a good skill to have, but it very much takes a backseat to so many other things in my own writing.