Too much description is bad?

[Drakai]

I noticed that a lot of people find long descriptions and similes boring. Also newer books tend to include less and less of both. It could be that only the books I'm reading are like this. But I honestly love both and use them a lot. Is it really boring or bad?

 

[JunkMonkey]

Neither. It's just most people these days have been weaned on, and are so used to, rapid-fire TV cutting and comic books they don't have the attention spans to cope with long descriptive passages.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Too much of anything's bad - that's the definition of too much.

Books do tend to have less description now than in the past. I don't mind low or high levels (obviously not including extremes of either). If you like using more description than average, and are good at it, I'd say do it.

 

[Gumboot]

I guess it depends what sort of books you want to write. While it's true that pulpy mainstream novels are becoming extremely thin in their prose, that's not true of the sort of heftier "serious" novels that routinely win major literature awards.

 

[Drakai]

I usually try to write plot intensive stories, and sometimes use more than necessary. But I always loved reading good descriptions and I love writing long descriptions.

 

[Gordian Knot]

Too much description is bad? Someone aught to tell that hack Steven King who has made a career of "why say it in 10 words if you can say it 100!!!!!"

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

I noticed that a lot of people find long descriptions and similes boring. Also newer books tend to include less and less of both. It could be that only the books I'm reading are like this. But I honestly love both and use them a lot. Is it really boring or bad?

It's a tough balancing act. Too much is bad, yes. But how much is too much? That depends on the writer and the reader.

I find Anne Rice's pages of description utterly, mind-numbingly boring, others think her description is amazing. (Bad example, maybe.)

A good test, I think, is this: Is there only description in this paragraph? Then it's too much. If there's no narration in the paragraph then it's too much description. Does the paragraph have one line of narration and thirty-five lines of description? Then it's too much.

Another good one, again, I think, is this: Is there more than three lines of description about one item, object, or person? Then it's too much. Give a line about their dress, a line about their hair, and a line about their overpowering cologne, but stop there, at least for now. Include more description of the character later, don't description dump on the first encounter.

 

[Zahhak]

I'd suggest reading some Lovecraft. He used a huge amount of description, and ended up with a lot of run on sentences because of it. It isn't inherently bad, but it does get extremely grating to read a paragraph for what could have been said in a sentence.

 

[Triceratops]

Yeah, I've been hearing this lately too. Prose, good prose it out. Storytelling is in, in, in. I remember one of the persons who made that comment was defending 50 Shades and explained why it was superior to everything out there because of the masterful storytelling.

I still love beautiful writing if its kept in check.

chris

 

[Chel]

Paragraphs long descriptions of unimportant stuff is too much, I think. And even if the setting/character/what-have-you IS important, the description needs to be just right.

But then, there's also the matter of pace. Readers need time to breathe in between the action, to feel part of the world. And if the reader can't imagine the world/character/what-have-you in a way that at least somewhat resembles what the author had in mind, something is wrong.

Then again, the reader does not need to get an identical vision to the writer's to enjoy the book. That's why we have movies... and even with movies, viewers will notice very different details in what they are shown.

So, too much description is bad, yes. Too little description is bad too. But it still depends on what the goal of the description is. If a character admires a piece of art for a long time, taking in every detail, "it was a round and heavy object, resting on a pedestal near the window" will hardly be enough. But if the character just grabs the nearest thing to throw at his enemy, a "round and heavy object standing on a pedestal near the window" is, in my opinion, adequate.

 

[Kylara]

I love description. Really love it. I can read it all day and I can write it all night. But then I am a full on purple loving fiend who adores Lovecraft and Tolkein and old school styles of writing - for me, the more description there is the better. But it has to be good description. Pages of description are beautiful, the play of words evoking incandescent images in my mind...but then I know lots of people don't have such a great joy in just words describing things as I do, and readers are, to me, lazy people who can't be bothered to read it through...

I am very description heavy, and I know I have to cut lots of it and often I don't but that is a style thing that I have, and I will probably have to remedy that a bit in subsequent revisions...so I love description but other people don't and what is too much depends on the person...

 

[Ursa major]

...because of the masterful storytelling.

If they used the actual word, masterful, I suspect this was, in part, wordplay.

 

[Hex]

I like to know how things look/ smell/ sound but I get bored by pages of description. What really winds me up is when the author clearly visited a foreign city and so feels the need to describe it. Honestly, I think skilful description doesn't jump out screaming "I am description!!!", it happens interwoven with everything else.

Patricia McKillip is fabulous at this kind of description.

 

[Sander]

Personally, my eyes tend to glaze over at long paragraphs filled with description. I find myself skipping them, no matter how well-written they are. Because, honestly, it isn't really the relevant part of the novel most of the time. It's good in small doses, if used correctly to set the scene, but the descriptions I like best are the ones that seem to flow naturally from the action and dialogue.

 

[ralphkern]

Jack Mcdevitt, one of my fave authors gave an interview where he said that writing has changed with the advent of the internet. People can simply google a lot of stuff.

An example on the top of my head would be describing say the Space Shuttle. You may want to describe subjective emotions about it. (Joe Blogs admired the beautiful rounded curves etc) You may even want to describe some relevant technical aspects of it that arn't generally known but neccesary to the story (errrr... Blogs knew the black tiled heat shield was burning away she entered the atmosphere), but why physically describe it? Pretty much anyone knows what it looks like.

For example, beyond make and colour who really describes a car in a story? its not neccesary, you might say its dirty or clean etc or that it 'drove slowly but menacingly' but you wouldn't say 'The four wheeled grey ford mundano Ghia with a 2litre engine' etc

I think if its in the public awareness, don't bother. If it is known to a few people, a little bit, they can google it if they care that much about it (Ill emphasise without your poor reader having to fire up the laptop every five minutes though!!!). If you're making something up totally, a space ship or a castle etc then enough for someone to imagine without getting bored.

 

[JunkMonkey]

For example, beyond make and colour who really describes a car in a story? its not neccesary, you might say its dirty or clean etc or that it 'drove slowly but menacingly' but you wouldn't say 'The four wheeled grey ford mundano Ghia with a 2litre engine' etc

No, but you would describe the car in slightly more detail if it's important to the story. I have no idea what a "ford mundano Ghia with a 2litre engine" looks like but, more importantly (maybe) I don't know if it's an old car, a new car, an expensive car, a cheap car, a death-trap on wheels, or the height of sophisticated driving luxury.

Are we talking about some bloke climbing into the family saloon a tootling off down the bypass or Batman gunning the Batmobile at a brazzilian miles an hour down a Gotham city alleyway?

'Character X got in his car and drove away.' Tells me nothing other than character x drove a car. Away.

'Character X slid into his car's dark, Corinthian leather-upholstered interior, the engine purred into life. The needles of dials, silver against the dark polished walnut veneer of the dashboard flicked and then, with a throaty snarl and a screech of tires on tarmac, the car was accellerating; a brilliant red streak along the dusty road, Character X casually sliding the high-powered Italian machine around corners as if the laws of physics did not apply to it." tells me (in a rather purpley, trashy way) that this was one expensive piece of machinery and that the driver was, if not rich, then certainly used to the better things in life, possibly a good driver, certainly used to driving this machine.

Good description (which that was not) does more than describe the thing. It describes the thing in context and (with luck) illuminates the setting.

 

[Sander]

Jack Mcdevitt, one of my fave authors gave an interview where he said that writing has changed with the advent of the internet. People can simply google a lot of stuff.

I'm not sure that's true, honestly. I might google what something looks like occasionally, but usually that tells me the author did a poor job of describing what was happening.

 

[Kissmequick]

Big blocks of description will absolutely kill your pace. I have no idea if this is the advent of TV, but I've always been like this. If you stop the story of three pages of description of something mundane, I forget where the story was, and/or my eyes glaze over. Also, more effective techniques have come up -- ones where you slide in a little description here, a little there, and your reader has built up a picture in their head almost without realising. Much more subtle. But then, not everyone likes subtle I suppose!

Anyway, you would add in a descriptor here -- the guy got into his beat up car -- and another there -- grey paint flaked off as he slammed the door shut -- and bingo, your reader knows it's an old grey car with flaking paint.

Also, two or three really telling details can tell you as much as a page of description. And lots of readers don't like to be spoon-fed. Give them the gist and they'll fill in the rest, provided you've given them the right details. Description is all tell - show me your world (in action, as your protag moves through it) don't tell me what it's like.


That said, nothing should be slavishly adhered to, If your style, or this part of the story needs a description, then give it. But make it interesting -- don't give me a laundry list of 'It was a house, made of red bricks, with a grey slate roof'. Give me the unusual things, or from a POV I've not thought of before, or a way of looking at a house I've never seen (The house hulked like a giant abandoned baby, waiting for someone to come and play). Make your description, when you use it, come alive.

ETA: A really good way of practising description (esp of people) is go to a cafe. Sit down and describe each person, but you are only allowed to use three details to do it. See how you can conjure an image of that person in those three details -- give the essence of them if you will, not a police style run down of physical attributes. His messy hair, her jumper with the bobbles on it, that guy's way of pinching his nose etc. Works for other description too.

 

[ralphkern]

Exactly Junkmonkey, nowhere in your beautiful writing did you add in that 'Character X slid into his car, a four wheeled mode of transport, used in every single nation on Earth.' because it's not neccesary. What you did describe was things that not everyone would know about that car specifically.

As a 'Hard Sci Fi' fan I love geeky techy stuff. Take Reynolds, one of the greats of Sci Fi as far as i'm concerned. He uses a lot of fringe science in his pieces. To describe them in their entirety would not only destroy the pace but smash his publishers word limits to smitherreens and whats more may confuse people.

An example is some of his weapons where it actually adds to the story overall to leave them somewhat vague, to show that they characters don't really know what theyre messing with. Yet someone like myself who digs that stuff can sit down and have a look in depth on google should we choose to.

As a somewhat amusing anecdote on this topic, on my novel I did briefly try writing a naughty scene however bottled it when I realised A) it added nothing to the story to actually describe every 'ahem' motion when it could just as easily take place 'of screen' and B) my family would likely read this at some point.

A is obviously moe important than B but still... I was relieved that i could get away without it!

 

[Gumboot]

I think the key to good description is that it does more than just describe. A dense passage of description that also tells you about character, or creates atmosphere, will be received a lot better than a brief passage that does nothing beyond describing something.