Descriptive Writing, Especially Settings

[Extollager]

I'm going to offer a few theses for discussion. I'm not sure that they are all accurate; perhaps discussion here will help to show whether each is accurate or not.

Thesis 1.Science fiction and fantasy as we know them are modern literary developments. We may refer to them together as imaginative romance or IM for convenience. I propose, then, that our discussion limit itself to writing from the 19th century onwards, though I know that earlier writings may legitimately be considered proto-sf/fantasy.

Thesis 2.IM developed in the context of popular fiction, such as (in the English-speaking world) the stories of Sir Walter Scott, Dickens, Trollope, et al., in which authors freely provided stretches of description of their settings. Evidently this practice was acceptable to, indeed appreciated by, many of their readers.

Thesis 3.Similarly, very early IM (Wells, William Morris, H. Rider Haggard, George MacDonald, Richard Jefferies, et al.) provided much description of settings, which might portray lost cities in Africa, Faerie, the Moon, Earth in the distant past or in the future, etc.

Thesis 4.The relatively lavish use of description continued in the first half of the 20th century, but was paralleled by the development of pulp sf and fantasy in which description was often sketchy, in deference to fast action.

Thesis 5.In relatively recent years, writers have tended not to provide protracted passages of description.

Thesis 6.This change may be due to several factors, including: (a) the sense that Tolkien has done it so well that it's hardly worth trying, (b) the influence of editors and writing workshops that disapprove of "purple prose," (c) the influence of lavishly detailed movies and graphic novels, in which images are presented directly to the reader with relatively little, or no, verbal element, so that younger writers simply don't read very much description and do not develop an aspiration to write it, (d) laziness, because while writing good dialogue is hard, writing dialogue is easy.

Thesis 7.While description has largely moved out of popular fiction, those who like to write it and read it have found a place for it in the renaissance of travel writing.

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/foru...-library-and-other-literary-travel-books.html

 

[George Ian]

All very well thought out - in my opinion.
In number 6, I take it you mean 'description is hard, dialogue is easy'?
If so, I agree - but does it matter - surely the essence of modern sci-fi must be a driving narrative, keeping the reader absorbed and allowing him/her to use imagination to create the scene?
P.S. I don't mind a bit of 'purple prose'.

 

[psikeyhackr]

I have a bit of a problem with this from the start.

I can agree with limiting science fiction to the 19th century, specifically Frankenstein.

I can not see putting that limit on fantasy.

The problem is people trying to make this tight association between science fiction and fantasy.

psik

 

[Brian G Turner]

Thesis 1: Disagree. Any literature that aims to harken to a "Golden Age" of prior history, and allows for mythical developments, IMO can be potentially included as "fantasy" and certainly "speculative fiction". Don Quixote and Morte D'Arthur I would suggest as mediaeval examples, but there were many others from that period. The Normans especially used fiction to promote themselves as the true heirs of Britain, not least through Arthur legends.

I would also suggest that the writings of Ancient Greece would fall under SFF fiction, not least the Iliad.

Thesis 6: Tolkien simply wrote in the same manner that was popular in fiction prior to WWII. People do not avoid long descriptions through laziness: we have become increasingly exposed to - and consume - media, and it has sought to capture our attention more quickly and directly. Novels are no exception. Simply put, there is no longer any tolerance for waffle, piffle, or long digressions.

 

[HareBrain]

I'd disagree that Tolkien wrote long description. Most of his descriptive sections are only two or three lines long, and to my mind, they're very skilfully handled.

I used to have a tolerance for long description, but I now believe a much better effect can be achieved by quality rather than quantity. The right couple of details, used in an original way, will evoke a setting much better than exhaustive detail of the kind employed, for example, by H Rider Haggard in She. And you can find plenty of examples in well-written modern SFF.

 

[Extollager]

I'd disagree that Tolkien wrote long description. Most of his descriptive sections are only two or three lines long, and to my mind, they're very skilfully handled.

I agree about Tolkien's descriptive writing being very skilful. That is one of the things that keeps me coming back to it again. But there's an enormous amount of description in LOTR. Open a one-volume edition at random ten times... see what I mean?

 

[Extollager]

In number 6, I take it you mean 'description is hard, dialogue is easy'?

Thanks for checking, but, yes, I did mean that writing good dialogue is hard, but writing dialogue in general is easy, certainly much easier than writing description.

 

[Randy M.]

[...]

Thesis 4.The relatively lavish use of description continued in the first half of the 20th century, but was paralleled by the development of pulp sf and fantasy in which description was often sketchy, in deference to fast action.

[...]http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/foru...-library-and-other-literary-travel-books.html

I think this thesis simplifies what happened. Modern photography, the cinema, the train, the automobile, the airplane all changed how readers saw the world. Formerly they relied on travel writing to show them places they hadn't been; as the 20th century wore on they either saw the world in the newspaper, in the theater, on TV or went out into it on their own (the latter also apparently accounts for the growth of craft beers in the U.S.).

Writers responded. Stephen Crane, Gertrude Stein, Lardner, Sherwood Anderson, Hemingway were all less descriptive than the previous literary generation (Henry James, for instance). Hemingway, in particular, had an immense influence on the pulps; Hammett may have gotten to his pared style by himself, but most other writers were following him and Hemingway by using current vernacular, keeping sentences short and punchy, and favoring the actions of their characters over sketching in surroundings.

Randy M.

 

[tinkerdan]

I would think that it goes much deeper than this and has more to do with industrialization.
Here's what I mean by this:

Long ago when travel was more restrictive and communication over longer distances to much longer time we lived in a world that seemed so much larger and stranger than it is today. People who couldn't hop on a plane and go half way around the world or even on a bus and go across country were a bit more starved for a piece of the exotic nature of places far away and were more likely to want to absorb all the description they could obtain about far off islands and steamy jungles or ancient cities.

As travel became easier communication faster the world seemed to shrink to a point where places were easier to get to and information abounding there was less craving for these descriptions. But that only covers the novels that relate to locations that exist. And usually only when dealing with what might be considered the most common and familiar places.

Which brings me to the notion that it doesn't cover some of the places people would avoid going and If you look-and not all that hard-you will find some pretty good literature that has some awesome gritty descriptions of just such places.

So if anything there has been a shift in the focus of description.

Also because of such an awareness of the effect of walls of description there is a shunning of that, but that does not mean the description does not exist-it has just been integrated into the literature in more palatable slices for the readers.

So if you don't notice it is it really like that tree in the forest that falls with no one around and it doesn't make a sound?

 

[Randy M.]

Tinkerdan, what you said was what I was trying to get at. You just (*cough*) described it better.


Randy M.

 

[Extollager]

I'm bringing this thread to the attention of Chronsfolk again. There's a thread on the "Old Solar System." I suspect that many works belonging to that category -- especially the ones written outside the pulp context -- emphasized description. This might be a place to go if anyone wants to pursue the topic.

http://www.sffchronicles.com/threads/551492/

 

[J Riff]

Description of various settings generally thought of as 'science fictional' may have been made simpler by the profusion of graphically real-looking movies. Space stations, aliens, spaceships, terraforming, etc. all common images, whereas they weren't 'back in the day.'
Character description, though, hasn't changed an iota. Some of the best stories have zero physical character description. Not even their clothing. This puts you, the reader, into the role of one of the mcs. In theory.
It's challenging to try and put a lot of physical details into action plots. Houses, streets, rooms, vehicles, all this stuff is probably best dealt with as succinctly as possible but: some people just write great descriptive text and are wise enough to write descriptions of interesting stuff*
I'll disagree vaguely with the 'dialogue is easier.' concept. It may well be, yet writing interesting characters to deliver said dialogue is probably as hard as ever.

 

[Zendexor]

I'm going to offer a few theses for discussion. I'm not sure that they are all accurate; perhaps discussion here will help to show whether each is accurate or not.

Thesis 1.Science fiction and fantasy as we know them are modern literary developments. We may refer to them together as imaginative romance or IM for convenience. I propose, then, that our discussion limit itself to writing from the 19th century onwards, though I know that earlier writings may legitimately be considered proto-sf/fantasy.

Thesis 2.IM developed in the context of popular fiction, such as (in the English-speaking world) the stories of Sir Walter Scott, Dickens, Trollope, et al., in which authors freely provided stretches of description of their settings. Evidently this practice was acceptable to, indeed appreciated by, many of their readers.

Thesis 3.Similarly, very early IM (Wells, William Morris, H. Rider Haggard, George MacDonald, Richard Jefferies, et al.) provided much description of settings, which might portray lost cities in Africa, Faerie, the Moon, Earth in the distant past or in the future, etc.

Thesis 4.The relatively lavish use of description continued in the first half of the 20th century, but was paralleled by the development of pulp sf and fantasy in which description was often sketchy, in deference to fast action.

Thesis 5.In relatively recent years, writers have tended not to provide protracted passages of description.

Thesis 6.This change may be due to several factors, including: (a) the sense that Tolkien has done it so well that it's hardly worth trying, (b) the influence of editors and writing workshops that disapprove of "purple prose," (c) the influence of lavishly detailed movies and graphic novels, in which images are presented directly to the reader with relatively little, or no, verbal element, so that younger writers simply don't read very much description and do not develop an aspiration to write it, (d) laziness, because while writing good dialogue is hard, writing dialogue is easy.

Thesis 7.While description has largely moved out of popular fiction, those who like to write it and read it have found a place for it in the renaissance of travel writing.

http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/foru...-library-and-other-literary-travel-books.html

Sounds convincing. I might just offer a fairly modern counter-example, though (if 1954-64 is 'fairly modern'): the James Bond novels. They have plenty of meticulous description. Ian Fleming is good on place and detailed depiction of atmosphere.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

the James Bond novels.

They are however total fantasy.
No one can operate with so much alcohol.
compared to Deighton or LeCarre very inaccurate and almost no spy craft.
I always thought Leslie Charteris "The Saint" was a more interesting character and better stories in a similar genre.
The Film Bonds has more tenuous grasp of reality. The more recent "The Saint" Film seem to have nothing in common much with the books or the various TV series.