How did,Why and when did description fall out of fashion?

[Thrice Great Hermes]

I don't think it's laziness, so much as a (perceived) lack of time so people want everything that little bit more quickly than they used to (of course they haven't really got less time than people 50 years ago, if anything they have more leisure time, but they waste it in different ways). I'm also convinced that attention spans are much less than they were, which is perhaps a corollary of doing everything quickly and being so tuned into electronic media etc. As a result readers just can't cope with long descriptions before they're losing patience and wanting more action.

I also blame the emergent headcanon culture and writers catering to that in order reduce their own work load,by deliberately half crating things or less
and letting the reader do the rest themselves. Which to me defeats the point of reading some else work.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

I'd sum up the lesson I've taken from this thread as:

Description is good when it creates immediacy and bad when it opposes it.

By immediacy, I mean the sense that the story is happening immediately before you; I could probably use the word immersion just as well (I don't know if that's how others were using it). Great description creates that by painting vivid pictures. Excessive description ends up telling people what they already know and that mars the immediacy.

Description will never be dead. After all, stories are describing what's in your head. 'Description', as in tons of it... a snappy sentence beats a purple paragraph anyway. And that's coming from someone who likes description.

I'm not certain that it's a matter of pure talent, just the taste of the audience as a whole has shifted to this do it yourself attitude.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

As a reader, I prefer just the bare bones of description. But that's not a question of laziness in reading, just that I prefer to fill in the blanks with my own imagination rather than have every detail colored in for me. So as a writer I tend to follow my personal guidelines, too.

That is the exact opposite of what I want for myself and my potential audience.
I see a vivid image of the world and the people,place and things with in it. It's my job to convey that vision to them in as clear and exacting detail as possible;painting the scene one descriptive element at a time until the painting becomes complete. The only headcanon is the author's, in my opinion.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

I think it is partly due to the fact that people have so many other options for entertainment and also due to the fact that they are accustomed to ... I won't say instant gratification, but to getting their gratification more swiftly than they did before.

There was a time before TV and movies, when for middle class people (the rich had plays and the opera on a regular basis and actual travel) most of the time the only thing that could take them out of themselves and into far away places and exciting situations was a book or a serialized story in a magazine or newspaper. So when they had a book they wanted it to last. They were in no hurry to finish the book and get on to the next activity, because most of the time there wasn't anything nearly as enjoyable waiting to immediately take the book's place.

When that was no longer the case, I think that was when things began to change.

And yet it is true that the most popular authors do tend to use a lot of description. But if you asked their readers how they felt about description they would say they don't want much. Some of them would be surprised at how much description their favorite writers use (although usually much less than a 19th or early 20th century writer would). So to a certain extent it is how the author uses description, and not how much. If the writer uses it in such a way that a reader soaks it up without noticing what is happening, then it enhances the enjoyment without the average readers realizing what it is they are enjoying.

A lot of readers and writers say they want a book that is short on description because they want to imagine how everything looks for themselves. Not me. I don't read somebody else's book so I can do all the imagining myself — I have my own writing for that. I want to see what somebody else is picturing, I want the world or the setting, and the people, that they are creating as close to how they envision as I can come, just because it is going to be different from anything I could imagine on my own. That's a large part of the pleasure for me. But I don't want it to be clumsy and intrude on the story. I want it to enhance it.

I agree with you completely. I read to be immersed in someone else imagination not my own. So I don't want less description I want more, find ways to
get the information in there.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

I think it's more to do with how description is used rather than the amount of words dedicated to it. Pacing. If the story I'm reading takes a leisurely stroll through thoughts, I have more mental time to stop and smell its roses. If the pace is breakneck, [expletive] form, function, and anything I can predict for myself just get me to the next plot point RAAWRR!! at which point I may or may not need to back up a paragraph or page to actually read what was written, rather than what I assume was written.

Descriptors are que cards for mental imagery, if the imagery is already in the mind of your reader -so much the better! if not, they can always google it later, like those vocabulary words.

When people couldn't look up a word or a descriptive term, the mental imagery had to be provided along with it. "The melodic quality of her dulct voice was more captivating than the words she used to entangle men's attention, before her sharp stiletto heels stamped out their life." Would now be criticized as over descriptive, or wordy. All the phrases used are relevant, and build on each other. But if you know that dulct means melodic, that stiletto heels are sharp, that to be entangled is to be captivated... Then it's a rather redundant sentence. "The sweetness of the Orange" is important information to someone who doesn't know oranges are sweet, has never seen or tasted one, and therefore has no imagery to draw on when reading "tempted by the Orange held out to him" wtf is so tempting? If the author doesn't say, I have to make it up for myself or stop and look up what an orange is. 10:1 I'm going to make it up myself and be wrong, which may or may not effect whether or not the story continues to make sense later. Suppose I decided Orange is a kind of puppy. Well, later, when people are peeling and eating puppies, getting sticky with their juices... It's a whole other story isn't it.

So the challenge is as it ever was, to provide the right amount of relevant information to keep readers reading the story the author thinks they've written.

The only thing that I feel really can be omitted are things that the audience already familiar with and even then I see away to add in little bits of information about distinguishing features.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

I'd sum up the lesson I've taken from this thread as:

Description is good when it creates immediacy and bad when it opposes it.

By immediacy, I mean the sense that the story is happening immediately before you; I could probably use the word immersion just as well (I don't know if that's how others were using it). Great description creates that by painting vivid pictures. Excessive description ends up telling people what they already know and that mars the immediacy.

Description will never be dead. After all, stories are describing what's in your head. 'Description', as in tons of it... a snappy sentence beats a purple paragraph anyway. And that's coming from someone who likes description.

The thing is I've found a lack of consensus on what exactly constitutes purple prose. I've seen it applied to both florid,grandiloquent, poetic descriptions and concise to the point descriptions that simply happed to be long.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

From a personal experience, when I first started, I used the Police 10pt description to ensure that I had accurately covered EVERY detail of a character as i was concerned about not covering the description in a thorough way. Since, I tried not putting much if any description in at all- initially it's hard to let go. I know what my characters look like damnit and so should everyone else. But since trying I honestly think that hair colour, eye colour etc are things the reader can imagine themselves, but it's not a chore it's something readers will do automatically.

The trick is to give them enough to go on that they're not snapped out of the dream and then they can get on with it.

I will say one example where I was 'snapped' out of this, was reading Dan Abnett's Eisenhorn, where 300pages in, I was told that one of the characters, whom was the daughter of another major character was black. I am sure it was mentioned much earlier but having missed it, I had already imagined what the characters looked like and had to re-imagine it. What I'd take from this, is that description of major characters should only be used at the beginning and not reiterated through out the piece.

Equally, the only thing I've really wanted to say about my protagonist is gender and age, the reader can get on with the rest.

I'm pro description and think that you have to find away to get all the information into the book smoothly. Leaving thing to the audience imagination is not acceptable to me, if the audience is going to form their own images then why are they reading your or my book. There is no headcanon but mine and that is just the canon.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

I use people description sparingly, just get the important details in ie Travis was a big guy, tall and muscular, with a short beard and untidy hair.
This seeds the reader with all the details they need to have to get a sound image of the character.

To me that could still use more information.

 

[The Big Peat]

And, as always, it's about the quality of description and how engaging it is. All these discussions always boil down to - yes, there are recommendations, but ultimately, if you're an engaging storyteller you can get away with bending the rules every now and then. Write, critique, receive feedback, learn, write again. Great novels break rules and bring something different to the table. Forget about the law, man!!

Yup.

The first page of Harry Potter has no action. It doesn't even mention Harry Potter. It's just a description of a suburban family. I suspect if she'd put it up for critique anywhere, some people would have told her to cut it. But I find that description really engaging and considering it's the 800lb gorilla in modern fiction, I can't be alone.

 

[Brian G Turner]

It's probably something that I picked from visual media,but when an element comes into the scene it should be seen by the audience.

If you're writing a novel, you're not writing visual media, though. It's a common problem when we start writing because we've been so exposed to TV and film.

However, these days novels are tied to the experience of the character, which means a close First or Third Person Point of View (POV) use.

 

[Ihe]

...when an element comes into the scene it should be seen by the audience.

I agree, but describing it doesn't mean telling us everything. If I describe a shotgun, I'm not gonna explain the whole history of its manufacturer, it's dealings with Chinese corporations, its market price in Indonesia, and then talk about every kind of ammo and modifications available to it. If it's not relevant at that point in the story, it is unnecessary and clutters the narration.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I don't know if I agree about people having shorter attention spans, because old classics from the Victorian age are still wildly popular with people my age and younger

I haven't been noticing younger readers reading Victorian writers much. Jane Austen is wildly popular, but she's pre-Victorian, and her prose is amazingly concise for the era, with almost no description. She was writing about familiar things for her contemporaries and she expected her readers to know what she was talking about. (Just as Tolkien expected his contemporaries to know what war was like, so that he didn't have to go into the gory details.)

Which brings up a point that in contemporary fiction there is less need for description because anybody can visualize a TV set or a computer keyboard, an aluminum can, a pair of jeans etc. When you are writing about a world you have invented, a place where nobody but you has visited before, more is needed.

 

[hopewrites]

The thing is I've found a lack of consensus on what exactly constitutes purple prose. I've seen it applied to both florid,grandiloquent, poetic descriptions and concise to the point descriptions that simply happed to be long.

What I have found is that "purple prose" is like "fat" or "skinny, "big" or "small," "heavy"or "light" it's an option with pseudo-standard demarcations. Did the prose feel purple in relation to the rest of what was around it? Was the whole book lavender-violet? Or was it just purpler than the critics personal taste?

I happen to think onions, garlic, ginger, and bell peppers should be the cap of spiciness in food. Fortunately for the majority of the world, I'm not the one setting what is "spicy," "too spicy," or "just right." Prose is the same way. Someone will like it, someone will find it tolerable if not pleasant, and someone will think "blagh, who would do this to their brain?" Just as there are people who enjoy the burn of a jalapeno, some who tolerate it because they like the flavor in and amongst the burn, and those who think "blagh! Who would do this to their face?" (Guess which one I am )

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

If you're writing a novel, you're not writing visual media, though. It's a common problem when we start writing because we've been so exposed to TV and film.

However, these days novels are tied to the experience of the character, which means a close First or Third Person Point of View (POV) use.

Yes, but now that I know that visualness is a something most writers are "trained" out of I can use it deliberately.
I see the world in my mind and I mean to convey to the audience, rather than do a half-job in the name the current artistic vogue and leave the conception of things to the audience.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

I agree, but describing it doesn't mean telling us everything. If I describe a shotgun, I'm not gonna explain the whole history of its manufacturer, it's dealings with Chinese corporations, its market price in Indonesia, and then talk about every kind of ammo and modifications available to it. If it's not relevant at that point in the story, it is unnecessary and clutters the narration.

I basically agree with this.
But one descriptive element can tell a lot about the world.
Like mentioning in passing when the first gun loading scene happens that sabots are being inserted into the weapon rather than bullets.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

What I have found is that "purple prose" is like "fat" or "skinny, "big" or "small," "heavy"or "light" it's an option with pseudo-standard demarcations. Did the prose feel purple in relation to the rest of what was around it? Was the whole book lavender-violet? Or was it just purpler than the critics personal taste?

I happen to think onions, garlic, ginger, and bell peppers should be the cap of spiciness in food. Fortunately for the majority of the world, I'm not the one setting what is "spicy," "too spicy," or "just right." Prose is the same way. Someone will like it, someone will find it tolerable if not pleasant, and someone will think "blagh, who would do this to their brain?" Just as there are people who enjoy the burn of a jalapeno, some who tolerate it because they like the flavor in and amongst the burn, and those who think "blagh! Who would do this to their face?" (Guess which one I am )

You,you make since.
What I seek to do is paint the scene, one descriptive element,one brush stroke on the blank canvas that is the readers imagination.
Ideally when the reader steps back they'll see everything is it's meant to be.

 

[Nick B]

At the end of the day, you have to write how you want to write. Personally, I hate it when authors over describe. I don' t need to know the exact shade of green a side character is wearing, or the exact shape of their spectacles. I don' t write like that, because I don' t like to read it. I don' t think it is lazy writing to let readers fill in the blanks.
My all time favourite author, Michael Marshall Smith uses actual description very sparingly and yet you get a perfect sense of place, the people are alive, the action intense. The emotional content of his work is stunning, and yet, for instance in Spares, the only description of the main POV character is - he is a big guy. That's it. And yet you see him perfectly.

In fact, if I remember correctly, the only time you hear anything about his description is when some one he meets says 'Wow, a big man. Intense.'

 

[Ursa major]

But one descriptive element can tell a lot about the world.
Like mentioning in passing when the first gun loading scene happens that sabots are being inserted into the weapon rather than bullets.

But if one is writing in first person, or close third person, this might, in certain circumstances, actually pull a reader out of a story. Those circumstances are: who the PoV character is and, specifically, what they know.

Let's take the example you've just used. You, as the author, may know a lot the difference between sabots and bullets, but:

1. Where the PoV character doesn't know what a sabot is (or what a normal projectile looks like):
   • they won't be able to tell (and tell us) if the (other) person loading the weapon is loading sabots or not (unless they've been told, when they'll have to assume that this is what is happening)
   • they may not realise that they are loading sabots (if they're loading the weapon).
2. Where the PoV character does know what a sabot is, but is not the one loading the weapon, they may not be in a position to see what's being loaded (but may be told, when they'll assume that's what's happening).

Point (2) is probably not as important, unless there's no way that the PoV character can see, or be aware, what is happening. However, point (1) will be a problem if you've established that the PoV character in the scene was not originally experienced with weaponry or ammunition and has not been educated since that was established, because some readers will wonder how they knew a sabot was being used (and some will assume that the author has made an error).


But can I just say one thing specific to what you wrote. You said the use of a sabot was mentioned "in passing". Presumably, a sabot is being used for a reason. Is this not worth mentioning? You've provided, a perhaps ignorant reader, with something that may not make any sense to them. Wouldn't it be better to either omit such a casual mention or provide (in this scene or earlier** in the story) something that would allow the reader to understand the significance of using a sabot?


** - Note that I'm setting aside that you mentioned that this is the first scene in which gun loading occurs.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I think you may be missing (or conflating) the fundamental differences between art forms.

In visual art, the onus is on the artist to represent on canvas what they see; abstract, stylistic or literal. With a novel, your mandate is to entertain, not control.

Ideally you're aiming for creating that image you see in your mind in the most efficient way; with the least amount of words.

What you say makes sense, but to my mind it sounds like the desired outcome of a visual artist or filmmaker, not a story teller.

pH

 

[Kith]

I like description, with the caveat that it's done well (the same as any other tool ).

Good description can be incredibly evocative. A few well chosen words can paint a vivid picture, and often the books that do that number among my favourites. I love reading something, pausing, reading again, and wishing I could have written it. More often than not, it's descriptive bits that do that for me. If it's not bolted into the bones of the story, or a part of the style, then it can bore me though - especially if it happens to be something I just have a hard time visualising. I would rather have little to no description than bad description.

Description I'm not personally fond of is when it's presented in list format. Generally I prefer it woven into the story rather than as a paragraph to set the scene before the story commences, or as an interlude in the middle of a scene.

To run with the painting analogy; to me, good descriptive prose would be a layered approach. Some of it will be concise, some embellished, some just the hint of brush strokes. Whatever the overall style, it keeps us in the book's world without calling undue attention to itself (unless, of course, that is the intended point).

Bad description would be a paint by numbers.

For those of us who enjoy writing description (and I would number myself among them), I think it's important to remember that no matter how thorough you aim to be, a reader is always going to have their own unique perspective no matter how accurately you explain what you want them to see (because no-one's imagination is a blank canvas). And that's okay. Imagination is a requirement of reading, and describing everything, imo, condescends to the reader. If you want your vision conveyed precisely how you imagine it, then perhaps look to a visual medium to convey the story.