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

[Ray McCarthy]

Badger's home in Wind in the Willows used to be held up as good description?

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

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.'

Which is unsatisfactory to me.
I want the words to paint an image for me, if it can't be done all at once, then over the course of a the story or perhaps even series enough descriptive
information must be conveyed that there is no question what the setting is. This not the same as answering all the questions about the world, the sections of the world experienced by the audience should not be a vaguerie by the time that the story is done.

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.

I will be mindful of who knows and sees what.

I was trying to devises a scenario where the audience can learn that in my world flechettes are the prevailing projectile instead of bullets. So my idea was to describe a character either loading flechette(which are often saboted) into a gun or be in a situation where they can see this happening.

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

No I seek to do something I think is better than the current trend but has fallen out of fashion. Taking the time to describe the world and the things in it, rather than doing a half and saying "oh I'll just let the readers make up the rest themselves", to me that's not good writing its doing half a job and patting yourself on the back for it. I read to be immersed in the imagination of another, the most my imagination should be doing is interpreting what the author wrote, I shouldn't have to form my own image of what things are, the author is supposed to provide that; By using their prose to paint a picture of what the world is. This do it yourself description is to me lazy and it cater's to the headcanon culture which has exploded with Internet,everybody wants a custom tailored version of a story and by being vague and only giving an impression of what a thing might be, authors are playing into that.

Well I refuse!
I can't stop people's vision of the world from differing from my own,but I can leave as little room for open interpretation as possible,by giving a thorough and concrete descriptions of the world.

I am a story teller, not a visual artist I have never been able to draw anything but the most crude approximation of what a thing is supposed to be.
Thus I am left with difficult task of figuring out how to paint pictures with words, how to create substance from smoke.

Anyone know how to do that, because I'm all ears.

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.

I mostly agree with you.
But describing everything isn't condescension, It's a job well.
The words must paint an image, over the course of a the story or perhaps even series enough descriptive
information must be conveyed so that there is no question what the setting is. This not the same as answering all the questions about the world, the sections of the world experienced by the audience should not be a vaguerie by the time that the story is done.



If I could draw I'd be able to solve so many issues...alas I can not.
Thus I have to make do with abstract tools, what I can is paint as clear of a picture as possible with my words.

 

[Kith]

By condescending to the reader, I mean things like describing an apple as round. I know that, and I don't need to be told it. Doing so is a waste of words, and as a reader I find it irritating to have the obvious pointed out to me. It says you don't trust me to read it right.

By not describing everything, I mean things like: if the characters are, for example, in a room at an inn, don't provide an inventory of that room's contents just because you want me to know the exact layout. I don't need to know it has a chair in a corner if none of the characters actually use/sit in it. By all means give me a description, but tie it into details that tell me about the world I'm in.

I suppose it's the difference between being told about the author's word, and feeling something of a spectator, and being thoroughly immersed in it.

Have you read any Robin Hobb? I adore her prose. She is one of few authors that can document the most mundane routines of a character's life, and I will enjoy every moment of it, so I wonder if she may be a good point of reference for what you want to do.

 

[Ihe]

Taking the time to describe the world and the things in it, rather than doing a half and saying "oh I'll just let the readers make up the rest themselves", to me that's not good writing its doing half a job and patting yourself on the back for it.

Describing everything in a room is a literal task that can be done by anybody, as long as they're literate, and I would find this a lazy way to write. A writer should hold to a higher standard, playing with the scene to tie in with the plot, with significance, with imagination; maybe with symbolism. This is the difference between writing a story and writing an Ikea catalogue.

The reader's imagination is key. As a writer, you must be able to guide it, but you cannot control it, even if your description is autistic photograph-level. A reader will only remember the broad strokes, so over-abundant detail of peripheral elements is not an efficient use of words. What everyone here is saying is that relevance dictates level of detail, and even this is relative, because matters of pace are important for a scene as well, and it can take a hit with detailed description at odd times.

 

[tinkerdan]

I believe there is a massive difference between description and info-dump. And along with that I believe there is a greater difference between those and purple prose. They are all different animals and each has it's own level of description aside from how they might impact your work as a writer. By some definitions purple prose is neither description nor info-dump and could easily be excluded from this conversation; although I believe the problem with purple prose is that often the examples given are not true purple prose and muddy the whole notion.
I for one would love to read someones examination of the complete text of the Dark and stormy night prose of Bulmer's Paul Clifford and demonstrate just why that has to be purple prose as opposed to good description leading into the setting of the story being told.

For this discussion though I think it's most important to examine the difference between info-dump and good description; because I think that is what is in question here. There is nothing wrong with good description when it is done well and integrates into the story. But there can be some major road-bumps when that same description gets piled into one massive grouping.

For example: I recently read a work of fiction where just about every character that was introduced was allotted one long or several short paragraphs of description and backstory that stood out in glaring contrast to the rest of the story. The problem with this is not the information itself; but how it is presented. It's as though the author thought they needed to make each character different from each other by giving them each different physical characteristics and backstories and then decided to do that in the first paragraph that introduces them and then they took the whole ball of wax and shoved it down the reader in one painful moment so they could then move on. There that's done now on with the story. Only now the author is moving on with the story by themselves, because the reader is still choking on that unexpected bitter pill. It was not that the reader didn't need to know these things, it was how they were thrown at them; but most reader's reactions might be,'why do we need to know all this?'.

That much said; I think there have been enough previous examples from other posters here to demonstrate the difference between well done description and poor description. I believe when we put a piece out for critique and it comes back with the label info-dump that we have to set back and examine what is said and more importantly what is not said. Many times it's what is left unsaid that tells the most; because if there are no examples of what the person thinks is info-dump then the best conclusion we can come to is that something that that reader saw pushed them far enough out of the story that they wondered what all that was doing there. The trick is--finding a way to say what needs to be said without tipping the reader off and info-dumping them out of the story.

I don't really believe that there is any movement to be lazy about writing, by removing all description. In fact I believe the opposite. The move to identify poor description and fix it to become better description that integrates into the narrative is in fact making the work that much more difficult or at least bringing the author around to writing at the proper level and fix what might begin to look like lazy writing.

The problem is less of one of demanding that people remove description as it is more of one that the critique against info-dump is usually not accompanied with any or many solutions to handing the information out in a better form. It usually comes off as--info-dump: get rid of it. The criticism is incomplete in that it does not address the importance of description itself and gives a false impression that someone wants to do away with your descriptiveness completely; and that is not true . They want you to re-examine the piece and do it better--do it well. They don't want to foster laziness they want to curtail it.

It comes down to a comedy of errors in that the one being critiqued feels that those critiquing them want them to be lazy and the critic thinks the writer already is lazy and are trying to help them break lazy habits. The irony here is that we're all writers and we should do a better job of communicating our thoughts and that doesn't always happen when we critique something and start throwing around terms like purple prose and Info-dump and telling. We need to give examples with an understanding that some of the information in that dump might be important enough to keep regardless of the gut reaction that it's all trash.

We certainly don't encourage laziness in writing. (Well, I try not to.)

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

By condescending to the reader, I mean things like describing an apple as round. I know that, and I don't need to be told it. Doing so is a waste of words, and as a reader I find it irritating to have the obvious pointed out to me. It says you don't trust me to read it right.

By not describing everything, I mean things like: if the characters are, for example, in a room at an inn, don't provide an inventory of that room's contents just because you want me to know the exact layout. I don't need to know it has a chair in a corner if none of the characters actually use/sit in it. By all means give me a description, but tie it into details that tell me about the world I'm in.

I suppose it's the difference between being told about the author's word, and feeling something of a spectator, and being thoroughly immersed in it.

Have you read any Robin Hobb? I adore her prose. She is one of few authors that can document the most mundane routines of a character's life, and I will enjoy every moment of it, so I wonder if she may be a good point of reference for what you want to do.

First fundamentally the audience are just spectators, they are looking through lens which is the prose into the events unfolding.
There is prioritization of description and there is doing a half job, I keep the two separate in my mind.
While I would love to describe everything in great detail unfortunately I must make comprises in the name of fluidity and expedience.


I've never read any Robin Hob, the summaries over works just didn't appeal to me.

Describing everything in a room is a literal task that can be done by anybody, as long as they're literate, and I would find this a lazy way to write. A writer should hold to a higher standard, playing with the scene to tie in with the plot, with significance, with imagination; maybe with symbolism. This is the difference between writing a story and writing an Ikea catalogue.

The reader's imagination is key. As a writer, you must be able to guide it, but you cannot control it, even if your description is autistic photograph-level. A reader will only remember the broad strokes, so over-abundant detail of peripheral elements is not an efficient use of words. What everyone here is saying is that relevance dictates level of detail, and even this is relative, because matters of pace are important for a scene as well, and it can take a hit with detailed description at odd times.

While I would love to describe everything in fine detail unfortunately I must make comprises in the name of fluidity and expedience.

The very fact that reader are going to bring themselves to a book, increases the need for clear and exacting description rather than lessen it. The more that we impose ourselves onto a story the less we experience as it actually is. So let's make sure that the story has it's own voice one that comes through loud and clear.

Example.
The way I saw the Skaa, the oppressed underclass of the Mistborn Trilogy is very different from what the author intended, Why is that, three descriptive elements,oppressed people,living in shacks, working on plantations, combined with who I am to create an image far afield from authorial intent.


The reader's imagination is as much of an enemy as it is an ally,because of the audiences attempting to draw there own conclusion from a work rather than be lead along by the author.

 

[Cathbad]

One of the genres this greatly affects is the Mystery. Agatha Christie said a good mystery can be told in about 150 pages. More was just [fluff]. Now, the big publishing houses want 300+ pages! So you get great writers like Sue Grafton describing a 15-minute car trip over the course of 30+ pages!!

I love good, vivid descriptions. But too much (~cough~ Jordan ~cough~) is annoying.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

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.

But all this is subjective, too. Readers are entertained by different things. Some like being swept up, whirled around, and dropped down in a world that is like nothing they could have imagined for themselves. In order to immerse readers in that world, the author will have to provide more description than they would for a more familiar world, or for a world designed around more familiar things (faux medieval: you don't have to describe what a sword looks like — contemporary: you don't have to explain what a computer is — steampunk: you may have to describe some of the imaginary machines and what powers them)

And then it depends on the reader's tastes: some adore description, if it is beautifully written (again subjective). When it comes to description they don't want the least amount of words; they want words they can linger over, and savor, and remember for a long time afterwards.

Others want to dash through the story and get to the end: they want the action and the characterization, as well as the description, in the least amount of words. They want a book to be like an action movie, pulling them through scene after scene before they have time to register the details. (At least with the book someone didn't have to spend millions of dollars creating sets that nobody will really look at.)

Of course it is possible to go too far in either direction: Write prose so purple description, so extended, that even readers who ordinarily love that sort of thing grow bored, impatient to see the plot moving. Or write prose so bald, so thin, that even readers who like a good pace feel that something is definitely missing.

We have to gauge what kind of readers we are writing for (usually readers very similar to ourselves) and give them exactly (or as close to it as we can come) what they want, no more and no less. And then, however much that is, we need to craft it skillfully instead of clumsily, giving thought to all the other things that make up a story (plot, characters, pace, etc.) so that the description enhances those other things instead of overwhelms them.

Even when we know our readers, it's a balancing act.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

I believe there is a massive difference between description and info-dump. And along with that I believe there is a greater difference between those and purple prose. They are all different animals and each has it's own level of description aside from how they might impact your work as a writer. By some definitions purple prose is neither description nor info-dump and could easily be excluded from this conversation; although I believe the problem with purple prose is that often the examples given are not true purple prose and muddy the whole notion.
I for one would love to read someones examination of the complete text of the Dark and stormy night prose of Bulmer's Paul Clifford and demonstrate just why that has to be purple prose as opposed to good description leading into the setting of the story being told.

For this discussion though I think it's most important to examine the difference between info-dump and good description; because I think that is what is in question here. There is nothing wrong with good description when it is done well and integrates into the story. But there can be some major road-bumps when that same description gets piled into one massive grouping.

For example: I recently read a work of fiction where just about every character that was introduced was allotted one long or several short paragraphs of description and backstory that stood out in glaring contrast to the rest of the story. The problem with this is not the information itself; but how it is presented. It's as though the author thought they needed to make each character different from each other by giving them each different physical characteristics and backstories and then decided to do that in the first paragraph that introduces them and then they took the whole ball of wax and shoved it down the reader in one painful moment so they could then move on. There that's done now on with the story. Only now the author is moving on with the story by themselves, because the reader is still choking on that unexpected bitter pill. It was not that the reader didn't need to know these things, it was how they were thrown at them; but most reader's reactions might be,'why do we need to know all this?'.

That much said; I think there have been enough previous examples from other posters here to demonstrate the difference between well done description and poor description. I believe when we put a piece out for critique and it comes back with the label info-dump that we have to set back and examine what is said and more importantly what is not said. Many times it's what is left unsaid that tells the most; because if there are no examples of what the person thinks is info-dump then the best conclusion we can come to is that something that that reader saw pushed them far enough out of the story that they wondered what all that was doing there. The trick is--finding a way to say what needs to be said without tipping the reader off and info-dumping them out of the story.

I don't really believe that there is any movement to be lazy about writing, by removing all description. In fact I believe the opposite. The move to identify poor description and fix it to become better description that integrates into the narrative is in fact making the work that much more difficult or at least bringing the author around to writing at the proper level and fix what might begin to look like lazy writing.

The problem is less of one of demanding that people remove description as it is more of one that the critique against info-dump is usually not accompanied with any or many solutions to handing the information out in a better form. It usually comes off as--info-dump: get rid of it. The criticism is incomplete in that it does not address the importance of description itself and gives a false impression that someone wants to do away with your descriptiveness completely; and that is not true . They want you to re-examine the piece and do it better--do it well. They don't want to foster laziness they want to curtail it.

It comes down to a comedy of errors in that the one being critiqued feels that those critiquing them want them to be lazy and the critic thinks the writer already is lazy and are trying to help them break lazy habits. The irony here is that we're all writers and we should do a better job of communicating our thoughts and that doesn't always happen when we critique something and start throwing around terms like purple prose and Info-dump and telling. We need to give examples with an understanding that some of the information in that dump might be important enough to keep regardless of the gut reaction that it's all trash.

We certainly don't encourage laziness in writing. (Well, I try not to.)

Another problem is that there are few, at least that I've encountered exact definitions for some of these terms.

Purple Prose.

Its inverse.

Beige Prose.

Info-dumping is the of these term closet thing to having a consistent definition.

So much of this is subjective.

What constitutes good description to you? I know what I consider bad,florid,poetic and grandiloquent writing that gets in the way of conveying information. Good description would then be the opposite clear direct and to the point, free of obfuscating poetry.

Example of good description.

"Lord Tresting frowned, glancing up at the ruddy, mid-day sky as his servants scuttled forward, opening a parasol over Tresting and his distinguished guest. Ashfalls weren’t that uncommon in the Final Empire, but Tresting had hoped to avoid getting soot stains on his fine new suit coat and red vest, which had just arrived via canal boat from Luthadel itself. Fortunately, there wasn’t much wind—the parasol would likely be effective."

This to me works, more information is added latter that allows a more complete image of the world to be formed;though I feel more information
could have still been fit in there.

But all this is subjective, too. Readers are entertained by different things. Some like being swept up, whirled around, and dropped down in a world that is like nothing they could have imagined for themselves. In order to immerse readers in that world, the author will have to provide more description than they would for a more familiar world, or for a world designed around more familiar things (faux medieval: you don't have to describe what a sword looks like — contemporary: you don't have to explain what a computer is — steampunk: you may have to describe some of the imaginary machines and what powers them)

And then it depends on the reader's tastes: some adore description, if it is beautifully written (again subjective). When it comes to description they don't want the least amount of words; they want words they can linger over, and savor, and remember for a long time afterwards.

Others want to dash through the story and get to the end: they want the action and the characterization, as well as the description, in the least amount of words. They want a book to be like an action movie, pulling them through scene after scene before they have time to register the details. (At least with the book someone didn't have to spend millions of dollars creating sets that nobody will really look at.)

Of course it is possible to go too far in either direction: Write prose so purple description, so extended, that even readers who ordinarily love that sort of thing grow bored, impatient to see the plot moving. Or write prose so bald, so thin, that even readers who like a good pace feel that something is definitely missing.

We have to gauge what kind of readers we are writing for (usually readers very similar to ourselves) and give them exactly (or as close to it as we can come) what they want, no more and no less. And then, however much that is, we need to craft it skillfully instead of clumsily, giving thought to all the other things that make up a story (plot, characters, pace, etc.) so that the description enhances those other things instead of overwhelms them.

Even when we know our readers, it's a balancing act.

The subjectivity of art has been a problem for me finding useful tips and advice. A lot of what I consider good seems either out of vogue or consider,at best amateurish and at worse poor writing.

I know just what my next thread is going to be about??


To me description is to convey information about people,places and things, in a clear and concise.

 

[Brian G Turner]

So much of this is subjective.

Totally true. That's why it helps to read recently published books. It shows what publishers are publishing, and what readers are reading. That way, a comparison can be made.

However, there will necessarily be significant variations between different authors and different publishing houses. Reading widely helps inform that understanding. And will help better understand your own writing.

 

[Nick B]

And, to add to Brian's post - there is no right or wrong. There is only the preference of the reader or writer.

It isn't 'lazy writing' if an author manages to create great scenes with minimal description. Quite the opposite in fact. I would say that makes a great writer. Lazy writing is poorly constructed sentences, lack of willingness to learn the craft and using lazy tropes and 2d characters.

 

[Ursa major]

I will be mindful of who knows and sees what.

You have to be. We all have to be.

It is so easy to forget that you, as the author, have the benefit of knowing everything**, in a literally god-like way (particularly if you have invented the whole universe in which the story is set), rather than having the disadvantages of a character who's as ignorant about the lives of others (and their own situation) as we are in our real lives.

I was trying to devises a scenario where the audience can learn that in my world flechettes are the prevailing projectile instead of bullets. So my idea was to describe a character either loading flechette (which are often saboted) into a gun or be in a situation where they can see this happening.

That's fine. It's made easier*** if this is done from the perspective of someone teaching another character about this, or a character who needs to learn, and should never include the phrase, "As you know,..."


** - At least in theory....

*** - For obvious reasons, this is somewhat of a clichéd situation, so (as with everything we do) it can be done in ways where it works and ways where it doesn't.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

Totally true. That's why it helps to read recently published books. It shows what publishers are publishing, and what readers are reading. That way, a comparison can be made.

However, there will necessarily be significant variations between different authors and different publishing houses. Reading widely helps inform that understanding. And will help better understand your own writing.

I do read modern fiction, mostly fantasy as of late, notably...

Wheel Of Time.

Malazan.

Mistborn.

Powdermage.

Chaos Born.

The Corean Chronicle.

The Aeronaut's Windlass.

The Sormlight Archive.

Vlad Taltos.

The Witcher.

Shotguns&Sorcery.

The King Killer Chronicle.

The Black Magician Trilogy.

It's from what I've read that I have developed tastes.

I Like complete descriptions that leave little to the imagination unless a thing is supposed to be vague at the moment, like a monster attacking at night and no one in the party can see in the dark,body heat, or possess echolocation. I like big words even if I don't recognize them immediately and need a dictionary and a thesaurus. I like a spectacle and don't mind grand detailed action scenes;we should be able to have action scenes just because we want them to be in the book at that moment. I feel the way about character thoughts and feelings that many seem to about description, we need just enough to justify the characters action at the moment.

And, to add to Brian's post - there is no right or wrong. There is only the preference of the reader or writer.

It isn't 'lazy writing' if an author manages to create great scenes with minimal description. Quite the opposite in fact. I would say that makes a great writer. Lazy writing is poorly constructed sentences, lack of willingness to learn the craft and using lazy tropes and 2d characters.

I would consider it lazy, because I come to a book to immerses myself in the constructed world of the author and when I get that there the last thing that I want is the author saying "do it yourself!". No I won't and I won't do that to my potential readers when they pick up my novellas, they will not find a job half done. The only things that can be omitted are things that the audience can be reasonably assumed to know about and even then unique flourishes can be added to show how element in question is either different from what the character knows or the audience.

I've come develop an idea of descriptive queuing and certain elements take priority.

There are also keystone elements that can tell a lot about a world in very little time.
For example, mentioning guns, aether and phlogiston and people wearing goggles together they all tell the audience that the world is at least a little Steampunk.

From my point of laziness justified in the name of artistry has spread through out modern writing and publishing even the creation of book covers.

 

[Nick B]

I would consider it lazy, because I come to a book to immerses myself in the constructed world of the author and when I get that there the last thing that I want is the author saying "do it yourself!". No I won't and I won't do that to my potential readers when they pick up my novellas, they will not find a job half done.

.

I find the attitude that best selling authors are doing it wrong to be pretty arrogant to be honest. I am looking forward to reading some of your work, to see your style for myself.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I would consider it lazy, because I come to a book to immerses myself in the constructed world of the author and when I get that there the last thing that I want is the author saying "do it yourself!". No I won't and I won't do that to my potential readers when they pick up my novellas, they will not find a job half done.

I find the attitude that best selling authors are doing it wrong to be pretty arrogant to be honest. I am looking forward to reading some of your work, to see your style for myself.

I remember going through a seriously arrogant stage, many years ago. I was going to do things different! I was going to revolutionise the fantasy genre! I was the next Shakespeare for my awesome approach to storytelling!

It was the most destructive stage of my writing experience, and put me back years. The truth was, I knew nothing about writing to commercial fiction standards, and especially not all the technical considerations most published authors actively address that I'd completely overlooked.

At the end of the day, though, this thread is all vague statements - nothing has really been defined, except a single sample from the beginning of Mistborn. If Brandon Sanderson is being held up as a good example to work to, then that's all well and good.

However, @Thrice Great Hermes - you could really benefit from reading some good books on writing to help get everything clear at your end. I always recommend Wonderbook by Jeff Vandermeer as a concise and comprehensive guide to the various tools for writing, and Save the Cat as a starter on the technicalities of character development. Definitely worth looking at if you're not already familiar with them.

 

[sinister42]

This question is very relevant to me, because my natural inclination is towards thorough description. Logical I'm quite concerned that what I feel is essential to good writing would be rejected by modern audiences. I initially associated the term "purple prose" with a florid,grandiloquent and highly poetic style of description. While all that stuff can be beautiful, it can be obstructive, so deep into metaphor and abstraction that it becomes difficult to under what the writer is actually trying to convey. To my surprise I have seen the term being applied to even literal and concise descriptions, those descriptions were just thorough.

So what happened why has truly painting, the imagination of the audience fallen by the way side, in favor of stark description and letting the reader envision things for themselves?

Who got lazy, was it the writers or the audience.

I will counter your argument with one author: China Mieville. He is the king of vivid description without infodumping. Just read this:

"Its substance was known to me. The crawling infinity of colours, the chaos of textures that went into each strand of that eternally complex tapestry…each one resonated under the step of the dancing mad god, vibrating and sending little echoes of bravery, or hunger, or architecture, or argument, or cabbage or murder or concrete across the aether. The weft of starlings’ motivations connected to the thick, sticky strand of a young thief’s laugh. The fibres stretched taut and glued themselves solidly to a third line, its silk made from the angles of seven flying buttresses to a cathedral roof. The plait disappeared into the enormity of possible spaces.

Every intention, interaction, motivation, every colour, every body, every action and reaction, every piece of physical reality and the thoughts that it engendered, every connection made, every nuanced moment of history and potentiality, every toothache and flagstone, every emotion and birth and banknote, every possible thing ever is woven into that limitless, sprawling web.

It is without beginning or end. It is complex to a degree that humbles the mind. It is a work of such beauty that my soul wept...

..I have danced with the spider. I have cut a caper with the dancing mad god.”
― China Miéville, Perdido Street Station​

I mean, wow, right?

 

[Cathbad]

I will counter your argument with one author: China Mieville. He is the king of vivid description without infodumping. Just read this:

Oh, I like that!

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

I find the attitude that best selling authors are doing it wrong to be pretty arrogant to be honest. I am looking forward to reading some of your work, to see your style for myself.

I've heard the "If you don't like it do better challenge before!"
The thing is...I intended to, however even If I craft a masterful piece of prose it won't matter one bit If it conflicts with what "you" find good.

I remember going through a seriously arrogant stage, many years ago. I was going to do things different! I was going to revolutionize the fantasy genre! I was the next Shakespeare for my awesome approach to storytelling!

It was the most destructive stage of my writing experience, and put me back years. The truth was, I knew nothing about writing to commercial fiction standards, and especially not all the technical considerations most published authors actively address that I'd completely overlooked.

At the end of the day, though, this thread is all vague statements - nothing has really been defined, except a single sample from the beginning of Mistborn. If Brandon Sanderson is being held up as a good example to work to, then that's all well and good.

However, @Thrice Great Hermes - you could really benefit from reading some good books on writing to help get everything clear at your end. I always recommend Wonderbook by Jeff Vandermeer as a concise and comprehensive guide to the various tools for writing, and Save the Cat as a starter on the technicalities of character development. Definitely worth looking at if you're not already familiar with them.

Any artist has to have a certain level of arrogance, in order to think that we can make people care about and pay for the echos in our minds.

As for being, transformative ,revolutionary, the greatest literary mind of the century,I have absolutely no such delusions or intention. I have ideas that I think, I know are good enough to sell, because I can see other people using one or more of them and are making money off them. For example the Aethera campaign setting is almost exactly what have I been dreaming about since I was in single digits and have been slowly building these past five years; it's damn eerie to be honest;

So I know that I'm on the right path.

At lot of this discussion and I think at this point argument comes down to '"the theory of cool stuff".

What I've been able to surmise from research and discussions like this one is that, what a lot of the modern audience wants and considers good writing is to put it crudely head-canon fodder.

A story shaped template onto which the audience can inject themselves and derive whatever meaning that they want from it.
That is why detailed descriptions and definite meaning are falling out of fashion, not because people don't have time or have access to so much information that they don't need to be hand-held through a story. A story that has its own clear and strong voice is not a template for others to imprint themselves upon.

This conflicts with what I think is cool and I have no interest in producing a story-shaped template no matter how much modern audiences seem to want just that.

While I've only thus far shown an excerpt from Mistborn, I did provide a list of books that I felt worked.

Wheel Of Time.

Malazan.

Mistborn.

Powdermage.

Chaos Born.

The Corean Chronicle.

The Aeronaut's Windlass.

The Sormlight Archive.

Vlad Taltos.

The Witcher.

Shotguns&Sorcery.

The King Killer Chronicle.

The Black Magician Trilogy.

I will counter your argument with one author: China Mieville. He is the king of vivid description without infodumping. Just read this:

"Its substance was known to me. The crawling infinity of colours, the chaos of textures that went into each strand of that eternally complex tapestry…each one resonated under the step of the dancing mad god, vibrating and sending little echoes of bravery, or hunger, or architecture, or argument, or cabbage or murder or concrete across the aether. The weft of starlings’ motivations connected to the thick, sticky strand of a young thief’s laugh. The fibres stretched taut and glued themselves solidly to a third line, its silk made from the angles of seven flying buttresses to a cathedral roof. The plait disappeared into the enormity of possible spaces.

Every intention, interaction, motivation, every colour, every body, every action and reaction, every piece of physical reality and the thoughts that it engendered, every connection made, every nuanced moment of history and potentiality, every toothache and flagstone, every emotion and birth and banknote, every possible thing ever is woven into that limitless, sprawling web.

It is without beginning or end. It is complex to a degree that humbles the mind. It is a work of such beauty that my soul wept...

..I have danced with the spider. I have cut a caper with the dancing mad god.”
― China Miéville, Perdido Street Station​

I mean, wow, right?

That is purple prose...to me, florid,grandiloquent,poetic and abstract leaving me wondering what exactly Is being talked about.

 

[Nick B]

The thing is...I intended to, however even If I craft a masterful piece of prose it won't matter one bit If it conflicts with what "you" find good.

Not at all. I can fully appreciate long, winding description. I love Tolkien after all. I can also appreciate short styles, where the energy and emotion fill in all the gaps. I probably prefer the latter, but that doesn't mean I don't like the former.

What matters to me is that it is written well, and the story is good. Any style can be written well, or badly. That is what matters.

You, however, have said that all minimal short form description is, in fact, just lazy writing.

 

[Brian G Turner]

As for being, transformative ,revolutionary, the greatest literary mind of the century,I have absolutely no such delusions or intention.

Instead, you simply named yourself after a god of writing.