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

[Thrice Great Hermes]

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.

But while you can objectively gage the quality, what you actually "like" is something that appeals to your sense of cool.

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

An aspiration rather than a current state.
And being skilled doesn't matter if...people aren't interested in what you are producing, part of that interest is determined by coolness.

I don't want to write...

A story shaped template onto which the audience can inject themselves and derive whatever meaning that they want from it.

Which from everything that I've seen is the current style, thus I have to make people love something that's out of step with modernity somehow...

 

[Nick B]

But while you can objectively gage the quality, what you actually "like" is something that appeals to your sense of cool. ..

No. I like, what I like. I like many things. I don't agree with this 'sense of cool' thing you keep linking. That quote seems to say that if you like one thing, then you can't like another, very different thing. Which is utter rubbish.
I like Tolkien as much as I like Michael Marshall Smith.
I like swordplay as much as I like gunfights.
I like heavy metal as much as I like classical music.
These things are very different to each other.
This 'cool' thing you link seems to be an incredibly narrow minded way to view the world.

 

[MWagner]

Like anything else, description can be done well or it can be done poorly*. I'd hate to think aspiring writers are discouraged from trying just because it's difficult and likely to be done poorly. Yes, over-describing the physical features of characters is clumsy and intrusive. It's usually enough to explain that a character is sharp-featured and has nervous mannerisms, without going into detail about the length and color of hair. Still, an ability to evoke the feel of walking across a wind-scoured field on a bright winter day while clouds throw shadows on the dead grass should be in every writer's arsenal.

When it comes to how much description is necessary, I'd agree that the trend is for less description, and has been for decades. Fiction has become less about transporting readers to another world - the sights, sounds, and visceral feel of somewhere you've never been - and more about putting you in the emotional field of a fictional character. The thread of most commercial fiction today runs action > emotional response > action > emotional response > action, with anything outside that line pared away.

This does, however vary by genre. Historical fiction still puts an emphasis on physical description, and evoking worlds different from our own. Fantasy of the older school, too. GRRM has certainly found an audience for books that often lapse in to detailed descriptions of the physical world (though I do wonder if he's found success in spite of his prose style). Thrillers - not so much. Take Robert Harris. He writes historical thrillers. If he were writing straight historical fiction, his novels would feature more description of the buildings, markets, armour, etc. of the times. He would frequently paint portraits of the bustling Roman forum, or the landscape of the Dalmatian coast. But he's writing thrillers, so it's all about action, plot, and suspense. Harris does throw out the occasional deft description of a sunset, or a rampaging mob. He could certainly write that way all the time if he chose, and if it suited the genre he's working in.

Personally, I have a pretty high tolerance for description. I do, in fact, want to be transported to other worlds when I read. I want to immerse myself in a vivid and exotic setting, to feel that I can reach out and touch the world crafted by the author. But in my own writing, I go lightly on description, and try to get the most out of a sentence or two per scene. That's because I'm deliberately writing a plot-driven story, with a lot of characters and a brisk pace.

* The advice John Gardner offers in the Art of Fiction runs contrary to contemporary books. Gardner's attitude was that if you aren't up to the difficult techniques of fiction, you shouldn't bother becoming a writer in the first place. One exercise in the book is to write a paragraph of a man regarding an old barn. Describe it from his point of view. The challenge is that the character's daughter has recently died, and something of that is to be captured in the description, without any explicit reference to the daughter.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Robert Harris. He writes historical thrillers

Same one as wrote Enigma?
It's got very accurate and detailed descriptions I loved.
Even things he didn't do in detail but mentioned in passing, I knew what they were. Well researched detail, not just made up.

 

[Cathbad]

I like Tolkien as much as I like Michael Marshall Smith.

BLASPHEMY!!!


j/k

 

[Brian G Turner]

Which from everything that I've seen is the current style, thus I have to make people love something that's out of step with modernity somehow...

Your message is confused. You started this thread complaining about how modern writing is so poor - you extend on it by pointing out that writers and readers are stupid. Then you present a list of modern best-selling authors - ones who dominate the market - as examples of great storytelling.

You refer a lot to visual images, you've referred to computer games, and keeping mentioning subject and theme - and think these determine the quality of a novel.

But not once have you mentioned any of the technicalities of writing - POV use, emotional development arcs, structure, etc. That's what writing is actually about, but you don't discuss those points at all.

Instead, all I see is a thread being used as a platform to sneer. That doesn't seem very constructive to me at all.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

No. I like, what I like. I like many things. I don't agree with this 'sense of cool' thing you keep linking. That quote seems to say that if you like one thing, then you can't like another, very different thing. Which is utter rubbish.
I like Tolkien as much as I like Michael Marshall Smith.
I like swordplay as much as I like gunfights.
I like heavy metal as much as I like classical music.
These things are very different to each other.
This 'cool' thing you link seems to be an incredibly narrow minded way to view the world.

I think that the quote is wise and insightful.
There are certain elements in every piece of media that you have consumed and enjoyed that have "clicked" for you, and you look for them when you seek out new media.

That's cool or as authors have put it resonance.

Like anything else, description can be done well or it can be done poorly*. I'd hate to think aspiring writers are discouraged from trying just because it's difficult and likely to be done poorly. Yes, over-describing the physical features of characters is clumsy and intrusive. It's usually enough to explain that a character is sharp-featured and has nervous mannerisms, without going into detail about the length and color of hair. Still, an ability to evoke the feel of walking across a wind-scoured field on a bright winter day while clouds throw shadows on the dead grass should be in every writer's arsenal.

When it comes to how much description is necessary, I'd agree that the trend is for less description, and has been for decades. Fiction has become less about transporting readers to another world - the sights, sounds, and visceral feel of somewhere you've never been - and more about putting you in the emotional field of a fictional character. The thread of most commercial fiction today runs action > emotional response > action > emotional response > action, with anything outside that line pared away.

This does, however vary by genre. Historical fiction still puts and emphasis on physical description, and evoking worlds different from our own. Thrillers don't. An example of this is Robert Harris, who writes historical thrillers. If he were writing straight historical fiction, his novels would feature much more description of the buildings, markets, armour, etc. of the times. He would frequently paint portraits of the Roman forum, or the Dalmatian coast. But he's writing thrillers, so it's all about action, plot, and suspense. Harris does throw out the occasional beautifully-crafted description of a sunset, or a rampaging mob. He could certainly write that way all the time if he chose, and if it suited the genre he's working in.

Personally, I have a pretty high tolerance for description. I do, in fact, want to be transported to other worlds when I read. I want to immerse myself in a vivid and exotic setting, to feel that I can reach out and touch the world crafted by the author. But in my own writing, I go lightly on description, and try to get the most out of a sentence or two per scene. That's because I'm deliberately writing a plot-driven story, with a lot of characters and a brisk pace.

* John Gardner's the Art of Fiction runs contrary to contemporary books on the subject of description. Gardner's attitude was that if you aren't up to the difficult techniques of fiction, you shouldn't even bother becoming a writer. One exercise in the book is to write a paragraph of a man regarding an old barn. Describe it from his point of view. The challenge is that the character's daughter has recently died, and something of that is to be captured in the description, without any reference to the daughter.

Well nothing to do but stubbornly forge ahead and do things my way, because nobody is going read my book to read some body else's.

The only solution that I've found to my problems short of a spontaneous development of the ability to draw, layering,prioritization and parceling, so that the image of the world becomes complete in retrospect. Because doing otherwise I'd either need to include foot-notes or little tags that told people to refer to the appendix to get all the relevant information about the world. I'm considering including a codex anyway,because I like reading codexes.



As for Gardner's problem the solution is exactly what I don't like,poetry,abstraction, and metaphor.

Your message is confused. You started this thread complaining about how modern writing is so poor - you extend on it by pointing out that writers and readers are stupid. Then you present a list of modern best-selling authors - ones who dominate the market - as examples of great storytelling.

You refer a lot to visual images, you've referred to computer games, and keeping mentioning subject and theme - and think these determine the quality of a novel.

But not once have you mentioned any of the technicalities of writing - POV use, emotional development arcs, structure, etc. That's what writing is actually about, but you don't suggest you understand that.

At the moment all I see is a thread being used as a platform to sneer. That doesn't seem very constructive to me at all.

I 'v started with a problem and I am trying to find a solution.

Much of the modern writing style is emphasizing emotion and action over the world,when in fact they go hand in hand.
This feels wrong to me, because the world is the stage on which the events of the story the thing that drive and produces the emotion and action play-out on. What many are holding up as good make little sense to me because it is the equivalent of actors performing on an undressed stage;and the audience being told just imagine the dressing and costumes. Even stranger to me is that the audience actually wants the play to be performed on an undressed stage,so that they can dress the set themselves with their minds. This conflicts with the way I enjoy books I sit down to be immersed in someone else imagination.


So how do I quickly,efficiently dress the stage and costume my actors?

How do I convey the vital information without stopping the story every time something new is introduced.

I mentioned bestselling authors because they've all done something that I Like. However I did mention that in the excerpt of Mistborn,that it could have still used more description. If I went over those books, I'd find lots of things to tweak to bring them more in line with what I consider good.

POV use, emotional development arcs, structure,

I don't bring those up because they are not the subject of my question.
I planned to get into that In future threads.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

To be fair, I've encountered many writers who think they are going to revolutionize the fantasy genre, Brian. In fact, any of us who have been members here for a long time have probably met many of them, since they tend to turn up here from time to time. It seems to be a necessary stage for a lot of writers. I don't know if it's necessarily destructive, if you come out of it having learned something.

But, Hermes, I have to disagree that all writers are arrogant. That's not even true for many of them. Most writers I have met -- even some quite successful ones -- periodically suffer from a painful lack of confidence in their abilities. They don't expect readers to like their work. They hope for it, of course, but there can be a lot of self-doubt mixed in with that hope. Some very successful writers -- usually those who attained success very quickly -- are arrogant. But with other writers I think that an appearance of arrogance is often used to cover up a more than usual lack of confidence.

But to return to the subject of description. Some writers excel at writing long, elaborate, intricate descriptions that tell a whole lot more than what a person/place/thing looks like. They appeal to the senses and the emotions and much more.

Other writers can stimulate readers's imaginations with a few specific detail, words with a history, or associations that bring a host of ideas with them, so that they say much more than would appear at first glance. These tend to work because the writer uses specific details rather than general ones. (Consider the difference between The garden was a rainbow of beautiful flowers scenting the air and There were irises and carnations, full-blown yellow roses, and a bed of lavender along the garden wall. With the second one the flowers not only come into sharper focus, you know the colors and the shapes of these flowers, and you know what the garden smells like, you don't need to be told.)

And there are writers who do both, switching back and forth according to the needs of the story.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

To be fair, I've encountered many writers who think they are going to revolutionize the fantasy genre, Brian. In fact, any of us who have been members here for a long time have probably met many of them, since they tend to turn up here from time to time. It seems to be a necessary stage for a lot of writers. I don't know if it's necessarily destructive, if you come out of it having learned something.

But, Hermes, I have to disagree that all writers are arrogant. That's not even true for many of them. Most writers I have met -- even some quite successful ones -- periodically suffer from a painful lack of confidence in their abilities. They don't expect readers to like their work. They hope for it, of course, but there can be a lot of self-doubt mixed in with that hope. Some very successful writers -- usually those who attained success very quickly -- are arrogant. But with other writers I think that an appearance of arrogance is often used to cover up a more than usual lack of confidence.

But to return to the subject of description. Some writers excel at writing long, elaborate, intricate descriptions that tell a whole lot more than what a person/place/thing looks like. They appeal to the senses and the emotions and much more.

Other writers can stimulate readers's imaginations with a few specific detail, words with a history, or associations that bring a host of ideas with them, so that they say much more than would appear at first glance. These tend to work because the writer uses specific details rather than general ones. (Consider the difference between The garden was a rainbow of beautiful flowers scenting the air and There were irises and carnations, full-blown yellow roses, and a bed of lavender along the garden wall. With the second one the flowers not only come into sharper focus, you know the colors and the shapes of these flowers, and you know what the garden smells like, you don't need to be told.)

And there are writers who do both, switching back and forth according to the needs of the story.

I don't think that I am going to revolutionize anything. Whatever I write is likely to appear at least a little outdated and clunky because what I intend to do has fallen out of fashion.

Call it pride, self confidence,self esteem, pure unadulterated temerity, whatever that "it" is, it's required to say I think that I'm good enough to get people to pay for my ideas.

If I could draw all these issues with description would be solved however the tools I need to use I can't thus I must make do with words; Leaving me asking how to paint a picture with with words. How do I take these abstractions and make something concrete out of them?

I worried that using multiple descriptive styles would be confusing and inconsistent to the audience?

 

[Nick B]

Just wondering if you are trolling to be honest. We've had those here too.

 

[Toby Frost]

What this all reminds me of is a variation on something I've noticed in talks about writing. I've been to some talks where writing is seen as a purely money-making, cynical enterprise, like producing sausages in a factory. Cut description, character and good prose - basically, cut everything that doesn't involve pulling the reader through the story as quickly as possible and getting them to buy the sequel. The other side of the coin is the speaker who proposes writing in a sort of trance, going off on rambling digressions and lengthy descriptions of anything that takes your fancy because you're "writing a word-poem" and you are an artiste/beautiful snowflake or something like that.

I don't think either extreme results in good fiction that will see publication and last. The second example sounds very much like writing as therapy, which is something different, and the first, at best, will result in a derivative and quickly-forgotten product (which may or may not make you money, but probably not for long). You might see it as terrible that the market doesn't want epic fiction about cats, but if you then write a vast cat novel and it goes nowhere, you've got as much right to complain as a man who makes a glider out of bricks.

Anyhow, the proof of all this is in the writing. I'd suggest you just crack on with writing what you want to write and get some critique on it: it's a hard debate to have without concrete examples.

EDIT: Just as an afterthought, it occurs to me that Steven Brust's "theory of cool stuff" does sound a lot like "Writers tend to write about things that they tend to like writing about". I'd contrast that with the cyberpunk concept of the "eyeball kick", which is essentially to throw startling but meaningful images at the reader as often as possible. As for the "headcanon" stuff, well, to be blunt, that's fandom stuff. I don't read books wanting the characters to be either "me" or "mine", and I don't know whether, outside a fairly narrow and intense section of the internet, other people do as well. Which might make for an interesting thread of its own.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

I don't think either extreme results in good fiction that will see publication and last.

Well said.

 

[Thrice Great Hermes]

Just wondering if you are trolling to be honest. We've had those here too.

So you are so absolutely convinced in the rectitude of your opinion, that someone who holds a different one must be a troll?

Now I'm going to cut you off because I can guess what your going to say next. Something that express this sentiment...

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.

But uses a different wording.

Art is the domain of personal taste and what is being espoused as good at the moment doesn't happen to align with mine.

What this all reminds me of is a variation on something I've noticed in talks about writing. I've been to some talks where writing is seen as a purely money-making, cynical enterprise, like producing sausages in a factory. Cut description, character and good prose - basically, cut everything that doesn't involve pulling the reader through the story as quickly as possible and getting them to buy the sequel. The other side of the coin is the speaker who proposes writing in a sort of trance, going off on rambling digressions and lengthy descriptions of anything that takes your fancy because you're "writing a word-poem" and you are an artiste/beautiful snowflake or something like that.

I don't think either extreme results in good fiction that will see publication and last. The second example sounds very much like writing as therapy, which is something different, and the first, at best, will result in a derivative and quickly-forgotten product (which may or may not make you money, but probably not for long). You might see it as terrible that the market doesn't want epic fiction about cats, but if you then write a vast cat novel and it goes nowhere, you've got as much right to complain as a man who makes a glider out of bricks.

Anyhow, the proof of all this is in the writing. I'd suggest you just crack on with writing what you want to write and get some critique on it: it's a hard debate to have without concrete examples.

EDIT: Just as an afterthought, it occurs to me that Steven Brust's "theory of cool stuff" does sound a lot like "Writers tend to write about things that they tend to like writing about". I'd contrast that with the cyberpunk concept of the "eyeball kick", which is essentially to throw startling but meaningful images at the reader as often as possible. As for the "headcanon" stuff, well, to be blunt, that's fandom stuff. I don't read books wanting the characters to be either "me" or "mine", and I don't know whether, outside a fairly narrow and intense section of the internet, other people do as well. Which might make for an interesting thread of its own.

On the subject of fandom I think that the Internet has just given voice to what has always been there, people develop an attachment to stories, the world and characters that they contain, it's what keeps people coming. People also come to feel a sense not just of investment but possession over the story, "this story was made for me, these characters are me in a far off land!". Now not everybody takes it to this extreme but people want to at least want to feel some resonance between themselves and the characters.

To me this reoccurring notion of leaving deliberate space in a work for the audience to insert themselves and their imagination, is nothing less than catering to Headcanon. It's compromising the voice of a work so that the audience can decide what is being said;I just find that unacceptable for me.


Where is the middle ground between Purple and Beige prose, is a question that's come to me. Because somewhere in that space is how I need to write. And while you can't to my knowledge make a glider out of brick you can make a boat out of cement.

 

[Pentagon]

So you are so absolutely convinced in the rectitude of your opinion, that someone who holds a different one must be a troll?

Now I'm going to cut you off because I can guess what your going to say next. Something that express this sentiment...

Sorry buddy, just to back Quellist up- this thread has become the community AND you. You clearly have strong views and I respect that, but you have responded individually to everyone who has contributed in this thread. I am guilty of creating lots of threads too, but I try and step back and see what other people say and this thread has descended into you shouting down everyone who has offered an opinion different to your own.

I don't get the impression that anyone is learning anything new from this discussion apart from that we all have slightly different views. Therefore, the fairly logical question of what are you getting from your repeated posts, are you trying to persuade the community that their views are wrong, are you genuinely interested in what they have to say and learning from other peoples experience or indeed are you just trolling.

I don't mean to be rude, and indeed if I think this thread has become a farce then I don't need to read it, but the question was not unreasonable.

 

[Nick B]

Thanks pentagon. I am not going to engage in this thread any more. I think I have expressed the fact that everyone has a differing opinion, and is entitled to such, that there is not right or wrong way to write, that there is no best way to do things. All Hermes is interested in doing is shouting everyone down and insisting that we are all wrong, that he is right and will show the world by writing awesome novels. His way.

The fact that he is insulting quite a few published and successful writers that are contributing to this thread seems to make no difference to him.

So, I won' t be participating in this discussion any more. Since it is only a platform for Hermes to tell us how he will change the face of fiction with his awesome vision.

 

[Brian G Turner]

And on that point, I'll close this thread as it's already run longer than it should have.