Character, Physical Descriptions...

[The Big Peat]

Yes - but you don’t seek to write deep-deep point of view, so that’s fine. What I’m saying is for those who do, character description becomes much harder because we can’t pull out easily to capture it.

This has nothing with what I'm writing. This is about what I consider acceptable and good in what anyone's writing, no matter how deep their point of view.

I have seen too many authors have descriptions of the sort you're saying you can't/shouldn't have in close PoV while in close PoV to do anything but disagree. Seen and enjoyed.

As a style tip, I think what you've said is great. As a "Must do", I think its far too prescriptive. Maybe damagingly so.

 

[Dan Jones]

I return to the OP!

That said, as I'm writing my newest works (contrary to some previous), I've come to the realization that probably 95% of my characters have little to no physical description (height, weight, hair, features, etc.), or any commentary about their clothing, equipment, etc.. Most of the description only comes in the form of speaking mannerisms.

So my question is, "is that a problem, or, can it work to simply let the reader make up what they might imagine, considering that whatever they imagine has little affect on the story?"

You mention "95% of my characters have little or no physical description..." but, as some others have sorta, kinda mentioned, it depends on the perception of those around, whose narrative is being captured. Personally I don't think you need to go into depth about people's appearance's all the time, but it depends on who is perceiving whom.

For example, if you're writing a scene from the perspective of someone who's in love with another character, then it makes sense that physical characteristics are picked up, and in a certain way. Or if someone arrives who is incongruent to the surroundings – like a big muscled brute wearing a suave waistcoat enters into the pub and orders two pints of brandy - you're going to notice it. And if a character is describing another character they despise, then they might pick up on aspects of their appearance in a biased manner. To me, it's more important for a character to notice how other people look, (ie whether they are angry, scared, hungry, predatory, insouciant, hubristic, whatever) as opposed to what they look like. If some geezer armed with a pipe is coming at me, I'm going to be more worried about the aggressive rumpoles on his bailey than the impressive wax-gam of his artisan moustache. Get me?

Or, where appearance is important plot-wise (ie Hobbits' thick, hairy feet, or Danaerys Targeryan's silver hair and purple eyes, or Brienne of Tarth's ugliness, or Inquisitor Glokta's injuries, or Berek Halfhand's, er, hands), then yes, it pays to bring it to the readers' attention soon. In my WIP my main character has a robotic hand and a robotic leg. I draw attention to it in chapter 1 as it's central to the plot, and I use a device (he's in some pain) to draw it to it to the reader's attention. But the main person who notices it is the MC himself as he keeps his prosthetics under wraps and is aware of what it represents. I suppose, just to carry on the Game of Thrones references, you could say that the person who is most aware of Jaime Lannister's prosthetic hand is Jaime himself.

So I suppose what I would say is, consider what appearance means to the character you're writing at that moment. In my experience the appearance most people are most aware of is their own.

 

[sknox]

Guess how much writing advice is a variation on "it depends"

Hint: it depends.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

This has nothing with what I'm writing. This is about what I consider acceptable and good in what anyone's writing, no matter how deep their point of view.

I have seen too many authors have descriptions of the sort you're saying you can't/shouldn't have in close PoV while in close PoV to do anything but disagree. Seen and enjoyed.

As a style tip, I think what you've said is great. As a "Must do", I think its far too prescriptive. Maybe damagingly so.

There’s no ‘must-do’ in the advice. It was simply that no one had mentioned POV as a possible parameter. It’s up to anyone how they write anything.

 

[The Bluestocking]

Well, this is one of the big tasks for a sc-fi writer. I completely identify with what you're saying.

If you write about alien races and monsters from outer space, I would imagine so.

My huge ensemble cast includes some supernaturals who aren't completely humanoid in appearance and who aren't the usual suspects from the Judeo-Christian/Greek/Roman/Scandinavian pantheons. Or sparkly vampires and angsty werewolves.

So I do have to include descriptions - the tricky bit is making sure there's no info-dumping and that everything is tucked into the action - what the characters say or do and how other characters see, hear, and/or react to them.

 

[RJM Corbet]

If you write about alien races and monsters from outer space, I would imagine so.

My huge ensemble cast includes some supernaturals who aren't completely humanoid in appearance and who aren't the usual suspects from the Judeo-Christian/Greek/Roman/Scandinavian pantheons. Or sparkly vampires and angsty werewolves.

So I do have to include descriptions - the tricky bit is making sure there's no info-dumping and that everything is tucked into the action - what the characters say or do and how other characters see, hear, and/or react to them.

My 'aliens' had no hair. They had three ridges on the top of their heads. With men the centre ridge was more prominent, and with women the two side ridges were the more prominent -- sometimes but not always. They were all about five feet tall and they all had the same bluish coloured eyes. That doesn't leave much room for physical description, lol. It's a challenge.

And I couldn't change it because I was narrating someone else's story ...

 

[SilentRoamer]

If you write about alien races and monsters from outer space, I would imagine so.

My huge ensemble cast includes some supernaturals who aren't completely humanoid in appearance and who aren't the usual suspects from the Judeo-Christian/Greek/Roman/Scandinavian pantheons. Or sparkly vampires and angsty werewolves.

One of the big problems I have with how aliens are often written is they end up being humanoids with blue skin, or humanoids with gills or some variant - but essentially human psychology. Basically bipedal with a head etc. It's much more fun when the aliens are properly alien - like the Puppeteers from Nivens Ringworld of the Primes from Hamiltons commonwealth.

I suppose with humanoid supernatural figures they would naturally be somewhat anthropomorphic - just wondering TBS, do you have specific character traits that are a common theme among your supernatural characters or do they tend to vary? So like would the werewolves be naturally more aggressive or react to smell stimulus in a different way and vampires more secretive or cant lie or something?

Also to throw this out to the wider audience - what do people do to make their aliens less psychologically human?

@Jo Zebedee does a good job of this with the Barath'na in Inish. Definitely non human but analogised through existing Earth biology (I know they get compared a lot to dogs but from the descriptions I imagined them as a sort of more canine and much larger version of a meerkat - with added viscousness.)

 

[RJM Corbet]

One of the big problems I have with how aliens are often written is they end up being humanoids with blue skin, or humanoids with gills or some variant - but essentially human psychology. Basically bipedal with a head etc...

My 'aliens' eventually turn out to be 'us' in the far distant future, by which time living in fantastically advanced cities in space has altered their physiology to suit their environment. The main protagonist is one of them ...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I often don’t make mine psychologically different - because I’m often presenting a mirror for humanity anyhow (you got the Barath’na pretty spot on, so I must have got some of my description right!)

 

[-K2-]

My 'aliens' eventually turn out to be 'us' in the far distant future, by which time living in fantastically advanced cities in space has altered their physiology to suit their environment. The main protagonist is one of them ...

K2

 

[tinkerdan]

This is a good post even for this question
Describing characters of color in writing
Not only does she demonstrate description of POC but goes on to explain how she chooses to describe or in some cases not describe her characters.

 

[RJM Corbet]

K2

Mean little critter, lol

 

[SilentRoamer]

@tinkerdan I was in agreement reading through that thread until I got to:

"There is a wordset that’s commonly used in African-American Interest fiction, but it’s problematic. Lots of coffees, chocolates, and flavors based on coffee and chocolate (e.g., mocha, cafe au lait). I pointed out to someone on my LJ, as it was pointed out to me (by someone else, whom I would attribute if I could remember -_- ) that black slaves got used to harvest coffee, chocolate, and related crops, so there’s some very creepy historical irony in using these commodities to describe a people who were themselves commodified."

If you can't use easily identifiable foodstuffs because they're problematic then what else are you supposed to use? I have black friends who would describe their skin colour as Caramel - in fact one girl I know always jokes about her beautiful caramel skin (to be fair her skin is flawless and a gorgeous tone - Dont tell Mrs SR).

I guess I would never really be describing someones actual color tone in that much detail unless I really wanted a strong mental picture and a really clear image for the reader. I think there might have been a thread on this before so I don't want to derail but I suppose this does fall under character descriptions - personally I think you can describe race and most people will get a mental image.

One thing NK wrote which makes sense is that her default character race is black unless she states otherwise (I assume NK is black). So her defaulting to a non white race is perfectly understandable - much like a lot of white authors default to white and describe their non white characters in a racial way - I don't see that as a problem.

So that raises another question - do you believe defaulting to a particular racial grouping and explaining the deviations is lazy writing or a natural consequence for most writers? (Ignoring historical settings and any attempts at realism affecting this).

 

[Joshua Jones]

.
So that raises another question - do you believe defaulting to a particular racial grouping and explaining the deviations is lazy writing or a natural consequence for most writers? (Ignoring historical settings and any attempts at realism affecting this).

Personally, I think it could be either or a little of both. Very often, we simply don't challenges our own presuppositions and perspectives on the world, and import things which really don't make sense in context.

Suppose you are writing a story about a generation ship arriving at a star system after, say, 10,000 years, and there was diversity of skin tone included in the original population. In all likelihood, everyone would wind up with a Hispanic or Middle-Eastern skin tone, as that is in the middle range of skin pigment, and those with either lighter or darker skin would be the outliers. These may be considered attractive (we tend to define as attractive what is less common rather than the average), or they may be flagged as being from racist families, or somewhere inbetween. So, defaulting to either Caucasian or African in this case wouldn't make sense. If, however, you are writing about Southside Chicago, defaulting to African-American makes sense.

All this to say, the real question isn't which we should default to, but which makes the most sense in context of the story.

(EDIT: just saw the little end note about realism. I don't think we can set that aside, because I do think realism and logical consistency are the determining factors here.)

 

[-K2-]

Let that be your last Battlefield...

K2

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I'm the kind of reader who would rather not do the writer's work for them, whether it comes to imagining what characters look like or anything else. When I do want to do the work, I'll make up my own story. This was true even before I started writing my own stories down. I want to see the world through the author's eyes; I want to see their creativity at work. Because sometimes that lets me see something I could never have imagined for myself.

I've also noticed that a lot of readers who think their favorite authors don't spend much time on descriptions then cite authors who do, in fact, write a lot of description. But those authors have various ways of slipping it in in such a way that the reader absorbs it without realizing that they are reading description and it blends in seamlessly with the rest of the storytelling.

On the other hand, there are some authors who are favorites of mine who have such a delightful way with words that I love reading and rereading their descriptions of people (and places, but that's another subject) which can be long and detailed or short and pithy, but always tell me much more than just how the character looks. These are descriptions that offer insight into personality. For instance, if a character is described as meticulous and finicky in the way they dress, it not only helps me to visualize that person, but I've learned something about their habits and obsessions which may be of assistance in understanding their actions as the story progresses. Obvious things like hair color and eye color, old or young, short or tall can be the very least part of a description, and the least important to include, too, unless there is something startling or significant to the story in their coloring, size, etc.. (Although when writing a scene that introduces a number of characters all at once, a brief bit of description for each one may help fix them in readers's minds as throwing out a bunch of names probably won't do, and help them remember who is who.)

But different readers have different tastes, and I think it is important to figure out which readers we are trying the reach—which would usually be readers much like ourselves. If we aren't writing a book that would delight us if somebody else wrote it, it's not likely to delight many others. But then we have to look at the authors we enjoy with a close and critical eye in order to get an idea of how they do what they do, and whether some of it is so skillfully done that we didn't even notice that they were doing it.

If we do really find descriptions tedious and superfluous, then I think we should keep them very brief, because there is nothing more boring than reading a long passage written by an author who was bored and reluctant writing it. But I agree with whoever said that if we are going to describe characters at all we should do it early—as early in the book as it can be be done naturally. (With a POV character this can be quite a challenge, but we don't become better writers by avoiding every challenge that comes up.) As a reader, few things annoy me so much as building up an image of a character in my mind's eye for two-thirds of a book, and then finding out in the last third that I was quite wrong. It takes me out of the story. Perhaps only briefly, but it's annoying because the disruption was unnecessary. If the writer can bring themselves to mention that the character was slightly- built and dark-haired near the end of the book, they could darn well have found a way to say the same thing early on!

Which brings us back to something that has already been said several times before, it all depends. And that being so, I think it's a good idea to learn several different techniques for describing characters, so that depending on what is required to write each scene and situation as effectively as possible, we already know how to do whatever is called for, whether that should turn out to be much description or practically none.

 

[The Storyteller]

Soooo, I didn't read all the previous comments, so sorry if I'm being repetitive here!

From what I scanned of the first responses, I would agree that it's not such a big deal. It's fine to leave it up to the reader to fill out a character's appearance, and I can't think of a time that I was bothered that a book didn't give me a detailed description of appearance!

That said, there are some possible downsides of having little to no description:

-if you have a large cast of characters, strong physical descriptions can make it easier to remember side characters. I will be quick to forget who Jerry is if he's not frequently involved in the story, but if Jerry has a memorable appearance (even just one feature of his clothing or his looks), it will be a lot easier for me to remember who he is.
-descriptions of clothes, weapons, styles etc. can add a lot to the world building. I don't need to know what they are wearing, but I tend to have a richer and more vivid view of the world when I do. Small descriptions here and there, or highlighting a few striking details can go a long way to making the entire world feel more vibrant and real to me.
-if there is an aspect of a character's appearance that is going to be important to the story later, I prefer if it is introduced early on. I don't mind not being told what a character looks like, but I do mind when I've been imagining them as a thin, wiry youth and at the end of the story, they are revealed to be a chiseled muscleman. Once I've created a strong mental image for a character, it is disorientating (and sometimes annoying) to have the image suddenly revealed and find out I'm wrong.

Anywho, that's my two cents on the subject!

 

[TheEndIsNigh]

Personally, I like a bit if info. Emphasis on a bit. Where it affects the story it's essential, obviously. If you have a one armed assassin it needs to be mentioned because the reader will be thinking

"Why the hell isn't he stabbing him with his left arm" in a close encounter where it's blatantly obvious the victim should be dead by now if he had a spare hand etc.

Also it’s nice to have a rough idea of the appeal of the characters to other characters. So if our hero is a handsome brute with dashing features and there’s a radiant beauty he flirts then it adds credence to know that rather than him/her looking as attractive as a pig with acne.

Of course if you think at some point in the future you have the makings of a JKR or GRRM film, it’s better to get your impressions down so the reader will know what to expect in the movie. Rather than have a skinny dweeb playing your brutish thug.

I believe this happened with a series of detective novels that was shown on TV. The main character looked nothing like the picture the readers had built up in their minds and it completely ruined it for them.

And I agree with @sknox's point about features being a good way to have a way of refering to them.

As in if our hero is a overweight red haired dwarf it gives the perfect way for you to start a fight in the tavern scene.

"So you're Twinkie," said the stranger, "I've heard a lot about you Twinkie."

Twinks looked at the stranger and sqinting through his blood shot eye he asked. "Oh yes what have you heard?"

"I've heard you'e the red haired no good son of a wombat."

And off we go into the big punch up scene.

 

[RJM Corbet]

Personally, I like a bit if info. Emphasis on a bit. Where it affects the story it's essential, obviously. If you have a one armed assassin it needs to be mentioned because the reader will be thinking

"Why the hell isn't he stabbing him with his left arm" in a close encounter where it's blatantly obvious the victim should be dead by now if he had a spare hand etc.

Also it’s nice to have a rough idea of the appeal of the characters to other characters. So if our hero is a handsome brute with dashing features and there’s a radiant beauty he flirts then it adds credence to know that rather than him/her looking as attractive as a pig with acne.

Of course if you think at some point in the future you have the makings of a JKR or GRRM film, it’s better to get your impressions down so the reader will know what to expect in the movie. Rather than have a skinny dweeb playing your brutish thug.

I believe this happened with a series of detective novels that was shown on TV. The main character looked nothing like the picture the readers had built up in their minds and it completely ruined it for them.

And I agree with @sknox's point about features being a good way to have a way of refering to them.

As in if our hero is a overweight red haired dwarf it gives the perfect way for you to start a fight in the tavern scene.

"So you're Twinkie," said the stranger, "I've heard a lot about you Twinkie."

Twinks looked at the stranger and sqinting through his blood shot eye he asked. "Oh yes what have you heard?"

"I've heard you'e the red haired no good son of a wombat."

And off we go into the big punch up scene.

"... Rather than have a skinny dweeb playing your brutish thug ..."

Or dimunitive Tom Cruise playing big Jack Reacher. A small man just doesn't have the quiet assurance or move like a big man. Regardless of cinematographic tricks Tom Cruise really just is not my mental picture of Jack Reacher. Imo.

Lee Child hardly needs a movie series to sell his books -- one sold every 20 seconds somewhere, says the cover blurb.

Lee Child (aka Jim Grant) doesn't ever really physically describe Jack Reacher except that he has sandy coloured hair and is six-foot-something. Grey eyes, I seem to recall.

But once you've met Jack Reacher, you're not going to forget him, lol ..

 

[tinkerdan]

To begin with I wasn't particularly endorsing all of that authors views.
Just pointing out that she has some interesting ideas as to how she approaches building her characters.

So that raises another question - do you believe defaulting to a particular racial grouping and explaining the deviations is lazy writing or a natural consequence for most writers? (Ignoring historical settings and any attempts at realism affecting this).

I really don't want to get into racial groups as much as the idea that one might consider taking time to analyze whether you are or are not limiting your characters racial profile by some of your description and whether that's what you mean to communicate.

Personally NK's methods-- While they don't seem lazy; they might be, in fact, creating more work for her than is necessary--however that involves the whole idea of being overly sensitive to racial stereotypes that some readers don't even realize exist.

I think sometimes if we over analyze things we begin to read too much into them and that could stifle the flow of writing by spending so much time watching where we step. We need to be mindful of how we might offend while at the same time being true to the character we are creating and that can be a challenge. Which means that it could be some extra effort.

Look at where you are going and find the best way to communicate it--that could end up meaning more work or it could make things go smoother.