The Necessity of Describing Characters

[Toby Frost]

However, as an aside, can we please be less personal in our responses to each other

One of the reasons I like this site so much is that it isn't cluttered up with edgelords trying to "have a grown-up discussion", ie an argument, like a lot of the rest of the internet.

Regarding miserable books like London Fields, I think there's a sort of sincerity that a book has to have to be really good (among other things). London Fields felt like a miserable man showing off his cleverness to me. It's the reason why The First Law trilogy doesn't quite work for me (although it is very good): its cynicism feels like a pose rather than anything sincere. This is weird, given that PG Wodehouse comedies feel sincere to me, despite them being completely silly. And The First Law works perfectly for a lot of people.

It sets up kind of personalized, bifurcated hierarchy/flow chart

Is it more the case that a book has to clear some low requirements in terms of basic writing skill, and then it quickly gets pretty subjective? I think it's very hard to pin down what works in that subconscious way, unless you're writing in a field where readers know what they like and say it a lot (friends to lovers in romance etc). But if you do get those basics covered, you can know pretty much for sure that you're not writing rubbish.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

In defence of Amis, his earlier works (Money, Success, The Rachel Papers) were superb. There is a fine tradition of great writers producing more difficult, more experimental, perhaps less popular works once their reputation is established. I'm currently reading Red Shift by Alan Garner. I don't think it would have been published as a first novel, with its blurry narrative and unattributed dialogue.

 

[ColGray]

London Fields felt like a miserable man showing off his cleverness to me.

You succinctly and rather perfectly captured my feelings on the two Amis books I've read (London Fields and Time's Arrow).

And I agree Re: PG Wodehouse but I'd put it in the same category as, say, a Terry Prachett: they're authentically silly while having something to say. I'm blanking on the particular Jeeves and Wooster, but the story with the leader of the brown arm-band (Pre WW2 British Fascists) being a firebrand, extolling Good British Working Class Values (tm) who sells high-end lingerie. Wodehouse used silliness to mock and show ridiculousness.

I'm about 60% done with the last book in the First Law trilogy (and not trying to edge lord here) but the books haven't struck me as cynical? All but one character fights against and/or resents and/or questions their nature and understanding of the world. Bayaz, the only who doesn't, is a miserable nincompoop who flies off the handle at any perceived slight. The struggle against cynicism, in a very cynical world, is a major draw. (Happy to move this to the JA forum)

 

[Montero]

On description, I've seen excitement about a particular book, where Baba Yaga's house - the one on giant chicken's legs - is inherited by descendants in the USA and shipped there from Russia. Great concept I thought. I tried reading a sample and there was a background bit which was interesting in a way on the subject of where tumbleweed comes from, but not quite to my taste, then the official start of the book was really description dense. Yes it was setting a scene, giving wider impressions of the person and being atmospheric, not just a list of features. But oh, so not my thing. I lasted three paragraphs. It did though start by describing one of the main characters. He was in the middle of being up on the stage at a fairground giving a performance so there was action to it. So good writing craft in theory, I just didn't like the style.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

On description, I've seen excitement about a particular book, where Baba Yaga's house - the one on giant chicken's legs - is inherited by descendants in the USA and shipped there from Russia.

Ah, I recognize the book you are talking about. I read it last year, and even posted a review of it in the review section here.

I did have some difficulty engaging with that book at first—though not because of the style, which I was fine with—but I did end up admiring it very much. It is a difficult book in many ways, so I can easily see how it would not be to everyone's taste for a number of reasons, the style being one of them.

 

[Montero]

It is a difficult book in many ways, so I can easily see how it would not be to everyone's taste for a number of reasons, the style being one of them.

Yet it is being talked about and was one of the group reading books on a Goodreads SFF group this month. So, I wonder how they got it noticed. Getting noticed, such a holy grail. Sigh. Being a difficult book to get into, and starts are supposed to be crafted to draw you in, etc....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

So, I wonder how they got it noticed. Getting noticed, such a holy grail. Sigh. Being a difficult book to get into, and starts are supposed to be crafted to draw you in, etc....

I imagine—and the reviews on Amazon would seem to bear this out—that it was the subject matter and the timeliness of the themes that brought it to many people's attention. Timeliness, and timing in general, is the real holy grail in publishing.

And of course what doesn't work for some readers for a beginning may work very well for others. Moreover, it is an admirable book in many ways.

 

[Montero]

I am all for "marmite books" and am glad they are getting published - even when they are definitely not right for me this time.

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

I am all for "marmite books" and am glad they are getting published - even when they are definitely not right for me this time.

What are "marmite books"?
Are they like "potato chip" books?

 

[Ursa major]

What are "marmite books"?

The "idea" is that one either loves them or hates them, with no middle ground.

(Marmite is supposed to be similar to Vegemite.)

 

[Phyrebrat]

My shameful admission: when I was very young and naive, I read Stephen King’s IT. I enjoyed it so much I read it again immediately.

It wasn’t until I got older that I realised the character of Mike Hanlon was Black.

Despite Stephen King giving loads of context in terms of the Fire at the Blackspot, and the racial oppression that the Hanlon family suffered, I was too young to understand, and as he hadn’t physically described Mike, I just used my own internal bias as to the character’s ethnicity.

Whether this is an argument for describing characters or not is not my point. It’s that when it comes to description you will never be in complete control of what people like or what they think, because you don’t know all your readers’ cultural capital.

I’ve enjoyed a lot of the comments and posts in this thread. Once again it’s one of those writers questions which is down to preference.

 

[THX1138]

The March/April 2024 issue of Writer's Digest covers this topic and then some. It focuses on Characters:

Finding your characters voice.
Character motivations.
Writing unlikable characters.
Translating real people into your writings.
Staying true to characters in a series.

All this helps in describing your character(s) in as little or as much as you need.
Just another reference to add to our writing info library.

 

[ColGray]

I've hit a bit of a snag. Is it really necessary to describe what a character physically looks like? I think sometimes you can get away with not doing so, but wanted to pick a few brains besides my own.
A brief(ish) explanation: My current WIP is an urban fantasy with heavy leanings into horror. It opens with an elderly lady home alone after a visit from her young grandsons. At the end of the opening chapter, she will have been killed, so I need the reader to connect with and care about her very quickly.
My issue is she's home by herself and I'm just not finding an organic way to work in what this lady looks like. At the same time, though, my hope is I can keep it vague enough that the reader will put their own grandmother or someone similar in their mind as a stand-in for the character, which in theory would help get that quick connection and ramp up the shock and horror when she's killed.
I'm curious what other people think. Has anyone had success going one way or the other? I'm all ears and open to all suggestions.

I was in a workshop earlier about concision in meaningful description. The workshop leader laid this out and I thought it was a good lesson in showing the persona, not the person:

Description 1: A woman entered the coffee shop. She was tall, with shoulder length black hair and wide brown eyes and a toothy smile.

Description 2: A woman strode into the coffee shop, black t-shirt and half-buttoned flannel tucked into jeans as dark as her eyeliner.

 

[Swank]

I was in a workshop earlier about concision in meaningful description. The workshop leader laid this out and I thought it was a good lesson in showing the persona, not the person:

Description 1: A woman entered the coffee shop. She was tall, with shoulder length black hair and wide brown eyes and a toothy smile.

Description 2: A woman strode into the coffee shop, black t-shirt and half-buttoned flannel tucked into jeans as dark as her eyeliner.

"Wide eyes" and "toothy smile" are as much personality as anatomy.

 

[KGeo777]

Only one character in The Iliad is described in great physical detail -Thersites--the rest are limited to stock descriptions like "grey-eyed goddess" or "long-haired Achaeans."
I don't think anyone would read it and believe the characters are vaguely described. Their behavior and speech make up for the lack of physical description.

 

[THX1138]

Wouldn't that be attributed to the writing style in Greece at the time?
Plus, with the heavy mythology, storytelling and theater culture, I don't think much character discerption was needed. I feel everyone at the time would have an understanding of who the "grey-eyed goddess" was.

Just like if I had a story with "the mighty lumberjack of the north and his ox." Many of us don't need a description of this character; we know the character id Paul Bunyan and Babe, his blue ox. But not everyone today would know that. They would need a description and Paul and his motivation.

A benefit of growing up around the stories, I know who "the mighty lumberjack of the north and his ox" is.

 

[Montero]

I remember my English master at school waxing lyrical about the way Dickens (who I don't enjoy reading) could give you a feeling for the character in one sentence, which he often re-used to indicate that character. Such as Mr Gradgrind had a mouth like a letter box. So I don't think that was meant to be a polished brass flap (though I think you could have fun in a steam punk way with that) but was indicating a rigid face and scowl and tightened lips.
I'm of the preference to gently trickle in descriptions after an initial set-up and in a functional form, as in a tall character easily reaching a high shelf. I do like to have a little idea of what I should be picturing, but am not up for massive descriptions of fashionable jackets. However that is in itself a character point, both from the point of view character and the wearer of said jacket, that one character cares enough to spend money on the jacket and wear it well and the other cares enough to notice.

 

[ColGray]

"Wide eyes" and "toothy smile" are as much personality as anatomy.

Absolutely.

I read the first one as anatomy focused with overtures of personality (innocence and youth) and read the second as someone expressing who they are/how they want to be perceived. I find the second description more interesting/engaging because not only do i have a picture of them, I'm presented with the character making choices--and leaving an open question--rather than the author telling me who they are by using inference to convey they're young and innocent.

 

[Ambriel]

I don’t think is absolutely necessary to describe a character unless there some point to it. For instance in Harry Potter it was necessary to describe him because his scar identities him as special or in the Belgariad the characters were given descriptions because of their racial features.

As for an organic way to fit the description in, depending on the point of view, you could do something like having her look in a mirror and describe herself.

 

[Swank]

Absolutely.

I read the first one as anatomy focused with overtures of personality (innocence and youth) and read the second as someone expressing who they are/how they want to be perceived. I find the second description more interesting/engaging because not only do i have a picture of them, I'm presented with the character making choices--and leaving an open question--rather than the author telling me who they are by using inference to convey they're young and innocent.

What's interesting about that is the first shows who they are (smiling), while the second is how they wish to be perceived. Both are character, neither is more important.