Description length

[yorelm]

Hi all, I was wonder whether the description below captures a mood and feel in just about the write length of words, or does it seem to go too long?

Downstairs was basically one big living room, with a couple of doors sealing off side areas and an open passageway leading into a kitchen. This guy understood decorating the way I understood quantum mechanics. A couch and matching chairs, looking like something yanked straight from a thrift store reject pile, were a design of faded green and yellow plaid with ruffled skirts around the bottoms. An old-fashioned glass lamp sat on an end table next to the couch, lighting the room through a maroon pleated shade, giving the place a reddish glow. Function over fashion, I supposed. Still, I had to admit, for all its outdated, mismatched decor, the place had a charm to it. And it gave me a kind of easy, lived-in vibe I didn’t usually feel when walking into a stranger’s home.

 

[Swank]

It's too much, but not too, too much. Cut out "basically", "yellow", "around the bottoms", "pleated" and "I had to admit" and you'll have something that sticks closer to the pulp detective prose while keeping the levity of the details.

Of course, there are different words you can edit, but my suggestion should give you an idea of what it the right amount. I like the style, though.

 

[THX1138]

A couch and matching chairs, looking like something yanked straight from a thrift store reject pile, were a design of faded green and yellow plaid with ruffled skirts around the bottoms.

You can clean this up. Maybe something like:

A couch and matching chairs that looked like something yanked straight from a thrift store reject pile, made of faded antique green and yellow plaids with ruffled skirts around their bottoms.

Overall, a very good voice and conveys a nice visual.

 

[yorelm]

Awesome. It was that very section that bothered me, and your suggestions helped tighten it up. It also made me aware that after I wrote "skirts," "at the bottom" was redundant. Thank you.

 

[yorelm]

Thanks THX. This is an early snippet from a horror short story, and since the bulk of it takes place in this area, I wanted the initial visual to be solid. There's more to the surroundings, but of course I didn't want to lump it all into one big description. The rest unfolds along with the story. Appreciate you.

 

[tinkerdan]

First--for me the most important part of this paragraph is the last few lines.

...the place had a charm to it. And it gave me a kind of easy, lived-in vibe I didn’t usually feel when walking into a stranger’s home.

We get some real feeling from the narrator. All the description is like a camera panning across the room.

The first time I read this the following line shut me down completely--the rest of the paragraph was blah-blah-blah--this is just me; I think.
This guy understood decorating the way I understood quantum mechanics.

I had to go away and come back later.

So I made it through this time and it's a good thing I went away. I just knew I had another think coming.

At first my knee jerk reaction was let us read the description first and put that line at the end.(As emphasis to the description.)
But that would have been a bad thing considering I hadn't really registered the actual end which is the top line I just quoted from the bottom of the OP.

After having read the whole thing: What's missing for me here is that there is little in the description that helps explain or support the final conclusion.
And it gave me a kind of easy, lived-in vibe I didn’t usually feel when walking into a stranger’s home

But this whole thing is out of context in two specific areas.
First we don't know how much the narrator understands quantum mechanics.
Second, we have no idea why after--the description given--he might feel comfortable.

Looking at the scene we see that one sense is being applied and that's sight. And a room is more than just a visual effect, unless one truly does understand decorating--maybe.

What I mean to say is that if we could smell what the narrator smells and hear what the narrator hears or even possibly feel some emotion from the narrator as he takes in the visual and create a clear sense of the whole description, it's possible that we might tap into what makes this feel so comfortable to the narrator rather than to just be told that at the end. Right now the narrator seems conflicted in starting out with a negative aspect and supporting that and then surprising us at the end with an opposite conclusion. Putting the full senses in might help us understand that conclusion and that it makes sense for the narrators conclusion. I really think that more involvement with the narrator's inner feelings or senses about the room might--or should--help support the conclusion.

Otherwise, this seems to be something close to the usual trope we see on our tv or in our pulp fiction. {Guy walks into a dump, feels almost inexplicably comfortable--maybe because it's much worse than home.}

 

[yorelm]

Makes perfect sense, but for that to be a "trope," I've never really seen it. At least not to the point of feeling I was being unoriginal. But as I stated earlier, there's more both before and after this snippet, I just didn't want to pack it all into a single paragraph. There are hints to the mc's conclusion already implied before this.
Thank you.

 

[Cthulhu.Science]

There is so much to like about this description.

The second & last lines are marvelously convincing for me, like a specific individual describing a scene.

This guy understood decorating the way I understood quantum mechanics.

Still, I had to admit, for all its outdated, mismatched decor, the place had a charm to it. And it gave me a kind of easy, lived-in vibe I didn’t usually feel when walking into a stranger’s home.

The opening line doesn't feel spatially correct to my brain. To my brain I'm reading: "Basically one room" and also many rooms

Downstairs was basically one big living room, with a couple of doors sealing off side areas and an open passageway leading into a kitchen.

Maybe: "Downstairs was a big living room..."
But not: Downstairs there was a big living room

Secondarily ---
"passageway leading" suggests a hallway or butlers pantry between the living room and the kitchen. If you don't mean a corridor then a simpler contrast between "Sealing off" and "Open" might be in order. "opening" or "open doorway"

Downstairs was a big living room, with a couple of doors sealing off side areas and an opening into a kitchen.

A couch and matching chairs, looking like something yanked straight from a thrift store reject pile, were a design of faded green and yellow plaid with ruffled skirts around the bottoms.

I'm jumping on the too many descriptors bandwagon.

I think you could get rid of the words "matching" "straight" and "around the bottoms." -- where else are skirts?
The article "A" separates the couch from the chairs (requiring the word matching). Using the plural article "The" removes the need for the extra word "matching" and streamlines the description while still indicating a set. Also the word "something" is a singular pronoun which also tells us that "Couch and chairs" is a set.
The couch and chairs, looking like something yanked from a thrift store reject pile, were a design of faded green and yellow plaid with ruffled skirts.

This description has two verbs (looking, were). And also the order of descriptors and the separation of the physical description of the couch and chairs has been split the source description.

Some variations on the theme
The couch and chairs, looked like something yanked from a thrift store reject pile, faded green and yellow plaid with ruffled skirts.
The couch and chairs, like something yanked from a thrift store reject pile, were a design of faded green and yellow plaid with ruffled skirts.
The couch and chairs, faded green and yellow plaid with ruffled skirts, looked like something yanked from a thrift store reject pile.

An old-fashioned glass lamp sat on an end table next to the couch, lighting the room through a maroon pleated shade, giving the place a reddish glow.

The lamp description describes the location of the lamp and then a location of the thing the lamp is sitting on and then back to the lamp. This is too many mid-sentence digressions from the subject "lamp." A quick shift of descriptors helps continue the description from the last sentence.

Next to the couch, an old-fashioned glass lamp sat on an end table lighting the room through a maroon pleated shade, giving the place a reddish glow.
On an end table next to the couch, an old-fashioned glass lamp sat lighting the room through a maroon pleated shade, giving the place a reddish glow.

Also, the lamp gets three verbs (sat, lighting, giving) Maybe change the active verb from from "sat" to "lighting," reducing the number of verbs and emphasize why the lamp is important to the scene.

From the end table next to the couch, an old-fashioned glass lamp lit the room through a maroon pleated shade, giving the place a reddish glow.

Also, end tables are next to couches so:
From the end table, an old-fashioned glass lamp lit the room through a maroon pleated shade, giving the place a reddish glow.

Together:

Downstairs was a big living room, with a couple of doors sealing off side areas and an opening into a kitchen. This guy understood decorating the way I understood quantum mechanics. The couch and chairs, faded green and yellow plaid with ruffled skirts, looked like something yanked from a thrift store reject pile. From the end table, an old-fashioned glass lamp lit the room through a maroon pleated shade, giving the place a reddish glow. Function over fashion, I supposed. Still, I had to admit, for all its outdated, mismatched decor, the place had a charm to it. And it gave me a kind of easy, lived-in vibe I didn’t usually feel when walking into a stranger’s home.

(17 fewer words)
Very interesting description. I wonder what will happen there, in the stranger's living room.

 

[yorelm]

Absolutely lovely, Cthulha. I'm one who's 100% for concision and losing unnecessary words. This is a second draft, so some of that I would have caught in later edits, but highly likely not everything, esp catches from different eyes and minds. This is exactly why I posted.

I've made notes of everyone's suggestions in the Scrivener notes section so I don't forget on the next round. I want to complete this draft (half-way done) before making any changes so I don't get too hung up in one spot. I'm one of those "Do a whole draft, then revise and edit. Repeat as necessary." type. Fixing as I go just slows me down, though that works for many other writers.

I sincerely appreciate your help. It made me smile.

 

[Pyan]

I'm sorry to sound contradictory, but I disagree with just about every comment made about the piece. To me, it 'sounded ' really natural and easy to read, and I honestly don't think it needed any 'tightening ' or cutting of descriptions at all. But then, I was always fond of the idea that words should be used to paint a word-picture of a scene. Saving maybe five seconds of reading time by cutting words from a paragraph because tautness is fashionable is, in my opinion, an unnecessary evil.
You could cut large swathes of descriptive prose from Dickens, Shakespeare or Milton: but you wouldn't be left with Dickens, Shakespeare or Milton.

 

[yorelm]

Thanks, Pyan. This is why I want to wait until I finish the entire story draft before I revise. Just so I don't jump too fast into making changes. I may do a little pruning and rewording, many suggested here, but I'm not sure how extensively yet.
When I go back for draft 3, I will have had enough time from it to see what I have, then see what was suggested, then choose the one that "feels" the best. Thx again!

 

[Swank]

I'm sorry to sound contradictory, but I disagree with just about every comment made about the piece. To me, it 'sounded ' really natural and easy to read, and I honestly don't think it needed any 'tightening ' or cutting of descriptions at all. But then, I was always fond of the idea that words should be used to paint a word-picture of a scene. Saving maybe five seconds of reading time by cutting words from a paragraph because tautness is fashionable is, in my opinion, an unnecessary evil.
You could cut large swathes of descriptive prose from Dickens, Shakespeare or Milton: but you wouldn't be left with Dickens, Shakespeare or Milton.

"Tightening" isn't about being spare or increasing reading rate. It is primarily about constructing sentences that flow naturally so the reader doesn't stumble over a cluster of adjectives and lose the thread of the sentence. Most of those extra words don't make the reader see the space any more richly - because green and yellow plaid isn't more importantly tasteless than green plaid. Etc.

You can increase the density of description if you wish, but you can pack only so many separate details into one sentence with one subject and predicate. So adding more description means more sentences, and each new sentence needs to be about something.

Also, in the case of the OP's excerpt, he's aiming for a certain cadence that sounds like pulp fiction. And that also makes certain demands on how long the paragraphs are.

 

[Pyan]

because green and yellow plaid isn't more importantly tasteless than green plaid

Really? To my mind's eye, 'green and yellow plaid' gives a completely different impression to 'green plaid'. Are you seriously suggesting that you should modify the image that you want to convey because readers can't cope with two colours in a descriptive phrase rather than one?

And where does the OP say he's looking for a pulp fiction cadence?

 

[Swank]

Really? To my mind's eye, 'green and yellow plaid' gives a completely different impression to 'green plaid'. Are you seriously suggesting that you should modify the image that you want to convey because readers can't cope with two colours in a descriptive phrase rather than one?

And where does the OP say he's looking for a pulp fiction cadence?

He didn't say - he wrote it that way. Have you read any Raymond Chandler?

To my mind's eye, prose isn't about providing precise visual descriptions so that the reader could then illustrate the scene with high fidelity. Fiction prose is about conveying the characters' impressions to put the reader of their mental space. The OP didn't include details about the sofa so it can be pictured precisely (it won't be anyway), but to relay to the reader that the MC finds the sofa distastefully outdated or ugly. That's what's going on in the scene - the MC is taking in a comfortably ugly room. And the author could choose an entirely different set of details to create exactly the same impression of shabbiness in the reader's mind.


Writing is about letting the reader know what they should think, not providing a swath of details and hoping the reader extracts the same feelings the character and author has after digesting them all. Novel prose is not stage direction for a play or the captions of a storyboard. It is the story itself, and all those details need to make more story.

 

[Pyan]

He didn't say - he wrote it that way. Have you read any Raymond Chandler?

Yes, but this reads more like Jim Butcher than Chandler to me.
You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your opinions on descriptive prose, though I doubt we'll ever agree on what we each expect from it. However, I always feel reluctant on my part to be didactic about style - and I feel that the current emphasis on cutting back description to the bare bones, which appears to be the prevailing advice that is being given, is often detrimental to the reader's overall enjoyment.

 

[Toby Frost]

I'm with Pyan on this. It reads like someone telling a story in their own words, in which case a certain amount of rambling would be fine - and there is very little rambling in this excerpt. You can, if you want, shave individual words away in pursuit of hard-boiledness, but I'm not sure it's worth it and it runs the risk of making the narrator sound increasingly like a stereotype. (And you should see some of the weird, sprawling sentences Chandler comes up with at times. He didn't always write like a tough guy, perhaps because Philip Marlowe didn't always think like one.)

The quantum mechanics reference is fine and you don't need to know how much this guy knows about quantum mechanics because: (1) if he knew a lot, that would be sufficiently unusual to merit a mention in the text and (2) if he was an expert, he would choose something else to make the comparison work (brain surgery, Cantonese, whatever). The structure "I know as much about X as I know about Y", where Y is a thing that most people would regard as complex and obscure, is sufficiently familiar to get the idea across.

The only thing I would change is the "basically", which to me sounds a bit "modern teenager", as people use "basically" as a filler word like "you know" or "like". "Largely" would work better for me, but I probably wouldn't notice in the context of an entire novel.

 

[Swank]

Yes, but this reads more like Jim Butcher than Chandler to me.
You are, of course, perfectly entitled to your opinions on descriptive prose, though I doubt we'll ever agree on what we each expect from it. However, I always feel reluctant on my part to be didactic about style - and I feel that the current emphasis on cutting back description to the bare bones, which appears to be the prevailing advice that is being given, is often detrimental to the reader's overall enjoyment.

I don't think my edits were cutting anything back to "bare bones". I kept every sentence and pruned three adjectives, the immature "basically" and the redundant "I had to admit" - because it came right after "I supposed" and "Still," which function so similarly that it slogged down those last two sentences.

Please explain how what I suggested was bare bones.


I don't really disagree with you philosophically, but I don't think what I suggested comes close.


A reasonable guide to editing is to read the piece aloud. Speech has a cadence, and when you have too many descriptors in one sentence people tend to trip over their words like trying to sing more words than will fit into the melody. Those are primarily the kinds of pruning I suggest - where words prevent understanding because they cause the reader to get lost in the sentence. More description is fine, but it needs to be contained in something that also flows.

This is a very similar problem to the misuse off commas, which also break up sentences in a way that destroys the shape of their meaning, or allows phrases to be forced together unnaturally.

 

[yorelm]

It reads like someone telling a story in their own words...

This is the crux of my mode of thinking for the original text, keeping the mc in mind as I wrote it.
I was just wondering whether I went too long before I moved on to the rest of the story.

Actually, the removal of "basically" and "around the bottom" were the only immediate changes I made before moving on.
The rest I'll have to feel when I come back to it fully. Again, keeping my mc in mind along with the practicality of the suggestions.