Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #6

Don't Describe Sunsets


Readers need description in the stories they read to visualize settings and people -really "get into" the action. But sometimes writers get carried away and go too far in trying to provide such descriptions; they stop too often to describe such things as sunsets, thinking that pretty prose is an end itself -and forgetting that when they stop to describe something at length, the story movement also stops.

Fiction is movement. Description is static. Trying to put in a lengthy description of a setting or person in fiction is a little like the dilemma facing physicists when they try to describe the nature of the electron. As one distinguished scientist once put it, "You can describe what an electron is at a given moment, but if you do, you don't now exactly where it is; or you can try to describe exactly where it is, but then you can't say exactly what it is."

Part of what he was saying is simply this: To describe something in detail, you have to stop the action. But without the action, the description has no meaning.

Therefore, when you try to inflict on your readers a detailed description, your story stops. And readers are interested in the story -the movement- not your fine prose.

Does this mean you should have no description in your story? Of course not. Description must be worked in carefully, in bits and pieces, to keep your reader seeing, hearing, and feeling your story world. But please note the language here: It must be worked in, a bit at a time, not shoveled in by the page.

And note, please, that description can be something other than writing about a tree or a sunset. Beginning writers sometimes make the mistake of stopping everything while they describe a characters thoughts or feelings. This is often every bit as bad and overdone as static description of surroundings.

Of course you should and must look into your character's head and heart. And some of your insight must be given the reader, so she can know about the character, sympathize with the character, identify with the action. But in good fiction -even at novel length- such descriptions of the character's state of mind and emotion are usually relatively brief. The accomplished writer will tell (describe) a little, and demonstrate (show in action) a lot.

Modern readers want you to move the story, not stand around discussing things.

If your stories seem to be moving too slowly, you might analyze some of your copy, looking at what form of writing you tend to use. It could be that you are describing too many sunsets (in one form or another) and never using any dialogue or dramatic summary. On the other hand, if you sense that your stories whiz along at too breakneck a speed, perhaps you need to change some of that dramatic summary into narrative, or even pause (briefly!) now and then to describe what the setting looks like, or what the character is thinking or feeling.

In this way, you can become more conscious of your tendencies as a fiction writer, and begin to see which tendencies help you, and which tend to hold you back from selling. You can learn better to call your shots in terms of pacing your yarn, selecting the delivery system that's needed for the desired effect, and keeping the yarn moving.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #1

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #2

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #3

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #4

Most Common Fiction Writing Mistakes, #5

I think I would expand this to include:

Don't describe the characters. The mirror ploy or 'What would I look like to someone else' is only slightly better than 'She was 5 foot 3, weighed 100 lbs and wore a 40D bra'.

Every time you specify a physical characteristic you intoduce a limit on the reader's imagination. If the reader wants the heroine to be a blue-eyed blonde and you have made her a green-eyed redhead then the reader is distanced from the character. If the reader wants to be the heroine or hero, every piece of description that doesn't fit the reader's self image destroys the illusion.

We can't all be nerdy geeks who turn into hunks once the heroine takes our glasses off; nor prim librarians who just have to unpin their hair to become sex-goddesses; but we can dream. If the author has made the characters so precisely defined that we can see only one version of them, then the description has gone too far.

I'm not sure how much of that is rationalisation on my part. I'm not good at physical descriptions and I like to leave that to the reader's imagination.

As far as scenery is concerned, I see a problem with the international spread of Literotica. I can say that the story is set in the South Downs. To someone in the UK that is a specific and precise image. To a reader in Alaska or Japan it might mean nothing. If I want to convey a scenery description that is universally understood I would have to use so many words that the action would stop dead and probably kill the reader's interest.

As with most of these threads, the balance between too little and too much is one that writers must consider for themselves. Whatever we do, someone will think we are wrong.

Og

In my longer pieces, I usually have a very clear idea of what the character(s) look like. So I describe them although I certainly don't spend pages and pages doing it.

Same with important places, a paragraph helps set the place and the mood.

Starting to get a bit peeved with this authour. (Not with you, McKenna) I'm hearing 'this is the proper way to write and if you don't, you're no damn good.'

Voltaire gave simpler and more to the point advice, "All styles are good, except the boring."

Geez, McKenna! What stupid fuckin' advice. I do things my own damned way and to hell with some dweeb who thinks he knows better.



(Just kidding! Every thread's had one thus far. I didn't want this one to feel neglected.)


Thanks for continuing to share!

But, but, but... I like sunsets......

But I'm learning better.... Uh I think.....

After rereading that last post, my next story has to be Anal..... without a doubt....

Thing is, in order to describe a sensory impression better and more vividly than the camera in the reader's mind, you have to be a fucking god of writing.

What we all can do, and do much easier, is to metonymize. A metonynie is usually described as a word for a part of a thing that reprtesents another word for the whole thing. For instance: "I don't need no suit telling me what to do." meaning "I don't need no lawyer/buerocrat/excel warrior..."

But it's the same device many authors use when successfully giving us a feel for a place, by showing seemingly randon specific stuff. Choose little details, some that are crucial to the action, others that you feel are significant for the mood you're trying to create. Describe those, and every reader will fill in a plausible picture of the things you leave out.

Just a tip. Try it out. I find it works pretty well for me.

impressive said:

(Just kidding! Every thread's had one thus far. I didn't want this one to feel neglected.)

Click to expand...

Would you like one slap on your ass, or two?


Thanks for keeping it lively!

Confesion Time

I am GUILTY of giving verbose descriptions, big time. Perhaps not so much in my scenery descriptions, but of "living" in my character's heads.


It's something I've become painfully aware of, but can't seem to stop doing. I like knowing what's going on in someone's head ...but have to remember, there are better ways to show it, than just tell it.


Sigh. I'm still working on finding that happy medium, that balance between too much and not enough.

A friend of mine who dislikes Stephen King feels that way because of his over description in many cases. An example she gives is when he describes someone being staked out like an X, hands high above the head and wide with the legs equally widespread. There were like three sentences she quoted in this description, all saying much the same thing. Then her own quote was, "Arrrgghhh! Shut up! I know what a fucking X is!"

That's sort of how I feel about description. I assume that the reader knows what a sunset looks like.

When it comes to character description I give as little as I feel is necessary. What I've found interesting in casting discussions with people about my book is who they think should play Lenny, the main character. I've heard so many people mentioned that I know that my bit of physical description had very little bearing on how they saw the character. Every reader has had his or her own Lenny. I think that is far cooler than anything I might have written about him.

rgraham666 said:

Voltaire gave simpler and more to the point advice, "All styles are good, except the boring."

Click to expand...

I liked O. Henry better, "Write what you like. There are no other rules."

I agree with the author on this point though. To much description gets boring and i end up skipping past it anyway. Save your authorly breath, especially on the characters. I simple description, i.e.: Short with medium brown hair, is plenty for the reader to associate some mental picture. Be it their favorite actor or their cousin Lulu, they're going to develope a mental picture. Don't confuse them with yours, just let them go with it. Detailed descriptions can work against you.

I'm reminded of a time when a friend tried to fix me up with his wife's best friend and started describing her. "She really nice, funny and smart, about 5'6", 130 lbs, long brown hair, really cute face, great legs and HUGE TITS."

She sounded like a dream come true. Right up to the last part. Completely blew it for me. Turns out she was a really sweet girl, but I almost didn't meet her because of his description.

If the reader NEEDS that detailed description, they're probly better off watching TV.

McKenna said:

I am GUILTY of giving verbose descriptions, big time. Perhaps not so much in my scenery descriptions, but of "living" in my character's heads.


It's something I've become painfully aware of, but can't seem to stop doing. I like knowing what's going on in someone's head ...but have to remember, there are better ways to show it, than just tell it.


Sigh. I'm still working on finding that happy medium, that balance between too much and not enough.

Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean, and especially in erotica, where I masturbate to obsessive fantasies with intricate detail.
I write all of that stuff, and then try REAL HARD to edit it out. But I hate to throw away those purple passages, so they go into a couple of files full of random paragraphs. Someday I'll knit a big comfy sweater from all those scraps of stories...
I have such COOL back stories on some of my characters, all the soap operas of their families. Probably never get used. One character kept a journal- I have it. I doubt it's good enough to be a stand-alone.

I'm tempted to agree here (surprise, surprise) and also say that Mck is quoting very useful parts and missing things that are obvious/tangential/equipotic (made up that last word, but it means 'if you think hard about what is said then there is a lot more substance than the bare words')

I would like to say (without referencing mispellings) that another way of saying this is that anything in your story needs to move it along or it has no business being there. Our essential constraints, as writers, number one only. Make the reader need to read the next paragraph.

However, (in opposition to the thrust and 'modern reader') the thing that makes the reader need to read the next paragraph may indeed be a mastery of vocabulary or purple prose or intricate detail.

I would imagine that whichever method you choose will probably have a large bearing on how many people read (or buy) your story.

gauchecritic said:

I'm tempted to agree here (surprise, surprise) and also say that Mck is quoting very useful parts and missing things that are obvious/tangential/equipotic (made up that last word, but it means 'if you think hard about what is said then there is a lot more substance than the bare words')

Click to expand...

Did I hear semiotics?

To this one I say, hogwash, bullshit, whatever explative happens to be handy.

You cannot read a Zane Gray novel or Louis L'amour western without long, detailed descriptions of the terrain of the old west. It simply has to be there. Nor can you get even a minor feel for a sci-fi or fantasy world without long descriptive pasages.

90% of setting need some descriptive exposure. Even settings well known, like the Vegas strip or the SF wharves. Even the room your character's are bumping nasties in needs a little descritptive work. Especially if there is some contextural element to their bumping of nasties.

Honestly, if your story is loving wives, a good description of "her" bedroom, with pictures of hubby and personal things adds to the spice. Likewise, a first time in the back of his car needs some description, outdoorsex demands you say something about where they are outdoors, and even just plain ole two folks getting it on needs it.

They fucked at her hotel dosen't say much. It can however say a lot if they get a cheap motel room at the nearest roachtrap cause they just can't wait or if he takes her back to his room at the Ritz-Carlton.

You can write with no description, and some do it well, but IMHO this is a personal pecidillo and not a fiction writing mistake. I can name just as many authors who are highly sucessful and write great descriptive prose as I can those who are spaing in their descriptions.

Louis L'amour, Zane Gray, Richard Adams, Howard, McKinney, De Camp, Weis, Just to name a few who don't mind stopping to describe the sunset.

Colly, in response to your last post: I have to point out that I may be doing a disservice to this author. As I pointed out in another thread, I'm only including excerpts from the book because damn! That's a lot of typing!

That said, he does give an example of an author of western novels who has used the long, drawn out description of a sunset effectively. He spoke about how the hero was supposed to meet up with the gang of villains at sundown, so the three or four pages of description about the sunset was the slow build up to the gunfight; it created suspense.

Ugh, maybe I'm doing this author a disservice by only excerpting his book. I must think on that; it might be best to stop with these posts and just encourage people to read it for themselves.

Liar said:

Thing is, in order to describe a sensory impression better and more vividly than the camera in the reader's mind, you have to be a fucking god of writing.

What we all can do, and do much easier, is to metonymize. A metonynie is usually described as a word for a part of a thing that reprtesents another word for the whole thing. For instance: "I don't need no suit telling me what to do." meaning "I don't need no lawyer/buerocrat/excel warrior..."

But it's the same device many authors use when successfully giving us a feel for a place, by showing seemingly randon specific stuff. Choose little details, some that are crucial to the action, others that you feel are significant for the mood you're trying to create. Describe those, and every reader will fill in a plausible picture of the things you leave out.

Just a tip. Try it out. I find it works pretty well for me.

Click to expand...

I think the same judicious economy should be applied in character development. A diagnosis of ADHD and the background leading to it, no; a carefully chosen instance of the character's being distracted, yes. And yes especially if we will see that character get distracted later in the story in a crucial time and place.

Boota said:

When it comes to character description I give as little as I feel is necessary. What I've found interesting in casting discussions with people about my book is who they think should play Lenny, the main character. I've heard so many people mentioned that I know that my bit of physical description had very little bearing on how they saw the character. Every reader has had his or her own Lenny. I think that is far cooler than anything I might have written about him.

Click to expand...

What a satisfying thing that must be! Congratulations.

McKenna said:

Colly, in response to your last post: I have to point out that I may be doing a disservice to this author. As I pointed out in another thread, I'm only including excerpts from the book because damn! That's a lot of typing!

That said, he does give an example of an author of western novels who has used the long, drawn out description of a sunset effectively. He spoke about how the hero was supposed to meet up with the gang of villains at sundown, so the three or four pages of description about the sunset was the slow build up to the gunfight; it created suspense.

Ugh, maybe I'm doing this author a disservice by only excerpting his book. I must think on that; it might be best to stop with these posts and just encourage people to read it for themselves.

Click to expand...

Not at all. If anything you are encouraging us to look closely at our own work. In some this may equate to defending their style, but even then, you are making us each think about our style and how we write the way we do and why.

It's instructive, even if I don't always agree with his position

In this case though, he is giving an injunction to write in a manner I don't enjoy. I can write sparsely. I can use a lean, non verbose style. I do so in my cyberpunk pieces since that is the style of the genre. Occasionally I will do so in other types of fiction, when I want a tough or gritty feel.

That said, I stand by my feeling that this is a personal peccidillo. Too many writers use highly descriptive language and are successful to discount them. This is the first advice from the writer I find to be purely a matter of stylistic choice.

And for my style, I'm wedded to description. To do away with it would remove the joy of creating for me as well as make a piece not feel like it was written by me.

cantdog said:

What a satisfying thing that must be! Congratulations.

Click to expand...

Thanks, cant! I'm pretty happy about it.

Speaking more as a reader than writer, I have to say that McK has posted good advice here.

I mean, Tom Clancy has a credible "insider" voice even without his habit of going purple on the technical specs of weaponry. Moreover, there isn't even any acknowledgement of the homoerotic symbolism he invariably conjures up. Huckleman's Law: Irony is lost on Conservatives.

More to the point here: When I have read authors on Lit based on their favorable posts and reputation in this forum, and been a bit disappointed, it has invariably been due to the authors' paying more attention to their own masturbatory impulses than mine.

Huckleman2000 said:

More to the point here: When I have read authors on Lit based on their favorable posts and reputation in this forum, and been a bit disappointed, it has invariably been due to the authors' paying more attention to their own masturbatory impulses than mine.

Click to expand...

I so agree. Thanks for having the balls to say it.

Huckleman2000 said:

Speaking more as a reader than writer, I have to say that McK has posted good advice here.

...
More to the point here: When I have read authors on Lit based on their favorable posts and reputation in this forum, and been a bit disappointed, it has invariably been due to the authors' paying more attention to their own masturbatory impulses than mine.

Click to expand...

I have tried to write some stories that do NOT turn me on in any way but are addressing a particular sexual preference. The problem for me is working out what will appeal to that particular audience. Sometimes I get it right and have a positive reaction from the few.

(On Bagged at the Opera, currently rated 3.50) I'm a married female in her 30's, currently on anti-depressants that made my sex drive go fron 55mph to maybe 5 at best. (With my husband using every trick in the book--so to speak--at once).
That was well written, imaginative, and sexy. Plus, I think someone just FLOORED the gas pedal to the metal. Thanks. I needed that. Writer? Try to publish! You can do it.

Click to expand...

Thank you anonymous.


And a negative reaction from the many including other anonymous.

I don't think there is such a thing as an erotic story that appeals to everyone. I don't think I have ever written a story since joining Literotica that appeals to no one, but I have come very close to achieving that perfection.

Og

I don't think I decribe an awful lot in my crud other than the naughty bits, I don't ever remeber detailing what the weather was doing, or if the sun was setting or just coming up... Day and night are left to the reader to decide on, most they get is... "It was 9pm and getting quite dark" or some such brief.

I rarely describe the room or setting in any detail...

"They made out in the bedroom, he flung her face down on the double bed and gently but firmly shoved his nine and a half inches right up her shit locker".

"He had her bent over the high back sofa and slid his ever hard tool into her warm wet slit doggie style, then grabbing her hips he pulled her on like a well worn wellington boot".

What more do you need to know??

But then what the hell do I know I'm an electrician not an author

Good advice though McK darling, and good of you to take the time to try and help educate some of the more serious up-and-coming writers here

*nudging this one up from the depths*

This is very interesting. I am currently slugging my way through Cider with Rosie, which was highly recommended by a Brit. Apparently it's a popular book and may be even required school reading in the UK, and yet unknown here in the States. Laurie Lee is beautifully descriptive, lyrical. I had to read the first chapter twice because it was so beautiful and all through the book I've had to pause and let my mind dwell on choice words. However, I mean it when I say 'slug my way through'. It's taken me months and now a determined effort to get through the thing. I've been asking myself why, and all I can think of is that, while the stories and characters he describes are charming, colorful characters and words are not enough for me.

But I think different styles and genres appeal to different readers. It doesn't make Laurie Lee's book bad, it just didn't work for me.

In regards to my own writing. I'm now fearing that my own desire and efforts to bring a sense of atmosphere and character to a story might be overkill. I guess there must be balance.