Thanks. I am trying to be more descriptive but still allow the reader to use their imagination. And not becoming pretentious or poetic. 🤣 Especially since it is a blacksmith/Baron doing the describing.
I love your writing and writing style, Mark. I'm in the same boat as you. When we write shorter fiction we cut the fluff to drive the scene or story forward. The details don't matter, not really, anyway. With that said, I tend to favor novelists who do the same. In my opinion, when descriptions are sprinkled in (maybe one or two details that allow the reader to be grounded in the scene, or allow them to connect emotionally), the author has done his/her job. This propels the story without sacrificing its pace. Besides, as a reader, I appreciate when I have to use my imagination to a degree.
Just my two cents! (And take it all with a grain of salt...this is coming from a guy who mostly writes the "short" stuff, ha!)
Thanks, Justin. I am with you on allowing the reader to use their imagination. I think it allows the reader to "personalize" the story. If the writer explains everything in great detail, it removes that option, and it is the part where my mind zones out. I usually can't envision what they have gone to great length to describe. 🤣 I'd rather watch a movie if I want "show, don't tell."
Mark, my rule, not always followed, is to use everything to evoke emotion in the character. And thereby, the reader.
A bakery is a bakery, is a... Until I entered a bakery in Solvaang, CA, on a road trip with my wife. The smells there, even from outside, brought me straight back to the bakery I frequented as a child in central Minnesota, decades before.
You might describe what attracts the Baron to a particular pastry. And compare it to his wishing to bring a barrel of them along on the voyage as he gets so tired of the hard tack.
Write out everything you can think of in the description. If it doesn't generate emotion, I cut it. One of your readers commented on Moby Dick. I read it as a child and was fascinated. Tried again recently and came to a screeching halt by page 50. It could have been a rockin' novelette!
I think Mr. Melville felt compelled to inform his landlocked readers with his vast knowledge of seafaring.
Jack London also spent time on ships. His writing was more to the point. But he had such a dark vision of humanity, I find him hard to read.
Some writers think paper grows on trees, or comes in rolls, so they spend it frivolously. Hemingway's writing is so spare, I find him to err in the other direction, often, also unemotional. But his 'Hills Like White Elephants,' and 'Clean, Well Lighted Place' are masterpieces of understatement.
We all have our excesses. But I go by, if it moves the character, it might move the reader.
Excellent points. I agree. In my novel, it is as much about the characters as the story. If you don't care about the characters, the rest is pointless. Although I do think it is a good story, also. 🙂
Characters in conflict create the story. One choosing an action over passive acceptance determines the plot. Two characters in a room, desiring something, but who don't want to share, could be a great debate, or the beginning of a murder mystery.
BTW, I have found much description can be effectively eliminated by using dialogue toward the same end. You reveal character at the same time and sustain or heighten the conflict, rather than giving all the characters an extended coffee break to fill pages with words. Let the characters react, in character, to what they see!
I like that! Writing dialog is the easiest part for me. 🤣
The comments on this post have been very helpful to me. It has clarified what is really important. I do need to do better with descriptions, when needed. But not overdo it, and keep it in character.
I don't have anything to add to what's already been said, but I just thought you should know I struggle with this exact same thing. You are not alone, Mark!
I think the reader needs something by way of description in a longer story. Not a lot, but a detail to associate a character with that creates a picture in their mind. It helps them remember that character when they reappear later. In an ultra-short story, I'll skip these details in favor of telling the story itself.
I don't particularly enjoy reading reams of description, but I do like little details that help bring a character or scene alive.
I think you're on the right track with your description of Peel Bakery, but it misses on one point: specificity. It's not enough to say "the smell of baking bread" or "cases filled with pastries" (paraphrasing because I'm not looking at your words) because that is what we would already assume from walking into a bakery. Instead, tell me about the tang of cinnamon in the air that came from them just pulling a tray of sticky buns out of the oven, or how the case was filled with croissants dusted with snowy sugar and cakes decorated with shiny glazed fruit. How the latticework of the pies reminded your character of their grandma's beautiful creations. How the woman behind the counter has a story behind each type of cookie she sells. And how the line of customers was snaking out the door, suggesting that this was a much better choice than the chain coffee shop down the block. Put us not in a bakery but in PEEL Bakery.
If the setting doesn't need that level of description, then it might very well be enough to say, "they went into a bakery and got a snack for the road" or whatever, but along the way there should be some settings that are important enough to describe in such a way that we can feel like we're there. The rest can just be men with rumpled coats. :)
Thanks, Jackie. I get completely get what you are saying. The popular writing advice, "show, don't tell." The problem is, an 18th-century blacksmith turned Baron recounting his adventures would probably not use flowery language such as "croissants dusted with snowy sugar" or use that level of detail.
I am not sure I can even write that way. Perhaps I am just a "rumpled coat" writer. 🙂
I think he would be more likely to think, this is where Andelbert apprenticed. Obviously, any description is for the benefit of the reader, not what he would naturally think about a place he has been many times. But that is helpful. Thanks.
Obviously, your details and language would be different in the situation you describe. I was just giving examples. Your baron, because he used to be a blacksmith, might think about how big a waste of time it is to decorate food and even though he can afford it, rage about how expensive it is. Or maybe, given his change of circumstances, he recalls how he once would have craved something like this but now he's disappointed that it's not as good as he thought it would be. But either way, you have to describe the bakery and the food in such a way that we can see what he's reacting to.
And I totally believe you can do this. It's really just building your observation muscle. Maybe try practicing this in real life. Go somewhere and in just five minutes write down everything you can think of that conveys what it's like to be there, in enough detail that someone would understand what was unique about that location.
Think of it like Nishant's Sneaky Art except you're trying to convey the essence of the specific place with words rather than black lines. 🙂
Sounds like a good exercise. Thanks. I am sure that would help.
I think sometimes "show, don't tell" writing gets too poetic or symbolic and is hard for me to follow.
Like the classic Anton Chekhov example: “on the mill dam, a piece of glass from a broken bottle glittered like a bright little star.” In place of "a moonlit night."
His example is too poetic for me and doesn’t “show” me anything except a shiny piece of broken glass on a mill dam. I didn't get it was night from that. The sun can make glass glitter also. 🤣
I think I need to find a workable medium between my lack of description and excessive imagery that is hard for me to decipher. 🙂
Show don't tell is often as much about a character's internal world as it is about the environment. You could say someone was angry or you could describe their blood pressure rising as a crimson tide of rage suffused their face (being a little over the top here).
I never thought of show, don’t tell as being internal. Interesting.
But I think that is the danger of show, don’t tell. It is often over the top by its very nature. Trying to be cinematic with words instead of film can lead to overly-long, pretentious writing if the writer is not careful.
Yes, but showing emotion evokes the reader's emotion, drawing them further into your story. It's called, in psychology, mirroring. They mirror your character's experience within themselves and are more engaged. You don't have to go over the top. Just enough that the reader can relate.
My guess is that you're overthinking it a bit. But practice never hurts a writer, no matter how long we've been at it. Finding a way to describe a space with details but also an economy of words is a great skill to hone. And of course, you could always share these vignettes with us in the future!
Since I am also of the “keep to the basics” re: description, I favor shorter descriptions. But I also have to go back and read my stuff several times to make sure I didn’t leave anybody hanging.
Me too. I am used to writing very short stories with few details. But I had one reader say they wished I used more imagery in my novel. And it got me thinking. I never describe the ships that are a big part of the story. And a few other things places. But I am not naturally inclined to write that way. I prefer writing dialog and moving the story along. So I was curious what others think.
A few key descriptions peppered throughout the story can go a long way. You don't want to info dump (or description dump), but most readers want a few images to hang their metaphorical hats on.
There was a series of novels set in the Napoleonic Wars from the Royal Navy side. A friend gushed how the writing threw him into what it must have REALLY felt like being on a ship back then. So I read the first one. Basically, I'd get to a part where... something happened. The ship needed to turn around! Para1: blah blah. Para2: blah blah. Paras3,4,5,6... blah blah. And THEN! The ship turned around. 🙄
More classic example: Moby Dick. CRAMMED with details. DEEEEEETAAAAAILS! I wrote an English paper making the case that if we cleaned out all the details that had nothing to do with the plot, we'd have a nice short story. I got an A-.
🤣 I definitely don't like long descriptions. But I think I often go with no descriptions. I hope to find a balance. I guess it's different writing for different readers.
Not every setting needs to be described in detail, but the ones that characters are going to interact with at some length should be fleshed out, as it were. Because knowing the details about a setting and how someone acts when they're in that setting helps reveal character.
If you have a beautiful French bakery with artisan pastries you would expect most people to salivate over the deliciousness in the case. But one character might be impatient and just want their coffee because they are gluten intolerant and can't have anything. Another may ignore all of the baked goods and instead they're checking out the guy behind the counter. Another person may buy a dozen pastries with the intention of eating them all himself. And someone else might be with a companion who is ordering but they hate the smell of all the sugar. And as you describe each character's reactions to the same setting, we can learn a lot more about them.
That is where I struggle. I made sure to describe some locations in detail in the first novel, but I failed to do so with other important locations. Describing what I imagine in my head is hard for me, so I avoid it. 🤣 I do the bare minimum. I need to find better balance.
We all have our weak points as writers. If there's something you want to avoid, it means it's something you need to work on. I'm weak with fight scenes. The leader of my old critique group called me on it in my first novel. I've been working on it ever since.
Those are good guidelines. But I tend to rush through the story and be dialog heavy. I intentionally didn’t describe my lead character other than saying he was young. I wanted readers to imagine him for themselves. But I don’t think that works for everything. Sometimes a scene needs describing. And that is the hardest part for me. I need to get better at knowing what to describe and what not to. And how much.
Your short pieces don't allow for much description so you haven't used it. I believe you will naturally include more description as you continue to write longer pieces and become aware of opportunities for detailed description to add depth to your characters and story. I do enjoy your short humor, Mark.
I also hate too many details, but I have to admit I like the descriptive version better. Yes, I am now back from the dead. At least for a day.
Thanks. I am trying to be more descriptive but still allow the reader to use their imagination. And not becoming pretentious or poetic. 🤣 Especially since it is a blacksmith/Baron doing the describing.
BTW, it's hard to ignore your writing because I do enjoy it!
Thanks, Cyn. That is high praise. 😀
I love your writing and writing style, Mark. I'm in the same boat as you. When we write shorter fiction we cut the fluff to drive the scene or story forward. The details don't matter, not really, anyway. With that said, I tend to favor novelists who do the same. In my opinion, when descriptions are sprinkled in (maybe one or two details that allow the reader to be grounded in the scene, or allow them to connect emotionally), the author has done his/her job. This propels the story without sacrificing its pace. Besides, as a reader, I appreciate when I have to use my imagination to a degree.
Just my two cents! (And take it all with a grain of salt...this is coming from a guy who mostly writes the "short" stuff, ha!)
I rarely remember descriptions, either of people or places. Actions, emotions, and motivations resonate with me.
A little bit of description goes a long way with me also. Imagination takes over. The characters and the story are what I remember.
Agreed, Bill!
Thanks, Justin. I am with you on allowing the reader to use their imagination. I think it allows the reader to "personalize" the story. If the writer explains everything in great detail, it removes that option, and it is the part where my mind zones out. I usually can't envision what they have gone to great length to describe. 🤣 I'd rather watch a movie if I want "show, don't tell."
Haha! I’m right there with you, Mark. Tolkien and Tolstoy would not approve of some of us modern readers. 🤣
I doubt they would approve of anything modern. 🤣
Haha, that’s very true. 😂
Mark, my rule, not always followed, is to use everything to evoke emotion in the character. And thereby, the reader.
A bakery is a bakery, is a... Until I entered a bakery in Solvaang, CA, on a road trip with my wife. The smells there, even from outside, brought me straight back to the bakery I frequented as a child in central Minnesota, decades before.
You might describe what attracts the Baron to a particular pastry. And compare it to his wishing to bring a barrel of them along on the voyage as he gets so tired of the hard tack.
Write out everything you can think of in the description. If it doesn't generate emotion, I cut it. One of your readers commented on Moby Dick. I read it as a child and was fascinated. Tried again recently and came to a screeching halt by page 50. It could have been a rockin' novelette!
Good question. I hope this helps.
Thanks, John. That helps a lot.
I guess another question is, what warrants going into that kind of detail, to begin with?
I think Mr. Melville felt compelled to inform his landlocked readers with his vast knowledge of seafaring.
Jack London also spent time on ships. His writing was more to the point. But he had such a dark vision of humanity, I find him hard to read.
Some writers think paper grows on trees, or comes in rolls, so they spend it frivolously. Hemingway's writing is so spare, I find him to err in the other direction, often, also unemotional. But his 'Hills Like White Elephants,' and 'Clean, Well Lighted Place' are masterpieces of understatement.
We all have our excesses. But I go by, if it moves the character, it might move the reader.
Excellent points. I agree. In my novel, it is as much about the characters as the story. If you don't care about the characters, the rest is pointless. Although I do think it is a good story, also. 🙂
Characters in conflict create the story. One choosing an action over passive acceptance determines the plot. Two characters in a room, desiring something, but who don't want to share, could be a great debate, or the beginning of a murder mystery.
BTW, I have found much description can be effectively eliminated by using dialogue toward the same end. You reveal character at the same time and sustain or heighten the conflict, rather than giving all the characters an extended coffee break to fill pages with words. Let the characters react, in character, to what they see!
I like that! Writing dialog is the easiest part for me. 🤣
The comments on this post have been very helpful to me. It has clarified what is really important. I do need to do better with descriptions, when needed. But not overdo it, and keep it in character.
That's what allows me to keep it real, even when it's fantastic or bizarre.
I don't have anything to add to what's already been said, but I just thought you should know I struggle with this exact same thing. You are not alone, Mark!
Thanks, Kevin. I can’t describe how good that makes me feel. 😉
I think the reader needs something by way of description in a longer story. Not a lot, but a detail to associate a character with that creates a picture in their mind. It helps them remember that character when they reappear later. In an ultra-short story, I'll skip these details in favor of telling the story itself.
I don't particularly enjoy reading reams of description, but I do like little details that help bring a character or scene alive.
Thanks, Dascha. Less is more, perhaps. Just enough to fire up the imagination.
I think you're on the right track with your description of Peel Bakery, but it misses on one point: specificity. It's not enough to say "the smell of baking bread" or "cases filled with pastries" (paraphrasing because I'm not looking at your words) because that is what we would already assume from walking into a bakery. Instead, tell me about the tang of cinnamon in the air that came from them just pulling a tray of sticky buns out of the oven, or how the case was filled with croissants dusted with snowy sugar and cakes decorated with shiny glazed fruit. How the latticework of the pies reminded your character of their grandma's beautiful creations. How the woman behind the counter has a story behind each type of cookie she sells. And how the line of customers was snaking out the door, suggesting that this was a much better choice than the chain coffee shop down the block. Put us not in a bakery but in PEEL Bakery.
If the setting doesn't need that level of description, then it might very well be enough to say, "they went into a bakery and got a snack for the road" or whatever, but along the way there should be some settings that are important enough to describe in such a way that we can feel like we're there. The rest can just be men with rumpled coats. :)
Yes! Evoking the senses and emotions. These bring the writing alive for readers.
Thanks, Jackie. I get completely get what you are saying. The popular writing advice, "show, don't tell." The problem is, an 18th-century blacksmith turned Baron recounting his adventures would probably not use flowery language such as "croissants dusted with snowy sugar" or use that level of detail.
I am not sure I can even write that way. Perhaps I am just a "rumpled coat" writer. 🙂
I think he would notice some details, though, Mark. What would stand out to him?
I think he would be more likely to think, this is where Andelbert apprenticed. Obviously, any description is for the benefit of the reader, not what he would naturally think about a place he has been many times. But that is helpful. Thanks.
But if that's where his mind would go, it reveals both character and back story. It would be a good choice if detail to add.
He does mention it to Elise after they leave the shop.
Obviously, your details and language would be different in the situation you describe. I was just giving examples. Your baron, because he used to be a blacksmith, might think about how big a waste of time it is to decorate food and even though he can afford it, rage about how expensive it is. Or maybe, given his change of circumstances, he recalls how he once would have craved something like this but now he's disappointed that it's not as good as he thought it would be. But either way, you have to describe the bakery and the food in such a way that we can see what he's reacting to.
And I totally believe you can do this. It's really just building your observation muscle. Maybe try practicing this in real life. Go somewhere and in just five minutes write down everything you can think of that conveys what it's like to be there, in enough detail that someone would understand what was unique about that location.
Think of it like Nishant's Sneaky Art except you're trying to convey the essence of the specific place with words rather than black lines. 🙂
Sounds like a good exercise. Thanks. I am sure that would help.
I think sometimes "show, don't tell" writing gets too poetic or symbolic and is hard for me to follow.
Like the classic Anton Chekhov example: “on the mill dam, a piece of glass from a broken bottle glittered like a bright little star.” In place of "a moonlit night."
His example is too poetic for me and doesn’t “show” me anything except a shiny piece of broken glass on a mill dam. I didn't get it was night from that. The sun can make glass glitter also. 🤣
I think I need to find a workable medium between my lack of description and excessive imagery that is hard for me to decipher. 🙂
Show don't tell is often as much about a character's internal world as it is about the environment. You could say someone was angry or you could describe their blood pressure rising as a crimson tide of rage suffused their face (being a little over the top here).
I never thought of show, don’t tell as being internal. Interesting.
But I think that is the danger of show, don’t tell. It is often over the top by its very nature. Trying to be cinematic with words instead of film can lead to overly-long, pretentious writing if the writer is not careful.
Yes, but showing emotion evokes the reader's emotion, drawing them further into your story. It's called, in psychology, mirroring. They mirror your character's experience within themselves and are more engaged. You don't have to go over the top. Just enough that the reader can relate.
My guess is that you're overthinking it a bit. But practice never hurts a writer, no matter how long we've been at it. Finding a way to describe a space with details but also an economy of words is a great skill to hone. And of course, you could always share these vignettes with us in the future!
Agreed. Overthinking is one of the things I do best. 🤣
Maybe we should all do this over in the Discord and share notes like we might share a sketch?
Since I am also of the “keep to the basics” re: description, I favor shorter descriptions. But I also have to go back and read my stuff several times to make sure I didn’t leave anybody hanging.
Me too. I am used to writing very short stories with few details. But I had one reader say they wished I used more imagery in my novel. And it got me thinking. I never describe the ships that are a big part of the story. And a few other things places. But I am not naturally inclined to write that way. I prefer writing dialog and moving the story along. So I was curious what others think.
A few key descriptions peppered throughout the story can go a long way. You don't want to info dump (or description dump), but most readers want a few images to hang their metaphorical hats on.
Agreed. I need to be more descriptive at appropriate times. But not overdo it.
There was a series of novels set in the Napoleonic Wars from the Royal Navy side. A friend gushed how the writing threw him into what it must have REALLY felt like being on a ship back then. So I read the first one. Basically, I'd get to a part where... something happened. The ship needed to turn around! Para1: blah blah. Para2: blah blah. Paras3,4,5,6... blah blah. And THEN! The ship turned around. 🙄
More classic example: Moby Dick. CRAMMED with details. DEEEEEETAAAAAILS! I wrote an English paper making the case that if we cleaned out all the details that had nothing to do with the plot, we'd have a nice short story. I got an A-.
🤣 I definitely don't like long descriptions. But I think I often go with no descriptions. I hope to find a balance. I guess it's different writing for different readers.
I subscribe to the Kurt Vonnegut idea that every sentence should fulfil one of two functions -
1. Advance the story
2. Reveal character
Not every setting needs to be described in detail, but the ones that characters are going to interact with at some length should be fleshed out, as it were. Because knowing the details about a setting and how someone acts when they're in that setting helps reveal character.
If you have a beautiful French bakery with artisan pastries you would expect most people to salivate over the deliciousness in the case. But one character might be impatient and just want their coffee because they are gluten intolerant and can't have anything. Another may ignore all of the baked goods and instead they're checking out the guy behind the counter. Another person may buy a dozen pastries with the intention of eating them all himself. And someone else might be with a companion who is ordering but they hate the smell of all the sugar. And as you describe each character's reactions to the same setting, we can learn a lot more about them.
That is where I struggle. I made sure to describe some locations in detail in the first novel, but I failed to do so with other important locations. Describing what I imagine in my head is hard for me, so I avoid it. 🤣 I do the bare minimum. I need to find better balance.
We all have our weak points as writers. If there's something you want to avoid, it means it's something you need to work on. I'm weak with fight scenes. The leader of my old critique group called me on it in my first novel. I've been working on it ever since.
Totally agree. I have lots of room for growth in this area. 🙂
Those are good guidelines. But I tend to rush through the story and be dialog heavy. I intentionally didn’t describe my lead character other than saying he was young. I wanted readers to imagine him for themselves. But I don’t think that works for everything. Sometimes a scene needs describing. And that is the hardest part for me. I need to get better at knowing what to describe and what not to. And how much.
Balancing on that knife edge is all of life!
Finding balance is the thing. 🙂
Your short pieces don't allow for much description so you haven't used it. I believe you will naturally include more description as you continue to write longer pieces and become aware of opportunities for detailed description to add depth to your characters and story. I do enjoy your short humor, Mark.
Thanks, K.C. Since descriptive writing doesn’t come naturally to me, I tend to avoid it. It is certainly an area with big growth potential. 🙂