Thoughts on Description
Mar. 23rd, 2007 07:41 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
khiemtranInspired by a thread on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
green_knight's journal...
My favourite style of description involves a continuous tight loop between a scene and a character's reactions to it, with the idea that the character's reactions cast as much light on that character as they do on the scene.
A not terribly good example here:
The large room smelt of jasmine from the garden outside. Freshly aired, I thought, a little surprised. I wondered if Master Sung had done it himself, or if it had been the work of a thoughtful housekeeper. The room itself was well-appointed and tidy. The lacquered chairs were in the Southern style, not ostentatious, but not frugal either. The writing desk by the window was large and generous, and uncluttered by ornaments. The great silk-lined kang by the far wall was faded but still in good condition. All the trappings you might expect from a provincial bureaucrat on a modest, but adequate income.
One thing I've learnt is that I can get away with describing a lot less than I would have thought, as long as I describe it well. One of the reasons the above example isn't so good, is that I've overdone it a bit. Another thing I've found is that I can actually be quite selective in what things I use to trigger reactions. A good test might be to ask what sort of things would the character remember if they were thinking back on events or telling the story, even if the narration is unfolding in a more immediate voice. The more specific the reactions are to the particular character the better. If it's the same reaction that anyone with the character's broad background would have had, it's less value than something that casts light on this particular observer.
Another technique is to look for things that will resonate later and serve double duty. I read an excellent example recently in which the author described a character entering a wooden hut in a Russian gulag. The description focussed around an oddly familiar fishy odour that the character smelled. One level, it gave a chance for a richer sensory experience than a simple list of the room's appearance. But, if that was all it did, the whole thing would felt a bit gimicky. A simple writing trick along the lines of "always use three senses in every scene". Instead, the smell triggered a series of flashbacks which led to the character remembering where he'd seen and smelled that particular type of fish before, and then looped back to the description where the type of fish and its significance gave a new layer of depth to the scene. The reader was taken on a little journey instead of just being shown a static picture.
I also prefer description that conveys the real picture at a higher level, especially through the use of irony or setting up what's shown in conflict with what's told. A good example of this would be scenes which are obstensibly about a scene as observed by a character, but what the reader really comes away with is an understanding of the character themselves. For this sort of writing, it helps to be very clear on what stimulus lead to what reaction, in order to get the reader inside the loop in the character's head.
green_knight's journal...My favourite style of description involves a continuous tight loop between a scene and a character's reactions to it, with the idea that the character's reactions cast as much light on that character as they do on the scene.
A not terribly good example here:
The large room smelt of jasmine from the garden outside. Freshly aired, I thought, a little surprised. I wondered if Master Sung had done it himself, or if it had been the work of a thoughtful housekeeper. The room itself was well-appointed and tidy. The lacquered chairs were in the Southern style, not ostentatious, but not frugal either. The writing desk by the window was large and generous, and uncluttered by ornaments. The great silk-lined kang by the far wall was faded but still in good condition. All the trappings you might expect from a provincial bureaucrat on a modest, but adequate income.
One thing I've learnt is that I can get away with describing a lot less than I would have thought, as long as I describe it well. One of the reasons the above example isn't so good, is that I've overdone it a bit. Another thing I've found is that I can actually be quite selective in what things I use to trigger reactions. A good test might be to ask what sort of things would the character remember if they were thinking back on events or telling the story, even if the narration is unfolding in a more immediate voice. The more specific the reactions are to the particular character the better. If it's the same reaction that anyone with the character's broad background would have had, it's less value than something that casts light on this particular observer.
Another technique is to look for things that will resonate later and serve double duty. I read an excellent example recently in which the author described a character entering a wooden hut in a Russian gulag. The description focussed around an oddly familiar fishy odour that the character smelled. One level, it gave a chance for a richer sensory experience than a simple list of the room's appearance. But, if that was all it did, the whole thing would felt a bit gimicky. A simple writing trick along the lines of "always use three senses in every scene". Instead, the smell triggered a series of flashbacks which led to the character remembering where he'd seen and smelled that particular type of fish before, and then looped back to the description where the type of fish and its significance gave a new layer of depth to the scene. The reader was taken on a little journey instead of just being shown a static picture.
I also prefer description that conveys the real picture at a higher level, especially through the use of irony or setting up what's shown in conflict with what's told. A good example of this would be scenes which are obstensibly about a scene as observed by a character, but what the reader really comes away with is an understanding of the character themselves. For this sort of writing, it helps to be very clear on what stimulus lead to what reaction, in order to get the reader inside the loop in the character's head.
