My 4th grade daughter is reading the Chronicles of Narnia. She started out with The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe and really enjoyed it. Then she decided to read Prince Caspian.
One night last week, I told her that her reading time was up and it was time to turn in. “But Mama!” she said. “I’ve only read four pages!”
Usually in that length of time she’s read at least a chapter, so I decided to take a look. I’d forgotten that C.S. Lewis had such long descriptive passages. And I love Lewis.
But he’d very carefully written out a description of a ridge the group was crossing and the valley beneath. The description of the journey over the treacherous ridge took several pages of description.
My daughter doesn’t really know how to skim yet, and she’d gotten bogged down in all the details. It wasn’t that she was savoring every word—it was that she was trying to work through the heavy imagery.
Which made me think. Yes, if anyone could write a beautiful descriptive passage, it was C.S. Lewis. And I know my nine year old isn’t the speediest reader in the world, but it did slow her down and trip her up…which isn’t what we want for our readers.
When it was time for her to write her synopsis of the chapter for school, she didn’t have much material to write about. The plot hadn’t actually progressed during the description…it could be summed up with: “The group made a harrowing journey toward the enemy’s campsite.”
It made me realize how frequently I skim descriptive passages. I think it’s a shame—but I honestly don’t have as much time as a reader anymore.
As a writer, I don’t write much description. In fact, my editors usually ask me to put more in. I’m more likely to try to give a picture of a character through their actions, instead.
How much is too much description? How much is too little? As a writer, does the amount you put in reflect how you view descriptive passages as a reader?
Elizabeth – It’s so funny you would bring this up. It really is a question of how much show-don’t-tell is the right amount. Like you, I tend not to write a lot of description. I prefer to let the action of the story, well, tell the story. Still, some description is important; otherwise the reader isn’t “there.” For me, if I err, it’s on the side of not putting in enough description.
As a reader, I’m particular about the description I like, so I guess my reading preference does inform my writing. Some authors, like James Lee Burke, write beautiful descriptions and they work. I read them. Other authors’ descriptions get “clunky” and I skip them. I think it’s a question of how well the author weaves description in.
For me, one word of description is too much. But that’s kind of harsh, I guess. So I’ll say two words.
I tend to skip or skim a lot of description too. With my own writing, I’m extremely bare bones and always have to go back in and add description.
I’m in the same boat as Mary Lou, since I write historical mysteries as well. It can be a tricky balancing act; enough description for your reader to be able to be ‘in the time’, but not so much that they’re suddenly reading a text book.
My writing reflects what I like to read. In a descriptive I put only what I feel is necessary. I missed a lot of great classics because I couldn’t wade through all of that. Kudos to your daughter for doing what I couldn’t then or now.
I skip and skim to this day.
I tend to be descriptive. Which yes, is a reflection of me. My deafness literally buries me in sensory overload. I do try however to tone that down a bit with my writing.
Dialogue becomes a little more tricky. I’m no longer able to hear nuances, dialect – in conversations. It’s impossible to listen in on people talking. The close captioning only works so well following script.
I think in the end it’s all about finding the middle ground. Leaving the reader with something memorable in the midst of the description, a bit of character reference or foreshadowing perhaps. (Hugs)Indigo
As someone who writes historical mysteries this is a particular challenge. People tend to read this genre because they want to experience the past they aren’t familiar with, so this calls for a certain amount of description.
However, in Maids of Misfortune, I tried to show a fair amount of it by integrating into the plot. I didn’t just describe the gas lighting, but made its existence a matter of concern as my protagonist tried to creep down a hall, or described a house in terms of the protagonist trying to figure out who in the house is still up from the outside, or mention the need to watch out for the carriage traffic as she steps down off the wooden sidewalk, etc.
One of my beta readers is good at reminding me that I should be conveying not just what the protagonist is seeing, but what they are hearing and smelling as well. Again, this is of particular interest in an historical mystery when the sounds and smells might be very different from what reader would be used to.
I try my best to insert description into the action. I like to think of it as something one must see and understand in the same amount of time it would take them to catch on in real time. If a person is driving a car, I know that I only have a snippet of time to reveal their surroundings. I try to think of description (both people and places) as a kind of character that shadows my story characters, tapping them on the shoulder once in awhile to say, “Hey look at that” or “Man, isn’t it hot around here?” and then fade back into shadow.
A little description goes a long way. I learned to skim while reading Tolkien. As a result, I am bare minimum when it comes to writing description.
I’m a skimmer.
And assure your daughter book III moves much faster.
I skim description. I think I must have done so as a child, too, because I adored all the Narnia books and can’t remember a word of description.
I’m with Elmore Leonard–“leave out the parts the reader skips”. Even more than description, this is looooong-assed interior monologues. Just gave up on a book because of way too much internal dithering on the part of the protagonist.
I have to go back and add description because I tend to write action and dialogue. But you can only leave so much to the imagination.
I don’t write too much description either. For a thriller/mystery writer, it bogs down the writing and the timing. I want a fast read that keeps them on the edge of the seat.
CD
Mary–It’s rough going, isn’t it? Russian lit comes to mind. I’m a good skimmer, but sometimes it’s really off-putting to me to see *so much* to skim.
Indigo–I can completely understand why you’d be heavier on description…you’d be so keenly aware of your surroundings that it would come naturally.
Dialogue would be a real challenge, I’m sure. But really, if you focus on the vocabulary, that might be the best way to work around it. Different characters could speak with different words…some more formal than others, etc.
You’ve made a good point–whether it’s description or dialogue, it has to serve a purpose. It needs to leave the reader in a better place than when they started reading it–with more information, more plot or character development, etc.
Margot–Sounds like you’re a lot like me! I know if I haven’t described things enough that I’ll get a little note from my editor, asking for more. It’s a good thing, because I don’t want to have TOO little.
Sometimes, I get the impression that the writer sat down at his desk and picked up his pen and said, “Today, I’m going to write some lovely, descriptive prose.” And it’s not woven in. It totally pulls me out of the story. I don’t like folks waxing poetic about a forest.
Mary Lou–Good point about the genre specificity of description. You’re right–half the fun of reading a historical is feeling like you’re back in time. I never thought of it that way. It sounds like you’ve done a wonderful job fitting it in with the regular narrative of the story.
Alan–Exactly! Unless there’s something really remarkable about the place..if I’m reading a fantasy and it’s set in a really unusual location.
Jemi–And steampunk is probably one of those genres that maybe requires a little more description?
Elspeth–Well, and that’s the thing. You’ve *done* all this research. And it needs to be integrated into the book and make the book come to life. That *would* be tricky. I’m glad I don’t have to do that!
J.L.–So for you it’s more of an accent to the action. That’s how I write, too.
Alex–Tolkien was heavy on description, too, wasn’t he? I’d forgotten that. I mean, it’s beautiful language–when I have the time. But I haven’t had the time for a while now.
Diane–I’ll encourage her to stick with it!
Anne–I either blocked out all the description or skimmed it when I was a kid, too–I was surprised to see that amount!
I don’t like wishy-washy interior monologues, either. They definitely serve to keep me from identifying with the protagonist very closely.
Clarissa–Good point–some genres are better than others for description.
Patricia–I have to add it, too…after my agent and editor get ahold of it. :)
I don´t write long passages of description, but I try to capture characters or places in a sentence or two which I build into the action. Description seems to be *out* when it comes to crime fiction, but I am not Hemingway, and I think my readers like knowing when my characters are licking their fingers or adjusting their lipstick. I know I like those short phrases, giving me glimpses of the uniqueness of the character or the setting.
When I’m writing historical mystery and suspense, I’ve learned that the best plan is to add the description and period details in on a “need-to-know” basis. Multi-page info dumps are particularly tempting to insert in historicals, fantasy, and science fiction. But in practice, readers don’t need all the details right then. They just need enough to get them to the next scene.
Suzanne Adair
I’m terrible at skimming (though you’d think years of academic research would have improved me… but no). That’s why I often have trouble finishing books, though oddly enough I can steam through LOTR with no problems.
My biggest problem with Prince Caspian comes much later though – I love all the Narnia books to the point of disturbingly obsessed, but I have never really ‘got’ the Bacchus section in Prince Caspian. I even wrote an academic article about it, and pinned down all the themes and the literary reasons why it’s there – but as a reader, it still doesn’t do it for me!
I tend to skim when the details are not something I am interested in, but there are times when I not only savour the descriptions, I return to the descriptions time and again, because I want to refresh my memory on details.
Guess it eventually comes down to a question of who your audience is and what they are looking for. If I am writing for a younger age group (hence, less confident readers), I would skip the detail, as I would in a story which is expected to move fast. But where the location is unique, I would perhaps dwell on it.
I almost never skim. I like a lot of description. If a book has too much description for me it needed a better editor. LOL! But as a writer for YA’s I’m acutely aware of how much description I put in. Their attention span isn’t what an adult’s is and I have to write accordingly!
I never realized how much I skim until I listened to “Rebecca” on audio and realized how LONG it was taking me. I’d’ve read it much faster, but I appreciated it more because I listened.