But What Were They DOING?

Kaitlyn Dunnett/Kathy Lynn Emerson here, today thinking about a problem I always encountered between my rough drafts and my finished manuscripts.

My earliest versions of many scenes were often straight dialogue—I put my characters on the page and let them talk to each other. When I revised, I’d add descriptive details to flesh out both the characters’ appearance and their surroundings. How much or how little of a character’s physical description I included depended on whose point of view the scene was written in. So did the specifics. Let’s face it, a woman’s comments or thoughts about her own looks are likely to be significantly different from the way a man describes her, and his description would vary depending on how he felt about her.

I also had to think about character’s reactions, which don’t always come across in straight dialogue. Reactions can be expressed in thoughts (for the POV character), actions, and what I’ll group for simplicity under the heading of dialogue tags. While “said” is generally considered to be an invisible tag, inserted to identify the speaker but not distract from the flow of the dialogue, it can also be overused, especially if it is followed by that same character’s action. These days I much prefer to change something like “I’ll go,” he said, and headed for the door. to “I’ll go.” He headed for the door.

If overuse of said can get annoying, what’s worse is having a character smile, grin, laugh, or sigh repeatedly. Of course they can do those things, but not without a good reason. Moreover the reader needs to understand why a character reacts that way. I’ve come to prefer having characters wring their hands, shrug their shoulders, flex a sore muscle, or waggle a nervous foot, just to mention a few non-facial reactions. Of course, any of those can be overused too.

“Just give them something to do.” is generally good advice, as long as the reader knows why the character is doing it. The preparation and consumption of food and drink are useful actions. So are interactions with animals. But again, either can be overdone. A character reacting to that first life-giving sip of coffee in the morning is a bit clichéd but useful . . . as long as you don’t go overboard and mention every instance throughout the novel. As for pets, there are many mystery series that include cats and dogs, and there’s nothing wrong with including their interactions with their owners, but readers don’t really need to know (true example from a popular cozy series) every time the cat uses the litter box.

Giving too much detail while someone performs an everyday task is not just unnecessary, it’s distracting. Unless, of course, you are planting a clue or revealing a character trait. If a character is making toast, there’s no need to describe it step by step. Readers already know how to use a toaster. Are there exceptions? Sure. In the film Kate and Leopold, the way time-traveler Leopold tries to “fix” a toaster not only establishes his character but also advances his relationship with Kate.

What about you, dear readers? Any good (or bad) examples of descriptive details you’d like to share?

Kathy Lynn Emerson/Kaitlyn Dunnett has had sixty-four books traditionally published and has self published others. She won the Agatha Award and was an Anthony and Macavity finalist for best mystery nonfiction of 2008 for How to Write Killer Historical Mysteries and was an Agatha Award finalist in 2015 in the best mystery short story category. In 2023 she won the Lea Wait Award for “excellence and achievement” from the Maine Writers and Publishers Alliance. She was the Malice Domestic Guest of Honor in 2014. She is currently working on creating new editions of her backlist titles. Her website is www.KathyLynnEmerson.com.