Fringe Fiction Unlimited discussion
Questions/Help Section
>
Description vs Action in a book
Hi, Tatyana. I think about 70-30 in favor of action. There are things that must be described if the reader is going to "see" them, and it's so cliché to have a character stop in front of a mirror and tick off a litany of physical attributes. Some authors do it way too much, but there are some things that just have to be described.
I'm with you. Not a big fan of description. If it carries the story on, fair enough: A bit of relevant back story, yeah sure- it can build the character up. And some insight into a characters feelings or reaction to what's occurring, that's fine but doesn't need to go on for pages and pages. It's descriptions of outfit choices, room decor, an overdone poetic description of a location- they generally get skimmed. words that offer nothing to the story waste precious space. Action and dialogue, if used smart, can bypass the need for most descriptions and make for better reading.
Mod
I think when you put it in it's got to work double time. A description of the area should tell you about the mood of the book. Description of a person should come through important actions, or make you think or laugh.What I really can't stand is when the author spends ages describing the characters internal emotional conflict with absolutely no action or dialog. Thankfully I mostly only see that in fanfiction and I think of that as much as a learning experience as anything.
I'm going to disagree with many of the comments so far as I think description is key to setting the mood. Long descriptions are not good but extremely short one also miss the mark. In many cases a character's description is key to fully understanding the character's personality. Without it the person is missing that extra touch that really brings them to life. I recently read The Angel's Game by Carlos Ruiz Zafon. It had incredibly long descriptive passages which absolutely conveyed a mood throughout the entire book and which reinforced the the main character's existential suffering. The book would have been completely different and not as interesting with out it. (the book had other problems but description was not one of them).
I agree with Virginia, description has to do more than just tell you what things look like. I'm particularly annoyed at the systematic run down of attire-as has already been mentioned.Description should create mood and it should give you insight into the character whose eyes you are seeing through.
The most important part with description though is that seeing starts in the mind of the writer but must finish in the imagination of the reader. That's how good description works and is part of the connection that writer and reader share.
Ever seen a movie based on a book and said, "Hmmm, that's not really how I imagined that character would look"?
You're never going to see the exact same thing as the writer-or even another reader for that matter-because we're all different, and that's the beauty of writing. Imagining the details is how a reader can make the book their own.
Too many writers worry that they won't get everything across, but they don't understand that you don't need to get everything across. You aren't writing a movie where everything has to be seen in the same way, you're writing a book where the imagination rules.
When writers over-describe it's because of a lack of confidence in what they've written. A feeling that they just aren't getting their point across.
When it comes to description less is more.
The general rule, or so the writing books and guru's seem to agree in the last few years, is 40/30/30 (action/description&exposition/dialogue). Of course not everyone writes in those proportions, it's just a general gauge to make sure you're not doing too much of one and leaving out another altogether. I also think genre choice skews the numbers some.
Description doesn't have to be an info dump of what a character looks like. It could be, "he sat down on the white pleather couch" or "the sagging rain gutter dribbled the last of the night's rain onto the sidewalk" or whatever. My editor is constantly on me to add more description, and I've started listening, because when I read a book that has none, I tend to get bored (too much of anything can be boring, even action...) And if you didn't make me like your character first, I won't be rooting for him to win, so whatever action takes place is meaningless.
I'm not too keen on lengthy descriptions (I honestly don't care about the quality of each snowflake falling from the sky...), but as with everything, it's a matter of balance IMHO. I draw the line at "when description hampers action".An example I like to use is that of a character coming back home and finding a burglar with a gun in his/her living-room. In such a scene, I'd be seriously put off if the author went about describing the living-room for 2 paragraphs, because what matters to me (the reader) is what's going to happen to the character NOW. I don't care about the colour of the sofa—if it's really important, it can be described later on, once the threat is gone and the character can assess the damage done to the room. (Besides, any normal person would likely try to avoid being shot first, rather than muse about the furniture, so the latter wouldn't be a natural reaction for me, and would shatter my suspension of disbelief.)
I also believe description can be given efficiently through little bits here and there, instead of whole paragraphs. Although that may be more a matter of personal taste?
Joanne wrote: "I'm with you. Not a big fan of description. If it carries the story on, fair enough: A bit of relevant back story, yeah sure- it can build the character up. And some insight into a characters feeli..."I'm glad someone else feels this way. My work is story driven, description only when necessary to the plot or setting. Otherwise I let the readers use their imaginations. When I am reading something that mentions walking through a forest, I am not interested in the scientific names and descriptions of every tree and shrub the character encounters; I kind of know what a forest looks like.
I've been told I overdo description, but only because of my lack of dialogue. Were I to add dialogue in even proportion it would be better, or so they say. lolbut I love description. if the book is suppose to be dark description is the best way to give it that dark feeling. i love reading description, i love action, i personally think that in order to be a great book there has to be an even balance of both and not more than the other.
Some books would be awful without descriptions while others can do without.It's simple. For me, it depends on the book, the genre, the style, and the story.
Yzabel wrote: "An example I like to use is that of a character coming back home and finding a burglar with a gun in his/her living-room. In such a scene, I'd be seriously put off if the author went about describing the living-room for 2 paragraphs ..."I like your comparison, Yzabel :) That's precisely what's annoying.
Of course, there are things that must be described and you cannot leave them out, but describing clothes and people's looks from head to toe for paragraphs and repeat the procedure every time the characters meet again or change (the same is applicable to places) is too much for me. Besides, I usually have the characters visualized in my head long before they are described and too much detail here is usually inconsistent with the image I've created. So like some of you mentioned here bits here and there would be just what the doctor ordered.
Keshena wrote: "Too little description, in my opinion, can really make a book weak. It was one of my chief qualms with the book "Divergent" ..."
I'm afraid I'm going to disagree here. I'm reading the book now, and I don't think it lacks description. It's not lengthy - true, but more would have made the book boring, imho. Even as it is, I sometimes want the story to progress faster like "come on, move to the real action already".
Courtney wrote: "If the setting is other worldly and I have a limited frame of reference of the environment I LOVE descriptions. Thinking like GRRMs A Song of Ice and Fire come to mind but Harry Potter would apply...."Excellent point. A one I completely missed and shouldn't have. A Song of Ice and Fire without all the masterful world building would be a travesty.
Anything where the setting or characters are out of the ordinary, description is essential. But, then, description does act to further and enhance the story in those cases.
But a lengthy description about a stroll through a forest- as Amanda said- would be tedious if it was done without a specific purpose. I recently finished a series (and they were fairly good actually) in which, every time a character changed an outfit, I was told about it; every time they went into a new room, I got a detailed tour of it. And there was no need. Words wasted. Then it got to the big finale, and that felt rushed and confused- words would have been better spent strengthening that part. Another book described every single feature of the characters and I would have preferred a vaguer description which left some space to implement imagination. And introspect passages are great, I do like these wanderings into the mind of the protagonist IF there's something interesting going on in there, and IF their emotions aren't droned on about to such a length they become info dumps or repetitive babble.
But, yeah, its completely about balance. A book lacking any description at all would be an empty, soulless thing. Just as a book filled with irrelevant yadda yadda often proves a chore to slog through.
Well, they aren't exact opposites, but when you're doing straight description nothing is really going on. It's almost like we're on pause and looking at things before the story can move along. Dynamic description is a good way to drop little nuggets of description in with the action, but I do believe that straight description is important in a book. It helps give you a sense of the situation and characters. It's just important to know when to stop.
Mark wrote: "Well, they aren't exact opposites, but when you're doing straight description nothing is really going on. It's almost like we're on pause and looking at things before the story can move along. Dy..."this!
I couldnt' think of the words to explain it but exactly what you said and said way better haha
Thanks Michael. As is a lot of things with writing, how much or how little description you write is a judgement call. Part of the learning process of the craft.
I usually ask myself what the character would notice. Chances are they'd look at the family photos and weird, quirky things before they remarked on the colour of the sofa. It also tells us something about the POV character. Someone who loves outdoor sports and skipping through the park will describe a sunny day differently to how an agoraphobic who had sensitive eyes.
I must admit I am a huge fan of Dickins books where everything is laid out in a very descriptive way. I think back then people knew much less about the world around them, as they did not travel unless very wealthy and there was no TV/Movies. I think people have shorter attention spans now, as we all live in a fast paced world. But having said that, I like to set the scene and mood in my books. Some have commented that they are slow paced, but I kind of write what I like to read.
With world building I tend to enjoy it when it is slow ish, so people get a true idea of what something is like. I mean in real life it usually takes a while of being in a new situation to notice all the little details. So I like it when books gradually add things in, as the story unfolds.
Writing the kind of books you yourself like to read is an excellent rule to follow.
I definitely agree with Amanda. But when it comes to writing, the description can be best described as a pace setter or better yet, the brake to control the reader. An author typically uses description to allow the scene to come alive, but it's very judgmental. I typically love fast action too, if it is a great story plot. When writing you have to ask, how much description is necessary or needed.
Description is tricky. When people get bored with a book it's most likely because the writer fell in love with their power of description and lost sight of the top priority, which is to tell a story
So how about dialogue? Do you guys consider this a third category, or part of the action? Or description?
Personally, I divide writing into three categories: Description, narration/action, and dialogue.To be a truly great writer you must excel at each of these skills. Some can be learned and honed (I believe that description is almost an entirely learned skill) and some are much harder to become good at.
I believe dialogue is an example of this. Some people just don't have a good ear for dialogue (H.P. Lovecraft comes to mind) and others are truly magnificent at it. I might be biased, being from Michigan, but I think that Elmore Leonard was one of the true masters of dialogue.
In order to be good at dialogue you have to have a good ear. You have to be able to listen to people and pick up on the little cadences and idiosyncrasies of their speech. Then you have to be able to distill that into something that is quick and entertaining. Basically, getting the essence of their speech without just transcribing things you've heard. Actual talking is pretty boring in a book.
If you don't have a good ear, you're just never going to great at dialogue. But that's not a total killer, there are lots of otherwise good (and published) writers who don't write very good dialogue.
Lena wrote: "The general rule, or so the writing books and guru's seem to agree in the last few years, is 40/30/30 (action/description&exposition/dialogue). Of course not everyone writes in those proportions, ..."
this is industry standard at the current time.
I love writing dialogue. It's fun, but it can break up action, too.
Mod
I think GRRM can tell a story with that much narration and keep my attention...
I tend to go dialogue heavy I think. That's just where I'm comfortable. I hear a story more than see it.
Hmm? 40/30/30? Nice numbers but...Can someone invent a program that can calculate that? :P
Mod
Agreed, Mark. Dialogue makes me attach to characters and cate about what's happening in the narration. Although I do like peeking in their heads. Maybe its not a bad approach since seventy percent of the book is centered on characters.
I know when I write an action scene, I try to envision the scene in my head like a movie. I then try to write out the scene from my head. I feel like describing comes no where close to actually writing action in a book! :)
I like dialogue, but you have to remember that nothing is actually happening while you read it. unless it's a play, it can't go on for more than a few pages. Something needs to happen or we're stuck at the breakfast table for an entire chapter.
Lena wrote: "I like dialogue, but you have to remember that nothing is actually happening while you read it."That's one of the pitfalls of dialogue (fortunately, it can be avoided once you're aware of it). Additionally, it can quickly veer into banter territory—and by this, I really mean idle banter, that doesn't contribute to revealing much, developng characters, etc.
I've noticed this as a pen & paper roleplayer, too. Sometimes, I write down what happened in a gaming session in a semi-novel form; as soon as I do, I realise that the witty chit-chat our characters engaged into for half an hour was funny in game, but gets boring real fast once put to paper. I try to keep that in mind when writing dialogue. Most often, an IRL conversation can't be translated as is, if only because readers would soon grow very tired of all the "uh", "erm", "like", and various other patterns. Just like trying to transcribe accents: it works for a few sentences, but not a whole book.
That's a great point Lena. I don't think my dialogue has ever gone on for several pages. I may have to go back to my previous work and see.I also try to envision action when I write, but I fear that this kind of visualization is one of the weak points in my writing. It's hard to tell because I've never gotten detailed feedback on that before.
Yzabel wrote: "That's one of the pitfalls of dialogue (fortunately, it can be avoided once you're awa..."
people tend to give some leniency to dialogue, which makes us forget that it, too, should further the plot and character development. I am 100% guilty of loving my dialogue and sometimes being unable to cut some out during edits that I probably should have.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to calculate the percentages, but I'd say try to not have too huge chunks of any of the three without a break. Even in action movies, there is usually a love story...to give us a break from the explosions, let us quiet down, making the contrast of action have more impact.
Mod
True, I have read some insipid dialogues and there's nothing that kills it for me more than those, but I also have read great dialogues mixed with actions/descriptions that advanced the plot. Just like showing and telling, there are dialogues and 'dialogues', and although both bear the same tag, they are on totally different poles.
Great point G.G.Dialogues are definitely not all created equal. This has given me a lot to think about i.e. by own writing. That's why I love talking with other authors and discerning readers. It's great to get a different view point on the writing and it opens up new pathways of thought on your own work.
Mod
Agreed. Though if you just can't write believable dialogue, it's better to leave it out imo. Bad dialogue is the fastest way to make me walk away without bothering to finish a book.
Well, like I said earlier in this conversation, H.P. Lovecraft was not very good at dialogue, but I think he knew that because his books contain very little dialogue.So, I guess you kind of have to adjust the 40/30/30 split to more suit your strengths and hide your weaknesses. I still agree with the general premise though, you can't rely to heavily on any one aspect because that will turn readers off.
I think dialogue is essential to a story. When I first started writing I used maybe 20% dialogue, now its closer to 65%. You can move the story along nicely with dialogue and it gives great insights to the character in how they speak. I love creating accents or using words so that when the character speaks, you know who they are most times, even without a tag by how they speak. You should also consider tag lines for your characters or actions they take. For example, I am writing a 10 year old girl as a character in my latest novel and her tag line is "Boys are so stupid." If that line is used, you know who said it. Her friend Bruce, he shrugs when she says it. Saying little can add a lot.
Courtney wrote: "I do get skimmy with some books when the dialogue seems like its small talk/getting to know you stuff."
Isn't "getting to know" the characters essential to the enjoyment of the book?
Isn't "getting to know" the characters essential to the enjoyment of the book?
That's an interesting idea Michael. Speech patterns are interesting to listen to.
Unusual speech patterns (choice of words, sentence structure) are great and can really make a character standout (and are lots of fun to write). But dialects, which may be necessary for realism, are hard to read and I hate them.
Writing phonetically render speech is an art form and not one that is easy to do. When it works it is brilliant (Cormac McCarthy does an excellent job with it) and can really add to the story. When it's done poorly it can destroy dialogue. As with a lot of things, my opinion is that less is more. A few little bits (usually when the character first speaks) with give you the flavor of it and after that you should kind of hear it in your head when the character is speaking.
Jack wrote: "Courtney wrote: "I do get skimmy with some books when the dialogue seems like its small talk/getting to know you stuff."Isn't "getting to know" the characters essential to the enjoyment of the book?"
I think she meant "getting to know you" in a "useless" way. Such as, for instance, characters discussing their favourite foods for half a chapter (small talk). When you think about it, it doesn't tell us that much about them. It doesn't tell us what matters, who they really are. Kind of like speed dating: sure, you get to know plenty of little details, but it's not enough for you to know whether you can envision a long-term relationship with the other person. When it comes to dialogue, some novels are heavy with those conversations, but fail to convey a real sense of character in the end.
At least, that's how I understood it.
Yzabel wrote: "Jack wrote: "Courtney wrote: "I do get skimmy with some books when the dialogue seems like its small talk/getting to know you stuff."
Isn't "getting to know" the characters essential to the enjoym..."
Ah, you are certainly correct.
Isn't "getting to know" the characters essential to the enjoym..."
Ah, you are certainly correct.
Mark wrote: "I guess you kind of have to adjust the 40/30/30 split to more suit your strengths and hide your weaknesses. I still agree with the general premise though, you can't rely to heavily on any one aspect because that will turn readers off. "The problem with that is that you don't get better if you don't practice. If you avoid what you can't do well it gets worse and worse in comparison.
That's true, but, in my opinion, dialogue is one of those things that you don't get much better at with practice.You can sharpen your skills some, to be sure, but if you don't have an ear for how people actually talk, I don't think you'll ever be that good at writing dialogue.
Though, I don't think it's essential that you be a master of dialogue to be a successful author. There are many authors out there that don't write believable dialogue, but they are skilled at other areas of the craft and that makes up for it. No one is going to be equally good at every aspect of writing (well except maybe for the true geniuses of the craft: Faulkner, Hemingway, etc..) but that does't mean you can't still be a damn good writer.
I personally don't really like descriptions, especially lengthy ones, and tend to skip them in the books I read. For me, the more action (dynamics) the book has, the better. I wonder what others think of the description-action correlation and how important they are to make the book appealing.