Welcome to Gaia! ::


Indeed. This is the secret, the ultimate secret: how to get the reader to see what's happening, suck them into the book, make them forget they're reading words on a page.


Now it can be yours for only four low installments of $59.99!





Just kidding.


This secret "trick" was revealed today in my creative writing class, and now you can get in on it too.


Advancing Description
Ian MacMillan

The simple trick is as follows. You write a descriptive sentence, one you feel is full enough so that you can go on with your story. You put a period at the end of the sentence and proceed.

The more likely case is that the description, good though it may be, could be better, and the trick is to resist putting the period at the end of the sentence and instead put a comma.

Example: This is from three drafts of a short story involving two men, a grandfather and his grandson, going through a snowy rural area to a burned out house, to collect cows from the owner's barn. The house needs to be described--the fact that snow from the roof fell inside and after the fire was over, became ice, etc.

Draft #1
Calloway's house was half gutted, and inside all the floors were iced over. Pete and his grandfather--etc.

Draft #2
Calloway's house was half gutted, and inside all the floors were iced over. Pete skated across the living room, watching an old floral rug pass under him through an inch of ice. Then he and his grandfather--etc.

Draft #3
Calloway's house was half gutted, and inside all the floors were iced over. Pete skated across the living room, watching an old floral rug pass under him through an inch of ice speckled with a suspension of soot and ashes. Then he and his grandfather--etc.


Of course, you can let this get out of hand. Assume that your descriptions lack true visual specificity, and work on enhancing that.

-----------------------------------


Okay, so possibly it's a touch confusing (especially with the examples given). Anyway, the essential part is this: take a sentence, a simple sentence such as "He rode his bike across 4th street and parked it outside the elementary school." Descriptive? Not very. In fact, it's abstract. How did he ride it? How did he park it? What's the bike look like, what's 4th street look like, what's the elementary school look like?

Here's what I changed it into:
Quote:
He peddled slowly through the empty intersection, crossing the cracked and pitted asphalt of 4th street. He paused for a moment, his foot coming down hard on the graffitied curb in front of the run-down elementary, its whitewashed walls splattered with dirt and grime, one of its front doors hanging loose on its hinges, slapping in the wind. He dropped the bike, adding another scrape to the blue paint of the beat-up rusted frame.


Big difference, right? It pulls you in. It lets you see him casually drop the bike on the curb. It lets you hear the door slapping in the wind. It draws you in, makes you stop reading and start experiencing. And that's part of the whole point of a story or novel.



DISCUSS:

Did you find this technique/exercise helpful?
Those wonderful instants where you forget you're reading words on a page.
What happens when this gets out of hand/how much description is enough.



EXERCISE:

Get one of your old stories or something you're working on now or whatever. Find a sentence in it that you feel is too simple, and expand it with descriptions as outlined above. Post them both here for us to compare!
Isn't that part of "showing not telling"?

Hehe, my problem is the exact opposite--too much detail really does overwhelm the reader. xd
Eh... its ok. Many writers know this instinctively. And we talked about it in my essay class last year.

I can't remember the name we used last year though.

Anywho, yeah most writers pick up on that when they first start writing. Description can totally get out of hand though. Like that last example. Why the hell do we need to know that the frame on his bike was beat up and rusted? The whole example is like purple to the max. And soooo slow.

I think learning to develop good diction is more important. Becuase in the end a writer wants to be able to control the pace and flow of his story. And sentence length is a huge part of that.

I beleive that good description gives you the most information with the least amount of words. And if we follow this model we don't learn that at all.

But I guess if you are just starting out and you are having trouble getting length in your sentances this could help. But otherwise I'm thinking its gunna give you bad habits.
The Pen Of Doom
Anywho, yeah most writers pick up on that when they first start writing. Description can totally get out of hand though. Like that last example. Why the hell do we need to know that the frame on his bike was beat up and rusted? The whole example is like purple to the max. And soooo slow.
But would it have had the same impact if I had said "He dropped his bike on the curb"? No.

I think you're missing the whole point of this exercise. Good description is descriptive. It puts the reader into the story, outlines the setting and the mood. Sure, going to far makes it too purple prose-y, but too little description and the reader can't connect with what's happening. It's not about length. It can be broken up afterwards into more manageable pieces; this is just to help get the description in there in the first place.

I'd like to point out that, prior to being introduced to this technique, we read a book titled Melal whose author was the friend of the man who wrote this article. He used this technique in his book. The sentence I used, "He rode his bike across 4th street and parked it outside the elementary school," was a simplified version of a few sentences in Melal:

Quote:
Rujen crossed 4th street and looked quickly both ways to see if he was being watched as he rode into the elementary school's large covered hallway. His squeaking pedals were amplified by the confined space--block walls, concrete ceiling, yellow fixtures casting a surreal light from above a concrete bench that ran the length of the hall. The tires squealed, echoing when he skidded to a stop, and the kickstand cracked loudly as he pushed down hard to break its rusty hold.
Quote:
Rujen crossed 4th street and looked quickly both ways to see if he was being watched as he rode into the elementary school's large covered hallway. His squeaking pedals were amplified by the confined space--block walls, concrete ceiling, yellow fixtures casting a surreal light from above a concrete bench that ran the length of the hall. The tires squealed, echoing when he skidded to a stop, and the kickstand cracked loudly as he pushed down hard to break its rusty hold.

I like it. biggrin
Britomartis-the-Valiant
Quote:
Rujen crossed 4th street and looked quickly both ways to see if he was being watched as he rode into the elementary school's large covered hallway. His squeaking pedals were amplified by the confined space--block walls, concrete ceiling, yellow fixtures casting a surreal light from above a concrete bench that ran the length of the hall. The tires squealed, echoing when he skidded to a stop, and the kickstand cracked loudly as he pushed down hard to break its rusty hold.

I like it. biggrin


I think the word "large" (and maybe "covered" as well) in the first sentence is sort of extreneous... but other than that, I agree that the description is pretty good.

I'm just saying you don't have to describe everything. And not all descriptions need to be long or vivid.

Diction really is a writers most powerful tool. The words you choose are far more important than the number of words you choose. Sometimes less is more.

I just think, that while this is an ok lesson to teach, it gives people bad habits. One could easily get caried away with adding when often one should pay more attention to what they have already written.

A well written sentence doesn't have to be long.
I agree that good description is good writing, but really only when it's interesting description. Now, a guy like Faulkner, love him or hate him, was pretty damn good at describing stuff. And that's not because he was all pretty and vocabulary-tastic or whatever. It's because whenever he described something, it wasn't just describing. He never came out and told you anything about his characters; it was always through imagery or subtle bits of dialogue.

I'm honestly satisfied with the sentence "He rode his bike across 4th street and parked it outside the elementary school." It's not important that I know the appearance of the bike or the street unless there's an importance to that appearance. If a major scene is going to occur, description sets the mood and whatnot. You probably know the drill already. But if he's just going up to 4th Street for shits and giggles, I'm really not concerned. Describing, or lengthening description, just to pull the reader in is almost never a good idea. Describing because you know when to pull the reader in and when to leave them alone and let the plot flow is, however.
After reading again through both the quote from Melal and the example you gave, I realized what made the difference between them. Consider the description from Melal:

Quote:
Rujen crossed 4th street and looked quickly both ways to see if he was being watched as he rode into the elementary school's large covered hallway. His squeaking pedals were amplified by the confined space--block walls, concrete ceiling, yellow fixtures casting a surreal light from above a concrete bench that ran the length of the hall. The tires squealed, echoing when he skidded to a stop, and the kickstand cracked loudly as he pushed down hard to break its rusty hold.


Then:

Quote:
He peddled slowly through the empty intersection, crossing the cracked and pitted asphalt of 4th street. He paused for a moment, his foot coming down hard on the graffitied curb in front of the run-down elementary, its whitewashed walls splattered with dirt and grime, one of its front doors hanging loose on its hinges, slapping in the wind. He dropped the bike, adding another scrape to the blue paint of the beat-up rusted frame.


Clearly one is better then the other (no offense meant), but how? Why?

My answer:
The first one was not only visually descriptive, but the author included sounds; the squeaking petals, the squealing tires, the crack of the kickstand.
The other description dealt purely with sight--one of the weakest (though very necessary) and least intimate senses. Sound is stronger. But even stronger than sound comes touch, smell, and taste. I think this is very important to remember when writing descriptions.
Britomartis-the-Valiant
After reading again through both the quote from Melal and the example you gave, I realized what made the difference between them. Consider the description from Melal:

Quote:
Rujen crossed 4th street and looked quickly both ways to see if he was being watched as he rode into the elementary school's large covered hallway. His squeaking pedals were amplified by the confined space--block walls, concrete ceiling, yellow fixtures casting a surreal light from above a concrete bench that ran the length of the hall. The tires squealed, echoing when he skidded to a stop, and the kickstand cracked loudly as he pushed down hard to break its rusty hold.


Then:

Quote:
He peddled slowly through the empty intersection, crossing the cracked and pitted asphalt of 4th street. He paused for a moment, his foot coming down hard on the graffitied curb in front of the run-down elementary, its whitewashed walls splattered with dirt and grime, one of its front doors hanging loose on its hinges, slapping in the wind. He dropped the bike, adding another scrape to the blue paint of the beat-up rusted frame.


Clearly one is better then the other (no offense meant), but how? Why?

My answer:
The first one was not only visually descriptive, but the author included sounds; the squeaking petals, the squealing tires, the crack of the kickstand.
The other description dealt purely with sight--one of the weakest (though very necessary) and least intimate senses. Sound is stronger. But even stronger than sound comes touch, smell, and taste. I think this is very important to remember when writing descriptions.


You're right. Including other senses (such as sound) is a great idea. But "omgtehsuiso" does bring up a good point.

Description CAN get in the way. Pacing is important.
The Pen Of Doom
Britomartis-the-Valiant
After reading again through both the quote from Melal and the example you gave, I realized what made the difference between them. Consider the description from Melal:

Quote:
Rujen crossed 4th street and looked quickly both ways to see if he was being watched as he rode into the elementary school's large covered hallway. His squeaking pedals were amplified by the confined space--block walls, concrete ceiling, yellow fixtures casting a surreal light from above a concrete bench that ran the length of the hall. The tires squealed, echoing when he skidded to a stop, and the kickstand cracked loudly as he pushed down hard to break its rusty hold.


Then:

Quote:
He peddled slowly through the empty intersection, crossing the cracked and pitted asphalt of 4th street. He paused for a moment, his foot coming down hard on the graffitied curb in front of the run-down elementary, its whitewashed walls splattered with dirt and grime, one of its front doors hanging loose on its hinges, slapping in the wind. He dropped the bike, adding another scrape to the blue paint of the beat-up rusted frame.


Clearly one is better then the other (no offense meant), but how? Why?

My answer:
The first one was not only visually descriptive, but the author included sounds; the squeaking petals, the squealing tires, the crack of the kickstand.
The other description dealt purely with sight--one of the weakest (though very necessary) and least intimate senses. Sound is stronger. But even stronger than sound comes touch, smell, and taste. I think this is very important to remember when writing descriptions.


You're right. Including other senses (such as sound) is a great idea. But "omgtehsuiso" does bring up a good point.

Description CAN get in the way. Pacing is important.

Definitely. Recently I've been reading an amazing book called Self-Editing for Fiction Writers by Renni Browne and Dave King. It covered pacing among many other important subjects.
I like this thread already. &

It was indeed helpful, along with the other posts before this one.

Thanks; I needed something to kick me back into my work.
You see, I have the "too little description" problem. I also tend to over-do it on the actions being mentioned, particularly by mentioning where people are looking. I have some weird obsession with eyes, apparently. neutral

How do you know when your description is "too much"? How do you know what adds to a scene and what's just superfluous? I avoid this by practically forgoing all description save for the minimum necessary to know what's going on, and my writing suffers. Any tips for that?
Jedi Arashi
You see, I have the "too little description" problem. I also tend to over-do it on the actions being mentioned, particularly by mentioning where people are looking. I have some weird obsession with eyes, apparently. neutral

How do you know when your description is "too much"? How do you know what adds to a scene and what's just superfluous? I avoid this by practically forgoing all description save for the minimum necessary to know what's going on, and my writing suffers. Any tips for that?


Um... its just a case by case basis sorta...um if I could see your stuf, maybe I would know where to start...

You know I think Veive had a great thred on this topic... hmm... I'll look...

EDIT: I have to eat. Maybe latter.

EDIT2: I didn't find it. But I did find the allways helpful "Danny Discription" one. I t basically says something simular.

http://www.gaiaonline.com/forum/writers/the-day-i-dumped-danny-description-a-cautionary-tale/t.27268865/
I have a prepositional problem where I always want to insert more things into a sentence that have no relation to the plot. By the end, it sounds like a run on sentence.

Also, being an experienced reader, I am easily bored with too much description because I tend to focus more on plot development and the ambiguity that authors leave for me to imagine. Sometimes I believe it's better if the reader can imagine for themselves how the day must have felt instead of being lectured to the most minute detail.

Hallowed Phantom

Jedi Arashi
You see, I have the "too little description" problem. I also tend to over-do it on the actions being mentioned, particularly by mentioning where people are looking. I have some weird obsession with eyes, apparently. neutral

How do you know when your description is "too much"? How do you know what adds to a scene and what's just superfluous? I avoid this by practically forgoing all description save for the minimum necessary to know what's going on, and my writing suffers. Any tips for that?


When you are using five adjectives just to describe a character's eyes, it is too much.

But in all seriousness, I think the amount of description is proportional to the importance of the object you are describing. If all else fails, you can always have someone else look over your work and see if they are overwhelmed, confused, or satisfied.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games
Mini-Games
Play with GCash
Play with Platinum