How much is too little?

[VKALFIERI]

So, to explain what I mean, I have a story I'm writing, and it doesn't spend a lot of time on long boring descriptive passages and such.

So, I'm wondering how much description is too little description and how much of it is considered essential?

Is there a hard and fast rule or does it come down to style and preference?

 

[thaddeus6th]

I think a lot of it comes down to preference.

It can also be coloured a lot by PoV. I think the only problem is where lack of detail leads to a misleading picture being painted, or you later refer to stuff that had been omitted when it should've been included.

 

[James118]

Thaddeus pretty much nailed it; not only does character perspective colour the description, but so too does relevance and detail.

I used to want to keep things very dry and minimalist, to let the reader draw their own conclusions about the environment, let their imaginations tell them a different take on my raw information. But economic use of flourish can add a lot to a scene in few words.

 

[VKALFIERI]

I try to get the bones and flesh them out after a redraft.

I'm very much in awe of the way in which Matthew Reilly is able to describe a scene without making it dull and without dragging it out. It's something I aspire to.

For examples read his Seven Ancient Wonders (Jack West Jr.) novels or The Great Zoo of China.

 

[The Judge]

I think it also depends on the genre. If you're writing, say, urban vampire stories, everyone knows more or less what a big city looks like -- if only from depictions on the TV -- so there's no need to dwell at length on big skyscapers and yellow cabs and what people are wearing, and a few mentions of specific things will allow the readers to fill in the blanks. But if you're writing hard SF, then almost certainly your readers will want long loving descriptions of all the space craft/alien habitats/life suits and how they are powered and armoured and weaponed and *yawn*

I'd say soft SF needs less description of the hardware, but a novel set on an alien planet needs sufficient description of everything to convey its alien-ness. Similarly high fantasy requires some idea of landscape, clothes, food etc to give the reader some feel of what type of age and country it is and how it differs from C21st life. There has to be some grounding in the environment, natural and/or man-made, to allow the reader to inhabit it.

I think the main problem you might be having though is shown in your comment about "long boring descriptive passages" -- you might find other writers' passages to be boring, but your job as a writer is to ensure that your prose never is! I've not read any Matthew Reilly so I can't comment on how he writes, but if you aspire to write like him, the first thing to do is analyse how he holds your attention within a scene, and then try and copy his technique.

When it comes down to it, though, some people like a lot of description, some hate it, some like lyrical passages, some want plain information simply told. Match style of writing to genre and likely reader expectation

NB If this is something that worries you, when you've hit 30 counted posts you can put something up in Critiques and ask for feedback on whether it's enough.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

If in doubt, use less description. Human brains are made to fill in the details.

 

[Locrian]

I did some guided meditations with some friends a while ago, talking to them afterwards a few of them found I'd given too much detail than was really necessary and it started to contradict the image they were building in their heads, which broke the immersion. I took what they'd said away with me when I started writing my wip. In fiction it can break the pacing and rhythm to bog down with description, when all that really matters is how the character feels about an object, person or place. You can usually do it with one or two words while you keep things moving. Describing most things as cold will make them feel hostile, for example. The reader will fill in the rest, and will build their own picture of events in their heads.

 

[Edward M. Grant]

I think the only problem is where lack of detail leads to a misleading picture being painted, or you later refer to stuff that had been omitted when it should've been included.

Yes. One big problem comes when you describe something with a word that gives different readers different images, then you write something more specific, and the reader is suddenly jolted out of the story because they were imagining something completely different.

For example, you write 'Bob grabbed the handle and pulled the car door open', and I imagine 'the car' is a Ford Model T, while Joe imagines 'the car' is a Smart Car. Then you write 'Bob turned the key, and the Ferrari's V12 engine roared into life.' Bang, instant WTF moment for the readers.

Better to get important details clear right from the start. The ones the characters care about are usually the ones that the reader is going to care about, the rest you can skim over.

 

[tinkerdan]

In some cases though it might be necessary that his car be a Ferrari.

In that case you could lengthen a sentence and give cumulative information that leads to that in steps that keep the reader reading before he can full reach his own conclusions.

Such as:

Bob grasped the handle while turning the key to unlock and open the car's door, releasing hot air and the aroma of the leather seats of his Ferrari.

Not necessarily the best construct and often as writers we are discouraged from long sentences; but they do have their uses.

And you've added more description to the car, which you could add even more if you wanted to make the sentence longer. As long as the steps to get you there are logical parts that belong in the sentence.

 

[J Riff]

You are discouraged from long sentences by who? All the great writers used 'em, still do. Writing boring description is just as hard as writing boring action.

 

[tinkerdan]

Good long sentences often require adjectives and adverbs and other modifiers, many with 'ing' and 'ly', that are regularly culled from our writing.

Sometimes the 'rules' are a discouragement when applied too liberally as though they really are rules.

 

[J Riff]

Culled? from your writing by who? At school you mean? Even the writing manuals, high school or otherwise, are full of long sentences.
Long starts at what - 75 words. That is not a long sentence, particularly, and I can't imagine who would discourage its use. Maybe 'the rules' are coming from somewhere that needs to go read some proper writing instead of dumbing down for, for... who? People who can't read long sentences for some reason?
Weird rules, wherever they are coming from.

 

[tinkerdan]

Okay

 

[VKALFIERI]

Long sentences have their place for sure, they are especially useful when doing some long description of a place or object in the story. Varied sentence length is definitely something that, as a reader, and a writer, I cherish.

For action scenes I like short sharp quick-fire sentences to match the pace of the scene; whereas for something like narrative description of a place or object, I don't mind some longer than ordinary long sentences.

Most writing 'manuals' and advice columns I've read have advocated for varied sentence length.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

It's too little when beta readers are getting confused and can't picture where they are or the world you've built.

 

[VKALFIERI]

Let's say I have a woodlands area, is it enough to say it's a forest/woodlands area, or should I be elaborating?

 

[Phyrebrat]

I think in that case it is about context and the tone you're going for. If you're writing about the woods in which numerous people have gone missing over the years, and which are now encroaching on a local village and so on and bla bla, then it would help to give the reader a sense of character for those woods. If the characters are just travelling through some general woodland, then you don't need to saturate it with description.

Mostly I try to think like this about detail: If it's useful to the characters, then it's useful to the reader.

pH

 

[AnyaKimlin]

What kind of forest and woodland? Is it coniferous? mixed? Scots pine? Etc Are there animals in the woodland? Is it on a hill, on the flats etc? What time of year is it so what are the colours? How does your character interact with it?

I live surrounded by forest and I wouldn't automatically get a picture of your woodland just from saying it's the woodland.

It doesn't have to be a block of description. Take the character into the woods and describe the trees they pass, the smell of the pine, the branch that whacks them in the face, the crunching leaves, the squelching mud, the barking dogs, the scuttling hedgehogs, the shy deer etc Does the deer make them jump or do they want to put it in a pie?

 

[Inca_UK]

Thats all well and good, but what I struggle with is how long should I spend creating that picture, when its not relevant to the plot, character development, or character relationships? Other than that, I use description to foreshadow or represent something, but for portions, I don't really describe the picture much at all outside of whats relevant.

 

[Phyrebrat]

Thats all well and good, but what I struggle with is how long should I spend creating that picture, when its not relevant to the plot, character development, or character relationships? Other than that, I use description to foreshadow or represent something, but for portions, I don't really describe the picture much at all outside of whats relevant.

Well you've answered your own question . If it's not relevant, then it's bloatware... Foreshadowing is relevant so I'd say your use is correct.

The thing is, these questions will elicit a variety of responses based on personal style. Go with your own beat.

pH