What is Your Opinion of Description in Fantasy Stories?

[SonicSouls]

In my opinion, its often a trap of the fantasy genre to have frivolous, overblown descriptions. I feel that the purpose of descriptions in the fantasy genre is to highlight the fantastical elements. It allows us to depict implausible or impossible things. And the point of the genre is seeing how we would react by grounding it via humans or human stand-ins. For me, the description needs to be relevant to least two of the following:

• Plot
• Character(s)
• World Building

The reason I say at least two is because if you just have irrelevant tidbits of worldbuilding, that’s not helping the story. I personally like for all three criteria to be met but if at least two are met, that’s good. However, the best written stories often satisfy all three by being so tightly written. Everything is relevant to each other. The world building influences the plot, which influences the characters, which may influence the worldbuilding as the author writes the story. That’s my personal opinion. What are your thoughts about it?

 

[sknox]

I would add theme to the list.

But really, the objection applies across the board. One doesn't care for frivolous, overblown characters. Or plot devices. Or themes, for that matter. Good writing is good writing; bad writing is bad writing. There's a Zen koan for you, free of charge.

 

[zmunkz]

The reason I say at least two is because if you just have irrelevant tidbits of worldbuilding, that’s not helping the story.

Like with most things, I would say it’s a matter of execution. It is certainly possible (and easy) to over do world building descriptions. On the other hand, I would point out that pure worldbuilding descriptions can add quite a bit to the tone, can enhance the immersion, and can even impact the tension in the scene.

I think your model is a reasonable guide if you’re looking at a particular description and on the fence about keeping/cutting it.

 

[Thiswriterinme]

Writing, like all other art, is subjective, so I think a lot of what constitutes as "frivolous" or "overblown," is a matter of opinion and personal preference when writing and/or reading. I've read a lot of books that I don't really understand the author's purpose for certain descriptions, but when I read comments from other readers or look into interviews with the author, they offer insights that I hadn't previously considered.

It is also about style, expectations, and timing. Authors like Tolkien have been criticized in recent years, for going too deep into sensory descriptions of scenery, focusing on small things like grass or leaves (but that is sort of expected from him). Not a lot of modern fantasy includes that kind of sensory detail, which is unfortunate. For me, that immersive context brings the entire story to life and puts me right in the world the characters are experiencing, other readers find it boring.

I'll admit, I've read some descriptions that really don't make sense or don't take me to where the writer was trying to go, and I can't get the fully immersive feeling. I don't consider that "bad writing" because I'll read book reviews that rant and rave about how great the descriptions are. So, it does come down to personal preference in a lot of cases.

It is worth noting that some writers will create their entire world before writing the first sentence of a story. Whether or not the world evolves as they write is going to hinge on their specific writing style. If a writer chooses to have a world built prior to writing, then there is a chance that the characters and plot won't influence the worldbuilding in a cyclical way.

I do believe that writing is a unique medium in that there isn't such a thing as "filler" content, as long as each chapter or scene progresses character development, plot development, or character relationships. Scenes and chapters that don't contribute to one or all of those progressions are probably unnecessary for the finished product.

 

[Hex]

Yes, what @Thiswriterinme says.

Also, though, some writers use description in ways that makes the language flow. I don't mean lengthy passages about trees (I love Tolkien but I learned to skip while I was reading his books), but the odd phrase or sentence. Drips of description, kind of.

I love Patricia McKillip's writing and she does it really well.

“The young gentlemen who came calling seemed especially puzzling. They sat in their velvet shirts and their leather boots, nibbling burnt cakes and praising Diamond's mind, and all the while their eyes said other things. Now, their eyes said. Now. Then: Patience, patience. 'You are flowers,' their mouths said, 'You are jewels, you are golden dreams.' Their eyes said: I eat flowers, I burn with dreams, I have a tower without a door in my heart, and I will keep you there... ”

Or this by Holly Black, which is maybe my favourite ever descriptive passage:

I think of her at twelve, a skinny girl with eyes too large for her face and a nimbus of tangled blond hair. In my memory, she's sitting on the branch of a tree, eating a rope of red liquorice. Her lips are sticky with it. Her flip-flops are hanging off her toes. She's cutting her initials into the bark, high-up, so her cousin can't claim she's lying when she tells him she got higher than he ever will.

It almost doesn't matter that the description is saying something relevant to the story (this is the third book and we know what the character looks like, and we know her personality, but the MC is having this memory because he's feeling guilty about what he's doing now). The language is so perfect (to me) that it's a joy to read in itself.

I totally agree in general, @SonicSouls, that description should serve some purpose, and few things are grimmer than long passages of description that exist just because the author did the research and they want you to know EVERYTHING in their head, but I'd add that as well as the reasons you mentioned, sometimes description can make the language more beautiful, and just that.

 

[Montero]

I like description - in moderation. Some authors manage to pack a lot of impression into a few words. However there is a lot of fantasy out there where you get the full wardrobe, interior decoration, name of manicurist and every pony the princess ever owned - and presumably some people are eagerly reading it because they want it. My take on that kind of book is that it is a written video game - the reader is taking a protracted wander in the world as much as reading the story. Drives me up the wall most of the time, but it is clearly popular. Or at least written a lot - who knows what the sales figures are. Maybe it is the writer who is taking a video game type wander in their world.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

It also depends on the sub genre. Try selling an epic fantasy novel without lavish description and listen to the wails of protest from genre fans

 

[Astro Pen]

I think there was a Henry Ford ll quote:

Small cars, small profits. Big cars, big profits.

 

[Thiswriterinme]

I agree with the fact that most of the world-building details and character details that are created as notes by the author don't need to be included in the story. Most of that background information is written by the author as a means of consistency and creating a multilayered world and realistic, full characters.

There are plenty of books out there that are written with the ideology that if it is part of world-building or character creation, it has to be written in the text somewhere as a detailed description. This tends to take away from the focus of the actual story. Like if pages are spent describing the complex socio-economic system and how it developed over the past hundred years before the start of the book, or if too much attention is focused on the fact that they use oil from sheep wool for their oil lamps, or if a character's entire history is revealed all at once. While those details can be interesting, they are a part of world-building that doesn't necessarily add sensory immersion or progression to the characters or story.

I can see some authors using avid descriptions of the landscape as a way to "hold space" for a group of travelers. Like, other than describing each individual step and the constant thoughts and feelings of the characters, how else do you convey the journey is long in a way that captivates the reader and senses? Long descriptions of landscapes can serve that purpose and give the body of text more substance than just constantly being inside the head of whichever character's POV that portion of the story is focused on.

In reading the comparison of written description to video game worlds, I sort of find that ironic in a way. A lot of the same concepts for world-building in fantasy and sci-fi books are implemented for the creation of video game worlds, characters, and storylines too. Writing is a core part of video game creation. The difference is, in a book, you don't have the visual component, which is where avid description comes in.

There was a time when writing and reading were the most immersive forms of entertainment media, and I personally feel like video games, movies, and television shows have impacted the literature world negatively. People are so used to having constant visual stimulation with lots of action, that reading a book with long descriptions becomes tedious and boring. Don't get me wrong, I still love watching movies, shows, and playing video games.

 

[Overread]

I think descriptions also have to come at the right moment in the flow of the story. Identifying portions where the story is running slower and using them to bolster descriptive detail; whilst then interspacing that with "breaks" back into the action and meat of the story itself. This links to what Hex is saying as well. Blending the words into the story, choosing the right words at the right time in the story.

I should note one thing I dislike that authors (esp new ones) do is a late description. They get so keen to get that early chapter 1 and 2 action sequences in that they forget to describe basic things. I've read some newer novels where the author doesn't even identify key elements about their character until quite late. This has a problem because if you the writer don't tell the reader; then the reader will fill in the blanks. The more blanks you leave the more the reader has to fill them in and each one is a chance for the reader to deviate. Pick a gender neutral sounding name and suddenly you could be writing about a boy and the reader thinks its a girl. The revelation coming later might well throw the reader because suddenly the character they thought they were reading about doesn't exist.
Always assume that unless you clearly tell or show the reader, then they will get it wrong. This can work to your advantage, sometimes its good to not tell the reader everything and give them a mystery or three. Just remember there's a difference between information that's a mystery within the story and information that's known in the story that the reader should be aware of.


Of course this all blends into the kind of story you're writing, a fast paced fantasy short story is likely going to draw a lot from things like Tolkien and DnD styles of story writing. You won't tell us much about the elf save that its an elf; that the dwarf is a dwarf and that your mage just cast fireball etc... Simple themes and concepts that get a visual point across, but without pausing to delve into pages of description and design that would be more fitting in an Epic long story. Of course short stories can blend in a lot of description as well, but they often benefit from support. This might be a volume of stories - lots of shorts that add together with little bits each time that build up; or artwork or other elements (eg If you ever read Black Library stories they rely on you having a passing understanding of the world setting; the Games Workshop product line and artwork to fill in the gaps on what certain things look like)




Also don't forget the ignorant method of delivery. Harry Potter, for example, is a very ignorant character in the magic world, which gives an ample window to characters around him describing things and for him himself to pick out details in the surroundings that others would take for granted etc... It's a very smart mechanic to introduce the reader to things. However you have to be careful as its all to easy to shift your ignorant character into an idiotic one who appears to have never noticed anything until the reader came along to read the story.

 

[jjcomet]

For me, I started out with way too much description in my first drafts - for the DnD novel I am working on. For the DnD game was based on description to paint where our characters where and that helped me get an idea of a physical aspect from a verbal telling. So I had that mind-set in my initial writings, until a friend read a sample and said it was too descriptive. i.e., giving the size of rooms and the length and width of a house.
Where I converted it down to simply saying a modest size room in a large, spacious house. True there are other descriptions toward the rooms and house, just deleted the numerical square footage.

I also started writing with only a vague idea for my story; My favorite characters, specific events to write about and where I wanted to take my story. It was not till I started typing that my plot evolved and new ideas occurred to me. I actually started my story in what became my second book, having fleshed out numerous details which happened before the point I took pen to paper. (If that makes sense.)

For I cannot 'daydream' as a few friends have said they can. Oh, I have the odd inspiration away from the keyboard, but find my writing happens as I putting it down on paper. Like I would tell them - 'If I think about it, then I most likely will forget about it when I start typing.'

Not sure if this follows the theme of this discussion, but there it is anyway.

 

[sknox]

>my writing happens as I putting it down on paper
Same for me. I can no more compose a story in my head than I can draw a picture in my head. In both cases it needs to be pen (or brush) on paper. There are those who can ideate a song, but most folks need a piano or guitar to compose.

Every art has its instrument, and creation is at least in part a dialogue between the medium and the artist.

 

[BAYLOR]

From a readers perspective . In fantasy stories or in any genre story for that matter , what they want is good and engaging stories to keep them interested and wanting more and , most importantly , the overall stories and set ups have to make sense to them. As far world building is concerned , while many readers can appreciate a detailed world and history , too heavy handed an approach , can be a put off to readers . In this area , sometimes, less is more . As for characters themselves , they need to be people with whom the readers can care about and identify with. And, many readers don't like to have to memorize prohibitively huge character indexes and glossaries. That too, can put off readers.

 

[therapist]

I'm currently reading Joe Abercrombie's 'First Law' series. I love the way he manages to infuse a lot of character into his descriptions. You can usually tell whose POV you are in just by reading a few lines of description.

The battle hardened savage will describe a wall as being scarred and bruised or scabbed with algae. Whereas the torturer will describe a rusty gate as 'squealing in pain'.

 

[zmunkz]

I'm currently reading Joe Abercrombie's 'First Law' series. I love the way he manages to infuse a lot of character into his descriptions. You can usually tell whose POV you are in just by reading a few lines of description.

The battle hardened savage will describe a wall as being scarred and bruised or scabbed with algae. Whereas the torturer will describe a rusty gate as 'squealing in pain'.

In my opinion, he’s one of the best case studies in deep POV.

 

[Amy-rose]

I'm not a big fan of description with nothing happening. I also prefer when description is given in character. I like enough to let people know what's happening and where people are and that's it. I base my description on character, plot, setting and theme.

 

[Cosmic Geoff]

A novice writer is likely to get conflicting advice on the amount of description to be included. While writing fantasy, I had advice telling me to slim it down, and advice to add more description - each from people who could write. Eventually I decided that for the kind of thing I wanted to write, adequate description was good. There is a fashion in some quarters (which I personally dislike) for stripping out description to achieve a fast-paced story.

• Plot
• Character(s)
• World Building

Rather than these headings, I would say that you need to describe each scene to a sufficient extent, so the reader knows 'where we are', what buildings and scenery look like, and where appropriate include some world-building details like the architecture, the flora and fauna, or the local coinage. A description of each character can work well to characterise them, so long as you don't go on too long. Character can also be expressed by actions or dialog. Some people think that they don't need to describe their characters (let the readers imagine their own image of them) but this could be a mistake. I beta-read one unpublished story and was surprised when the main character produced a sword. It turned out the writer always imagined this character was armed but had chosen not to do a character description.
In the past, authors included whole pages of description (see any Victorian novel, or the opening of Richard Adams' "Shardik", for instance) but modern readers prefer rather less.
The best advice I can give is that rather than merely taking advice from the Internet, you examine the writing of authors you particularly admire, and whose work sold well, and see how they do it.

 

[Toby Frost]

I beta-read one unpublished story and was surprised when the main character produced a sword. It turned out the writer always imagined this character was armed but had chosen not to do a character description.

Chekov's sword!

 

[sknox]

>so long as you don't go on too long

And therein lies the rub. How long is too long? How long is not long enough? What's just right?

Not only is there no way to know this for every reader, even the same reader will have a different reaction at seventeen than they will at forty-seven.

 

[Maseeha.Aellari]

There's no way to tell what's too much or too little. I personally write more description for important objects/places in my manuscript. If it's a random coffee table, I just write "coffee table strewn with magazines"

I agree with @sknox about theme. The first battle scene in my book is sort of foreshadowed by the descriptions of the scenery before that. There's a scene where my character watches the sunrise, and I describe it as the day's attack on the night, with the night retreating to plan its response (a.k.a. sunset)

You have to trust your gut. No one knows your book better than you.