POV Character Description - How Much?

[tinkerdan]

I’m not sure I follow... can you expand the concern? Characters probably have a skin color, and it may or may not be relevant. I’m not sure what is going to get ridiculous ...?

withholding skin color, until the end--if that changes your perspective of the whole story, how could that be bad except that it tells you something about yourself that maybe you didn't want to know.

The point is that the only problem should arise if one description offered by the author is actually the opposite of another actual description offered by the author.

I don't buy this stuff where some people say they would rather fill in the description themselves, because what it really is is that those people just tend to do that when they are denied a complete description at the beginning and then set themselves up for a disappointment when their preconceived idea is nowhere near what the person looks like.

If the author hasn't given you an eye color or hair color, why would you presume to give the character those? I generally assume that the correct opportunity for description has no yet arrived and could show up any time now.

Without those then the character might show up as flat-2d and if you keep filling them in, then you might fool yourself into believing the author created a well rounded character and the joke is on you because you just did that in your head.

 

[Valtharius]

Describe? What is this of which you speak?

It's a highly advanced writing technique some authors use. I've never tried it myself. From what I hear, it takes years of practice to even attempt it properly.

 

[Valtharius]

Echoing what others have said: I pretty much only write physical descriptions when specifically relevant. Though I might try it more in the future. I can see how some people like the immersion effect, others find it distracting. It's a personal preference. Perhaps it depends on what kind of story you want to write.

 

[zmunkz]

withholding skin color, until the end--if that changes your perspective of the whole story, how could that be bad except that it tells you something about yourself that maybe you didn't want to know.

I’m not sure why you’re insinuating along that line, but in any case, you are reading further into my concern than you need to. I’m not talking about the skin color (or any visual attribute) changing what a story means or how I interpret it. I’m talking about the fact that people look different, and if I get to know one person and go on a journey with them, it’s disruptive when that person changes in a manner that real people don’t change. When that happens, it moves the reading process from an empathetic one to an intellectual one, however briefly, which results in some signal loss.

if the author hasn't given you an eye color or hair color, why would you presume to give the character those?

It sounds like you are not a visual reader. That’s not uncommon, although I was surprised to learn it was a thing. For me, everything I read is immediately visual. Images just form, I have no say in the matter, it is how my thoughts manifest. If you don’t give me details, they will appear in my head, not as the result of some presumptuous decision, but because that’s how people appear in my head... as complete people. I can update that image as I proceed through the text, but the longer I go without feedback, the more disruptive it is if it suddenly does change.

 

[Andy Hauser]

How much physical description do you usually include in your stories?

I find that I usually do not provide more than a name and gender via pronouns for my main characters. Is that sufficient? I've scanned the introductory chapters in several books by different authors that I enjoy reading and have found only one described the physical characteristics of the main character any where within the first couple of pages. Is light or nonexistent description considered normal?

What is your preference as a reader? Do you care what the characters look like?

I do the same (in third-limited). I love when a character's look is unveiled slowly throughout his or her entire arc. But I find it very helpful to have at least one or two unique things about that character very early on, e.g. "his red and black hair," "her dark skin," or "his claw-like nose." Then you have something tangible to out with the name.

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

Related question: if the story is told in first person, should other characters be described to the degree that the POV character would be paying attention to what they looked like? I can imagine some narrators would notice very little about what people look like, while other would be obsessing over every tiny detail. (My sister: "How could you not notice that hideous pattern on his tie?!" Me: "He was wearing a tie?") And what about in "close" third person, where the narrator sticks closely to the protagonsits viewpoint?

 

[Steve Harrison]

Related question: if the story is told in first person, should other characters be described to the degree that the POV character would be paying attention to what they looked like? I can imagine some narrators would notice very little about what people look like, while other would be obsessing over every tiny detail. (My sister: "How could you not notice that hideous pattern on his tie?!" Me: "He was wearing a tie?") And what about in "close" third person, where the narrator sticks closely to the protagonsits viewpoint?

That's a great question.

I assess description from all POVs the same way and try to work out how much detail the reader needs. This usually means that my POV characters, whether in first or close third, are far more observant than I am in real life, and possibly more observant than the actual character.

For example, the character might describe a person in fine detail when they meet, but in the next chapter they can't recall a single thing about them. But the reader can.

I think that's particularly important in first, when the entire story is channeled through one person, but not as much when writing using multiple POVs (my preferred method), when you can build a descriptive picture through the observations of several characters.

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

Insert skin color and then ponder about how ridiculous this begins to sound.

Yeah, I'm pondering this. I have been for the last three and a half minutes and I've got nothing. Maybe you could enlighten us as to why it's ridiculous.

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

What is your preference as a reader? Do you care what the characters look like?

I like the author to give me something and I like to give a little bit of description in my own work. Laundry lists of characteristics though are off-putting.

 

[tinkerdan]

Yeah, I'm pondering this. I have been for the last three and a half minutes and I've got nothing. Maybe you could enlighten us as to why it's ridiculous.

Honestly:
The point is that in some cases such as first person or third close it becomes difficult to wedge in a lot of description early in the story without putting in in lumps that are as annoying as that year old piece of gum stuck to the bottom of your desk.

I suppose in light of the reader that presupposes what the author hasn't included, that at some point the author should just abandon any description at all. I have seen it done that way and it can work.

However in many cases there might be characteristics that are important to the story and those definitely should be addressed as soon as possible so that the author doesn't run into the scene where they have to pretty much say --oh by the way the MC has blond hair and blue eyes; because that's going to make a difference in the next two paragraphs.

.The whole idea is to get important descriptive elements a soon as possible, however also to do so in the least obtrusive way. That means when I write a novel I give the description in my time not the readers and just accept that some readers are going to be presupposing things I haven't given them and basically keep myself from falling prey to writing a full page of descriptive resume at the beginning just to keep them happy. I usually start with a full idea of what they look like as I write; however I don't stop the story just to tell the reader their skin, eye, hair colors and everything they are wearing down to the non visible jewelry in private piercing on their bodies.

What the reader assumes prior to when I do reveal it may or may not have anything to do with how well I write.

It might tell us more about how they read.

However, I'm not going to risk writing poorly just to accommodate that.

 

[Astro Pen]

If you are going to add descriptors, do it early. By one third to half way the reader has almost certainly built their own (and individual) model of the character. If you introduce characteristics late they will inevitably clash with that model and yank the reader out of the book.
If it is too much for them to adjust to you might well lose them.

ps I just realised that @tinkerdan posted the more or less the same argument above. My bad tendency to blurt on a subject then check the context .

 

[Wayne Mack]

However in many cases there might be characteristics that are important to the story

I will slightly quibble with this statement, as I find it very rare for a characteristic to be important to the story or even to a sub-arc. Given that, and perhaps personal skill level, I simply do not provide character descriptions beyond gender (indicated by name and pronoun use) and race (indicated by name).

As a reader, I do not visualize characters and any description that the author ay include, I quickly forget. I also tend towards white room settings and find I need to make an explicit effort to include environmental descriptions that do not directly affect the action in a scene.

I am curious, though. Do others actually picture these things as they read?

 

[Astro Pen]

If I write "Cleopatra entered the room." You have all you need.
If I write "Cleopatra entered the room, running her fingers through her long blond hair." Something altogether more interesting is happening and you have to start thinking.

 

[tinkerdan]

I will slightly quibble with this statement, as I find it very rare for a characteristic to be important

For a number of good reasons it is important often to know...
Are they male or female?
Are they 4 foot 11inches or 7 foot tall?
Do they weigh 45 lb or 245 lb?
Are they left handed or right handed?
Are they in a wheelchair?
Are they a paraplegic?
Are they heavily muscled or rail thin or maybe wiry?
Skin color, eye color and hair color all could have an impact in a mystery.

This doesn't even begin to cover special skill sets.

 

[atsouthorn]

If I write "Cleopatra entered the room." You have all you need.
If I write "Cleopatra entered the room, running her fingers through her long blond hair." Something altogether more interesting is happening and you have to start thinking.

Cleopatra burst into the room, sliding her pectoral fins through her soapy chesticles.

Now you have to work out if you've picked up the wrong book.

 

[Rufus Coppertop]

What the reader assumes prior to when I do reveal it may or may not have anything to do with how well I write.

True. It may not. Or it may.

It might tell us more about how they read.

Some people are more visual than others.

However, I'm not going to risk writing poorly just to accommodate that.

That's entirely your prerogative. I hope it works well for you.

Readers reward writers according to the reader's perception of the wealth or poverty of the writing.

They'll buy more of someone's work or they won't.

Personally, I think writing and editing are always a risk.

The day I'm not willing to risk writing poorly, will be the day I give up writing.

 

[viraltwit]

I like Neil Gaiman's idea of adorning some of his characters with "funny hats"—interesting nuggets about them, like hooks from which you can hang off the way you imagine them to be. I think going too far for modern writing would look like Dickens, though I really enjoy Dickens and, in general, enjoy characters that have dimension to them.

I do think that important characters ought to have some detail, even if it's spare. Dialogue is a great way to get personality across, but a well-timed detail can sustain a book, I think.

 

[Guanazee]

As a reader, I don't care about physical description much, just the basic age and gender. In my own writing I go back and add that in after the first draft of the plot is written since I tend to skimp on physical character and setting descriptions. If it stresses you out as a writer, don't worry about it in the first draft and see what your critique partners suggest.

 

[Jcu3ed]

Interesting discussion!

As a reader and writer, I tend to enjoy reading/writing what characters look like. As a reader, I like visualizing the entire picture of the story as the author would have written and wanted the story to be read. As a writer, I enjoy painting a similar picture.

Obviously, as with any description, exposition, etc. if done in a heavy-handed way, then it can pull the reader out of the story or become a slog-fest. However, when done sparingly and in the write context, physical description of a character helps convey, in part, who that character is. For example, a 5-foot man with gray eyes in a society where tall men with dark eyes are looked upon as attractive or of more-noble stock would be affected by his appearance and as such it should be explained. Especially if it is the author's intention to make this part of his arc or character development.

Just my two-cents.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

I only describe a character's appearance if it is relevant to the story being told, or important in developing the character in the reader's mind. Same for buildings, landscapes, objects. Why not let the readers use their own imaginations as much as possible? The resulting mental image will surely be more real to them.

I think this is an important topic, because so many books I pick up these days are filled with superfluous descriptions.