Writer's Fallout Shelter

As a reader, I prefer to be given descriptions in little bites, rather than in lumps, and I’ve been trying to incorporate this in my writing as well (though it isn’t always easy). This has to do with pace. Anytime the author stops to describe anything, no matter how crucial, the story stops as well. If the story stops for more than a few breaths, as a reader I find myself starting to skim (though as a writer, curiously enough, I find that I can babble on for days without boring myself—which is probably why over-description is often abundant).

As a reader and a writer, I recommend describing on the fly whenever plausible, and especially in short fiction (in novels, I think, spots of leisure (within reason) are more acceptable, and not as detrimental to the pace of the story). For example, not: Jacob was sixty-five years old, and his eyesight was failing, which forced him to wear thick spectacles, but: Rain splattered against Jacob’s glasses, blurring his vision as he ran for cover. In all of his sixty-five years, he’d never seen a storm whip up so fast.

I agree with what Holly Jahangiri said about everything else. My personal philosophy is to give just enough detail to start the reader forming a picture, and then let the reader do the rest. As a reader, I don’t appreciate having every little detail spelled out for me. I enjoy forming my own images of characters and settings. Just give me enough to push me in the right direction, and then let me go. That’s probably why I’m often so disappointed with the appearances of actors who’ve been cast in adaptations of my favorite stories/novels—they never look like the character as I’ve imagined them. Seeing Tom Cruise as Lestat in Interview With The Vampire, for example, almost ruined the character for me completely.

Scribbler


** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only **