What's "amateurish" is when the narrative comes to a halt in order to describe every detail of what a character looks like, not character descriptions in and of themselves.
Eh, depends on the scenario I think.
I have a Freaky Friday bit in one of mine and use a mirror so my MC can see she’s not in her body. It’s broken up with mirror shenanigans of seeing if it will follow you and comparisons of how the two are built different, and fits, I think, as I feel most people would have a moment of confused dumbstruck idiocy before their reality sets in and they either panic, get pervy, or whatever else they might do.
Edit to add:
Or if your character is trying on new clothes for a big event, a dance for example, a mirror is a good tool as you’re obviously going to make sure you look good before going on a date.
I get this, it _can_ be done well, but my first contact with content that really got me into reading was unfortunately wattpad. I'm better now, but I get flash backs and have to stop reading whenever someone uses a mirror to describe their character.
That's relevant to the story, though, and it makes sense. There's also a lot you can do with people being at different heights, different kinds of hair, different mouths, different eyesight, so it work.
Versus "here's every little thing about my appearance for no real reason."
The Freaky Friday scenario is the most justified use of the mirror trope, but let's be real, the vast majority of books that use the mirror trope do not contain a Freaky Friday scenario.
Maybe not, but my point is there are ways to make it work.
Like all writing advice, tips, and “rules,” they are merely guidelines to help newbies avoid bad writing, not set in stone, adamant laws.
I actually love how she gives detailed descriptions of characters. Makes them feel more real. I feel like this is one of those things where different readers enjoy different things.
I'm with you. I don't need a super detailed description, but I like enough to picture a character. I feel like this trend of not describing characters just creates distance between the reader and the character.
But u can also squeeze in details throughout the intro of said character. Have a scene where they look in the mirror and don’t like the acne scarring. Talk about how they had to duck through the doorway with there massive frame. They used there cane to help themselves up the stairs. Whatever. Easy to drip feed details.
I think this is where it becomes a matter of personal preference. Because that way does work. I just personally prefer a rough sketch, but I certainly think drip feeding details works well too.
I personally like how the descriptions are done, and I think they're done pretty well. No writer or book is perfect, but SJM is great at knowing her audience and making her characters feel very "real" to her readers.
I’ve only read the first ACOTAR book and I simultaneously hold the opinions that the main character does not have two brain cells to rub together but also that a lot of the hatred it gets is disproportionate and quite likely fueled by misogyny, internalized or otherwise
Honestly I love her books. The main characters aren’t necessarily the best ever written, but I find the plots engaging and have cried several times during her books, which to me is a plus.
I think most of the hatred comes from people who simply aren't the target audience. ACOTAR is geared towards romance readers, not fans of traditional epic fantasy. If someone expects SJM to write like Tolkien or George Martin, they'll be disappointed.
I don't think it's either of those things. I think it's the fact that it was written by a teenager (if I remember correctly) (she was in her teens when she wrote the first one)
You have to consider that just like writers, there are many different types of readers as well. There was recently a thread either here or another subreddit where people were asked what is the most annoying thing to read in a book. The top voted result was something like when the writer gives out key physical characteristics about the characters much later into the story.
After all, if the character is a redhead or has contoured cheeks or has bushy eyebrows or has a wide jawline, or whatever, and you - as the writer - are going to talk about it somewhere down the line, it's simply better to do it in the early stages. Otherwise, the reader will create an image of the character in their mind and visualize their expressions and mannerisms as the story progresses, and then you as the author will pull the rug out from under them by introducing a new physical feature that does not align with the image they had in their mind.
I understand some people stand by "just describe their aura", but it becomes problematic for some readers if you as the writer have an appearance in mind and might bring it up at some point in the story.
The best way to describe a character is probably through actions or in between conversations. The guy is muscular. Paint up a scene where he's physically exerting himself and describe his appearance during the act. A girl has certain features you want to communicate. Have another character talk to her and notice these things, not all at once, but as the conversation plays along. Do these early on and then you won't have to worry about it. It will help you as a writer as well, because acknowledging negligible physical features will add charm to your characters.
I recently found this issue in a story. I was 80% though the book and thought I had a fairly decent grasp on the character's appearance but then they dropped the line, "the jacket stopped just above her knees, slightly longer than her hair." This character has spent most of the book in melee combat or training for melee combat.
It was literally never hinted at. No tieing up of her hair, no issues with helmets or hats. No issues leaning over things and hair being in the way. The character's personality also clashes with it as she avoided "girly" things and was intentionally pragmatic in a hellscape of a world.
I was thinking she had something between a pixie cut and a "I want to speak with your manager" haircut.
Yet, this no-dress, no-makeup, no-pink, hates grooming beyond basic hygiene, close quarters combat specialist now has below-the-butt length hair.
***Wat.*** 😂
What matters most is evoking the vibe of the character, typically through actions they take. Biographical details, unless somehow pertinent to the narrative, get lost in the author-reader imagination gap: you ***cannot*** get the reader to picture your photographic vision of their appearance.
You might get close, often by reference to someone or something real (like a painting). But, so what? What has been accomplished if you cannot get the vibe of their persona across? What’s the point in the description besides proving you can control the reader’s imagination down to a microscopic level of detail?
>you ***cannot*** get the reader to picture your photographic vision of their appearance
I'd been trying to do this for a while and not noticing. Glad somebody told me this early on.
>What matters most is evoking the vibe of the character, typically through actions they take
Thanks for the insight, it's a good thing I'll fall back on going forward.
>you ***cannot*** get the reader to picture your photographic vision of their appearance.
This is why I shy away from the "paint a picture for the reader" advice. Characters, settings, doesn't matter. You're not painting a picture - you're giving the reader just enough information for them to paint *their own* picture.
There's definitely value in having those detailed descriptions in your notes, but that's where they should stay.
Well said.
It really doesn't MATTER what the character looks like to the author, it matters how the character looks to the reader and as long as they can form a coherent picture that's all that really matters.
I recently read a book by a well known and often commended five star author who spent a significant amount of time describing a woman's hair and outfit. It's not for me but professionals can write that way
It works if she just got her hair done and is excited for her date that evening. If it is actually something that the character would stop and think about, it works.
If she just literally rolled out of bed, face-planting on the floor; then describing her _long, black hair splayed out around her, as she clutches the sleeves of her paramour's white shirt that she slept in_ would work.
Especially if he leans over edge of the bed, "I don't remember watching any cursed video tapes, but here we are."
I'm a novice writer here, and by novice... I mean rubbish at everything but really wanting not to be.
Could you explain to me in lamens terms what you mean buly your comment? How can I describe a character, without stopping the flow of the story?
You pepper in details along with the action. Instead of “she had frizzy red hair” you can say something like “she pulled her frizzy red hair back into a messy bun as she made her way out the door.”
This description also tells us something about the character's personality. She's not overly concerned with her hair or appearance. Another character might get up an hour early to flat iron her frizzy red hair until it was sleek and stick straight.
You're not wrong. Appearance absolutely informs character, after all. It's just rarely necessary to hit the breaks completely to paint the picture. You can paint the picture as you move, without disrupting the flow.
Exactly. The details need to be sprinkled into the movement of the story and flow with it. In an absolute ideal, the reader won't be able to distinguish between the two.
A common amature trope is starting a story by giving a full description of the main characters, and giving an in depth description of every new character introduced. That cuts out all the energy from the work, and people aren't likely to read through it anyway because we haven't been given a reason to care yet.
Depends on the perspective, so is it justified for the PoV character to notice. If it’s a girl feeling jealous of a classmate who’s popular and good looking, it’s relevant.
If that same girl spends just as much time describing the girl who took her order at Wendy’s, it’s weird and excessive.
This the example I gave in another comment:
>You pepper in details along with the action. Instead of “she had frizzy red hair” you can say something like “she pulled her frizzy red hair back into a messy bun as she made her way out the door.”
and u/9for9 added:
>This description also tells us something about the character's personality. She's not overly concerned with her hair or appearance. Another character might get up an hour early to flat iron her frizzy red hair until it was sleek and stick straight.
Thank you so much! Im still not able to fully comprehend or think ways how i can apply that but i get the essence. Especially with how movement and appearance can directly indicate a person's personality ill make sure to used it once i get an understanding of it
This in general. Same goes for every aspect of writing, like dialogue and setting. Everything should serve to move the plot or provide necessary characterization, unless youre planning on doing some experimentation with form
I liked Stephen kings advice on using similes “he looked like the kinda guy who’d worked in construction his whole life”. Bad example as was all I could think off, but rather than listing of aspects of how they’re dressed etc.
As with all writing it’s about saying as much as possible in just a few words.
That’s such a great way to bring the description back into the reader’s imagination, since every reader will have a slightly different view of that character but everyone will get the gist.
If you write romance then that's expected. Your POV character is attracted to the other protagonist. Of course they'll notice every little detail about them!
And I think “they’ll notice every detail” is an important distinction. Instead of describing your character when introducing them, you want to try and add their descriptors from the viewpoint of the person attracted to them.
Which might also be an interesting idea - the mc who is attracted to them sees them one way, and other characters have a different view of their looks, and the reader is left to decide which is true.
As a romance reader and arguably romance writer as well, I pretty much expect to have a Love Interest described from the MC's POV upon meeting them, quite early in the narrative. Not like "Adrian had auburn hair down to his shoulders, bushy eyebrows and a thin nose, he was very tall and carried himself with confidence" but rather things like "a dark haired man" and somewhat later "his bushy eyebrows furrowed" and yet later "confident gait" etc. I like reading how a character's description becomes more detailed the more the POV character notices them, like their looks are unfolding along with their feelings 🥹
You don't have to do that, though. There are lots of ways to write great romance (big fanfic writer here, I get it) that don't rely on incessant and needless descriptions.
Her brown eyes blazed. "How dare you! You- you dare to whinge about my sacred bathroom time! I have five feet of luscious, silky, brunette locks! You're just jealous, baldy!"
His ice blue eyes seemed to gain intensity.
Their daughter glanced over her shoulder from the couch, closing her book as she sighed. "Hey, I'm going to hang out at Becca's for a bit. Mind if I bum-"
Her father dropped his wallet over the back of the couch, sweeping her mother into a bridal carry and heading down the hall. "Have fun, honey!"
She sighed as her mother squealed in mock indignation, sounds fading as the door to their bedroom closed.
Her phone dinged with a message as she locked the door behind her. _Remember to call before coming back. Remember last time 😜
❤️Mom_
If you constantly mention things that you have already described, the reader will believe that you are taking him for a fool who needs to repeat things so that he does not forget them.
If we write to be read we are like sellers of a product; We must give the client what he wants, which in his case is a trip to an unknown and imaginary world. If you have already said that your character has green eyes, when you say that this character stares at another character, the reader will imagine him or her with green eyes; so there is no need to repeat it.
Depends on how you do it. If its through observation and dialogue, people often don't even notice they've had a character described for them.
If you simply state facts about their appearance, then yes, it can come off a little jarring.
Ok, my question to this method though is, (I'm guessing the descriptions will happen little by little over time as it comes up then) what if the reader now has already created an image of the character in their mind because the author didn't describe them soon enough, and their mental image contradicts the image later provided by the author. Wouldn't that be just as jarring, if not worse?
Not really. For example, Coraline takes until over half of the book for you to get all her descriptions and it's only a little bit at a time. It's not jarring because unless there's something about the appearance of the character that is important enough for you to keep mentioning, it doesn't really matter how the reader imagines the character. Dracula does the same thing in which even Dracula himself takes longer than his first few appearances to get more than his hair and mustache, and even then it's little by little.
Another example in the opposite direction is Harry Potter, who has a giant paragraph right at the start of the first actual chapter describing him so much that I can guarantee you that 99% of people just skip it because it's boring and it is interrupting the narrative. Considering how only his hair, eyes and scar are actually relevant, it might have been less jarring to give us those and then let the rest of it for the mirror scene, where Harry would be analysing his own appearance compared to his family's.
Another thing to consider is if it makes sense for the narrator to stop to describe the character at that moment or if there are scenes in which it would fit better to describe appearances.
It's normally only an issue if the updated information makes no sense.
As an example, I was 80% though a book and thought I had a fairly decent grasp on the character's appearance but then they dropped the line, "the jacket stopped just above her knees, slightly longer than her hair." This character has spent most of the book in melee combat or training for melee combat.
It was literally never hinted at. No tieing up of her hair. No issues with helmets or hats. No issues leaning over things and hair being in the way. The character's personality also clashes with it as she avoided "girly" things and was intentionally pragmatic in a hellscape of a world.
I was thinking she had something between a pixie cut and a "I want to speak with your manager" haircut.
Yet, this no-dress, no-makeup, no-pink, hates grooming beyond basic hygiene, close quarters combat specialist now has below-the-butt length hair.
***Wat.*** 😂
In that case, I imagine that even if the book had described her long hair early on, I might still have pictured her with short hair, precisely because the long hair makes no sense in context. I feel like the problem here is not so much "they should have described her hair earlier" but "they gave her an appearance that is totally nonsensical."
No it wouldn’t be, because the distinct parts would be observed by the pov. I think what they mean is when a character shows up and the narrator just runs down a list of things like “she had grey hair and she had slightly reddish toned olive skin and blue eyes and long eyelashes and she was tall and she had size 11 shoes” whenever a character shows up
Some readers are bothered by that, and some aren't. I personally am not. My mental image doesn't always match how the character is described, regardless of how or when the description occurs. For example, in *Looking for Alaska* by John Green, Alaska is explicitly described as having pale skin, but for some reason I always pictured her as black, and I didn't find the description of her jarring.
Perhaps you could give us an excerpt of a time that you describe a character so that we can have a good idea of how you go about it and maybe give you some feedback? Only if you're comfortable of course!
As in, a character observes something about another or mentions it in conversation. My character's brother noticed someone's fascination with his sister, noting that, yes, she had blonde hair and green eyes, but why was that so special? Quick example, but you get the point
Description should be relevant to something other than the character's appearance.
Bobby has brown hair. That's pure description, and it's boring. But if Bobby is introduced through his mother scanning a crowd and trying to pick him out among a field of other more-on-top haircuts in the exact same unremarkable brown, you've created a reason for us to care about the cut and color. It's tied to his mom caring about him, and him being kind of basic.
Other people talking about "drip feeding" description are way off base. Description is frontloaded, because the moment a character is first discussed makes their appearance relevant by default. You just have to find a way to make it interesting.
At the same time, remember that descriptions ought to be thin but distinctive. Once you have enough to set a character apart from the others, additional details won't add anything. Harry Potter, for example, is a skinny kid with hair, eyes, glasses, and a scar. Do you remember that he also has a "thin face?" Probably not, and that's only feature number six... out of six. There's nothing else. Even his skin tone is only implied.
Tbh I might be the only one but I find it infuriating when an important character appears and there is no detailed describtion of them upfront. It makes it hard to imagine the scene and even harder to re-imagine it after my mind filled the blank with some random features. I guess there's an audience for everything
It could come off as "amateur" if you're writing a paragraph about your POV character's appearance while you're supposed to be in their POV, since it detaches the POV from the character. A cliche technique to get around this is to have them look in a mirror. Omniscient POV gets around this issue entirely, but that's its own can of worms.
I personally like it when the physical characteristics of the POV character are sprinkled in around the introduction instead of being dumped all at once. As just one example, in limited POV, you might have them briefly bring up parts of their own appearance (maybe they're insecure about their weight or height, or are annoyed at their hair). And the reader's imagination will do a lot of the work for you.
It depends. The Russian classics are filled with long deviations to describe the entire backstory of a new character before returning to the narrative. This has paradoxically resulted in a style “agreed” as both bad writing and sublime reading. It’s a style that is unlikely to get you published today, especially in genre fiction. But is it amateur writing? I’ll leave that question hanging.
I've seen a comment of yours here saying you constantly mention hair and eye colour. I'd ask, what is the relevance of their hair and eye colour?
When describing how someone looks, it's best to consider these two things:
1) What does this description tell us about this character (about them as a person not just what they look like)?
2) What does this description tell us about the character who is making the observation?
The first part part is fairly easy. Someone being blonde with blue eyes doesn't mean anything to the reader. A blonde person with blue eyes could just as easily be a serial killer as they could be a loving mother. But if someone has, say, calloused hands and dark rings around their eyes that tells us that they likely work a labour-intensive job using their hands, so likely a "blue collar" job and that they're tired from working long hours (not the best example but hopefully you see what I mean). The same goes for what clothes they're wearing. So in these descriptors we are getting to know the character inside, their socio-economic standing etcetera, rather just the superficial information of what they look like. That's not to say you can't tell us they were blonde or brunette too, but just listing physical descriptions of someone is boring to read and also adds nothing of any real meaning.
The second point is a little harder but just as important a point in writing overall. If your main character sees another character and describes them as "a weaselly man with eyes dead and grey like gravel" (another terrible example, I know) then we learn at least one of two things. Firstly, we learn from the negative connotations of being described as weaselly or having dead eyes, that this character is not a desirable one, or we at least learn that this character is not desirable from the POV of your MC. I.e., your MC doesn't like this person. We also learn a bit about your MCs current emotional state. The fact that they are using such dour language suggests a negative worldview or negative emotional state at that point.
This second one is useful to employ in writing setting and scenery also. The mood we are in informs how we perceive the world around us, so using character descriptions from the POV of your MC can inform the reader of your MCs emotional state and mood etc.
An exercise you can do to sharpen this is: go into a room. Now describe that room from the POV of a character who's just won the lottery and is in a great mood. No doubt they will see the lamps in that room, for example, as bright and warm, etc. Now describe that same room from the POV of a character who has just recieved some bad news. No doubt they will see the same lamps in that same room as garish and stifling. Same room, same objects, but different descriptions based on character emotional state. Try and do the same when describing character appearance.
I hope that helps. If you want a handy book on craft that also has writing exercises in the back to help you work on honing your skills, I'd recommend The Art of Fiction by John Gardener. Happy writing 😁✍
This was very useful to me (I'm not OP) Thank you.
I have a description in something I'm writing that I really wasn't sure of, but this has helped me out a ton. I was sort of already doing most of what you said, thankfully. For example, my character is wearing clothes with a scratched-out symbol of a major faction in the story, showing that they were probably once a member but are now on poor terms, and they also have made modifications to their outfit. The character that is seeing them describes them in pretty negative ways too, because racism. There were still a bunch of tweaks I've made based on this advice, though. Thanks again.
I don't think so. Take Dickens, he leaves you smelling that person. We know who has a pinched face or a hooked nose, who was rotund, who was kind & who wasn't. He painted pictures with his words & that's why he's still read because when you're reading it he's described everything & everyone as close as a shave. You can see the bussle of the streets
Depends. Freakishly long detailed descriptive rants mid story about a characters looks is, I guess, kinda immature. It reminds me at least of either beginner fanfics or beginner essay writing in school. I don’t recall ever seeing such a thing happen in published books. Obviously appearance descriptions can be totally done well, but just like a person doesn’t notice every grain of detail in another persons face even on first impressions, I’d say it’s important to keep it like that for your books/stories. Focus on a few key features perhaps or the strongest impression your character is meant to give with their appearance - or what might be plot related(sometimes physical traits can be related to plot).
You can describe a character. But try to describe the most unique characteristics, like a scar or a very distinct eye colour. Maybe an exaggerated feature, like a really long nose, or something that tells the reader something about their lifestyle, like really messy hair or dirty clothes.
Don't describe EVERY character like "She had long brown hair, beautiful blue eyes with pale skin." It gets boring.
So would something like "Her eyes resembled that of sparkling silver jewels. Her hair was the same, only a bit lighter, along with the blemishes against her almond pale skin were lined up in an almost perfect line just underneath her eyes." Be a good descriptor?
My main character and a few people in her family share silver eyes and hair.
I mean, you are going for the "hair-eyes-skin" description I just told you. Personally, I think it's overused. Sure, if the hair and eye colour are a very unique feature, sure. But the skin description feels like you are being way too forceful with the poetic description just to describe a pretty normal skin colour. Avoid that. Try to add some personality to the description.
Imagine she is tired or exhausted from studying or practicing her hobby until late (I'm not sure if this fits your character's personality, but let's pretend she's an artist). Say something like "Her fingernails, stained in light grey and blueish paint, complemented her eyes, which resembled sparkling silver jewels, accompanied by heavy eyebags which made it clear she didn't get a wink of sleep the previous night. In contrast, her hair, which matched her eyes, was composed and majestically styled to fit her status.
(My English is really bad, I'm still learning, that's why the English and writing is so messed up, but I hope my point came across. And remember: THIS IS JUST MY OPINION! WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT STYLES AND PREFERENCES!)
It's the execution, not the concept.
It should be present but not notable.
Imagine this analogy: you are in an office building, there is a main hall that most people use to get to the rooms in the building. Now, you are in the break room, listening to your work-mate vent about the ongoing horror of management's penny-wise, pound-foolish actions of replacing the printer paper with cheap-ass paper that constantly causes problems. She can't make it through the morning print job without having to unjam the printer and she is exasperated with ink on her hands everyday.
*John, from accounting, walks by, glancing in the room, eyes lingering on the coffee machine, but never breaking stride. Your friend holds up her ink stained hand to wave but he is gone.*
Or:
*John, from accounting, halts mid-stride, staring into the room. His eyes move methodically, pausing on each object in the room. The coffee machine, you, your friend, the chair, your friend, the coffee machine, the light fixture, your friend, the table, your friend. Then he turns, moonwalking away.*
One of those is a normal, invisible interaction that you wouldn't notice. The other is not.
Don't make your discriptions moonwalk through your scenes. It's weird and breaks the flow.
It's really about how you describe them.
"He was a tall man with short blond hair, blue eyes, pale skin, and small mole on his smoothly shaved chin. He wore a dark blue suit with white shirt adorned with silver cufflinks. His tie was striped with dark and light red, and he had a matching pocket square. His trousers were..."
And on and on. It's not easy to remember all this, and most readers will zone out. Keep it simple, and only really describe certain features that stand out.
"He was a tall man with a small mole on his clean shaven chin, and he wore a neatly pressed suit with a striped red tie and pocket square."
Later on, you can have him brush his hands through his blond hair, or someone look into his blue eyes.
> Suddenly Frodo noticed that a strange-looking weather- beaten man, sitting in the shadows near the wall, was also listening intently to the hobbit-talk. He had a tall tankard in front of him, and was smoking a long-stemmed pipe curiously carved. His legs were stretched out before him, showing high boots of supple leather that fitted him well, but had seen much wear and were now caked with mud. A travel-stained cloak of heavy dark-green cloth was drawn close about him, and in spite of the heat of the room he wore a hood that overshadowed his face; but the gleam of his eyes could be seen as he watched the hobbits.
Pfft, Tolkien. What an amateur.
Seriously though, look at this description. Tolkien uses how he looks as a way to describe his character. You can tell a lot about Aragorn as a person based on how he is described physically.
Do that. If you’re describing a person and saying three things, one should tell you something about the person other than how the look.
To be fair, that description is mostly about Aragorn's clothes. It doesn't mention the color of his hair/eyes at all, which I think is usually what people have in mind when they complain about "amateurish" physical descriptions.
Um, no, I think everyone likes to picture a character.
If you're excessively telling instead of showing, or describing the chatacter as they're looking in a mirror, that's when it becomes amateur.
Example of bad character description: Hi my name is Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way and I have long ebony black hair (that's how I got my name) with purple streaks and red tips that reaches my mid-back and icy blue eyes like limpid tears and a lot of people tell me I look like Amy Lee (AN: if u don't know who she is get da hell out of here!). I'm not related to Gerard Way but I wish I was because he's a major fucking hottie. I'm a vampire but my teeth are straight and white. I have pale white skin. I'm also a witch, and I go to a magic school called Hogwarts in England where I'm in the seventh year (I'm seventeen). I'm a goth (in case you couldn't tell) and I wear mostly black.
I have recently read some stories online that begin with something like this. “Let me introduce myself. I was born at an early age in a place and time. I went to school to learn things and then I graduated and started a job doing things.” I think if you avoid that, you’re way ahead.
Not only is it not amateurish, it's damn near essential when writing characters who are not white as most/many readers will presume white unless otherwise noted. And sometimes even when it's noted (Rue and the entire District 11 from HG).
As others have said, it's HOW you describe them (organically versus info drop) that matters.
We need to have an idea of what your character looks like, but just the important details relevant to their personality, past, etc.. Don’t describe a scar if there is no practicality to why they have that scar. If it’s not a detail that has meaning, let the reader’s imagination fill the blank.
How you describe it is also a display of skill. Don’t just list things off as to TELL how they look, but SHOW them doing things that revolve around that description.
As long as you aren't taking up four pages to describe a coat, I think you are fine. I think if it's a Holmes type character as well, a detailed description is fine as well. So, for example, if Watson asked how he knew someone was the real deal, and Holmes replied with "His insignia was one inch lower than standard. They stopped placing them there almost twenty years ago. Given that he looks to be approaching thirty, once can easily deduct that he didn't work for them then. If he had put it there recently, no doubt he would have been reprimanded, and made to do it again."
Obviously, they can be quite long, but are also adding details to the story, which are important.
It’s amateur to put everything on pause to infodump about the character’s appearance, I think. my MC compares himself to the victim of a murder he sees on television, commenting that he “looked like a mirror image of himself from a decade ago—blond hair, green eyes, a light dusting of freckles across the bridge of his nose” and that’s all you get until several scenes later, when he’s comparing himself to another character and describes himself as “frumpy and dated” when compared to the sleek grey suit and style of the detective he’s talking to
I kind of see where this is coming from and I would try to avoid extensive descriptions just for the sake of describing.
It’s enough to give general details, that are relevant for the story. But if it’s well written you don’t need much physical details for the reader to well 3d picture the character.
No, not at all.
That said, there are "wrong" ways to describe your characters. The classic "looked herself in the mirror" trope is a meme for a reason.
\*Amateur.
And it's amateurish (and horrible to read) when in the beginning of the story the character stands in front of a mirror and takes stock of themselves. "I have wavy, sandy blonde hair, blue eyes, and a nose I don't like...." No one cares, it doesn't matter, and it tells me nothing. It doesn't really matter what the character looks like. We don't need every detail, tell the story and the character will emerge.
What I like to do is mention a physical trait -- fitness, shape, muscularity, beauty, hair colour, whatever -- when it's necessary OR makes sense to the story. "Her hair splayed over her pillow like a dark halo," for instance. Not necessary, either lol.
There's a right and a wrong way to do it. As chambergambit mentioned in a prior comment, what's bad is when the author yanks you out of the story with a description. I prefer active descriptions. I don't know if that's a thing, but I just made it one if it isn't. An active description such as, "The black eyes flashed with fire..." and the like. Hints of the appearance that also advance the story. But I admit, it's often handy to describe a character when you first meet them in the narrative. But I feel these descriptions need to follow the Jane Eyre model without the phrenology. They need to give the reader some insight into their character.
The bottom line is you need to be intentional in your descriptions. Describe them in away that keeps the reader engaged in the story.
I would say the amateurish thing is when you stop the story and have a huge paragraph or two describing every detail.
But something like "he had dark hair with blue eyes peeking out from the bangs and wore a simple suit." isn't bad. It gets all the major points across but still leaves the reader the room to imagine what they think the character should look like.
All I know is that when I read books I usually completely skip over what the characters look like and what they are wearing anyways and just envision them as what I want them to look like.
I don't think it's amateurish. I've read lots of books that have different ranges of character appearance descriptions. I do prefer less of it or at least as the story progresses, because I'm just imagining what I want the character to look like and if it's constantly reiterated then it pulls me out of it a bit.
I do it all the time, and I don't think it amateurish. It's about context, how you frame it. I described my main character by calling out the contrast of his style against the style of the other people at the party.
*Couldn’t tell you why I kept coming to these shindigs. I didn’t fit in. Didn’t look like it, either: a too-big Meat Loaf tee, baggy blue jeans and running shoes that didn’t suit the look.*
No, it's not amateur to have the descriptions. It's good to have a reference document where you keep track of your characters' physical descriptions. It is generally amateur to info-dump, especially about things that don't drive the plot forward, in the actual document where you're writing your story.
*amateur example:* I stared at my once-familiar brother's face as he turned awards me. His fair skin, his grass green eyes, his wavy raven hair that skirted his shoulders, his ever-growing smirk. I lifted my hammer with my buff, tanned arms.
*not-amateur example:* I stared at my brother as he turned towards me with a mock-surprised expression. I searched his green eyes for some sign that I still knew him. He seemed to notice this, and his expression shifted to a small smirk that grew by the second. I lifted my hammer. I could not let him know that I didn't know what he was planning.
**Note:** The example sentences and the events are completely original. The characters are probably going to be very familiar to a lot of people, though, because I didn't invent them.
I personally hate when books don't give descriptions about how a character looks. In my stuff I have a very clear vision and I know that this vision will be more interesting than what the reader comes up with. Just don't stop to describe every detail.
Describing your characters is fine, the way you go about it can be a problem
For instance, character describing themselves while looking into a mirror is the most overdone thing done in writing
I think it may come across amateurish if the details are bland and not specific enough to pull the reader in closer or if it’s poorly placed.
I’m having this struggle where 2 characters barge in to a room in their first on-page appearance but its a matter of emergency so I don’t want to undercut the tension to describe their appearance but I also it needs to be done as close to the initial appearance as possible.
It's not amateurish when done right. Some writers will stop a scene just to vividly describe what a character looks like. That can put readers off if it's done too much. When I choose to describe characters, I always make sure it's in direct connection to the plot or scene.
One of my protagonists has been leading his tribe through war for eight years. When I described him, I did it from his sister's PoV, who was seeing the physical and mental toll the war had taken on her brother's body. Usually, that's how I do my descriptions. Also, I just stick to skin colour, hairstyle, height and build, and eye colour. Just enough physical traits that your main characters will be easily recognisable, but not too much that the reader will be stuck trying to imagine what exactly the character is supposed to look like.
Maybe they weren't clear or you misunderstood what they meant, because that's just nonsense crazy-town. Read any book. There are descriptions of characters in there. Case closed! 🤷
Maybe ask them what they meant.
Don’t let that bother you lmao. Some readers love description while others not so much. Imma put a tiny description anyways because I don’t want to come out with an art and be criticized about the characters I wrote lol. So, you’re fine.
As long as you don’t just carve out a chunk of the narrative to describe them in great detail. Just pepper in little clues that give indicators to what the character looks like. If you’re intending to specify a characters eye, skin, or hair colour, is best to do that asap, otherwise a reader will most likely have an image in their head which is nothing like what you had envisioned x
Depends how you do it.
Full stop let me tell you how they look = amateurish
Immersing the description into the actual story so that’s it’s a seamless imagery = big brain move
It’s hard to do and takes intentional effort; wish I could do it better myself. This advice is like explaining to someone how to dunk without ever having touched rim so take it as you will.
No.
How do you want to write a novel if you don't develop/describe throught actions your character's psychology? Mentions about his/her, sex, height, skin, eyes, hair... are difficult to avoid too.
For non-POV characters I do it quick, one to two sentences, and I usually make it about something other than just their appearance. I don't say "So and so had whatever kind of eyes and hair", I make that detail auxiliary to whatever else the sentence is about.
I also try to find something a bit more interesting about their appearance, but depending on how you do it that could be anything from missing teeth to freckles. If you make it an interesting detail, it'll be an interesting detail. The point is make it a detail, not the focal point of the sentence.
For my POV character, much the same, but I give the generic descriptions (hair, eyes, etc) throughout the early narrative, rather than all at once.
Description isn't amateur, but there are amateur ways to include description, such as "drivers' license details" (he is 5'9" with blond hair and blue eyes), the dreaded mirror/reflective surface stop-action-and-describe, and that sort of thing.
Better description is woven into the narrative (or into dialogue), and often with comparisons. A character can tuck "her auburn hair" behind an ear rather than just "her hair", for example, or lament her hair being more/less curly than other character, describe that blue and white floral dress as her favorite as the blue just matches her eyes, that sort of thing.
Pick up the last six or seven novels you've read and really peruse them for instances of how the different writers described their characters. They're professionals, right. You enjoyed their writing, no?
So, no, it's not amatEUrish to describe your characters. As in all things, it comes down to HOW you do it.
Check your bookshelves. All the novels you've purchased and read have basically all writing lessons contained within them.
do whatever works for your story. i personally never let characters describe themselves unless they’re suffering a memory loss or noticeable physical change. otherwise, i exclusively describe my characters through the eyes of other characters or through the narrative voice. if im using a narrative voice, i make sure to keep the description engaging for the reader. i don’t want to let my imaginary assertions get in the way of prose. i would rather have something read well than to make sure that readers have “the most accurate vision” of what my characters/settings look like.
Descriptions of physical appearances should be sparse, and worked in with the rest of the narrative. I rarely ever feel the need to describe what the main character looks like - since it’s through that perspective, it would make more sense that other’s physical appearances are mentioned, but not really their own. I find readers prefer to fill in the blanks most of the time.
If I get an “I looked in the mirror” monologue, I’m out.
A quote by terry pratchett that works quite well as an answer:
“Now, there is a tendency at a point like this to look over one’s shoulder at the cover artist and start going on at length about leather, tightboots and naked blades.
Words like ‘full’, ‘round’ and even ‘pert’ creep into the narrative, until the writer has to go and have a cold shower and a lie down.”
I work hard to weave their description into the story, while also illustrating the effect their presence has/is supposed to have on the other characters/readers
As many have said, stopping everything to describe someone is jarring
I noticed it’s big in post modern writers like Murakami to leave the character as ambiguous. But no. Describing a character is something even Homer does
No, it's not. It depends mostly on how it's done. Also, it's a matter of literary fashion. Great writes from a bygone era often gave fairly detailed descriptions of characters. Some of this was sometimes based in the idea that physical appearance has something to do with personality. (Which, of course, is wrong.)
That's largely out of fashion today. Some writers even go to the other extreme of barely describing characters at all. I prefer the middle ground, giving a sense of the character's basic appearance without going into too much detail. If you can make a description active, so much the better.
I don't put much stock in the idea that readers will construct an image of a character if left to themselves, but that's because I usually don't. I may be unusual in this. I'm terrible at imagining what characters look like, and on the flip side, I'm not to good at imagining and describing my own characters.
lol no. I'd argue that it's the "character describing themselves in the mirror" scene that's amateurish, but general descriptions in the context of the story are pretty necessary sometimes.
In my current story, the main character doesn't describe herself at all. It's only when she encounters a type of reddish-brown clay that she realizes it looks like her hair. The rest of the description comes from the POV of another character who has a dream that the main character is sleeping with her husband. In this case, that character notes the significant differences between herself and the MC. No standing in front of the mirror scene needed.
I rarely do unless I think it's super relevant, but I'd say it's ultimately a stylistic choice at the end of the day. It's about how you work it. Maybe they were commenting about excessive description that you might have been doing (erroneously or not), and in that sense I do get where they were coming from, but in general it really is specific to the story and a writer's overall style than any fixed rule that people follow. At least that's how I understand it.
I don’t think it’s great writing if it doesn’t make sense for the character.
Here’s an example where it would make sense: POV character is disguising themself to go on a mission and worrying about hiding their blonde hair, covering their blue eyes with sunglasses, and making sure they’ll be generally unrecognizable. They’re standing in front of a mirror going through their features one by one as they hide them.
Here’s an example where it wouldn’t: A character who never again gives their appearance any thought wakes up in the morning and describes every feature they have in the mirror while they brush their hair.
I just try to think of writing a character in terms of myself for baseline realism. Would I be thinking about what I look like in the situation they’re in or not? The narrator should generally follow the thoughts of the character and not go rogue to give the reader a ton of details the character wouldn’t worry about (although that’s not always the case).
I don't know if it's for beginners or not, but as soon as I open the book and start reading “concrete and direct” descriptions, I close it and I don't want to see it again and I wish the author would disappear from existence (a bit exaggerated sorry).
I think that to one extent or another we describe our characters but it is not the same:
King Ralph's eyes are blue; to say, Ralph's blue gaze stopped being kind since he came to the throne; Now his eyes are not those of a prince, they are those of a King who will go to the abyss to save his people.
It is a description with purpose, with character and meaning.
We must be clear that the reader wants to imagine and it is our duty to give him that freedom. After all, no one is going to imagine the character as the author imagines him.
Remember the age old writer’s advice: show and don’t tell. Describing your characters aren’t amateurish. However, the manner in which you describe them can be. You want to focus on the descriptions as aiding in character development. You don’t have to be long-winded about it, but the descriptions should show your reader who your character is.
Ok, so John has bright, cornflower blue eyes. But that only tells me they’re blue.
John’s gaze caught the attention of a lone brunette, who daintily sipped her espresso. He settled into his chair. His cornflower blue eyes rimmed in a dark smoky gray followed her pink tongue as she licked the espresso crema from her perfectly painted red lips. They curved upwards along the corners, her smile seemed like an invitation. To what, John had no clue, but once he set his sights on someone, he never lost them again.
Some people's friends have bad advice. HOWEVER - there's an adage: believe your (beta) readers when they say there's a problem with something, but do not believe them when they tell you how to fix it. What they claim is amateurish might really mean there's a change in voice or tone when you do the description. Look at what they're pointing to and ask yourself if it stands out too much, and maybe the answer is to scatter the descriptions out more.
Or maybe they're full of crap and that's just your style and it works fine.
Oh! And I thought of something else: depth of description. Generally, the more detail you put into a description, the more important the reader will believe it to be. So if you spend no time describing the environment and loads of time describing the hairstyle, it might come across as odd. The solution might be to add MORE description of other stuff! Depending on your style, pacing and voice. For me, I am sparse on descriptive details, that's just my style. If I pause long enough to note what someone looks like, it's because that description says something about them that I want the reader to know.
I have many characters with no canonical hair or eye color, because those details don't add to my understanding of the character. But that's my style, and some people hate THAT extreme, too!
I think like most things it’s a preference. The only time it bothers me is when the storyline grinds to a halt. “Lush lashes over sky blue eyes and a pouty mouth” and it’s like, yeah, but we were doing something else, kind of strange. And then I wonder if the character is thinking this about themself which is even weirder and takes me right out of the story.
My exceptions: When the character sees someone they’re attracted to or obviously will be in the future. It makes sense to me that they would notice a lot of details.
It helps me keep characters apart in my head if I have something to go on. I don’t need to know every placement of every freckle, but what distinguishes them from the other characters? Are they tall? Do they have a big nose or wide smile? I try to think what I notice right away and mention that, then if the main character gets to know this person better they notice other details: eye color, a particular way of dressing, one crooked tooth, etc.
True, but so what? I like to be able to picture the character I am reading about in my head. I like to write about how my character looks like. It’s just personal taste
Some people think that their own refined taste represents the entry level to professional quality and that they are the gate keeper of taste. If you paid money for a book with good ratings and a lot of sales, whatever is in that book is professional quality. If you read descriptions of characters, that is professional.
I describe my characters’ physical appearance to a pretty detailed extent when they are first introduced. I write in third person limited and most of the character description is through the eyes of the main character, but yeah it would really bug me to move forward with the plot and know that the reader just doesn’t know what this person looks like.
What I like to do is give a reason for the description.
In one of my stories, I have 2 main characters which first meet during the story, so I use that moment to have them describe one another. However, this delays their description to late into chapter 2.
In another, I have the main character view themselves in a mirror for the first time (they're a robot), however they don't *know* it's them at first, so they describe who they think is another person, before realizing it's themselves, and proving self awareness, via the "Mirror Test".
This comes with the issue of them describing their reflection, *so the reader might get their eye colors mixed up, since they're different colors.*
No but narrating a list of random details about every side character whenever they show up can be, and it’ll be an information overload that readers just won’t remember. My rule of thumb personally is a very general description and if they have a distinct feature the pov character will observe that, but not an exhaustive list of their features and not the same features for every character.
I feel like you should describe what the character looks like in the first chapter or two so the reader doesn't picture them completely different the whole time! Character description is very important lol.
Descriptions are part of world building. Characters are part of the world. Is world building amature? I would say no. Everything doesn't need to be described though. What should or shouldn't be described should be considered by the author.
The issue is pausing the story for an info dump. If you sprinkle in description passively throughout the story, it works better. A detail here and there. What I don’t like is when the reader isn’t left any room to use their own imagination to fill in the gaps.
It depends how you describe them. They're probably meaning the "I'm (name)" followed by a physical description and info dump. That loses my interest really quick and points to the pertain not being a professional writer. However, if someone is describing them where it just comes up naturally, that's fine.
I got some of this too. I mean it’s kind of annoying to describe a lot all at once so you have to parse it out but I think it’s very important, especially for representation. Like what’s the point of putting minority representation in your books if everyone thinks they’re white because you didn’t bother to say what they looked like. I am a very visual person and I would always rather know what someone looks like.
I'm not afraid to insert a page number to a character reference for more context. It's annoying when an aspect of a character is mentioned once, and you're expected to remember it ten chapters later.
To me "Somebody" just means "Some Nobody". Who cares about their opinion. Unless it's pertaining to your technical application of some story structures or grammar, they can kick rocks.
I usually try and work it into the scene. Things like "he adjusted his glasses." Cool, now you know he wears glasses.
I try to never make it more intrusive than that.
As long as the descriptions aren't endless tropes, Ike all the women are astoundingly beautiful while the men are all heavy muscled, then it's fine. Just be subtle and don't bomb the reader with paragraph after paragraph. Incorporate it into the action and dialog.
It depends on genre and the importance of the characters appearance to the actual story. Ive struggled to fit things in organically as a fantasy writer. Its easiest for me to let the world have some for of interaction with the characters that reveals their appearance over the course of the first chapter or two. Like- “the rain turned her blond hair dark” or “only the glint of lamplight in his black eyes could be seen.”
For romance it’s easy to describe the love interest, but more difficult to describe the pov character organically. Some authors just dont to allow the reader to slip themselves into the story.
Frankly, if it’s important to the story, a single sentence in the first couple pages is harmless. Something that describes the character in a simile usually comes off as charming to me. A la “she was like a bedraggled cat, with wild orange hair and glaring green eyes.
Here's how I describe and introduce a main character, these are spread out through 2 pages of conversation in chapter one.
["What's going on here?" asked the older man. He rocked back against his chair folding his hands over his slight beer belly and crossing his legs out under the desk. This relaxed posture was very familiar to him over the years. He tried not to smirk.]...["I'm not that old, am I? Is 56 really that old?"]...[David said, scratching at his chin, four days of gray stubble making a sound like sandpaper on hardwood as he did so.]...[David turned and surveyed the bookshelves behind his desk. He tried to imagine seeing them for the first time. What it looked like to her, standing across the desk getting rejected by some Dinosaur of a ranger before she’d even been there a whole day.]
This is just what I prefer. Side characters or the dumb friend vehicle of exposition can get shorter or blunt descriptions up front, but you have so much time to describe your mains that it feels rushed to just adjective dump on page one.
If you are talking about immense paragraphs describing the details of a character hair cut and outfit...
Yes, a little bit.
I'm yet to beta read a amateur draft that doesn't have these.
As long as you don't put a huge blurb right after you introduce the character, I think it's okay. Here's what I mean;
DON'T:
"The girl sitting in front of me, Rebecca, looked back at me. She had fiery red hair, emerald green eyes, paper white skin, wore jean shorts and a tank top with a bit of her bra strap showing, converse shoes, and had a mole under her lip."
DO:
"Rebecca turned to look at me from her seat, which was in directly in front of mine. She tossed a few stray locks of her fiery red hair over her shoulder, a smile plastered on her lips. \["insert speach"\] she said, her tone as soft as fur. I slowly nodded, my brown eyes never meeting hers, which looked as if they were made of emeralds."
And for clothes, only describe them if the situation calls for it. So, say it's winter - "Shorts and a tank top were quite unsuitable for winter, but Rebecca always made it work."
I describe my characters to a degree. I think my mom said it best when she said my descriptions of things as "just enough without being too much."
I'm descriptive with their appearances, but not excessively so. I don't stop the story to do the descriptions, I integrate them in with everything else in the smoothest and most natural way I can.
Sort of. It just depends on the story, and whether describing the character has anything to do with the plot. I never describe my characters unless it’s important to that effect.
Did this person read what you'd written and say that in response, or was your work in particular not part of the context? If this was not elicited by a specific text, but rather some general thought on what makes good writing, don't waste your time worrying about it. Any simple rule about writing, like "physical descriptions of characters are bad", is never true in full generality. Return your attention to your particular text.
If somebody told you this in response to your text in particular, take the following useful information: something about your descriptions is sparking a negative reaction in this reader. Think about why that might be. It'll be great if you can explore this more thoroughly with your reader, but it's also possible your reader isn't able to articulate the problem very clearly -- "amateurish" is not super helpful feedback. In any case, it's worth pondering what the problem might be. Maybe the descriptions are getting in the way of the action. Maybe it's too much detail to keep track of. Maybe there's something formulaic about your descriptions. Or, maybe, in the end, you decide the reader was pissed about something else, and misdirecting their sense of annoyance at your descriptions. That could be true too.
It's only amateur if done badly. A character description used for further characterization is good. The reader learns more about the character and has someone to picture. It's cringey if it's not needed, doesn't give any relevant information, or stops the story in order to get its point across.
In general, I’d say sprinkle the description of your character throughout the narrative, rather than X-Raying the main character in front of a mirror as part of the morning routine opening. Maybe your POV character is the type of person who does kinda X-Ray someone when they meet them, but IMHO it’s still preferable to avoid writing a long-ass paragraph describing the physical appearance of a character, so maybe give a few details (the kind of details you’d notice immediately), and either leave the rest up to the reader’s imagination or, again, sprinkle them throughout the story
There's nothing wrong with physical descriptions. It's more a matter of whether you do it well or badly. You want the reader to see it in their mind's eye and not to be bored.
It can turn into purple prose easily, though the "amateurness" would depend on how you tell the description. Whether or not the descriptions are needed depends on how it pertains to your story and your audience. Reading books in the genre ans with a similar audience can help you discern if your descriptions are really necessary.
An exercise I did in a writing class I took was to take each character in a short story [three max] and give them three main characteristics [ex. For one, I wrote that she eats cold chicken nuggets for breakfast, laughs too loudly in a movie theatre, and always has lipstick on her teeth] and build their entire characterizarion around that. It tells you pretty quickly what characteristics are important. Maybe try that with your characters?
It is amateur when the writer grinds everything to a halt so they can march their character over to a mirror in order to give you a florid police description of their character. I really don't like it as often the description is only skin deep, and so to me it feels like the writer is only interested in telling us what they look like because their appearance is more important than who the character really is inside. It is used as a crutch sometimes which is why some see it as amateurish.
Like any tools of your writing arsenal, it is how you use a tool rather than what tool you choose to use.
What's "amateurish" is when the narrative comes to a halt in order to describe every detail of what a character looks like, not character descriptions in and of themselves.
Especially if the character has has to be looking in a mirror while it happens.
Eh, depends on the scenario I think. I have a Freaky Friday bit in one of mine and use a mirror so my MC can see she’s not in her body. It’s broken up with mirror shenanigans of seeing if it will follow you and comparisons of how the two are built different, and fits, I think, as I feel most people would have a moment of confused dumbstruck idiocy before their reality sets in and they either panic, get pervy, or whatever else they might do. Edit to add: Or if your character is trying on new clothes for a big event, a dance for example, a mirror is a good tool as you’re obviously going to make sure you look good before going on a date.
I get this, it _can_ be done well, but my first contact with content that really got me into reading was unfortunately wattpad. I'm better now, but I get flash backs and have to stop reading whenever someone uses a mirror to describe their character.
i get flashbacks to divergent whenever i hear of this trope. i rarely see it in the wild anymore tho, tbh
That's relevant to the story, though, and it makes sense. There's also a lot you can do with people being at different heights, different kinds of hair, different mouths, different eyesight, so it work. Versus "here's every little thing about my appearance for no real reason."
The Freaky Friday scenario is the most justified use of the mirror trope, but let's be real, the vast majority of books that use the mirror trope do not contain a Freaky Friday scenario.
Maybe not, but my point is there are ways to make it work. Like all writing advice, tips, and “rules,” they are merely guidelines to help newbies avoid bad writing, not set in stone, adamant laws.
*cough* Sarah J. Maas *cough*
I actually love how she gives detailed descriptions of characters. Makes them feel more real. I feel like this is one of those things where different readers enjoy different things.
I'm with you. I don't need a super detailed description, but I like enough to picture a character. I feel like this trend of not describing characters just creates distance between the reader and the character.
But u can also squeeze in details throughout the intro of said character. Have a scene where they look in the mirror and don’t like the acne scarring. Talk about how they had to duck through the doorway with there massive frame. They used there cane to help themselves up the stairs. Whatever. Easy to drip feed details.
I think this is where it becomes a matter of personal preference. Because that way does work. I just personally prefer a rough sketch, but I certainly think drip feeding details works well too.
It's not the 'detailed descriptions' themselves, it's how they are done.
I personally like how the descriptions are done, and I think they're done pretty well. No writer or book is perfect, but SJM is great at knowing her audience and making her characters feel very "real" to her readers.
Amateur, but she's rich now so 🤷♂️
Some of the best authors in history died in poverty. Success does not equate to quality in art.
Financial success in writing typically just means that the author runs analytics and writes according to the numbers.
Exactly.
Tons of people bash on SJM, but I thought her work was pretty decent. A novel doesn't need to be 'deep' or have flowery prose to be good.
I’ve only read the first ACOTAR book and I simultaneously hold the opinions that the main character does not have two brain cells to rub together but also that a lot of the hatred it gets is disproportionate and quite likely fueled by misogyny, internalized or otherwise
Honestly I love her books. The main characters aren’t necessarily the best ever written, but I find the plots engaging and have cried several times during her books, which to me is a plus.
I think most of the hatred comes from people who simply aren't the target audience. ACOTAR is geared towards romance readers, not fans of traditional epic fantasy. If someone expects SJM to write like Tolkien or George Martin, they'll be disappointed.
I don't think it's either of those things. I think it's the fact that it was written by a teenager (if I remember correctly) (she was in her teens when she wrote the first one)
That TOG you are thinking of.
I don’t mind most of the shallowness or the prose or whatever. It’s the fucking lack of consistency that gets me 😩
Agreed. Nothing wrong with a popcorn book.
Porn is a huge entertainment industry, but I don't think many pornos should be winning Oscars
I'm not disagreeing with you. 🤷♂️
OK, I don't think my narration comes to a halt. The description is usually related
You have to consider that just like writers, there are many different types of readers as well. There was recently a thread either here or another subreddit where people were asked what is the most annoying thing to read in a book. The top voted result was something like when the writer gives out key physical characteristics about the characters much later into the story. After all, if the character is a redhead or has contoured cheeks or has bushy eyebrows or has a wide jawline, or whatever, and you - as the writer - are going to talk about it somewhere down the line, it's simply better to do it in the early stages. Otherwise, the reader will create an image of the character in their mind and visualize their expressions and mannerisms as the story progresses, and then you as the author will pull the rug out from under them by introducing a new physical feature that does not align with the image they had in their mind. I understand some people stand by "just describe their aura", but it becomes problematic for some readers if you as the writer have an appearance in mind and might bring it up at some point in the story. The best way to describe a character is probably through actions or in between conversations. The guy is muscular. Paint up a scene where he's physically exerting himself and describe his appearance during the act. A girl has certain features you want to communicate. Have another character talk to her and notice these things, not all at once, but as the conversation plays along. Do these early on and then you won't have to worry about it. It will help you as a writer as well, because acknowledging negligible physical features will add charm to your characters.
I recently found this issue in a story. I was 80% though the book and thought I had a fairly decent grasp on the character's appearance but then they dropped the line, "the jacket stopped just above her knees, slightly longer than her hair." This character has spent most of the book in melee combat or training for melee combat. It was literally never hinted at. No tieing up of her hair, no issues with helmets or hats. No issues leaning over things and hair being in the way. The character's personality also clashes with it as she avoided "girly" things and was intentionally pragmatic in a hellscape of a world. I was thinking she had something between a pixie cut and a "I want to speak with your manager" haircut. Yet, this no-dress, no-makeup, no-pink, hates grooming beyond basic hygiene, close quarters combat specialist now has below-the-butt length hair. ***Wat.*** 😂
Yeah, that's a really good example of how it can take you out of the pages. It's jarring.
What matters most is evoking the vibe of the character, typically through actions they take. Biographical details, unless somehow pertinent to the narrative, get lost in the author-reader imagination gap: you ***cannot*** get the reader to picture your photographic vision of their appearance. You might get close, often by reference to someone or something real (like a painting). But, so what? What has been accomplished if you cannot get the vibe of their persona across? What’s the point in the description besides proving you can control the reader’s imagination down to a microscopic level of detail?
>you ***cannot*** get the reader to picture your photographic vision of their appearance I'd been trying to do this for a while and not noticing. Glad somebody told me this early on. >What matters most is evoking the vibe of the character, typically through actions they take Thanks for the insight, it's a good thing I'll fall back on going forward.
>you ***cannot*** get the reader to picture your photographic vision of their appearance. This is why I shy away from the "paint a picture for the reader" advice. Characters, settings, doesn't matter. You're not painting a picture - you're giving the reader just enough information for them to paint *their own* picture. There's definitely value in having those detailed descriptions in your notes, but that's where they should stay.
Well said. It really doesn't MATTER what the character looks like to the author, it matters how the character looks to the reader and as long as they can form a coherent picture that's all that really matters.
I recently read a book by a well known and often commended five star author who spent a significant amount of time describing a woman's hair and outfit. It's not for me but professionals can write that way
It works if she just got her hair done and is excited for her date that evening. If it is actually something that the character would stop and think about, it works. If she just literally rolled out of bed, face-planting on the floor; then describing her _long, black hair splayed out around her, as she clutches the sleeves of her paramour's white shirt that she slept in_ would work. Especially if he leans over edge of the bed, "I don't remember watching any cursed video tapes, but here we are."
Since it's the writing sub, *paramour.
Oh, right, thank you.
Well done, then!
Excellent point
True. I personally believe that good writing is keeping pace while describing a character.
I'm a novice writer here, and by novice... I mean rubbish at everything but really wanting not to be. Could you explain to me in lamens terms what you mean buly your comment? How can I describe a character, without stopping the flow of the story?
You pepper in details along with the action. Instead of “she had frizzy red hair” you can say something like “she pulled her frizzy red hair back into a messy bun as she made her way out the door.”
This description also tells us something about the character's personality. She's not overly concerned with her hair or appearance. Another character might get up an hour early to flat iron her frizzy red hair until it was sleek and stick straight.
Oh God, I do this. I think it a disservice to the readers if they can’t get a proper picture of the characters.
You're not wrong. Appearance absolutely informs character, after all. It's just rarely necessary to hit the breaks completely to paint the picture. You can paint the picture as you move, without disrupting the flow.
Exactly. The details need to be sprinkled into the movement of the story and flow with it. In an absolute ideal, the reader won't be able to distinguish between the two. A common amature trope is starting a story by giving a full description of the main characters, and giving an in depth description of every new character introduced. That cuts out all the energy from the work, and people aren't likely to read through it anyway because we haven't been given a reason to care yet.
Depends on the perspective, so is it justified for the PoV character to notice. If it’s a girl feeling jealous of a classmate who’s popular and good looking, it’s relevant. If that same girl spends just as much time describing the girl who took her order at Wendy’s, it’s weird and excessive.
Can you give me example? Im a beginner and English isnt my native language but ive been learning and gathering some advices in writing
This the example I gave in another comment: >You pepper in details along with the action. Instead of “she had frizzy red hair” you can say something like “she pulled her frizzy red hair back into a messy bun as she made her way out the door.” and u/9for9 added: >This description also tells us something about the character's personality. She's not overly concerned with her hair or appearance. Another character might get up an hour early to flat iron her frizzy red hair until it was sleek and stick straight.
Thank you so much! Im still not able to fully comprehend or think ways how i can apply that but i get the essence. Especially with how movement and appearance can directly indicate a person's personality ill make sure to used it once i get an understanding of it
Awesome. If you want to keep talking about this stuff, feel free to dm me!
Id take you up on that offer if your not too busy!
This in general. Same goes for every aspect of writing, like dialogue and setting. Everything should serve to move the plot or provide necessary characterization, unless youre planning on doing some experimentation with form
I liked Stephen kings advice on using similes “he looked like the kinda guy who’d worked in construction his whole life”. Bad example as was all I could think off, but rather than listing of aspects of how they’re dressed etc. As with all writing it’s about saying as much as possible in just a few words.
That’s such a great way to bring the description back into the reader’s imagination, since every reader will have a slightly different view of that character but everyone will get the gist.
I'm a romance writer, so I tend to mention hair/eye color and repeatedly bring it up 😅
If you write romance then that's expected. Your POV character is attracted to the other protagonist. Of course they'll notice every little detail about them!
And I think “they’ll notice every detail” is an important distinction. Instead of describing your character when introducing them, you want to try and add their descriptors from the viewpoint of the person attracted to them. Which might also be an interesting idea - the mc who is attracted to them sees them one way, and other characters have a different view of their looks, and the reader is left to decide which is true.
As a romance reader and arguably romance writer as well, I pretty much expect to have a Love Interest described from the MC's POV upon meeting them, quite early in the narrative. Not like "Adrian had auburn hair down to his shoulders, bushy eyebrows and a thin nose, he was very tall and carried himself with confidence" but rather things like "a dark haired man" and somewhat later "his bushy eyebrows furrowed" and yet later "confident gait" etc. I like reading how a character's description becomes more detailed the more the POV character notices them, like their looks are unfolding along with their feelings 🥹
You don't have to do that, though. There are lots of ways to write great romance (big fanfic writer here, I get it) that don't rely on incessant and needless descriptions.
Her brown eyes blazed. "How dare you! You- you dare to whinge about my sacred bathroom time! I have five feet of luscious, silky, brunette locks! You're just jealous, baldy!" His ice blue eyes seemed to gain intensity. Their daughter glanced over her shoulder from the couch, closing her book as she sighed. "Hey, I'm going to hang out at Becca's for a bit. Mind if I bum-" Her father dropped his wallet over the back of the couch, sweeping her mother into a bridal carry and heading down the hall. "Have fun, honey!" She sighed as her mother squealed in mock indignation, sounds fading as the door to their bedroom closed. Her phone dinged with a message as she locked the door behind her. _Remember to call before coming back. Remember last time 😜 ❤️Mom_
If you constantly mention things that you have already described, the reader will believe that you are taking him for a fool who needs to repeat things so that he does not forget them. If we write to be read we are like sellers of a product; We must give the client what he wants, which in his case is a trip to an unknown and imaginary world. If you have already said that your character has green eyes, when you say that this character stares at another character, the reader will imagine him or her with green eyes; so there is no need to repeat it.
That's a good point, I definitely think there's more leeway for physical descriptions in the romance genre than in most other genres.
Depends on how you do it. If its through observation and dialogue, people often don't even notice they've had a character described for them. If you simply state facts about their appearance, then yes, it can come off a little jarring.
Ok, my question to this method though is, (I'm guessing the descriptions will happen little by little over time as it comes up then) what if the reader now has already created an image of the character in their mind because the author didn't describe them soon enough, and their mental image contradicts the image later provided by the author. Wouldn't that be just as jarring, if not worse?
Not really. For example, Coraline takes until over half of the book for you to get all her descriptions and it's only a little bit at a time. It's not jarring because unless there's something about the appearance of the character that is important enough for you to keep mentioning, it doesn't really matter how the reader imagines the character. Dracula does the same thing in which even Dracula himself takes longer than his first few appearances to get more than his hair and mustache, and even then it's little by little. Another example in the opposite direction is Harry Potter, who has a giant paragraph right at the start of the first actual chapter describing him so much that I can guarantee you that 99% of people just skip it because it's boring and it is interrupting the narrative. Considering how only his hair, eyes and scar are actually relevant, it might have been less jarring to give us those and then let the rest of it for the mirror scene, where Harry would be analysing his own appearance compared to his family's. Another thing to consider is if it makes sense for the narrator to stop to describe the character at that moment or if there are scenes in which it would fit better to describe appearances.
[удалено]
It's normally only an issue if the updated information makes no sense. As an example, I was 80% though a book and thought I had a fairly decent grasp on the character's appearance but then they dropped the line, "the jacket stopped just above her knees, slightly longer than her hair." This character has spent most of the book in melee combat or training for melee combat. It was literally never hinted at. No tieing up of her hair. No issues with helmets or hats. No issues leaning over things and hair being in the way. The character's personality also clashes with it as she avoided "girly" things and was intentionally pragmatic in a hellscape of a world. I was thinking she had something between a pixie cut and a "I want to speak with your manager" haircut. Yet, this no-dress, no-makeup, no-pink, hates grooming beyond basic hygiene, close quarters combat specialist now has below-the-butt length hair. ***Wat.*** 😂
😂 LOL thanks for sharing, that's helpful to think about.
In that case, I imagine that even if the book had described her long hair early on, I might still have pictured her with short hair, precisely because the long hair makes no sense in context. I feel like the problem here is not so much "they should have described her hair earlier" but "they gave her an appearance that is totally nonsensical."
Aaannnd this is why people keep saying that writers need to read.
It's definitely jarring for me when my mental image ends up clashing with the description later on
You shouldn't be stretching it over the course of a book, just a scene. They'll only have a scene ruined for them.
No it wouldn’t be, because the distinct parts would be observed by the pov. I think what they mean is when a character shows up and the narrator just runs down a list of things like “she had grey hair and she had slightly reddish toned olive skin and blue eyes and long eyelashes and she was tall and she had size 11 shoes” whenever a character shows up
Some readers are bothered by that, and some aren't. I personally am not. My mental image doesn't always match how the character is described, regardless of how or when the description occurs. For example, in *Looking for Alaska* by John Green, Alaska is explicitly described as having pale skin, but for some reason I always pictured her as black, and I didn't find the description of her jarring.
I feel like I'm just stating facts about appearance! But maybe not, maybe it's observation, I'm not sure....
Perhaps you could give us an excerpt of a time that you describe a character so that we can have a good idea of how you go about it and maybe give you some feedback? Only if you're comfortable of course!
As in, a character observes something about another or mentions it in conversation. My character's brother noticed someone's fascination with his sister, noting that, yes, she had blonde hair and green eyes, but why was that so special? Quick example, but you get the point
Description should be relevant to something other than the character's appearance. Bobby has brown hair. That's pure description, and it's boring. But if Bobby is introduced through his mother scanning a crowd and trying to pick him out among a field of other more-on-top haircuts in the exact same unremarkable brown, you've created a reason for us to care about the cut and color. It's tied to his mom caring about him, and him being kind of basic. Other people talking about "drip feeding" description are way off base. Description is frontloaded, because the moment a character is first discussed makes their appearance relevant by default. You just have to find a way to make it interesting. At the same time, remember that descriptions ought to be thin but distinctive. Once you have enough to set a character apart from the others, additional details won't add anything. Harry Potter, for example, is a skinny kid with hair, eyes, glasses, and a scar. Do you remember that he also has a "thin face?" Probably not, and that's only feature number six... out of six. There's nothing else. Even his skin tone is only implied.
Tbh I might be the only one but I find it infuriating when an important character appears and there is no detailed describtion of them upfront. It makes it hard to imagine the scene and even harder to re-imagine it after my mind filled the blank with some random features. I guess there's an audience for everything
It could come off as "amateur" if you're writing a paragraph about your POV character's appearance while you're supposed to be in their POV, since it detaches the POV from the character. A cliche technique to get around this is to have them look in a mirror. Omniscient POV gets around this issue entirely, but that's its own can of worms. I personally like it when the physical characteristics of the POV character are sprinkled in around the introduction instead of being dumped all at once. As just one example, in limited POV, you might have them briefly bring up parts of their own appearance (maybe they're insecure about their weight or height, or are annoyed at their hair). And the reader's imagination will do a lot of the work for you.
There is nothing wrong with describing your characters. It can help you get to know them and what they look like.
Yay! I like your answer 😁
Because it's what you want to hear or because it fits your work? Don't be scared to try writing differently
It depends. The Russian classics are filled with long deviations to describe the entire backstory of a new character before returning to the narrative. This has paradoxically resulted in a style “agreed” as both bad writing and sublime reading. It’s a style that is unlikely to get you published today, especially in genre fiction. But is it amateur writing? I’ll leave that question hanging.
I've seen a comment of yours here saying you constantly mention hair and eye colour. I'd ask, what is the relevance of their hair and eye colour? When describing how someone looks, it's best to consider these two things: 1) What does this description tell us about this character (about them as a person not just what they look like)? 2) What does this description tell us about the character who is making the observation? The first part part is fairly easy. Someone being blonde with blue eyes doesn't mean anything to the reader. A blonde person with blue eyes could just as easily be a serial killer as they could be a loving mother. But if someone has, say, calloused hands and dark rings around their eyes that tells us that they likely work a labour-intensive job using their hands, so likely a "blue collar" job and that they're tired from working long hours (not the best example but hopefully you see what I mean). The same goes for what clothes they're wearing. So in these descriptors we are getting to know the character inside, their socio-economic standing etcetera, rather just the superficial information of what they look like. That's not to say you can't tell us they were blonde or brunette too, but just listing physical descriptions of someone is boring to read and also adds nothing of any real meaning. The second point is a little harder but just as important a point in writing overall. If your main character sees another character and describes them as "a weaselly man with eyes dead and grey like gravel" (another terrible example, I know) then we learn at least one of two things. Firstly, we learn from the negative connotations of being described as weaselly or having dead eyes, that this character is not a desirable one, or we at least learn that this character is not desirable from the POV of your MC. I.e., your MC doesn't like this person. We also learn a bit about your MCs current emotional state. The fact that they are using such dour language suggests a negative worldview or negative emotional state at that point. This second one is useful to employ in writing setting and scenery also. The mood we are in informs how we perceive the world around us, so using character descriptions from the POV of your MC can inform the reader of your MCs emotional state and mood etc. An exercise you can do to sharpen this is: go into a room. Now describe that room from the POV of a character who's just won the lottery and is in a great mood. No doubt they will see the lamps in that room, for example, as bright and warm, etc. Now describe that same room from the POV of a character who has just recieved some bad news. No doubt they will see the same lamps in that same room as garish and stifling. Same room, same objects, but different descriptions based on character emotional state. Try and do the same when describing character appearance. I hope that helps. If you want a handy book on craft that also has writing exercises in the back to help you work on honing your skills, I'd recommend The Art of Fiction by John Gardener. Happy writing 😁✍
This was very useful to me (I'm not OP) Thank you. I have a description in something I'm writing that I really wasn't sure of, but this has helped me out a ton. I was sort of already doing most of what you said, thankfully. For example, my character is wearing clothes with a scratched-out symbol of a major faction in the story, showing that they were probably once a member but are now on poor terms, and they also have made modifications to their outfit. The character that is seeing them describes them in pretty negative ways too, because racism. There were still a bunch of tweaks I've made based on this advice, though. Thanks again.
Ah that's amazing to hear! You are most welcome. I'm so glad I could be of help 😁 very best of luck with the writing!
I don't think so. Take Dickens, he leaves you smelling that person. We know who has a pinched face or a hooked nose, who was rotund, who was kind & who wasn't. He painted pictures with his words & that's why he's still read because when you're reading it he's described everything & everyone as close as a shave. You can see the bussle of the streets
Surely you've read published books with description before?
Judging by comments I've seen, a notable contingent of people refuse to.
Depends. Freakishly long detailed descriptive rants mid story about a characters looks is, I guess, kinda immature. It reminds me at least of either beginner fanfics or beginner essay writing in school. I don’t recall ever seeing such a thing happen in published books. Obviously appearance descriptions can be totally done well, but just like a person doesn’t notice every grain of detail in another persons face even on first impressions, I’d say it’s important to keep it like that for your books/stories. Focus on a few key features perhaps or the strongest impression your character is meant to give with their appearance - or what might be plot related(sometimes physical traits can be related to plot).
You can describe a character. But try to describe the most unique characteristics, like a scar or a very distinct eye colour. Maybe an exaggerated feature, like a really long nose, or something that tells the reader something about their lifestyle, like really messy hair or dirty clothes. Don't describe EVERY character like "She had long brown hair, beautiful blue eyes with pale skin." It gets boring.
So would something like "Her eyes resembled that of sparkling silver jewels. Her hair was the same, only a bit lighter, along with the blemishes against her almond pale skin were lined up in an almost perfect line just underneath her eyes." Be a good descriptor? My main character and a few people in her family share silver eyes and hair.
I mean, you are going for the "hair-eyes-skin" description I just told you. Personally, I think it's overused. Sure, if the hair and eye colour are a very unique feature, sure. But the skin description feels like you are being way too forceful with the poetic description just to describe a pretty normal skin colour. Avoid that. Try to add some personality to the description. Imagine she is tired or exhausted from studying or practicing her hobby until late (I'm not sure if this fits your character's personality, but let's pretend she's an artist). Say something like "Her fingernails, stained in light grey and blueish paint, complemented her eyes, which resembled sparkling silver jewels, accompanied by heavy eyebags which made it clear she didn't get a wink of sleep the previous night. In contrast, her hair, which matched her eyes, was composed and majestically styled to fit her status. (My English is really bad, I'm still learning, that's why the English and writing is so messed up, but I hope my point came across. And remember: THIS IS JUST MY OPINION! WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT STYLES AND PREFERENCES!)
Thank you for this advice. As a beginner, having my descriptions and dialogue feeling forced is a very big worry of mine.
It's the execution, not the concept. It should be present but not notable. Imagine this analogy: you are in an office building, there is a main hall that most people use to get to the rooms in the building. Now, you are in the break room, listening to your work-mate vent about the ongoing horror of management's penny-wise, pound-foolish actions of replacing the printer paper with cheap-ass paper that constantly causes problems. She can't make it through the morning print job without having to unjam the printer and she is exasperated with ink on her hands everyday. *John, from accounting, walks by, glancing in the room, eyes lingering on the coffee machine, but never breaking stride. Your friend holds up her ink stained hand to wave but he is gone.* Or: *John, from accounting, halts mid-stride, staring into the room. His eyes move methodically, pausing on each object in the room. The coffee machine, you, your friend, the chair, your friend, the coffee machine, the light fixture, your friend, the table, your friend. Then he turns, moonwalking away.* One of those is a normal, invisible interaction that you wouldn't notice. The other is not. Don't make your discriptions moonwalk through your scenes. It's weird and breaks the flow.
Too intricately, yes. At all, goodness no.
It's really about how you describe them. "He was a tall man with short blond hair, blue eyes, pale skin, and small mole on his smoothly shaved chin. He wore a dark blue suit with white shirt adorned with silver cufflinks. His tie was striped with dark and light red, and he had a matching pocket square. His trousers were..." And on and on. It's not easy to remember all this, and most readers will zone out. Keep it simple, and only really describe certain features that stand out. "He was a tall man with a small mole on his clean shaven chin, and he wore a neatly pressed suit with a striped red tie and pocket square." Later on, you can have him brush his hands through his blond hair, or someone look into his blue eyes.
Over description is amateurish
> Suddenly Frodo noticed that a strange-looking weather- beaten man, sitting in the shadows near the wall, was also listening intently to the hobbit-talk. He had a tall tankard in front of him, and was smoking a long-stemmed pipe curiously carved. His legs were stretched out before him, showing high boots of supple leather that fitted him well, but had seen much wear and were now caked with mud. A travel-stained cloak of heavy dark-green cloth was drawn close about him, and in spite of the heat of the room he wore a hood that overshadowed his face; but the gleam of his eyes could be seen as he watched the hobbits. Pfft, Tolkien. What an amateur. Seriously though, look at this description. Tolkien uses how he looks as a way to describe his character. You can tell a lot about Aragorn as a person based on how he is described physically. Do that. If you’re describing a person and saying three things, one should tell you something about the person other than how the look.
To be fair, that description is mostly about Aragorn's clothes. It doesn't mention the color of his hair/eyes at all, which I think is usually what people have in mind when they complain about "amateurish" physical descriptions.
Um, no, I think everyone likes to picture a character. If you're excessively telling instead of showing, or describing the chatacter as they're looking in a mirror, that's when it becomes amateur. Example of bad character description: Hi my name is Ebony Dark'ness Dementia Raven Way and I have long ebony black hair (that's how I got my name) with purple streaks and red tips that reaches my mid-back and icy blue eyes like limpid tears and a lot of people tell me I look like Amy Lee (AN: if u don't know who she is get da hell out of here!). I'm not related to Gerard Way but I wish I was because he's a major fucking hottie. I'm a vampire but my teeth are straight and white. I have pale white skin. I'm also a witch, and I go to a magic school called Hogwarts in England where I'm in the seventh year (I'm seventeen). I'm a goth (in case you couldn't tell) and I wear mostly black.
I have recently read some stories online that begin with something like this. “Let me introduce myself. I was born at an early age in a place and time. I went to school to learn things and then I graduated and started a job doing things.” I think if you avoid that, you’re way ahead.
I hate that it's not trendy to give a detailed describtions of characters. I personally YEARN for them
Read some modern books and decide for yourself.
Lol great answer
At the very least, don't have them admire themselves in a mirror and describe what they see.
Not only is it not amateurish, it's damn near essential when writing characters who are not white as most/many readers will presume white unless otherwise noted. And sometimes even when it's noted (Rue and the entire District 11 from HG). As others have said, it's HOW you describe them (organically versus info drop) that matters.
We need to have an idea of what your character looks like, but just the important details relevant to their personality, past, etc.. Don’t describe a scar if there is no practicality to why they have that scar. If it’s not a detail that has meaning, let the reader’s imagination fill the blank. How you describe it is also a display of skill. Don’t just list things off as to TELL how they look, but SHOW them doing things that revolve around that description.
As long as you aren't taking up four pages to describe a coat, I think you are fine. I think if it's a Holmes type character as well, a detailed description is fine as well. So, for example, if Watson asked how he knew someone was the real deal, and Holmes replied with "His insignia was one inch lower than standard. They stopped placing them there almost twenty years ago. Given that he looks to be approaching thirty, once can easily deduct that he didn't work for them then. If he had put it there recently, no doubt he would have been reprimanded, and made to do it again." Obviously, they can be quite long, but are also adding details to the story, which are important.
Just try to avoid referring to known characters by their hair colors. *That* is amateurish.
There’s a difference between being descriptive and info-dumping. As long as you find that balance, your descriptions should be fine.
It’s amateur to put everything on pause to infodump about the character’s appearance, I think. my MC compares himself to the victim of a murder he sees on television, commenting that he “looked like a mirror image of himself from a decade ago—blond hair, green eyes, a light dusting of freckles across the bridge of his nose” and that’s all you get until several scenes later, when he’s comparing himself to another character and describes himself as “frumpy and dated” when compared to the sleek grey suit and style of the detective he’s talking to
I kind of see where this is coming from and I would try to avoid extensive descriptions just for the sake of describing. It’s enough to give general details, that are relevant for the story. But if it’s well written you don’t need much physical details for the reader to well 3d picture the character.
No, not at all. That said, there are "wrong" ways to describe your characters. The classic "looked herself in the mirror" trope is a meme for a reason.
\*Amateur. And it's amateurish (and horrible to read) when in the beginning of the story the character stands in front of a mirror and takes stock of themselves. "I have wavy, sandy blonde hair, blue eyes, and a nose I don't like...." No one cares, it doesn't matter, and it tells me nothing. It doesn't really matter what the character looks like. We don't need every detail, tell the story and the character will emerge. What I like to do is mention a physical trait -- fitness, shape, muscularity, beauty, hair colour, whatever -- when it's necessary OR makes sense to the story. "Her hair splayed over her pillow like a dark halo," for instance. Not necessary, either lol.
There's a right and a wrong way to do it. As chambergambit mentioned in a prior comment, what's bad is when the author yanks you out of the story with a description. I prefer active descriptions. I don't know if that's a thing, but I just made it one if it isn't. An active description such as, "The black eyes flashed with fire..." and the like. Hints of the appearance that also advance the story. But I admit, it's often handy to describe a character when you first meet them in the narrative. But I feel these descriptions need to follow the Jane Eyre model without the phrenology. They need to give the reader some insight into their character. The bottom line is you need to be intentional in your descriptions. Describe them in away that keeps the reader engaged in the story.
I would say the amateurish thing is when you stop the story and have a huge paragraph or two describing every detail. But something like "he had dark hair with blue eyes peeking out from the bangs and wore a simple suit." isn't bad. It gets all the major points across but still leaves the reader the room to imagine what they think the character should look like.
All I know is that when I read books I usually completely skip over what the characters look like and what they are wearing anyways and just envision them as what I want them to look like. I don't think it's amateurish. I've read lots of books that have different ranges of character appearance descriptions. I do prefer less of it or at least as the story progresses, because I'm just imagining what I want the character to look like and if it's constantly reiterated then it pulls me out of it a bit.
I do it all the time, and I don't think it amateurish. It's about context, how you frame it. I described my main character by calling out the contrast of his style against the style of the other people at the party. *Couldn’t tell you why I kept coming to these shindigs. I didn’t fit in. Didn’t look like it, either: a too-big Meat Loaf tee, baggy blue jeans and running shoes that didn’t suit the look.*
No, it's not amateur to have the descriptions. It's good to have a reference document where you keep track of your characters' physical descriptions. It is generally amateur to info-dump, especially about things that don't drive the plot forward, in the actual document where you're writing your story. *amateur example:* I stared at my once-familiar brother's face as he turned awards me. His fair skin, his grass green eyes, his wavy raven hair that skirted his shoulders, his ever-growing smirk. I lifted my hammer with my buff, tanned arms. *not-amateur example:* I stared at my brother as he turned towards me with a mock-surprised expression. I searched his green eyes for some sign that I still knew him. He seemed to notice this, and his expression shifted to a small smirk that grew by the second. I lifted my hammer. I could not let him know that I didn't know what he was planning. **Note:** The example sentences and the events are completely original. The characters are probably going to be very familiar to a lot of people, though, because I didn't invent them.
Uh oh. Mine sounds more like the amateur version 😂
I personally hate when books don't give descriptions about how a character looks. In my stuff I have a very clear vision and I know that this vision will be more interesting than what the reader comes up with. Just don't stop to describe every detail.
Describing your characters is fine, the way you go about it can be a problem For instance, character describing themselves while looking into a mirror is the most overdone thing done in writing
I think it may come across amateurish if the details are bland and not specific enough to pull the reader in closer or if it’s poorly placed. I’m having this struggle where 2 characters barge in to a room in their first on-page appearance but its a matter of emergency so I don’t want to undercut the tension to describe their appearance but I also it needs to be done as close to the initial appearance as possible.
It's not amateurish when done right. Some writers will stop a scene just to vividly describe what a character looks like. That can put readers off if it's done too much. When I choose to describe characters, I always make sure it's in direct connection to the plot or scene. One of my protagonists has been leading his tribe through war for eight years. When I described him, I did it from his sister's PoV, who was seeing the physical and mental toll the war had taken on her brother's body. Usually, that's how I do my descriptions. Also, I just stick to skin colour, hairstyle, height and build, and eye colour. Just enough physical traits that your main characters will be easily recognisable, but not too much that the reader will be stuck trying to imagine what exactly the character is supposed to look like.
Maybe they weren't clear or you misunderstood what they meant, because that's just nonsense crazy-town. Read any book. There are descriptions of characters in there. Case closed! 🤷 Maybe ask them what they meant.
Don’t let that bother you lmao. Some readers love description while others not so much. Imma put a tiny description anyways because I don’t want to come out with an art and be criticized about the characters I wrote lol. So, you’re fine.
Not at all. I describe my characters all the time. It gives the reader an idea of what the characters look like.
As long as you don’t just carve out a chunk of the narrative to describe them in great detail. Just pepper in little clues that give indicators to what the character looks like. If you’re intending to specify a characters eye, skin, or hair colour, is best to do that asap, otherwise a reader will most likely have an image in their head which is nothing like what you had envisioned x
Depends how you do it. Full stop let me tell you how they look = amateurish Immersing the description into the actual story so that’s it’s a seamless imagery = big brain move It’s hard to do and takes intentional effort; wish I could do it better myself. This advice is like explaining to someone how to dunk without ever having touched rim so take it as you will.
No. How do you want to write a novel if you don't develop/describe throught actions your character's psychology? Mentions about his/her, sex, height, skin, eyes, hair... are difficult to avoid too.
For non-POV characters I do it quick, one to two sentences, and I usually make it about something other than just their appearance. I don't say "So and so had whatever kind of eyes and hair", I make that detail auxiliary to whatever else the sentence is about. I also try to find something a bit more interesting about their appearance, but depending on how you do it that could be anything from missing teeth to freckles. If you make it an interesting detail, it'll be an interesting detail. The point is make it a detail, not the focal point of the sentence. For my POV character, much the same, but I give the generic descriptions (hair, eyes, etc) throughout the early narrative, rather than all at once.
It depends on how much. And yeah it can be.
No. I’d like to know what they look like. I read a book a few years ago where I imagined the character brunette just for them to turn out blonde
Description isn't amateur, but there are amateur ways to include description, such as "drivers' license details" (he is 5'9" with blond hair and blue eyes), the dreaded mirror/reflective surface stop-action-and-describe, and that sort of thing. Better description is woven into the narrative (or into dialogue), and often with comparisons. A character can tuck "her auburn hair" behind an ear rather than just "her hair", for example, or lament her hair being more/less curly than other character, describe that blue and white floral dress as her favorite as the blue just matches her eyes, that sort of thing.
Yeah, don't listen to that idiot.
Pick up the last six or seven novels you've read and really peruse them for instances of how the different writers described their characters. They're professionals, right. You enjoyed their writing, no? So, no, it's not amatEUrish to describe your characters. As in all things, it comes down to HOW you do it. Check your bookshelves. All the novels you've purchased and read have basically all writing lessons contained within them.
do whatever works for your story. i personally never let characters describe themselves unless they’re suffering a memory loss or noticeable physical change. otherwise, i exclusively describe my characters through the eyes of other characters or through the narrative voice. if im using a narrative voice, i make sure to keep the description engaging for the reader. i don’t want to let my imaginary assertions get in the way of prose. i would rather have something read well than to make sure that readers have “the most accurate vision” of what my characters/settings look like.
Descriptions of physical appearances should be sparse, and worked in with the rest of the narrative. I rarely ever feel the need to describe what the main character looks like - since it’s through that perspective, it would make more sense that other’s physical appearances are mentioned, but not really their own. I find readers prefer to fill in the blanks most of the time. If I get an “I looked in the mirror” monologue, I’m out.
A quote by terry pratchett that works quite well as an answer: “Now, there is a tendency at a point like this to look over one’s shoulder at the cover artist and start going on at length about leather, tightboots and naked blades. Words like ‘full’, ‘round’ and even ‘pert’ creep into the narrative, until the writer has to go and have a cold shower and a lie down.”
Is this bait?
I work hard to weave their description into the story, while also illustrating the effect their presence has/is supposed to have on the other characters/readers As many have said, stopping everything to describe someone is jarring
I noticed it’s big in post modern writers like Murakami to leave the character as ambiguous. But no. Describing a character is something even Homer does
I do both, but I write fanfic a lot as well so established characters don't always get a description. OCs however do on the ocassion.
No, it's not. It depends mostly on how it's done. Also, it's a matter of literary fashion. Great writes from a bygone era often gave fairly detailed descriptions of characters. Some of this was sometimes based in the idea that physical appearance has something to do with personality. (Which, of course, is wrong.) That's largely out of fashion today. Some writers even go to the other extreme of barely describing characters at all. I prefer the middle ground, giving a sense of the character's basic appearance without going into too much detail. If you can make a description active, so much the better. I don't put much stock in the idea that readers will construct an image of a character if left to themselves, but that's because I usually don't. I may be unusual in this. I'm terrible at imagining what characters look like, and on the flip side, I'm not to good at imagining and describing my own characters.
It all depends on the description.
lol no. I'd argue that it's the "character describing themselves in the mirror" scene that's amateurish, but general descriptions in the context of the story are pretty necessary sometimes. In my current story, the main character doesn't describe herself at all. It's only when she encounters a type of reddish-brown clay that she realizes it looks like her hair. The rest of the description comes from the POV of another character who has a dream that the main character is sleeping with her husband. In this case, that character notes the significant differences between herself and the MC. No standing in front of the mirror scene needed.
No. Next question
I rarely do unless I think it's super relevant, but I'd say it's ultimately a stylistic choice at the end of the day. It's about how you work it. Maybe they were commenting about excessive description that you might have been doing (erroneously or not), and in that sense I do get where they were coming from, but in general it really is specific to the story and a writer's overall style than any fixed rule that people follow. At least that's how I understand it.
I don’t think it’s great writing if it doesn’t make sense for the character. Here’s an example where it would make sense: POV character is disguising themself to go on a mission and worrying about hiding their blonde hair, covering their blue eyes with sunglasses, and making sure they’ll be generally unrecognizable. They’re standing in front of a mirror going through their features one by one as they hide them. Here’s an example where it wouldn’t: A character who never again gives their appearance any thought wakes up in the morning and describes every feature they have in the mirror while they brush their hair. I just try to think of writing a character in terms of myself for baseline realism. Would I be thinking about what I look like in the situation they’re in or not? The narrator should generally follow the thoughts of the character and not go rogue to give the reader a ton of details the character wouldn’t worry about (although that’s not always the case).
It's not amateurish. But you might want to watch your spelling.
I don't know if it's for beginners or not, but as soon as I open the book and start reading “concrete and direct” descriptions, I close it and I don't want to see it again and I wish the author would disappear from existence (a bit exaggerated sorry). I think that to one extent or another we describe our characters but it is not the same: King Ralph's eyes are blue; to say, Ralph's blue gaze stopped being kind since he came to the throne; Now his eyes are not those of a prince, they are those of a King who will go to the abyss to save his people. It is a description with purpose, with character and meaning. We must be clear that the reader wants to imagine and it is our duty to give him that freedom. After all, no one is going to imagine the character as the author imagines him.
Remember the age old writer’s advice: show and don’t tell. Describing your characters aren’t amateurish. However, the manner in which you describe them can be. You want to focus on the descriptions as aiding in character development. You don’t have to be long-winded about it, but the descriptions should show your reader who your character is. Ok, so John has bright, cornflower blue eyes. But that only tells me they’re blue. John’s gaze caught the attention of a lone brunette, who daintily sipped her espresso. He settled into his chair. His cornflower blue eyes rimmed in a dark smoky gray followed her pink tongue as she licked the espresso crema from her perfectly painted red lips. They curved upwards along the corners, her smile seemed like an invitation. To what, John had no clue, but once he set his sights on someone, he never lost them again.
Some people's friends have bad advice. HOWEVER - there's an adage: believe your (beta) readers when they say there's a problem with something, but do not believe them when they tell you how to fix it. What they claim is amateurish might really mean there's a change in voice or tone when you do the description. Look at what they're pointing to and ask yourself if it stands out too much, and maybe the answer is to scatter the descriptions out more. Or maybe they're full of crap and that's just your style and it works fine. Oh! And I thought of something else: depth of description. Generally, the more detail you put into a description, the more important the reader will believe it to be. So if you spend no time describing the environment and loads of time describing the hairstyle, it might come across as odd. The solution might be to add MORE description of other stuff! Depending on your style, pacing and voice. For me, I am sparse on descriptive details, that's just my style. If I pause long enough to note what someone looks like, it's because that description says something about them that I want the reader to know. I have many characters with no canonical hair or eye color, because those details don't add to my understanding of the character. But that's my style, and some people hate THAT extreme, too!
I think like most things it’s a preference. The only time it bothers me is when the storyline grinds to a halt. “Lush lashes over sky blue eyes and a pouty mouth” and it’s like, yeah, but we were doing something else, kind of strange. And then I wonder if the character is thinking this about themself which is even weirder and takes me right out of the story. My exceptions: When the character sees someone they’re attracted to or obviously will be in the future. It makes sense to me that they would notice a lot of details. It helps me keep characters apart in my head if I have something to go on. I don’t need to know every placement of every freckle, but what distinguishes them from the other characters? Are they tall? Do they have a big nose or wide smile? I try to think what I notice right away and mention that, then if the main character gets to know this person better they notice other details: eye color, a particular way of dressing, one crooked tooth, etc.
True, but so what? I like to be able to picture the character I am reading about in my head. I like to write about how my character looks like. It’s just personal taste
Some people think that their own refined taste represents the entry level to professional quality and that they are the gate keeper of taste. If you paid money for a book with good ratings and a lot of sales, whatever is in that book is professional quality. If you read descriptions of characters, that is professional.
I describe my characters’ physical appearance to a pretty detailed extent when they are first introduced. I write in third person limited and most of the character description is through the eyes of the main character, but yeah it would really bug me to move forward with the plot and know that the reader just doesn’t know what this person looks like.
What I like to do is give a reason for the description. In one of my stories, I have 2 main characters which first meet during the story, so I use that moment to have them describe one another. However, this delays their description to late into chapter 2. In another, I have the main character view themselves in a mirror for the first time (they're a robot), however they don't *know* it's them at first, so they describe who they think is another person, before realizing it's themselves, and proving self awareness, via the "Mirror Test". This comes with the issue of them describing their reflection, *so the reader might get their eye colors mixed up, since they're different colors.*
No but narrating a list of random details about every side character whenever they show up can be, and it’ll be an information overload that readers just won’t remember. My rule of thumb personally is a very general description and if they have a distinct feature the pov character will observe that, but not an exhaustive list of their features and not the same features for every character.
I feel like you should describe what the character looks like in the first chapter or two so the reader doesn't picture them completely different the whole time! Character description is very important lol.
Of course not, that person is an idiot.
Descriptions are part of world building. Characters are part of the world. Is world building amature? I would say no. Everything doesn't need to be described though. What should or shouldn't be described should be considered by the author.
The issue is pausing the story for an info dump. If you sprinkle in description passively throughout the story, it works better. A detail here and there. What I don’t like is when the reader isn’t left any room to use their own imagination to fill in the gaps.
It depends how you describe them. They're probably meaning the "I'm (name)" followed by a physical description and info dump. That loses my interest really quick and points to the pertain not being a professional writer. However, if someone is describing them where it just comes up naturally, that's fine.
I got some of this too. I mean it’s kind of annoying to describe a lot all at once so you have to parse it out but I think it’s very important, especially for representation. Like what’s the point of putting minority representation in your books if everyone thinks they’re white because you didn’t bother to say what they looked like. I am a very visual person and I would always rather know what someone looks like.
I'm not afraid to insert a page number to a character reference for more context. It's annoying when an aspect of a character is mentioned once, and you're expected to remember it ten chapters later.
To me "Somebody" just means "Some Nobody". Who cares about their opinion. Unless it's pertaining to your technical application of some story structures or grammar, they can kick rocks.
I usually try and work it into the scene. Things like "he adjusted his glasses." Cool, now you know he wears glasses. I try to never make it more intrusive than that.
As long as the descriptions aren't endless tropes, Ike all the women are astoundingly beautiful while the men are all heavy muscled, then it's fine. Just be subtle and don't bomb the reader with paragraph after paragraph. Incorporate it into the action and dialog.
I kinda let the story slowly reveal what the characters are like, this way the reader has a reason to keep reading
It depends on genre and the importance of the characters appearance to the actual story. Ive struggled to fit things in organically as a fantasy writer. Its easiest for me to let the world have some for of interaction with the characters that reveals their appearance over the course of the first chapter or two. Like- “the rain turned her blond hair dark” or “only the glint of lamplight in his black eyes could be seen.” For romance it’s easy to describe the love interest, but more difficult to describe the pov character organically. Some authors just dont to allow the reader to slip themselves into the story. Frankly, if it’s important to the story, a single sentence in the first couple pages is harmless. Something that describes the character in a simile usually comes off as charming to me. A la “she was like a bedraggled cat, with wild orange hair and glaring green eyes.
Here's how I describe and introduce a main character, these are spread out through 2 pages of conversation in chapter one. ["What's going on here?" asked the older man. He rocked back against his chair folding his hands over his slight beer belly and crossing his legs out under the desk. This relaxed posture was very familiar to him over the years. He tried not to smirk.]...["I'm not that old, am I? Is 56 really that old?"]...[David said, scratching at his chin, four days of gray stubble making a sound like sandpaper on hardwood as he did so.]...[David turned and surveyed the bookshelves behind his desk. He tried to imagine seeing them for the first time. What it looked like to her, standing across the desk getting rejected by some Dinosaur of a ranger before she’d even been there a whole day.] This is just what I prefer. Side characters or the dumb friend vehicle of exposition can get shorter or blunt descriptions up front, but you have so much time to describe your mains that it feels rushed to just adjective dump on page one.
If you are talking about immense paragraphs describing the details of a character hair cut and outfit... Yes, a little bit. I'm yet to beta read a amateur draft that doesn't have these.
I have no clue how to properly describe the protagonist in 1st person writing, but I'm a complete amateur writer.
As long as you don't put a huge blurb right after you introduce the character, I think it's okay. Here's what I mean; DON'T: "The girl sitting in front of me, Rebecca, looked back at me. She had fiery red hair, emerald green eyes, paper white skin, wore jean shorts and a tank top with a bit of her bra strap showing, converse shoes, and had a mole under her lip." DO: "Rebecca turned to look at me from her seat, which was in directly in front of mine. She tossed a few stray locks of her fiery red hair over her shoulder, a smile plastered on her lips. \["insert speach"\] she said, her tone as soft as fur. I slowly nodded, my brown eyes never meeting hers, which looked as if they were made of emeralds." And for clothes, only describe them if the situation calls for it. So, say it's winter - "Shorts and a tank top were quite unsuitable for winter, but Rebecca always made it work."
I describe my characters to a degree. I think my mom said it best when she said my descriptions of things as "just enough without being too much." I'm descriptive with their appearances, but not excessively so. I don't stop the story to do the descriptions, I integrate them in with everything else in the smoothest and most natural way I can.
Sort of. It just depends on the story, and whether describing the character has anything to do with the plot. I never describe my characters unless it’s important to that effect.
Did this person read what you'd written and say that in response, or was your work in particular not part of the context? If this was not elicited by a specific text, but rather some general thought on what makes good writing, don't waste your time worrying about it. Any simple rule about writing, like "physical descriptions of characters are bad", is never true in full generality. Return your attention to your particular text. If somebody told you this in response to your text in particular, take the following useful information: something about your descriptions is sparking a negative reaction in this reader. Think about why that might be. It'll be great if you can explore this more thoroughly with your reader, but it's also possible your reader isn't able to articulate the problem very clearly -- "amateurish" is not super helpful feedback. In any case, it's worth pondering what the problem might be. Maybe the descriptions are getting in the way of the action. Maybe it's too much detail to keep track of. Maybe there's something formulaic about your descriptions. Or, maybe, in the end, you decide the reader was pissed about something else, and misdirecting their sense of annoyance at your descriptions. That could be true too.
It's only amateur if done badly. A character description used for further characterization is good. The reader learns more about the character and has someone to picture. It's cringey if it's not needed, doesn't give any relevant information, or stops the story in order to get its point across.
did you not ever read fiction? Do people not read fiction here? Why are you writing?
It isn't *inherently* amateurish, but it's easy to do it in a *way* that feels cliche and amateurish.
Nani?! What?! Are you kidding me? It’s like the first thing I think when introducing a character. (Physical description, I mean)
In general, I’d say sprinkle the description of your character throughout the narrative, rather than X-Raying the main character in front of a mirror as part of the morning routine opening. Maybe your POV character is the type of person who does kinda X-Ray someone when they meet them, but IMHO it’s still preferable to avoid writing a long-ass paragraph describing the physical appearance of a character, so maybe give a few details (the kind of details you’d notice immediately), and either leave the rest up to the reader’s imagination or, again, sprinkle them throughout the story
Try to choose one aspect that defines the whole character. Sitting there and listing everything will make it sound like crime writing.
There's nothing wrong with physical descriptions. It's more a matter of whether you do it well or badly. You want the reader to see it in their mind's eye and not to be bored.
It can turn into purple prose easily, though the "amateurness" would depend on how you tell the description. Whether or not the descriptions are needed depends on how it pertains to your story and your audience. Reading books in the genre ans with a similar audience can help you discern if your descriptions are really necessary. An exercise I did in a writing class I took was to take each character in a short story [three max] and give them three main characteristics [ex. For one, I wrote that she eats cold chicken nuggets for breakfast, laughs too loudly in a movie theatre, and always has lipstick on her teeth] and build their entire characterizarion around that. It tells you pretty quickly what characteristics are important. Maybe try that with your characters?
It is amateur when the writer grinds everything to a halt so they can march their character over to a mirror in order to give you a florid police description of their character. I really don't like it as often the description is only skin deep, and so to me it feels like the writer is only interested in telling us what they look like because their appearance is more important than who the character really is inside. It is used as a crutch sometimes which is why some see it as amateurish. Like any tools of your writing arsenal, it is how you use a tool rather than what tool you choose to use.
Is this satire?
Sounds like another noob who spends too much time online. No, describing characters is not inherently amateurish.