Writing weaknesses/dislikes

donfers

I find it difficult describing how people look. It's also tough for me to describe place in detail.

Any tips on how to improve describing both place and physical appearance/look. I find it dull having to do this. Can I get away with it by not describing both in great detail as I simply don't have the words to express the uniqueness of, for example, a face or a landscape and that frustrates me. Tips please to overcome this. Please don't say practice!

pickarooney

Avoid doing it altogether if it's not something you enjoy. Most long descriptions are tedious and readers are generally happy to imagine their own faces for the characters. Where and when a character's appearance is relevant to the story, work it in subtly.

Places are even harder to get right. You know the way a photo will rarely, if ever, do justice to a beautiful landscape? No point trying it with words, IMO. Again, where necessary, refer, even obliquely to the location but don't bother writing pages about the trees and the birds and what have you.

The Cannibal

I think it depends on whether it is relevant or not. Some things you can skip, like if you just say a guy walks into a bank, everyone knows what a bank looks like, you don't have to go into detail describing the interior. However, I don't think you could get away with something like "He walked into a magical forrest." and leave it at that, because it is not something the reader can easily picture unless detail is described.

It really just depends on what writing style you are aiming for in the end. I've read books that barely had any description at all and focused mainly on dialogue and it worked for the story they were writing. It's just whatever you are into.

Physical descriptions of people aren't that important to me unless they have a physical characteristic that sets them apart from other characters, like a scar on their face or something, or maybe something that applies to the story, like your hero being of a muscular build.

EileenG

Think how you would do the description if it was in an e-mail to a friend. Chances are it would be short and pithy, and only touch on the unique points.

I tend to keep landscapes to things like "snowy mountain blighted by chair lifts", "ragwort choked meadow", "council estate with broken glass and weeds".

ToasterSparks

Yeah, I agree with the above posters, keep descriptions simple unless you feel it is relevant to the readers.

I've read a few books that spent pages setting up a scene by describing the surrounds in detail, and after a few chapters of this I found myself skimming the start of chapters to get to the story. Description is important as long as there's good reason for it. When you don't overdo it, there's more relevance to descriptions that you do include.

Dublin141

Most people will use their own imaginations no matter how well you describe something. I wouldn't worry about it. Use your strengths. Of course you could practice descriptions but if you don't enjoy it then why bother? If you find something boring then chances are readers will too. A few brief details can keep a scene going instead of bogging it down with lengthy descriptions. Don't worry about what anyone else is doing, figure out your own style and go for it.

Outburst

I've noticed in no country for old men, not one character's physical traits are described. Still, its an incredibly effective piece of writing and it allows readers to draw inferences from the text and use their imagination to fill in the gaps.

Stephen King, in On Writing: Memoirs of a craft suggests the present tendency is to keep physical and wardrobe descriptions to an absolute minimum.

dawvee

As others have suggested, it all comes down to significant detail. The only details you need to write about are the ones the reader needs to know about. Where you have physical descriptions of characters or settings, it should be doing double or triple duty - establishing character, setting a mood, informing the action in the scene, and so on. Pulling in descriptive details only where they become relevant will do a lot more to engage your reader than decribing everything in great detail with no other purpose.

Though it should be said, you should have a clear picture in your head if you want to keep things consistent, you just don't need to dump it all on the reader. No good having your character spotted in a crowd by his fiery red hair when three chapters ago you said he was blonde.

davyjose

If you give characters traits that mirror their personality, you can use the description of them to hint at their character. Dickens was genius at this. Here's his description of Uriah Heep:

Charles Dickens wrote:

His face was quite as cadaverous as it had looked in the window, though in the grain of it there was that tinge of red which is sometimes to be observed in the skins of red-haired people. It belonged to a red-haired person—a youth of fifteen, as I take it now, but looking much older—whose hair was cropped as close as the closest stubble; who had hardly any eyebrows, and no eyelashes, and eyes of a red-brown, so unsheltered and unshaded, that I remember wondering how he went to sleep. He was high-shouldered and bony; dressed in decent black, with a white wisp of a neckcloth; buttoned up to the throat; and had a long, lank, skeleton hand, which particularly attracted my attention, as he stood at the pony's head, rubbing his chin with it, and looking up at us in the chaise.

If your character has a strong personality trait, you can give them physical attributes that reflect this. The jolly fat man, the haggard recluse, the hot blonde, etc.
If your character falls in love, you can describe easily, the character he's falling in love with.
Lay off describing the protagonist too much though. You can give subtle hints as the story rolls along. TBH, his/her description is innecessary, unless it is part of the plot. If his goal in the story is to run a marathon, you can drop in descriptions at the beginning, of his bodysize, how out of shape he is to start with, etc. If it's your standard cinderella story, you can give initial descriptions of her dumpiness, terrible hair, etc. etc.

Don't try to force it is the simple rule though.

miec

Though it should be said, you should have a clear picture in your head if you want to keep things consistent, you just don't need to dump it all on the reader. No good having your character spotted in a crowd by his fiery red hair when three chapters ago you said he was blonde.

Hi Op

The above is crucial. Like you I don't enjoy describing people or places but...I have since learned that it is very important to have a picture of the character yourself because they become more real on the page and since I have been drawing/describing the look of my characters in a notebook, I find that I can drop brief descriptions naturally into the piece of work I am doing. For instance in a book I have written one of the characters has skinny little legs and knobbly knees, they have a hang up about this and when they try an outfit on, the outfit accentuates this aspect of them, I personally hate the type of descriptions that are flowery etc. Again with places, drop in a tiny reference, eg: a tinted sky. Some authors are just naturally brilliant at making landscapes symbolic and interesting, I sadly do not fit into that category. If you do really want to improve this area I suggest reading some of these authors: John McGahern, Clare Keegan, Dickens, David Scott Wallace (his descriptions of places / people are extremely interesting, he manages to use words I'd never think of for instance 'teal' coloured eyes - for me that's really cool), Sebastian Barry for landscapes (although he can go on a bit). I think if you vary your reading, you will find a number of styles, realise that each writer has their own unique stamp/trademark and this will help you find your own voice, oh and I know you said don't mention this, but practise too, know that you have to write a lot of bilge before the good stuff comes out. All the greats went through this.