Advice/Help Writing lit/adv. lit: How to describe something

[Echowrites]

This question is targeted at the writers/rpers that prefer longer format writing and fancy prose: how do you keep descriptions from being cliché? How do you source or conjure or think about creative ways to describe something? What I'm referring to here is, for example, not describing something red to be "as red as roses", because it's been absolutely written to death as a descriptor.

Creative ways of describing something, in my opinion, leaves a clear image in the reader's mind and adds flavour/fleshes out a character (by seeing the world from their POV), so I'd love to hear what kind of thought process goes behind a) finding an image that fits the character, tone and context of your writing b) coming up with those imageries in the first place.

EDIT: Personally struggle with keeping my imagery usage tonally cohesive/consistent for a character, so your thoughts on that would also be very appreciated!

 

[nerdy tangents]

Read more books. It sounds like a lot but I think by far the thing that helped me the most as a roleplayer is that I have always been a voracious reader. So I started out super comfortable with varying up my descriptions just through mimicking whichever writer I was following at the moment.

And over time I developed my own style of writing and was able to vary it up based on which character I was writing,

For characters specifically I find it helps to have an inspiration in mind. Sometime it’s my sister or sometimes it’s a character from one of my favorite TV shows. But whatever the inspiration I have a clear idea of how the person talks and how they reacts to different situations already.

That’s the big issue with making characters from scratch, people don’t focus enough on the characters internal life. They focus more on the outward appearance and not enough on “hey what is my characters thought process for any given action?”

 

[Syntra]

To put it simply, look around yourself. Many red things exist, and the vast majority of them aren't roses. As for keeping the descriptions in character, ask yourself: Would my character think this way? A more poetically-minded person probably would refer to like, nature and shit, while a rebellious punk might reference blood splatters instead.

Also, less can be more. Don't force those metaphors if you can't think of anything; there are other literary devices you can use to give your text more flavor! Plus, not everything even needs to be described. Sometimes, too many details kill the pacing (and that is true even for novella-length posts.)

 

[GojiBean]

This question is targeted at the writers/rpers that prefer longer format writing and fancy prose: how do you keep descriptions from being cliché? How do you source or conjure or think about creative ways to describe something? What I'm referring to here is, for example, not describing something red to be "as red as roses", because it's been absolutely written to death as a descriptor.

Creative ways of describing something, in my opinion, leaves a clear image in the reader's mind and adds flavour/fleshes out a character (by seeing the world from their POV), so I'd love to hear what kind of thought process goes behind a) finding an image that fits the character, tone and context of your writing b) coming up with those imageries in the first place.

EDIT: Personally struggle with keeping my imagery usage tonally cohesive/consistent for a character, so your thoughts on that would also be very appreciated!

Hoyo!

Good question!

There are any number of different techniques and approaches you could use to describe things creatively such as using character dialogue to clever narrative descriptions, or both in tandem, etc.

You mentioned wanting to describe something red, and avoiding the rather typical and mundane method of "red as roses." The way I approach describing such things relies on a method of taking into account what the subject actually is, and what is currently around it in the environment.

For example, let's say I have an assassin character who's just taken our her target and a bunch of his bodyguards. I'm going to use the "red as roses" expression, but I'm going to present it through dialogue and action rather than description.


Squish. Squish.

"Ugh," she groaned while raising a foot to examine her boots.

"These were $3,400!" She barked at the bodies littering the space around her.

Despite her protests she had to admit the room did look and feel better now. It was quiet, calm, and she'd always loved this color. Not necessarily on her clothing. But on the walls and floors in random or intentionally patterned spatters? Absolutely. It was an art. And one which she felt was far too rare these days.

Taking a single rose from the vase on the gold-lined coffee table in the center of the room, she knelt down beside her lifeless target and held it up to compare its color against the once pristine white carpet.

"A perfect match." She whispered with a smile, and a light flush in her cheeks.


That's one example of how I like to do color comparisons using the identity of the subject and the environment around them.

But there are other ways to approach it.

Still using my assassin example, if you wanted to describe it in narrative text you could say she examined the red spatters and they reminded her of when she was a child whipping her paintbrush at a blank canvas watching the beautiful red dots of paint appear in greater and greater numbers. Or, as she examines the spatters she internally jokes that it's like a twisted, but literal interpretation of the story of Moses and the Red Sea. Her target was Moses, but instead of parting the red sea and escaping to freedom with his friends, he created the red sea via his death and drowned his friends with him.

Anywhoosle, I could go on but I think you get the point.

When it comes to descriptions I always think about the context of the scene, the subject being described, and the environment surrounding it. I can either draw from those immediate factors, or, if I want to get exotic, I'll draw from pop culture or historical contexts and try making something either more light hearted, morbid, entertaining, saddening, etc, through the descriptive language I'm able to come up with.

The less "direct" I can be with the description, like "red as roses," and the more I can use what's in the scene to help the audience draw a mental picture of what's happening without any hand holding being necessary in my narrative text, dialogue, or what have you, the better.

Cheers!

 

[Idea]

I think it's fair to say there are three questions here.
1. How can one describe something in an original way
2. How do you go about coming up with a description?
3. How do you make the descriptions in-character?


Question 1 is the simplest to answer in my view: Don't put the cart before the horse. Something unoriginal but very well placed will be as good as something that is unique and equally well-placed unless you're doing such an awful job to begin with that the only saving grace would be being a breath of fresh air. Originality/uniqueness in your writing will come as you tackle more pressing matters with seriousness and careful thought, as your own unique perspective and approach will shine through most in those moments, and where you copy rather than create, again if those pressing matters are being dealt with seriously and thoughtfully, it should be appropriate to use those things you're copying, even if they aren't as original. GojiBean went about using "red as a rose" in a more indirect fashion in their example, but I think it could work even stated directly, if used with the right character for instance. Picture for example a pompous man, trying to put on a facade as romantic more well-spoken than he really is, and perhaps he uses the rose comparison precisely because he thinks it's fancy and sounds more elegant than it actually comes across.

Of course, there's no issue with pursuing originality as goal in of itself if one really cares about it to that extent, but the impression I get is that you're thinking your writing is lesser if you use something that has quote "been done to death". From where I stand, criticism like that is hollow, lacks any substance. It's when one becomes reliant on using what worked in the past while neglecting it or what's around it because of that reliance, that something being common becomes a problem - always indirectly. My point is this: One can pursue originality if they wish, but if good descriptions is what they are really after, then this is secondary at best. Doing what has been done does not preclude a description from being well done, nor is straying from the beaten path any guarantee of good results either.


Question 2 is definitely the hardest of the three to answer. I will say though, that there tend to be two big strains and they mainly depend on whether I'm making something up from scratch or if I'm going from a particular mental image (or actual image). In the second case, I am often restricted by my own lack of vocabulary (most often regarding very specific types of clothing), and I use the character element to compensate for this, and attempt to research what I can if I find it that pertinent. However, it's when I'm making it up that things get more interesting.

If I'm coming up with something from scratch, one thing I resort to is my "golden rule of consistency". Without going in-depth on what it is here (I've done it plenty and it's super late here as I'm writing this, so do forgive me), essentially I am employing consistent rules and their consequences to figure out what something is like. Namely, if for instance I want to figure what a piece of architecture is like, I'll likely think of practical aspect of life in the setting, as well as potential artistic or cultural sensitivities that might impact the design of the architecture. In figuring what a given new NPC is wearing, worldbuilding will factor into what kind of clothes they could have, whereas their personality, status, etc... Will inform their choice. Again because of my personal limitations I do end up creating some pretty weird stuff sometimes, but it's a very reliable method in terms of actually coming up with something and an accompanying description.

One rule that I apply though, is that if you want to make good description, don't describe just for describing. Fluffing things with meaningless description is more work for poorer writing. Whatever you use in your description or mention in your description should be there with purpose and contributing to something. This doesn't have to be the plot or characters though - it can be something as simple as reinforcing the worldbuilding to make things more immersive, it could be creating foreshadowing or ambience even. The point is just that no part of your description should be incidental or pointless.

There are a few tricks I employ as well, and these tend to be one of the main things I think about when it comes to crafting the finer details of how I describe something. One I will mention in particular, is paying attention to the order in which things are described. For one, you need to tie the description in with the rest of the post. You want to make sure the way you start and end the description flows well with the events around it, and that interruptions in the description happen if the scene is supposed to be moving on while the description is being written in the middle of the action. You can even use this to create aforementioned atmosphere, such as describing things that are increasingly dire so as to raise tension in the scene, which leads neatly into the second thing, the order can help the way the description comes across psychologically. For instance, the beginning and end of a list tend to be more memorable than the middle, so it's a pretty common trick to put the actual clue to a mystery in the middle of the description and make the endings and beginnings of those lists red-herrings.


The most paramount thing to writing anything in an in-character perspective is having a clear idea of who the character is. Most of the time when I hear about people being inconsistent with characterization, it's coming from people who go in with ill-defined characters, with some vague idea of who the character is (or even less than that). Alternatively, you could have a very defined and clear aspect of the character in mind, but otherwise not really have anything, which depending on what that aspect is means you either runs out of fumes very quickly (in case of a personality-related aspect which quickly makes the character feel its hitting the same note) or almost immediately (if its anything not personality related, meaning you know something that has nothing to do with how the character arcs or thinks). Of course, an ill-defined character isn't the only source of inconsistency - one of my current goals for improvement is becoming more consistent with my dialogue for different characters- but it is a frequent and key one. Once you have properly established in your mind (and I recommend, in the character sheet) who your character is exactly, how they think, what their motivation and backstory is, and other relevant details, then you have fertile ground to use that character's perspective.

A description born out of a character's perspective will:

A) Focus on what the character finds pertinent. This can be done either through omitting information the character is not paying attention to, or putting special emphasis on whatever they are paying the most attention to. As a rule of thumb, consider the needs of the scene when deciding which one to use. Also, it's quite crucial to keep in mind for this that people's life experience will affect what they pay attention to. A carpenter is more likely to pay attention to the practical side of furniture or appreciate more the woodwork. If the character lived in a very cramped space in their early childhood, they might really value things being spacious or at least put a lot more thought into what's comfortable to lean against for long periods of time. These are just two random examples off the top of my head, but hopefully the point comes across.

B) Use terms and vocabulary the character is familiar with and that showcase their frame of mind. Common ways to do this include making a specialist use more technical terms when it comes to their field of expertise, and perhaps even use those terms more in their daily life, or someone more well-spoken and educated using richer and more elaborate vocabulary than someone who lacks those qualities. One particularly neat thing you can do with this rule is use vocabulary focused around the relationship of the character to the thing being described.

"That horse just bit me!"

"That animal just bit me!"

"That beast just bit me!"

Sometimes it's more overt, sometimes it's subtle, but there is quite a depth of what can be communicated with the right vocabulary choice, so it's definitely something to pay attention to.

C) Not stray from what the character knows and understands. If you write anything from a character's perspective you should always keep in mind how they view the situation. One might think this would hamper your ability to describe the thing, but it's actually got a lot of benefits. For one thing, someone trying to guess what something is like lets you got at length about what something appears to be like without making it unnatural, as opposed to just downright saying what it is. For two you may be able to tie it in to other things you want narratively. It might be useful for setting up something, a mystery or just common foreshadowing, it may be useful for worldbuilding or to trigger exposition, etc...

Whatever the case though, writing a scene from a character's perspective and then describing things in a way the character couldn't know or perceive is a mistake, it's simply immersion breaking and has a lot of missed potential to it.



I hope this helps! Best of luck, and happy roleplaying!

 

[Zodia195]

I want to add another thing when it comes to be descriptive, don't use big elaborate words. I use to use SAT words in my works in my teens and early 20s and no one understood what I was saying. I definitely remember using words like pulchritude (means beautiful environment) and heinous (evil) in one story lol. My mom told me to keep things as simple as possible. But yeah, I just describe things as I see them in my mind. I've always had a knack for picturing things in my head. I just now focus on making something as easy to read as possible, since I know what it's like to struggle with reading comprehension (it was never my strong suit).

 

[s e v e n]

Sup. Professional whore for proses here, this thread caught my interest immediately. First of all I'd like to cast some disagreements (hopefully this time it ends better than last time, apparently I'm also part-time living controversy) by saying I disagree with the person above me but not entirely. I disagree in using "big words" for the sake of big words, but I would like to also say that words evolve and exist for a reason. A positive emotion isn't only described as happiness all the time because emotions are complex and words exist to try and pin point as many emotions in the spectrum as possible. Sometimes you settle in using figures of speech, sometimes you just use words that are already there. I for one have never been one to limit my word choices to what people can understand but I feel like this is an issue of writing style more than anything.

Secondly, I would like to also say props to Idea because most things they said I agree with. Creating a scene is less trying to get readers to be in that scene, but more trying to get the readers in the shoes of the character that is looking at the scene. A good writer knows how to write beautiful scenes. A great writer knows how to make use of every writing space efficiently, including scene perspective. The way you look at a scene says a lot about you, and every character can describe a scene differently than the next one. Let's say we're looking at a tree. Would you:

1. Describe its comfort
2. Describe its strength
3. Describe its technicals

And after we know what they describe, we must also know how they describe it. Because that shows how exactly they see the world. Is it ridden with skepticism? Would their descriptions feel gentle? Would they sound assertive, maybe? Or uncertain? So many variables play in describing a tree, to bring in your readers to see the world you describe it as it is. To make them breathe your world...it will take more than that.

 

[Echowrites]

"That horse just bit me!"

"That animal just bit me!"

"That beast just bit me!"

Can't say I'd have thought of comparing it that way- that's actually really helpful.
My gripe with "red as a rose" is that reading it in writing ticks me off and drops my interest in what is being written, simply because it's often indicative of the writer not having anything better to compare something red to and consequently yielding a piece of writing that isn't thought through.
Appreciate the technical advice! I will seek to use that in writing.

A good writer knows how to write beautiful scenes. A great writer knows how to make use of every writing space efficiently, including scene perspective. The way you look at a scene says a lot about you, and every character can describe a scene differently than the next one. Let's say we're looking at a tree. Would you:

1. Describe its comfort
2. Describe its strength
3. Describe its technicals

And after we know what they describe, we must also know how they describe it. Because that shows how exactly they see the world. Is it ridden with skepticism? Would their descriptions feel gentle? Would they sound assertive, maybe? Or uncertain? So many variables play in describing a tree, to bring in your readers to see the world you describe it as it is. To make them breathe your world...it will take more than that.

I agree! The choice to make something simple or fancy should not only be dependent on what the reader could understand. How would you decide, though, if a word or phrase would be more "gentle" or "assertive"?

 

[Idea]

My gripe with "red as a rose" is that reading it in writing ticks me off and drops my interest in what is being written, simply because it's often indicative of the writer not having anything better to compare something red to and consequently yielding a piece of writing that isn't thought through.

Fair enough. My only point in that regard is to not confuse something being a potential, perhaps even a likely indicator of something being poorly written, as that thing itself being bad writing, and thus shy away from using it when it is appropriate to.

 

[s e v e n]

Can't say I'd have thought of comparing it that way- that's actually really helpful.
My gripe with "red as a rose" is that reading it in writing ticks me off and drops my interest in what is being written, simply because it's often indicative of the writer not having anything better to compare something red to and consequently yielding a piece of writing that isn't thought through.
Appreciate the technical advice! I will seek to use that in writing.

I agree! The choice to make something simple or fancy should not only be dependent on what the reader could understand. How would you decide, though, if a word or phrase would be more "gentle" or "assertive"?

Hm..there are many ways you can write a set of description that is either "gentler" or "more assertive" in nature. For example, let's go back to the tree, but this time we have two different characters, one gentle, one assertive. They are both describing the tree as a source of comfort. The one gentler might inch into descriptions slower- maybe pulling a more metaphorical comparison aimed towards the leaves. They would compare it to a warm embrace, and everything would feel a bit more sentimental and coming from the heart. Their descriptions and metaphors might also contain a lot of "perhaps" or "as though" (to answer your "word choice" question). Someone more assertive might choose to state that a tree brings them a feeling of serenity. It would feel more to the point, a lot less feeling and a lot more describing. Maybe they would say that the leaves would guard them from the rain and provide shelter from the scorching sun.

Some would say "but seven, isn't this just writing style?". Well yes, it could be. But it could also be a deliberate choice that is done to give your character's perspective more personality. Again, these two characters are just examples, there are so many ways you can go with this. At the end of it though, I think the main focus here is going to be tonal. You know how you can't determine how a person is by the tone of their speech? For example when I type this answer for you, what kind of person do you think I am? I'm sure you can at least infer a few possibilities. And now we have these same people but they're now describing a scene. This, I feel, is the root concept of when I said "we must also know how they describe it".

 

[Echowrites]

Hm..there are many ways you can write a set of description that is either "gentler" or "more assertive" in nature. For example, let's go back to the tree, but this time we have two different characters, one gentle, one assertive. They are both describing the tree as a source of comfort. The one gentler might inch into descriptions slower- maybe pulling a more metaphorical comparison aimed towards the leaves. They would compare it to a warm embrace, and everything would feel a bit more sentimental and coming from the heart. Their descriptions and metaphors might also contain a lot of "perhaps" or "as though" (to answer your "word choice" question). Someone more assertive might choose to state that a tree brings them a feeling of serenity. It would feel more to the point, a lot less feeling and a lot more describing. Maybe they would say that the leaves would guard them from the rain and provide shelter from the scorching sun.

Some would say "but seven, isn't this just writing style?". Well yes, it could be. But it could also be a deliberate choice that is done to give your character's perspective more personality. Again, these two characters are just examples, there are so many ways you can go with this. At the end of it though, I think the main focus here is going to be tonal. You know how you can't determine how a person is by the tone of their speech? For example when I type this answer for you, what kind of person do you think I am? I'm sure you can at least infer a few possibilities. And now we have these same people but they're now describing a scene. This, I feel, is the root concept of when I said "we must also know how they describe it".

Ah, that makes it a lot clearer! Thank you very much for going into detail.

 

[GreenBeret]

Well, I play military/politics RPs, which involve writing realistic news articles (so think CNN, Reuters, etc). Description isn't always needed -- just stating the facts can be enough in many situations. If you do want to be descriptive though, best way I can think of to increase your skills would be to expand your vocabulary and work on quicker thinking. Procrastinating is always bad, but especially when trying to describe things but still have a nice flow to the piece as a whole. Reading older books by authors renowned for description, like Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, C.S. Lewis, Willa Cather, and many others, can help a ton.

 

[Inno]

I don't go out of my way to use analogies to describe things. I usually just let my writing flow and use synonyms for basic words or statements i.e instead of red long red hair blowing in the wind I'd describe it as long crimson tendrils dancing on the invisible breeze. I think the key to description is using strong adjectives to invoke the image you're trying to convey. But that's just how I do things I'm by no means a conventional writer. Also reading and researching does help too.