Are more or less details better for details that do not play a role in the story but describe where part of the story takes place?
I'm testreading a novel for somebody I know. It's an adventure novel targeted at teens, with ~60k words. At one point in the first quarter, one of our protagonists comes across some huts. The huts aren't given a discription. These huts are later in the story used by the protagonists... and they still are given no description.
I talked about this with the author, and they said it was intentional. They said that they didn't feel that it was important; that it would just overwhelm the reader with unnecessary details that didn't further the plot - i.e. that they would only include the details that furthered the plot.
I feel that these details are better to include; I certainly noted the lack of them while reading through it. He's got sixty years of experience on me, though, so I'm hesitant to force my opinion without knowing a little more ;)
Are such details necessary?
It doesn't really matter how much more experience he has than you: if he's asking you to testread, he presumably wants y …
6y ago
The reader needs to be able to see the scene in their mind's eye. This does not mean that every reader needs to see it t …
6y ago
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
The reader needs to be able to see the scene in their mind's eye. This does not mean that every reader needs to see it the same way. In fact, it is a virtual certainty that each reader will see it slightly differently, or even radically differently. We build our pictures of scenes from the stock of images and experiences in our heads. If two readers picture a scene the same way, chances are it is because they both watched the same movie.
This variety in the way people visualize scenes does not matter as long as it does not materially affect how they understand the story. In fact, it can be argued that we all see the real world differently as well, that our experiences and interests cause us to interpret the raw visual information from our eyes in different ways. Talk about a scene with a companion and it often becomes obvious that you and they are seeing it differently, that different details stand out for each of you. No two people experience life the same way, and no two people experience a story the same way.
So, it is by no means necessary (or possible) for a writer to provide so much detail that the scene appears in the mind's eye of the reader exactly as it appears in the mind's eye of the writer.
On the other hand, for the reader to experience the place as a real place, they do have to form some picture in their mind's eye. The text needs to provide enough telling detail to trigger a specific image in the reader's mind, even if it is quite different from the image in the writer's mind.
This business of finding the "telling detail" is at the heart of the writer's craft. It is essential to the ability to create a story that feels real to the reader. So the question is, when this novel says "hut", does this provoke a specific image in the reader's mind, or does it simply invoke the abstract platonic idea of a hut. If it produces a specific image, then the story works; it if invokes the platonic idea of a hut, then there is a blank spot in the canvas of the story.
Whether an individual word produces an image or a blank spot does not depend so much on the work alone as on the context in which it is used. If the context is specific enough that the reader has a mental picture of what the general scene looks like (true or false) then the word will produce an image and all is well. If they do not, then it will leave a blank spot in the canvas and all is not well.
Certain words, like "igloo", probably produce an image for everyone all by themselves. "Hut" is not such a word. It needs either context or description to evoke a specific image in the reader's mind.
Of course, the writer has an image in their mind. One of the reasons you ask others to read your work is to let you know when you have failed to paint your whole canvas. If you don't get an image from the word "hut" in this work, that is a fact that the author should take into account. It is only one data point, but if they ask for the data they should at least be grateful for it, even if they decide not to act on it.
0 comment threads
It doesn't really matter how much more experience he has than you: if he's asking you to testread, he presumably wants your opinion as a reader. And this case, he didn't provide enough detail for you, the reader, to visualize the setting.
You can't stand in for all readers, but let him know, that for you, the more sketchy approach to describing that setting did not work. You aren't "forcing" an opinion unless you actually have a way to make him change his writing to match your preferences.
He will still make the final decisions as a writer, but there's no point having a testreader if a) that reader suppresses his or her reactions or b) the writer fights all the feedback.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/30756. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads