Sensory Information Overload
I'm reading The Book of Human Emotions by Tiffany Watt Smith (good stuff if you want to inform the use of emotion in your writing), and I've just come across Overwhelmed (feeling). It talks about the ways in which a surfeit of information in the world can make us feel uncomfortable.
This made me think about the amount of sensory information we are encouraged to include in our scenes in order to enable our readers to visualise the surroundings. It strikes me that with five senses available to us, it might be that we could be in danger of inserting too much information into the prose, especially if it's an otherwise short scene.
Consider:
Antag grappled frantically through the evocatively sun-lit, yet crowded train with the knife wielding Protag close on his rubber-clad heels and the sourness of breakfast coffee in his mouth. Failing deodorant scratched at nostrils, reluctant bodies thrust aside - reminders of childhood, flesh with the feel of jelly, cries of bewilderment and pain, the relentless rattle of wheel on track punctuating ragged breath, then unexpected darkness - a tunnel.
Even without the pernicious tang of adjective-overload, it surely just won't do to have so much description.
My question is, therefore: How do we know at which point enough is enough when it comes to including sensory information in a scene; i.e. which senses are the important ones for evoking a strong image for a reader and which can be safely left aside?
Research: I had a good rummage through existing questions but I can't find anything that's relevant. The nearest I can find is a question about How to describe 4 main characters at once without overloading the reader with information, which is interesting, but talks about characters rather than senses.
I did actually find someone with the opposite problem: How to develop a more vivid and descriptive writing style, but that doesn't really help me much.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/36674. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
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 Rule of Three.
In another context, this has been studied scientifically by psychologists. AKA the 80/20 rule, and the law of diminishing returns.
Specifically the study of mentality suggests we humans first exhibit difficulty remembering stuff when it exceeds three items (unless we are constantly exposed to the list by our job or our culture; e.g. if you listen to "country" every single morning on the way to work, you can probably rattle off the names of several country singers: But might have to pause after rattling off three songs by just ONE of the less famous ones).
Combine that with the 80/20 rule (or similar things), based on the Pareto Principle of natural phenomena: it is a proportional distribution that basically says 80% of the work is done by 20% of the effort. It isn't always true, but in a way it says perfection should NOT be the goal, there is a point of diminishing returns.
This gives us a two-pronged reason to pick three as the default number of descriptors; psychologically it is hard for an average reader to keep track of more, and adding a fourth or fifth descriptor is not adding enough new information to be worth reading the words. If you cannot describe it with three things, you are not focusing the attention of the reader properly.
Often we are looking for sight, sound, and scent; but we could be looking at temperature, dampness, emotional reaction, etc.
And of course there are exceptions: Novel situations or settings of wonder may demand much more description than making just three points about it; the same goes true for situational novelty, an important discovery, betrayal, or consummation of a relationship.
But here, follow the 80/20 rule again: 80% of the time, stick to three or less descriptors, enough to convey the most important sensory takeaway. Remember we are trying to guide the imagination of the reader, not straight-jacket it.
To a large extent, this interacts with the rule of consequences: what we choose to describe should matter to the character or story. What they notice is character revealing, or might play into the story; e.g. the CEO of the company keeps roller blades in the corner of his office (But remember Chekov's Roller Blades, don't show them if you aren't going to use them!)
0 comment threads
@Amadeus and @DPT both provide great answers. I will add one consideration to their answers, an aspect @DPT mentions, but doesn't elaborate on.
It's not just how much description you have, how many senses are engaged, how many adjectives are used. Ultimately, your description needs to paint one concise picture. Your descriptors should employ different senses (including time, as @DPT points out), but all should point in the same direction.
@DPT gives an example of pain/fear, and the intrusion of singing birds. The birds are out of place, they do not belong. Contrast this with your example: pressing bodies, taste of coffee, rubber heels - it doesn't coalesce into one clear image. It's confusing.
I am almost inclined to say that @Amadeus's "Rule of Three" is an effect rather than a cause: a clear concise image can usually be painted well with three evocative sensory references. Like three points defining a plane: two are not enough, with four you're getting redundant. (Then again, maybe our brains are wired so that it's three images that draw the image for us.)
That said, sometimes the picture is already sufficiently clear, and more than one point of sensory information would just slow the scene down. In the middle of a pitched battle, for instance, one doesn't explore all one's senses. Other times, you can convey the fact that the character is overwhelmed, by providing more sensory information. (Overwhelmed by positive emotions is possible too - consider an exile returning home.) Or you can use three descriptors to draw a picture, and then a fourth to break it: for example, a peaceful pastoral landscape, and a gibbet.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads