Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

60%
+1 −0
Q&A Is this kind of description not recommended?

It is natural for people to notice any physical feature that stands out, but some words such as "tall", "big", "fat", "short" etc are not that descriptive. Adding "very" doesn't help. If it is nec...

posted 5y ago by Amadeus‭  ·  last activity 5y ago by System‭

Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed by user avatar System‭ · 2019-12-19T22:13:52Z (about 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47407
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added by user avatar System‭ · 2019-12-08T12:45:03Z (about 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/47407
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision by (deleted user) · 2019-12-08T12:45:03Z (about 5 years ago)
It is natural for people to notice any physical feature that stands out, but some words such as "tall", "big", "fat", "short" etc are not that descriptive. Adding "very" doesn't help.

If it is necessary to describe somebody's height, then it is better to use a comparison. "He was tall, nobody else in the crowd reached his chin."

Also, in terms of describing characters that will appear in multiple scenes, (like the main characters or supporting characters), it is generally better to not describe many physical characteristics at all. It slows down the story to spend time doing that, but more importantly, it **increases the amount of information the reader has to memorize and remember.**

This is why we say "Show, Don't Tell." Telling us a bunch of characters traits doesn't paint a picture in our mind, like beginning authors think it does. And these differences very seldom have anything to do with the plot. One or two might, if a girl is a natural redhead searching for her redheaded father, that detail about her hair is something the reader should learn early on.

But most physical attributes do **not** actually have any impact on the plot. The recommended way to introduce such characteristics is by having them make a difference in a scene, and perhaps even having them make a difference in a character's personality. A beautiful girl is _treated_ as a beautiful girl, both by guys and other girls. Hilarious friends are funny and make us laugh. Tall friends are easy to find in a crowd, or can reach high shelves, or have to duck for doorways getting on the subway or getting into a car. You have to literally look up to them, and _figuratively_ tall men get more respect in groups when they speak, than do short men. It's just a fact of human psychology.

If you describe your characters by the _consequences_ of their features, you will create a visual scene and _those_ are memorable to readers, those stick.

Typically as an author you should not burden the reader with facts about characters they feel they have to remember for the length of the story; if a feature is truly unusual and necessary then it should have some sort of consequences.

But I hasten to say that describing a scene or setting is NOT something readers feel like they have to memorize for more than the few minutes they need to get through it. Like real life, the sensory experience and seeing and hearing a setting is important, to ground the reader in reality. But like real life, the details can be forgotten quickly, and mostly what the reader remembers is what happened there, what was said and done and the emotional consequences of it.

So I am not saying do not describe things, but when it comes to _characters_ (that are not one-time or one-scene walk-ons) it is best to portray them through actions and scenes and dialogue that suggests their physical and emotional characteristics. As the narrator, don't go on about how beautiful Cindy is; invent scenes and interactions and dialogue that show us how beautiful Cindy is. As a last resort, use a character to say how beautiful Cindy is. If she is truly beautiful, then people will notice, and act differently around her. Cindy will act differently because she has a lot of practice dealing with those reactions, unwanted advances, and compliments in inappropriate circumstances (e.g. getting hit on at a funeral).

Sometimes we tell, sometimes we show. The difference is that what we TELL has to be memorized by the reader, and what we SHOW in terms of a scene and imagined action and visualizations is far more easily recalled. Sight is our primary sense, and memorized "facts" not a tenth as powerful, and fading in a matter of minutes if only read once.

If something is **not** important for the reader to recall for more than a page, if it is just some detail to aid their imagination and help anchor them in a setting, then telling is fine. Otherwise, and in particular for characters and traits you want to be remembered, **show** is the way to go.

#1: Imported from external source by user avatar System‭ · 2019-08-19T13:33:53Z (over 5 years ago)
Original score: 2