Physical description in writing is very difficult to do well. For this reason, many teachers tell us to just stay away from it. They’re sick of reading stories in which the first paragraph looks more like a driver’s license than an introduction. Almost worse than this are the contrivances like “she walked past a mirror and observed her long, brown hair, her sideswept bangs dipping past her icy blue eyes.” As a matter of fact, I just used the “character walks past a mirror” trick in my most recent draft because I knew that physical comparison between two characters was important, but I didn’t know how to do it.
As a writer, I have a clear image of my characters that I want to share with my audience. As a reader, nothing bothers me more than having a mental picture of a character only to hear the author describe him/her differently in an interview, or the directors cast someone totally different in the movie.
Even though physical description of characters is hard, I think it’s a very necessary skill to work on developing. I’m currently reading Alice Munro’s most recent collection of short stories, Hateship, Friendship, Courtship, Loveship, Marriage. Munro is good at a lot of different things, but what stands out most to me is her excellent physical descriptions. I was stunned by this excerpt from “Comfort,” in which a woman has just discovered her deceased husband:
“The last couple of months had altered him a great deal -- it was really only now that she saw how much. When his eyes had been open, or even when he had been sleeping, some effort of his had kept up the illusion that the damage was temporary -- that the face of a vigorous, always potentially aggressive sixty-two-year-old man was still there, under the folds of bluish skin, that stony vigilance of illness. It had never been bone structure that gave his face its fierce and lively character -- it was all in the deep-set bright eyes and the twitchy mouth and the facility of expression, the fast-changing display of creases that effected his repertoire of mockery, disbelief, ironic patience, suffering disgust.”
What I notice most about this passage is that Munro does not give the usual hair color/eye color/height description. She tells about his face in a way that describes his personality as well as what he looked like both living and dead. We won’t all see the same man in our minds when we read this, but we all see the same type of man; we know enough about him to see some of his personality traits and how they work their way out in his expressions. Munro managed to give a description that includes emotion, that isn’t boring, and that actually develops his character. If a movie was ever made based on “Comfort,” I don’t think any of us would feel cheated if the actor didn’t look exactly as we pictured just as long as he correctly captured the essence of personality described here.
For my part, I admire Munro for what she’s done here, but I have no idea how to pull off a physical description like this in my own writing. My plan for now is to practice and try to get better. Do you have any strategies for describing your characters without listing off features? Are there any authors you think do this particularly well? Do you agree with me that physical description is important in writing, or do you think it’s helpful but unnecessary?
I love that you confessed to pulling the mirror trick! Honesty between writers is so helpful. It's good to know I'm not the only who struggles and wants to go toward what's cliche because it's easier and does what I tell it. I want to read Munro's stuff. Just the titles are intruiging and creative to me.
ReplyDeleteI have some friends who took a lit course on Austen once. The professor drew stick figures on the board, naming characters such as, "Mr. Darcy," "Katheryn Moreland," "Mr. Woodhouse." She then made a large, dramatic arrow toward one of the skeletal figures and wrote, "CLOTHES." Her point was that Austen makes very little mention of physical description, yet the story carries us along, we imagine what we want, and we are not tripped by too many specifics. I'm not saying that you shouldn't pursue how to write physical descriptions well, but I guess I appreciate the challenge of leaving them out almost altogether and seeing what you can get from your audience.
"What I notice most about this passage is that Munro does not give the usual hair color/eye color/height description. She tells about his face in a way that describes his personality as well as what he looked like both living and dead. We won’t all see the same man in our minds when we read this, but we all see the same type of man; we know enough about him to see some of his personality traits and how they work their way out in his expressions."
ReplyDeleteYeah, absolutely! This is great, Ashley. I noticed this same thing in the passage. I think what works for Munroe is that she is using external description for the purpose of personality exposure, not just for description's sake. What I love about character-driven fiction is that I feel I KNOW the characters--and not what they look like--I know who they ARE. Sometimes that matches with what they look like, sometimes what they look like matters little, but I get to know what makes them tick from inside. (Sometimes.)
On the flip side, in "real life" we learn about people first from the outside--we see them, we watch their nonverbal messages to know when they're angry, when they're thinking hard. We don't get the feelings explained to us, as writing can sometimes afford to do. Munroe's genius here is that she's hit the point where the physical and the spiritual (personality) meet--what does the physical eye do that we recognize as a personality trait? (It flashes, it's bright, it stares hard...) And here, when the character dies, we can see they are gone because the physical body is there, but there is no one inside it to make that body a person again. It seems like a lot of skill to be able to pin this description the way Munroe has here.
So cool. This gets me excited just thinking about it.
Munro is a genius. I never would have portrayed a character's physicality like that. I think I've been told by lots of writers that phsycial description is "good" in small quantities, but then it is sometimes annoying to suddenly find out, a few paragraphs in, that a character that I pictured as dark haired is actually blonde. I think it really depends on the emphasis of the piece. In novels, I like physical description because I can better picture a character who acts a lot in the book. In a short story, I think you might be able to get away with minimal physical description, just because so much of what we want to know deals with who the person is, like Elena was saying.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time, I know that physical characteristics can also be used to describe inward qualities as well, though. It's a tricky thing, to try to describe without being cliche (and I know I've done the mirror thing too). It's a good point to notice that the first thing we usually know about a person is their outward appearance. It's easier for me to connect to a character that I can picture instead of trying to relate to a specter.
Those might be contradictory paragraphs, but that's just more my overall thoughts on the matter. Interesting discussion topic!
I think you got it absolutely right when you analyze Munro's description as getting at his personality as well. That, to me, is the only and best way to give a description. In the same way that the fact that a character drives a certain car should reflect something about their personality, so should the physical descriptions of that character. I think it's important that the descriptions go beyond exterior and actually add something meaningful to the story or the reader's understanding of the character. Of course, that's a lot easier said than done. Also, sometimes I think it's okay to leave out those "driver's license" details (even if you know them yourself) and focus on the more quirky aspects of your character's physical appearance. So what if they have blue eyes? Let's talk about the hazel fleck in the left eye that make the character feel just a little less attractive than those pure blue-eyed people.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it's in the strange and unusual details. Instead of describing hair color and eye color, there is more of an emphasis on unusual language and the emotion behind the state of his eye shape or the color of his skin.
ReplyDeleteI also admire your honesty in admitting the mirror trick. I mean - at least it gets the description out! I love that you're exploring other options though...I guess I haven't thought this through very much. The key must be to heavily combine physicality with emotional tendencies. I think that when I read a book, I want to know more about the person than just his or her shell but I want it spoonfed to me in a way that I won't even know it's happening. Maybe this is selfish as a reader, but I think that's how we all want it to happen. We suddenly want this impression of the character, but we don't want to know exactly how we got it.
Okay, way to blow off the lid of the mirror trick, Ashley! I've been SO guilty of that in the past, and physical description is tricky. Something that I have tried to do is imagine how they would react to a wacky situation, and then pick out one thing to zone-in on. It could be the way he/she picks up a bottle of water, or the funky lisp that comes out when the character yells. I imagine details like that seeping in slowly through a sponge, and like Lauren said, I don't want to know I'm being fed details. It's the things that meld into the person that gives me a snapshot of who he/she is.
ReplyDeleteYou are all so insightful! Thanks, Elena, for pointing out that in stories we learn about people backwards from in real life. I need to let that thought simmer in my brain for a while, but I feel like it's a really good point to take note of. And Heidi, you're definitely right that a quirky detail will get you further in terms of character development than just straight description. That's one of the only tricks to physical description I've figured out in my own writing, and I try to use it where I can.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Lauren and Celinda that it's annoying to be fed descriptions. I think that's something I really struggle with, because it usual takes me a few revisions before I'm able to work in details subtly. I'm always so impatient that I just throw everything out there. Maybe that's just part of my writing process, going back through and sifting out what can stay and then rearranging it so it's meaningful.
This has always been such a dilemma, and I really liked the Alice Munro quote that you included here! I enjoy the way Munro manages to use the character's personality to describe him or her, and I think she's really on to something there. I also think that a lot of the way you describe a character really depends on the actual character rather than on the author desperately calling out a bland, driver's-license-style description. I've gone through some really awful "mirror" phases in the past, and whenever I read them I cringe. The best way out that I've found is, like Heidi said, to watch for the character's quirks and then let them unfold naturally as the story progresses. And it might also help to bring out the details little by little instead of trying to pack them all into one moment, if only to keep the story moving.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOops, posted that in the wrong spot. Here it is again.
ReplyDeleteI think that some physical description is necessary. For instance, Hunger Games. I like knowing that Katniss has long brown hair that she usually keeps in a braid, and I like that she will look that way in the movie. We as readers/viewers can identify her. Or Wheel of Time. I know what Rand al'Thor looks like, and it would be hard keeping him and all the other characters straight if we didn't have descriptions. But like you said, it's also important to get a feel for their personalities. So I think there needs to be a good balance of both, or they need to go together exactly. The person's appearance is so tied with his/her personality, it's hard to separate them.
I love this, Ashley! You've addressed one of the problems that I have trouble with too. I used to use the mirror trick too. It's hard to be clever in giving decent physical descriptions, especially when it's the main character and you're using limited omniscient, where we can only see into that character's mind.
ReplyDeleteBut I think you hit on one of the most important roles of description: establishing personality. It's all well to know what a character looks like, but we'll all have images in our heads about them whether they are described or not. We picture them by knowing their personalities, and the descriptions should really enhance the character. When I started writing my first story draft, I was wondering how I was going to cleverly reveal his description, yet, as I started writing and tried to figure out his mind, I forgot completely about squeezing in a description. A few tidbits came out here and there, but I didn't force it, and I think that's the best thing to do. Just see what happens when you don't plan to have them walk by a mirror and base it on what the character wants to do.
For whatever reason, i as a reader struggle to put a face to a name when i am reading. i think part of it is that i don't want to read somebody in my own life into the story. The payoff for my writing is that i tend not to describe physically as much.
ReplyDeletei have thought, recently, that literature is less about experiencing life visually and more about tasting it incrementally, bit by bit and with very self-conscious connections (between characters, the action and the scene, a personality trait and a character's behavior, etc.). i am not saying that physical description, or sensory information, could be done without. Another way i think of stories is as a remembering, and in our own memories, the picture and the sensory details are very present, sometimes even vivid. Yet, since words reach out to many readers with diverse experiences, i gravitate more toward painting the picture of a personality and letting the reader levy a face.
Even now, though, i am remembering how the stature of a character can portray their presence, stereotypically or ironically. A man built like a linebacker is not the stereotype for a compassionate person, but i suspect he exists in the real world and might as well exist in a story too. So all in all, maybe it's good to put a binding and cover on the book.
You were honest with us, that is good. It is tricky to get physical description down pat. In real life we don't walk around expressing each other's silky black hair, piercing blue eyes, etc etc. I think that's where we get tripped up. A huge lesson can be learned by writing your characters in a comfortable language of speech. Would they describe that in real life? Would that detail matter? How would a character truly see themselves? I enjoyed your example, because Munro painted an image without using the usual paint. Excellent! So glad that you pointed this out.
ReplyDeleteThis was already mentioned, but what struck me was how you noticed that she used physical description not to paint a purely physical picture of the character, but one that tells what kind of person he is inside. I'm in the ignore-descriptions-altogether camp still, but maybe I need to practice. Recently, I was encouraged to use the setting of one of my stories to be an active part of the story I'm telling; maybe the appearance of my characters should be one of my next steps toward integration of all of my story elements.
ReplyDelete