For example...
-- describe clearly (the author would put in all the basic attributes of the character, and include lots of detail: 14 year old female, 5'3", blond, grey eyes, straight teeth, short spiky hair, broken pinky toe from a killer kickball game.)
-- some detail (the author would put in most of the basic attributes and some detail: 14 yr old female, 5'3", blonde, grey eyes, short spiky hair.)
-- basic description only (14 yr old female, 5'3", blonde, grey eyes)
--vague references (may indicate eye color here, hair color there, but very few details given)
Keep in mind these are just PHYSICAL references...you'd get to "know" the character as the story progresses.
My thesis advisor and I have different opinions about this, so I'm curious to see what other people prefer. Thanks for helping!
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? When I wrote my first books, I often liked to describe my characters as much as possible because I wanted to make the book play out like a movie when I read it (so I can imagine what they look like). Perhaps I even had a small hope that my books would be made into movies! However, when I re-read some of my work now, it seems very dull and boring when I spend a long time describing characters. It doesn't seem very relevant to the actual point of the book.
Now, I like to only keep vague references to my characters' appearances. Like perhaps if I had a love story then maybe the girl could be praised by the guy as having black hair flowing like the night or twinkling eyes like the moon, and that could help in the visual imagery of the story. However, description for the sake of descriptions aren't very useful. Still, I think that maybe you can use some descriptions to achieve good imagery or something of that sort. I can use olfactory imagery, for instance, to physically refer to that garbage man's smelliness from Sesame Street if I was writing about that; I could say that a putrid odor emanates from the garbage guy. If you wanted to mention that a character is 14 to reflect some character trait, such as lack of judgement, then you should do so. Also, maybe mentioning that your character has snow white hair while mentioning that another character has pitch black hair sometimes means you've made a contrast of character (one is innocent and the other is guilty) by mentioning these traits. Also, when mentioning nationality, I can show the character's patriotism when saluting a flag.
Ultimately, I think that most descriptions made just for the sake of making a description are more suitable for commercial fiction. That is, readers might want to be able to visualize the characters and perhaps relate to them in their escapist reading that is meant solely for the purpose of having fun. However, I think descriptions for the sake of maximizing the story's quality are good for bona fide literary fiction where there is a useful purpose beyond simply entertaining the reader, such as revealing some critical element of human existence. I appreciate literature more than commercial fiction, so I trust the author to give descriptions only when they are due; they don't always have to be vague to be appropriate, but they shouldn't be there just for the sake of visualizing the characters in a fun way.
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? Okay good luck with the paper. Report It
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? I don't mind descriptive elements into a book's character: so long as they're not too gross/graphic or way too obscene.
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? "--vague references (may indicate eye color here, hair color there, but very few details given)"
it's fiction. let the reader imagine how the character looks. i don't want all the exact details, it's literature, not a police report
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? well i am not a book analyser like u.but i would prefer the details in two ways.
first u visualise the character bettersecond i always believe that there will be some mystery in the description..like a broken toe can be used well
i would prefer as much details as possible!
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? -- vague references, because the character is fictional and the reader imagines him/her
I don't like books where character's description looks like a personal ad, usually i just skip the too detailed description part
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? As an avid reader, I can honestly say that I like detailed description (until I read this question, I thought I would have answered differently). No matter how many details the author gives me, my mind is going to run the way it wishes and with the added tid-bits, I'm allowed to have my imaginative interpretation structured. I feel as if the character is more realistic that way, because then again, a vague description could put me in the mind of my ex-boyfriend and I'd hate to go through an entire book imagining the character to look like someone I'm that familiar with. Give me DETAILS please! Its allows the writer to be more creative, and it allows the reader to be more intellectually imaginative. Happy Writing! I hope this helps. *tootles*
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? For me it would very much depend on the story line and how the character appears in the story. If the physical attributes comes to play in the story then I might would require the author provide detail. Suppose, the author wants to emphasize that looks are deceiving, so he might deal with the physical attributes of the villainous character. I am sure you can think of similar other ones.
Otherwise I'd like to have the liberty to create the image of the characters. Providing detail physical attributes makes literature appear very cheap to me.
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? When reading a good book the pleasure comes from your imagination interacting with the authors. Enough detail to lead you in a direction yet still allowing enough room to formulate your own opinion to finalize the details
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? I like some description of the character but not in an 'info dump'. I like to discover pieces of information while the story progresses. The detail, down to the broken toe, is certainly unnecessary unless it's integral to the plot. I think a scetch is important, with enough detail for the reader to fill in the gaps.
As an academic myself, I advise you to remember it's YOUR thesis, but in order to keep the peace and maintain 'face' all round, don't try to prove your supervisor wrong. A compromise might be the best solution. Once the thesis is complete, submitted and examined, you'll probably not read it again - nor will others (sorry). It's just a tool to progress you further along your path so don't get too hung up it, other than to make it as good as it needs to be to get you the degree.
Good luck.
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? I prefer vague references. Makes my imagination work...
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? This is an extremely interesting question.
Of course, I have read books with very detailed, some detail and vague references concerning physical descriptions.
I think a great writer probably can do any of the above descriptions and be successful. It's the greatness of the writer that counts (his genuis) rather than one style/type of writing.
That being said, in general, I don't like a lot of description because I find it boring and I am not a visual person, but when someone is a great writer, they make even the detailed descriptions great.
I hope I have been helpful and good luck with your thesis. Even though you and your advisor have different opinions, I wish you the strength to do what you think is best.
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? I heard a writer for the New Yorker interviewed on the radio and he said that their style requires them to avoid putting in descriptions as if the reader already knew them... As an example, if you say, "She brushed her long red hair aside," you're saying that as if the reader already knows she has long red hair. Instead, say, "She had long red hair which she brushed to the side." I'd never thought about it before I heard the interview, but I very much prefer the effect of the second.
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? I would have to say I like some detail (the author would put in most of the basic attributes and some detail: 14 yr old female, 5'3", blonde, grey eyes, short spiky hair.) Just enough to be sure everyone would see the character as basically similar, but still leaving enough open for the readers' individual imaginations.
I find Lilian Jackson Braun does a fine job of just this in her "The Cat Who..." mystery series. She usually describes the main character in the first chapter of each book just enough to get a basic idea of him and still leaves room to describe more here and there later in books or for the reader to imagine him/herself.
How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book? 閳ユ窔 don閳ユ獩 like to have nobody tell me what the guy that閳ユ獨 talking looks like. I want to figure out what he looks like from the way he talks. And another thing 閳?I kind of like to figure out what the guy閳ユ獨 thinking by what he says閳?br>How explicitly do you like the author to describe physical traits of the character in a book?
The one situation I hate is where the author gives only vague details, so you get some idea in your mind, then throws in references to the hero's long hair or the heroine's rotund figure, and it completely doesn't mesh with the person you were imagining. (I also hate when there is a picture on the cover that bears no resemblance to any characters mentioned in the book.)
So I guess for me, I prefer a moderate amount of detail, thrown in when the character is first introduced (although definitely not in one long descriptive paragraph!). Then the author can make references to the little boy's freckles or the hero's towering height later in the book, and it won't jar with the image I constructed already.
(Doubly so if the character isn't supposed to be what you'd normally picture - if the author says "a beautiful woman," I'd be fine with mentions of her slender form, her young skin, whatever, but I'd be thrown off later if she turns out to be old, Chinese, and blind. Even if she's a beautiful old blind Chinese woman, it's too far from the generic "beautful woman" most readers would think of.)
