The importance of description

[Green Gogol]

I've recently tried to read for the third time Gardens of the Moon, since I keep earing how good the series is. But I failed again. People say the first book is confusing. But I think the problem is not so much confusion, it's lack of skill. It is poorly written. A good author will tell me a story, and will give me the details needed to understand the story. Some say Erikson is a genius because he keeps you in the dark, he makes you work for the reward. I don't want to work, I don't want to analyse the text to get the basic details on a complete imaginary world. You say you built this great world in your head. Then please share some details with me, I am not a telepath!

Let's contrast Erikson descriptions with those of other popular authors:

Ganoes Paran:

The man and his horse were covered from head to toe in blood and bits of flesh. Flies and wasps buzzed hungrily around them. Lorn saw in Lieutenant Paran's face none of the youth that rightly belonged there. For all that, it was an easy face to rest eyes upon.

Tattersail:

The burgundy cloak with its silver emblem betokening her command of the 2nd Army's wizard cadre now hung from her round shoulders stained and scorched. Her oval, fleshy face, usually parading an expression of cherubic humor, was etched with deep-shadowed lines, leaving her cheeks flaccid and pale.

Both descriptions don't tell us much about the characters and it's all rather vague. I only quoted 1 paragraph each because that's all the info we get on the characters. After this single paragraph, the story goes on.

Let's look a other author, which skillfully gives us a lot of info in a few words and manages to make us want to know more.

Moorcock's Elric:

IT IS THE colour of a bleached skull, his flesh; and the long hair which flows below his shoulders is milk-white. From the tapering, beautiful head stare two slanting eyes, crimson and moody, and from the loose sleeves of his yellow gown emerge two slender hands, also the colour of bone, resting on each arm of a seat which has been carved from a single, massive ruby.

The crimson eyes are troubled and sometimes one hand will rise to finger the light helm which sits upon the white locks: a helm made from some dark, greenish alloy and exquisitely moulded into the likeness of a dragon about to take wing. And on the hand which absently caresses the crown there is a ring in which is set a single rare Actorios stone whose core sometimes shifts sluggishly and reshapes itself, as if it were sentient smoke and as restless in its jewelled prison as the young albino on his Ruby Throne.

He looks down the long flight of quartz steps to where his court disports itself, dancing with such delicacy and whispering grace that it might be a court of ghosts. Mentally he debates moral issues and in itself this activity divides him from the great majority of his subjects, for these people are not human.

These are the people of Melnibone, the Dragon Isle, which ruled the world for ten thousand years and has ceased to rule it for less than five hundred years. And they are cruel and clever and to them 'morality' means little more than a proper respect for the traditions of a hundred centuries.

To the young man, four hundred and twenty-eighth in direct line of descent from the first Sorcerer Emperor of Melnibone, their assumptions seem not only arrogant but foolish; it is plain that the Dragon Isle has lost most of her power and will soon be threatened, in another century or two, by a direct conflict with the emerging human nations whom they call, somewhat patronisingly, the Young Kingdoms.

Fritz Leiber's Fafrhd

Then he slowed in amaze as he was passed almost as if he were at a standstill by a tall, white, slender figure glide-ruinning so swiftly the it seemed for a moment it went on skis. Then for another instant, the turbaned man thought it was another Snow Woman, but then he noted that it wore a short fur jerkin rather than a long fur robe - and so was presumably a Snow Man or Snow Youth, though the black-turbaned man had never seen a Snow Clan male dressed in white.

The strange, swift figure glide-ran, with chin tucked down and eyes bent away from the Snow Women, as if fearing to meet their wrathful blue gaze. Then, as he swiftly knelt by the felled actress, long reddish-blond hair spilled from his hood. From that and the figure's slenderness, the black-turbaned man knew an instant of fear that the intercomer was a very tall Snow Girl, eager to strike the first blow at close quarters.

But then he saw a jut of downy male chin in the reddish-blond hair and also a pair of a massive silver bracelets of the sort one gained only by pirating.

Tolkien's Aragorn:

Suddenly Frodo noticed that strange-looking weather-beaten man, sitting in the shadows near the wall, was also listening intently to the hobbit-talk. He had a tall tankard in front of him, and was smoking a long-stemmed pipe curiously carved. His legs were stretched out before him, showing high boots of supple leather that fitted him well, but had seen much wear and were now caked with mud. A travel-stained cloak of heavy dark-green cloth was drawn close and about him, and in spite of the heat of the room he wore a hood that overshadowed his face; but the gleam of his eyes could be seen as he watched the hobbits.

Peake's RottCodd:

Entering at seven o’clock, winter and summer, year in and year out, Rottcodd would disengage himself of his jacket and draw over his head a long grey overall which descended shapelessly to his ankles. With his feather duster tucked beneath his arm, it was his habit to peer sagaciously over his glasses down the length of the hall. His skull was dark and small like a corroded musket bullet and his eyes behind the gleaming of his glasses were the twin miniatures of his head. All three were constantly on the move, as though to make up for the time they spent asleep, the head wobbling in a mechanical way from side to side when Mr Rottcodd walked, and the eyes, as though taking their cue from the parent sphere to which they were attached, peering here, there, and everywhere at nothing in particular. Having peered quickly over his glasses on entering and having repeated the performance along the length of the north wing after enveloping himself in his overall, it was the custom of Rottcodd to relieve his left armpit of the feather duster, and with that weapon raised, to advance towards the first of the carvings on his right hand side, without more ado.

Martin's Eddard Stark:

Bran’s father sat solemnly on his horse, long brown hair stirring in the wind. His closely trimmed beard was shot with white, making him look older than his thirty-five years. He had a grim cast to his grey eyes this day, and he seemed not at all the man who would sit before the fire in the evening and talk softly of the age of heroes and the children of the forest. He had taken off Father’s face, Bran thought, and donned the face of Lord Stark of Winterfell.

Miéville's Lin:

Lin was hairless. Her muscles were tight under her red skin, each distinct. She was like an anatomical atlas. Isaac studied her in cheerful lust.

...

It was when she ate that Lin was most alien, and their shared meals were a challenge and an affirmation. As he watched her, Isaac felt the familiar trill of emotion: disgust immediately stamped out, pride at the stamping out, guilty desire.

Light glinted in Lin’s compound eyes. Her headlegs quivered. She picked up half a tomato and gripped it with her mandibles. She lowered her hands while her inner mouthparts picked at the food her outer jaw held steady.

Isaac watched the huge iridescent scarab that was his lover’s head devour her breakfast.

He watched her swallow, saw her throat bob where the pale insectile underbelly segued smoothly into her human neck…not that she would have accepted that description. Humans have khepri bodies, legs, hands; and the heads of shaved gibbons, she had once told him.

Bakker's Geshrunni:

Dark even in the lamplight, Geshrunni lowered his arms, which had been folded across his white silk vest, and leaned forward in his seat. He was an imposing figure, possessing a hawkish soldier’s face, a beard pleated into what looked like black leather straps, and thick arms so deeply tanned that one could see, but never quite decipher, the line of Ainoni pictograms tattooed from shoulder to wrist.

Achamian tried to grin affably. “You and my wives,” he said, tossing back yet another bowl of wine. He gasped and smacked his lips. Geshrunni had always been, or so Achamian had assumed, a narrow man, one for whom the grooves of thought and word were few and deep. Most warriors were such, particularly when they were slaves.

But there had been nothing narrow about his claim.

Geshrunni watched him carefully, the suspicion in his eyes rounded by a faint wonder. He shook his head in disgust. “I should’ve said, ‘I know who you are.’”

The man leaned back in a contemplative way so foreign to a soldier’s manner that Achamian’s skin pimpled with dread. The rumbling tavern receded, became a frame of shadowy figures and points of golden lantern-light.

Rowling's Harry Potter:

Perhaps it had something to do with living in a dark cupboard, but Harry had always been small and skinny for his age. He looked even smaller and skinnier than he really was because all he had to wear were old clothes of Dudley’s, and Dudley was about four times bigger than he was. Harry had a thin face, knobbly knees, black hair, and bright green eyes. He wore round glasses held together with a lot of Scotch tape because of all the times Dudley had punched him on the nose. The only thing Harry liked about his own appearance was a very thin scar on his forehead that was shaped like a bolt of lightning. He had had it as long as he could remember, and the first question he could ever remember asking his Aunt Petunia was how he had gotten it.

So, it's possible to give some quick info on the characters without making an "infodump". And I think it helps the story in the end.

[Andrew Gilfellon]

It is possible but then authors have different styles. Just because one may like to describe a character in minute detail there are others, like Erikson, who like to leave it up to the reader's imagination.

Maybe you should quit Malazan Book of the Fallen if you're expecting everything about a character to be described in micro detail.

Also, many of those examples have similar detail to what you quoted about Paran and Tattersail.

[Green Gogol]

It is possible but then authors have different styles. Just because one may like to describe a character in minute detail there are others, like Erikson, who like to leave it up to the reader's imagination.

Maybe you should quit Malazan Book of the Fallen if you're expecting everything about a character to be described in micro detail.

Also, many of those examples have similar detail to what you quoted about Paran and Tattersail.

Yes, they have different styles. But compare Tolkien's description of Aragorn, which, while leaving much to the readers imagination about his looks, tells us much about him, to Erikson's description of Paran, which tells us nothing at all. All we kow is that he is full of blood and flies, because he just spent the day inspecting a carnage, and that he looks older than he his, and that he is somewhat good looking. But nothing else. What do we learn about Paran in this description? Who is Paran?

Compare to Martin's description of Eddard Stark. From a few words, we get to learn how he behaves with his children, and with his subjects.

It's my opinion, but I don't think that the way Erikson does it is skillful. Just lacking. If you want me to care about the world and the characters, then please tell me about them.

[polishgenius]

What do we learn about Paran in this description? Who is Paran?

It's, what, a 900 page novel, the first of a series that altogether must top 10,000? There's plenty of time to find out more about who Paran is, and you do.

Yeah, Erikson does tend to the light side on descriptions (enough so that a lot of people don't realise QB and Kalam are black for a long time, and I didn't realise Tayschrenn is until ICE wrote about him), but in terms of telling the story, it doesn't really matter. The details that are important will come, even if sometimes you do have to wait for them.

[Green Gogol]

It's, what, a 900 page novel, the first of a series that altogether must top 10,000? There's plenty of time to find out more about who Paran is, and you do.

Yeah, Erikson does tend to the light side on descriptions (enough so that a lot of people don't realise QB and Kalam are black for a long time, and I didn't realise Tayschrenn is until ICE wrote about him), but in terms of telling the story, it doesn't really matter. The details that are important will come, even if sometimes you do have to wait for them.

Ok. But tell me one thing. How is it good story telling to find out that Tayschrenn is black in a book by another author? What purpose does it serve to avoid describing the guy for such a long time? When you learned it, did you go "oh, he's black! That's clever!"?

[Snowborn]

Why should Tayschrenn's being black be relevant to the story? What's the purpose in describing him earlier? There's no cleverness or lack of it in not mentioning that fact in the first book.

Anyway, I think Paran's description is good, it tells you some things about him even though you might not be aware of it yet. I see nothing wrong with Tattersail's either.

[Darth Richard II]

Yeah, you lost me when you used Moorcock as a good example of anything.

[MinDonner]

Thongor:

"He was a great bronzed lion of a man, thewed like a savage god, naked save for the leather clout and bare trappings of a wandering mercenary swordsman. His tanned, expressionless face was majestic and stern beneath the rude mane of thick black hair that poured over his broad shoulders, held back from his brow by a leather band. At his side the steel length of a great Valkarthan longsword hung in its black leather scabbard, and a vast scarlet cloak swung from his shoulders, secured by a narrow gold chain about his throat. His lips were tight set but his strange golden eyes showed no trace of fear."

<_<

Eta: don't make me quote that bit about Richard looking like a statue of himself

[polishgenius]

Ok. But tell me one thing. How is it good story telling to find out that Tayschrenn is black in a book by another author? What purpose does it serve to avoid describing the guy for such a long time? When you learned it, did you go "oh, he's black! That's clever!"?

No, I went 'oh, he's black. Well huh', and then got on with it because it doesn't matter. As I say, the important things get across. And you do get more details about characters and such from context and stuff as the characters interact, and that's fine by me.

[Green Gogol]

Well, seems like I'm the only one who enjoy good detailed descriptions.

[MinDonner]

It's fine to enjoy it. But don't make the mistake of believing that long descriptions are necessarily correlated with good writing. I've read some of the worst barbarian shit ever published and pretty much all of those books liked to pile on the adjectives.

[polishgenius]

I can enjoy a good description, but a good description isn't necessary to my enjoyment. And a bad or overlong description throws me far more than a slightly inadequate one.

[Snowborn]

Not all detailed descriptions are necessarily good. Sometimes a short description works better than a long one, that doesn't make it bad writing, and depends on how the author wants to present a scene or a person. And, yeah, like MinDonner said, piling adjectives on makes for bad, purple prose.

[Green Gogol]

It's fine to enjoy it. But don't make the mistake of believing that long descriptions are necessarily correlated with good writing. I've read some of the worst barbarian shit ever published and pretty much all of those books liked to pile on the adjectives.

Never said that. I said lack of useful description is bad writing. If most readers have trouble figuring what ypu are talking about that is not a good sign.

[Andrew Gilfellon]

I always knew Kalam was black. As soon as it was mentioned he was from the Seven Cities and then we visited that place in Deadhouse Gates and saw the culture. And even then it wasn't a big deal because Kalam was awesome. I have no problem with description, I just don't see why authors have to devote an entire page or 4 paragraphs to describing a character. What is wrong with using imagination.

Not every character needs to be described as long as you have imagination. :)

[Darth Richard II]

You would hate Glen Cook, then.

[Pecan]

No, I went 'oh, he's black. Well huh', and then got on with it because it doesn't matter. As I say, the important things get across. And you do get more details about characters and such from context and stuff as the characters interact, and that's fine by me.

I suppose it depends on your definition of what matters. As much as I like Erikson, the OP has a point here. I don't agree with all of his examples, but with the descriptions of Aragorn and Eddard Stark in particular, there is a sense of richness that is missing in the Malazan books. But, I don't find Erikson's writing flat, which is the problem I have with so many other authors. Speaking only for myself, his sparing style seems to work well enough.

Also, as kind of side note, I find the difference in tone between Erikson and ICE a bit jarring, though I've only read Return of the Crimson Guard so far and that was several years ago. I'm curious if anyone else feels the same way.

[Shryke]

Descriptions or lack there of are just a stylistic choice.

[emberling]

My god, that Moorcock. Gah. The eyes bleed.

Description is often "telling" which is something that conventional wisdom holds should be held to a minimum. Most of the stuff you quoted is high fantasy that specifically uses a style that breaks this rule. The more time you spend piling on the adjectives and the passive 'is' statements, the longer it takes to get to the part where characters actually do anything, which is where the real characterization happens.

The Miéville is pretty close to perfect, showing vividly through action. Banal action, yes, but that's perfect for Lin - it conveys that she is not as exotic to Isaac as she is to us.

I sold my Erikson so I can't check whether there's some actual characterization that follows those tiny tiny tiny snips you took, but my recollection is that Erikson prefers to lean very heavily on dialogue. He's also a much less adept stylist than Miéville and most of the others you listed, but you don't read Erikson for prose. I found it to have fairly vivid characterization in general - Tattersail, Apsalar, Rake, Karsa, Tehol, Gruntle, Shurq Elalle I found particularly memorable. The last time I touched the series was when Bonehunters came out - 7 years ago, apparently - and I'm good at forgetting things, so if I remember that many it can't be all that bad.

[Gormenghast]

It's my opinion, but I don't think that the way Erikson does it is skillful. Just lacking. If you want me to care about the world and the characters, then please tell me about them.

That's without a doubt a weak point in Erikson's style. I can tell you it gets much better from book 2 onward, but the issue is still present in some ways and you always feel it (though I would say a book like Forge of Darkness has none of these problems). Despite the heft of the books Erikson doesn't give you lush, flowing prose.

The problem is that you're trying to measure different writers with the same "yardstick". What you consider not skillful is more about a matter of personal style and choice. It can definitely upset readers that come with their own set of expectations, but these rules aren't absolute.

That's why so many readers have problems with Erikson. There are things in his writing that upset a number of common expectations.

The only thing I could say is to stop trying to compare writing styles and writers between each other, and focus on what actually is in the book. "Lack" of descriptions is about something that you expect but that the book decided to not give you.

In general, every scene that Erikson writes has only elements that are necessary for that scene (or other necessary things you don't immediately identify). There's very little "flavor" text, and trying to visualize scenes is never very simple. Erikson just isn't that kind of writer. But you'll slowly discover that his style is absolutely not soulless and absolutely not "unskilled". He just "paints" in different colors and with different brushes.