The importance of description

[Darth Richard II]

Really? I think Forge of Darkness is his most vague work to date.

[Gormenghast]

Not with descriptions or prose.

[Shryke]

Have you read past book 3 yet?

[Yersinia]

Sometimes I wish an author would be a little more forthcoming with physical descriptions, but it doesn't stop me from engaging with the characters.

Little details doled out here and there can be more satisfying than a long description when the character is first introduced, especially when it's a PoV character and an elaborate physical description doesn't really make sense.

[Green Gogol]

Sometimes I wish an author would be a little more forthcoming with physical descriptions, but it doesn't stop me from engaging with the characters.

Little details doled out here and there can be more satisfying than a long description when the character is first introduced, especially when it's a PoV character and an elaborate physical description doesn't really make sense.

That's another problem I have with the series. Patience. That's what everybody says. You have to be patient with mbotf, it will come later. But when I read fantasy novels, it is for entertainment. And I usually want to be entertained while reading, not at a later date, on further reread.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Have you tried Stanek?

[Green Gogol]

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.

I'll just quote Orson Scott Card:

"The advice "show don't tell" is applicable in only a few situations -- most times, most things, you tell-don't-show. I get so impatient with this idiotic advice that has been plaguing writers for generations.

Motivation is precisely the one thing that cannot be shown. What movies do -- using dialogue or most-obvious-assumed-motive to communicate motive is actually not very good because there are no shades or subtleties and rarely can be (it just takes so darn much screen time!). It's one of the reasons why movies simply aren't very good at subtle motivation, and constantly have to reach for obvious audience sympathies ...

When you are using a POV character, the single most important thing that you must tell the reader is the full purpose of what the character is doing, as soon as the character knows it himself. If you do not, you are cheating, and the audience gets less and less patient with you, until they lose interest because you are not telling them the most important information that people come to stories -- especially fiction -- to receive!"

Reading the article about Show don't tell on wikipedia is also interesting.

[MinDonner]

What are you even trying to argue here? That you are "correct" in your dislike of Erikson? Taste doesn't work like that. You are quite entitled to like or dislike whatever you want, but trying to prove that your preferences are somehow logical and objective is just pointless and irritating.

[Green Gogol]

Well, I thought a forum was a place used to discuss with other people. My mistake.

[Larry of the Lawn]

Min, I feel like you're trying to make a point here, but maybe you could go ahead tell us instead of beating around the bush trying to show us.

[MinDonner]

My motivation is to halt the progress of what appears to be yet another "reasons to hate Malazan" thread, thinly veiled in the guise of a badly-worded OP on descriptive passages. I am annoyed at both the deception and the laziness! Also my hair is red and my expression is stern and I am wearing pyjamas.

[Serious Callers Only]

This is a hate malazan thread? Represent!

[Green Gogol]

My motivation is to halt the progress of what appears to be yet another "reasons to hate Malazan" thread, thinly veiled in the guise of a badly-worded OP on descriptive passages. I am annoyed at both the deception and the laziness! Also my hair is red and my expression is stern and I am wearing pyjamas.

You should take a deep breath and calm down. I am not trying to deceive anybody here. You like Malazan? Great, happy for you. Is it perfect? I doubt it. I am just pointing out what I think are problems with the first book and using it as a starting point for discussing the usefulness of detailed description in a complete imaginary world. As for badly worded, and laziness. Sorry, but not everybody is a native english speaker.

Anyway, as usual on the internet, you point your finger toward something, but instead people will criticize your finger, how you pointed and the color of you t-shirt.

As for hate of Malazan? I don't hate it at all. Tried to read the first book three times, didn't enjoy it, tried to understand why because it's said to be great, and I think it's because of the lack of information.

[Toblakai]

Both of those descriptions you cited give a ton of detail about the characters in terms of how they are viewed, experience and disposition in a very economical way. What it doesn't give is the specifics of that appearance, such as eye color, hair color, etc. But so what?

And I wouldn't quote that asshat Orson Scott Card to back up anything.

[Snowborn]

I might be reading too much into it, but there's probably some foreshadowing in the descriptions as well. Spoiler GotM:

Paran being covered in blood and surrounded by flies indicating that he will die, but he's still standing, he'll come back to life.

[Green Gogol]

Both of those descriptions you cited give a ton of detail about the characters in terms of how they are viewed, experience and disposition in a very economical way. What it doesn't give is the specifics of that appearance, such as eye color, hair color, etc. But so what?

And I wouldn't quote that asshat Orson Scott Card to back up anything.

I don't know. I have a tendency to have more confidence in the knowledge of a writer that won several hugo's and nebula's than some random dude on the net.

[Shryke]

I'll just quote Orson Scott Card:

Reading the article about Show don't tell on wikipedia is also interesting.

God that's a dumb quote.

He's got a point about show-don't-tell, but he clearly does not understand film (or television) at all.

[Andrew Gilfellon]

Yeah, but Orsen spends more time talking out of his ass these days that it's ruined any respect in people's eyes.

Steven Erikson has also won awards and his writing is far superior. So what if we don't know that Paran has green eyes or that his beard is pointed like an arrow. Different authors have different styles. I would never stop reading a book because all I got was an impression of what the character was about. And some of those quotes you quoted have the exact same detail that Erikson included in his,

Opinions are opinions though.

[UtherDoul]

I don't know. I have a tendency to have more confidence in the knowledge of a writer that won several hugo's and nebula's than some random dude on the net.

And in the Iliad we get no physical description of Achilles whatsoever (except that he has a hairy chest). I think I'll take the most influential and popular epic of western civilisation over a guy who won a SF award.

See how silly this is?

There are different schools of thought and everyone has their preferences. There is no real answer. Personally I'm fine with both, though I usually prefer the description to be presented organically and not just have a laundry list of physical characteristics.

Besides, it's not as if Erikson never gives descriptions. We know that Quick Ben is black-skinned, blue eyed, tall, slender and with a shaven head. We know that Fiddler has red hair and beard that are starting to go grey. We know that Apsalar is dark haired, lithe, and has eyes with epicanthic folds. Etc.

[Green Gogol]

And in the Iliad we get no physical description of Achilles whatsoever (except that he has a hairy chest). I think I'll take the most influential and popular epic of western civilisation over a guy who won a SF award.

See how silly this is?

There are different schools of thought and everyone has their preferences. There is no real answer. Personally I'm fine with both, though I usually prefer the description to be presented organically and not just have a laundry list of physical characteristics.

Besides, it's not as if Erikson never gives descriptions. We know that Quick Ben is black-skinned, blue eyed, tall, slender and with a shaven head. We know that Fiddler has red hair and beard that are starting to go grey. We know that Apsalar is dark haired, lithe, and has eyes with epicanthic folds. Etc.

As I said earlier, but maybe I was not clear enough, is that in the quotes I chose, you can get a glimpse into each character's life. Get to know them a bit. Of course knowing that a character has brown eyes can be irrelevant. But skillful description is not limited to superficial appearance.