Browse: Home / / Describing A Description

Describing A Description

By Robert Swartwood on May 3, 2010

Yesterday on Twitter I mentioned (sarcastically, of course) how I love when writers have their protagonists look at themselves in a mirror so the reader can get a description of what that particular character looks like. Lazy storytelling or convenient storytelling? Either way, I know I’ve been guilty of it.

But then I wondered how does one go about describing a protagonist when the book is seen only through that protagonist’s point of view? Oftentimes in books that deal with multiple POVs you might find a secondary character seeing the protag for the first time, and then there goes your description. But even that seems like lazy and convenient storytelling.

And then I wondered does the reader really even need to know what the protagonist looks like? Maybe. If it’s crucial to the plot, I guess so. Thinking over all the books I’ve read, very rarely am I given an exact description of a protagonist. And if I am given one, oftentimes that description is muddled with my preconceived notion of what the character already looks like.

I’m not talking about characters in short stories. Very rarely are we given a description of the main character in stories, and when we do it’s for a good reason … or at least it should be a good reason.

So what, exactly, is the best way to describe your protagonist without seeming lazy?

Or, better yet, is it possible to pull off lazy techniques if they’re done well?

This last question puts me in mind of Orson Welles’s Touch of Evil. One of the legends of the film is Welles — being the crazy genius that he was — asked a producer to give him the very worst script available to prove that he could make a great film from an awful script. And while Touch of Evil may not be the greatest film ever made, it certainly has its moments all thanks to Welles.

So I wonder even if you have your protagonist look at himself or herself in the mirror so the reader can get a description of what they look like — if you pull it off masterly so that the reader barely even notices, is it still considered lazy storytelling?

Posted in | 7 Responses

  • Samuel Rippey

    There are some novels–mostly by horror writers, oddly–in which I *expect* the main characters to look at themselves in the mirror. I think the ‘adverb rule’ can be applied to this convention: nine times out of ten, it’s a bad idea. But that one time out of ten, if it’s done well, then OK.

    I think the best way to describe a main character is to let their actions do the talking. It’s like listening to your favorite radio DJ: you get a strong mental picture of them just by hearing their voice. If the character is written strongly enough, the reader can’t help but get an image in his head.

    But, failing that, the best way to describe a character…is to just do it. I’ve never objected to a paragraph or two of flat-out description for its own sake. Once you get it out of the way, you can get down to business.

    [Reply]

  • http://probablyjustastory.blogspot.com/ Laura Ellen Scott

    I think you have more flexibility with the opportunity IF you character is interesting looking. Too often I come across self descriptions that don’t really add anything–if your narrator has sandy brown hair, pale blue eyes, narrow lips concealing wry amusement, etc, I just don’t want to know.

    [Reply]

  • Robert Swartwood

    Samuel – I like what you say about the character’s actions doing the talking. But I’m not a big fan of the omnipotent POV, where the author is basically talking to us and describing the characters and places. Not that it can’t be done well, but normally I like reading (and writing) from a character’s viewpoint.

    LES – Exactly. It’s only prudent for your narrator to look into a mirror when they have three or more eyes :-) (Seriously, though, you’re right; if it doesn’t add anything to the story, it shouldn’t be there to begin with.)

    [Reply]

  • http://benwhite.com Ben White

    In a lot (most?) fantasy novels, the main characters are often depicted on the front cover (in that corny, painful way that only genre books feel comfortable enough to pull off).

    And yet, I’d say these are very same books that have the most egregious and unnecessary description. I’m thinking of the The Wheel of Time series and descriptions of the relative amount of lace embroidery as it relates to outfits over time.

    But there is my answer. Photo glossary.

    [Reply]

  • Gavin

    In the end, all that matters is the readers’ reaction. If they don’t notice the laziness, because they buy into it, or they’re so distracted by your beautiful prose that they don’t bother to question its position…mission accomplished, right?

    [Reply]

  • Dawn West.

    I have no problem with lazy techniques if they’re done exceptionally.

    I personally stay away from overt character description, even in third person. I’m not a master haha. I let a character’s actions reveal select physical characteristics throughout the story. For a split-second example: she raked a bony hand through her volcano of russet hair.

    [Reply]

  • Robert Swartwood

    Gavin – That sounds good to me :-)

    Dawn – Revealing select physical characteristics throughout the story can be tricky too. Such as your example — I think it would only work with an omnipotent POV. After all, if you’re writing through a character’s POV, the character is not thinking so much about his/her hand and hair (the color, the texture, etc). Also, sometimes there can be TOO much description, like Laura pointed out above, where it becomes description overload. The trick is to find that balance, which is impossible, as it’s different for every reader.

    [Reply]