physically describing characters (or not)

I was reading over this thread about describing men and realized that, of the stories I have actually written so far and those I am currently working on (none of them published here on this site yet) I have, as a general rule, almost a complete lapse in the physical descriptions of my characters. Its a simple enough thing for me to describe why this is, though I'd rather not do so on a forum like this. (If you are curious about it, send me a private message and I'll be happy to relay the details.) My real question is this, though: does it matter to the reader if there is a general absence of such descriptions?

What I've managed to write so far has focussed mostly around the actions and emotions of my characters and what drives them toward those particular ends. Does it matter to the reader if such physical descriptions are missing or are not well-defined if the rest of the story is well told? Would the reader feel like they were missing something without those details of the characters involved?

Every reader will have different preferences. A lot depends on the intent of the writer, of course, and how they want to "work" the character's physical appearance with or against how the character behaves. Too often writer's fall into the stereotyping trap, i.e. handsome and beautiful people make good sex partners, sloppy/slobby people can't be detail-oriented, etc. Going against type can broaden the scope of both the character and the reader's perception. Also in the case of reader identification, more vague characters will work toy our advantage. If the heroine is blonde, skinny, and solidly British, it'll be harder for, say, a darker-skinned, dark haired, Rubenesque Greek woman to identify with her. In which case, you have to dig into the "universal" characteristics to pull the reader inside the character.

Many characters are not well described, the author leaving the bulk of that effort to the reader.

It works. It's often enough to say a character's will was imposing... and let the reader figure out if that was because of his swarthy looks or his height or the timbre of his voice... etc.

One of the reasons I rarely watch movies/tv shows made from books I like is that my idea of what the characters look like is radically different from what Hollywood makes of them.

I prefer to write my characters with broad strokes and let the reader do the hard work. This is especially true in my erotic writings, as I want the readers to be able to identify with the characters. I wouldn't want to lose a reader because their bodies (or the bodies they fantasize about) don't fit the measurements I've described.

Like most here I let the reader fill in most of the characters physical description. That serves a couple purposes. It involves the reader with your character and makes them far more realistic to the reader. It allows the writer to concentrate on revealing inner character rather than describing ripe melons of the 44 DD variety or the rampant 14 inch battering ram both of which I find somewhat tedious. It also spares you those awkward devices where the narrating character spends time studying themselves in a mirror and then relays their own description to the poor reader.

Just a few drawbacks I can think of. If some characteristic is important to the story you really need to put it in. ( she's gonna be burned as a witch cause she has red hair, He'll never play the violin again because of the tragic accident at the saw mill that turned his right arm into a stump.) Any such tidbits should be mentioned early before the reader begins to envision what the character looks like. For that matter those feeling the urge to describe their protagonist in great detail should do it quickly for the same reason.

just the rambling thoughts of
Mad & Lews

The thing that really turns me off a story is a long, detailed description of a character. It is much better to either let the reader fill in the details, or to offer partial descriptions as you write. For example, " He gripped her long hair in his hand."

I would much rather read about what the character is doing, than what they look like!

I am of similar mind to Aussiegirl and Mad Lews. I will often provide a general description - hair color and length, eye color and maybe a general description of form. The only time I can recall going into details is when it particularly important. If a person in my story has a drastic change or a particular oddity (as Lex described), otherwise, I leave it rather vague. Something along the lines of "She as all curves with a hint of dancer in her legs" or if I want a particular image I might even throw in something like "she looked like a Frazetta painting come to life". That way, if my readers know who Frazetta (or look him up) is they can get a good vision of what is in my mind. Still, I leave it plenty vague and allow my readers to make up their own vision of "She was beautiful".

I admit that this is not just due to taste but because of the amazing commonality so many erotic authors have of giving a 44DD bust to women and a 10 inch cock to the man. Who really needs that unless it is entirely integral?

Thank you everybody for your replies so far. (Keep them coming if you have anything else to add to this thread. The more the merrier, as far as I say.) It really means a great deal to me to hear from other readers and writers about this, particularly since it is a significant weakness of my writing regardless of what type of writing I am trying to work with. This has been very helpful to me to get a broader perspective rather than trying to think about this on my own and interpret what other people think without having actually asked them first.

Just describing how a character interacts with the envirionment and what he or she does often allows you to give a physical impression of the character without actually giving detail e.g. lifting something, going through a door, choosing clothing, bumping into someone else, dancer, couch potatoe etc.

If Mad Lews hadn't beaten me to it, I would have written the same thing. I like describing one single and most noticeable feature with each character. In that way they become a caricature of that feature. Just like we in ordinary language have a tendency to reduce people we encounter to just that. I think it adds presence.

Many have alluded to allowing the reader to sort of fill in the blanks - a frequently more satisfying experience to use word pictures that are not too detailed or graphic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faibhar

Many have alluded to allowing the reader to sort of fill in the blanks - a frequently more satisfying experience to use word pictures that are not too detailed or graphic.

---

This went right over my head. I don't think I understand what you mean. Would you mind explaining this?

TomOfSweden, please excuse the obfuscation. Not telling "all" to a potential readers lets them use their own imaginations in following your prose.

Hope the above helps some.

Another technique I use for filling out a person's appearance would be in describing action along with a particular feature.

For instance: She knelt before me, her long dark hair cascading over her full breasts, nearly hiding her full breasts from my sight.

That sort of thing.

Well fine, if that works. "Full breasts", however, does seem to raise a red flag of over description. Carry on, though :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faibhar

Well fine, if that works. "Full breasts", however, does seem to raise a red flag of over description. Carry on, though :)

---

I don't think so. 48DDD is a red flag, and in more ways than just the literary sense *gg*, but "full breasts" I think is fine because it leaves it up to the reader to conjurer up exactly how "full" they'd like the breasts to be. I mean, what's huge and titillating to one reader might seem exaggerated and therefor unrealistic to another.

i'd rather know WHO the character is, than WHAT they look like.

i only need to understand the story, not pick the character out of a police lineup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alex Bragi

but "full breasts" I think is fine because it leaves it up to the reader to conjurer up exactly how "full" they'd like the breasts to be. I mean, what's huge and titillating to one reader might seem exaggerated and therefor unrealistic to another.

---

I've given this some thought. I don't like "full" because it is redundant. If it doesn't convey anything about the breast, it isn't much of an adjective, is it? I think that it at best is just plain confusing.

If it is important I'd rather go with comparatives. If you want a woman to have larger breasts than some other character, then they're "large".

Red Flags Over 48DD :)! Point well made by A. Braggi re: graphic size descriptions vis-a-vis just saying "fuller breasts".

Somethings about those formative years apparently just never seem to go away. There was one fellow Back in the Day whose entire reputation was built upon guessing bra sizes... Now hopefully this person has either a) grown up since then; or, b) is neither a reader nor writer here.

I'd add that the only time I bother with detailed physical characteristics is if I am alluding to an interesting ethnic diversity or cultural background. If her Hispanic origins are germane to my story line, I'll describe her dark, flashing eyes and long black hair. If not, I tend to draw broad outlines and let it go at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by theladystouch

I'd add that the only time I bother with detailed physical characteristics is if I am alluding to an interesting ethnic diversity or cultural background. If her Hispanic origins are germane to my story line, I'll describe her dark, flashing eyes and long black hair. If not, I tend to draw broad outlines and let it go at that.

---

While I understand where you are coming from, be careful about limiting your descriptions to just your non-white characters. If you only provide details about those who are different, it can serve to jar the reader out of the story and for them to question your motives. It happened to me and its a tough charge to refute. I learned the hard way that being a pornographer is one thing; its entirely another to be considered a racist.

Since posting this, I've had a few more chances to experiment with some of this stuff. I'm working my way through assignments in the Writers Block, and, generally speaking, have continued to avoid physical descriptions. Still, there have been times where I have found it useful to include some small amount of physical descriptions in my writing. (The earlier mentioned "describe only what is truly unique about the character within the time frame of the story" idea has been something I've managed to use once or twice since.)

Again, thanks to everybody for contributing. Getting feedback from this thread has greatly helped me understand both the potential expectation of readers as well as how other writers handle this situation. Like I said at the top of the thread, I know it is a particular weakness of mine anyway. I guess I'll continue to write to my strengths and include only as much physical description as is absolutely necessary, and let my readers enjoy the story for the story and the characters for the characters even if some of them may be lacking in physical description in my writing.

I remember reading Stephen King (in On Writing) say that there was no need to describe what a person was wearing. The very next book of his that I picked up started with: He was a big, broad-shouldered man in a worn and scuffed corduroy jacket and plain twill slacks

I think this shows that there is no hard and fast rule but, for me, there is also nothing worse than a sentence that includes: She had 48DD breasts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Isabella King

I remember reading Stephen King (in On Writing) say that there was no need to describe what a person was wearing. The very next book of his that I picked up started with: He was a big, broad-shouldered man in a worn and scuffed corduroy jacket and plain twill slacks


I think this shows that there is no hard and fast rule but, for me, there is also nothing worse than a sentence that includes: She had 48DD breasts

---

Dearest Isabella (no relation?) King

Either that or Stephen King was having a rough time getting the story rolling.
I suppose we should be grateful the character wasn't admiring his budging biceps under the straining denim work shirt as he stared into the cheap motel mirror.
You are partially right though, while anyone can think of a few hard and fast rules, nobody should follow them all the time.That would be boring. :)
Knowing when you can get away with rule busting, that's the key.

Yours
Mad & Lews

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mad Lews

You are partially right though, while anyone can think of a few hard and fast rules, nobody should follow them all the time.That would be boring. :)
Knowing when you can get away with rule busting, that's the key.

Yours
Mad & Lews

---

I guess thats really the heart of the question I was asking, though. What, exactly, are "the rules" here? One can't, after all, effectively engage in "rule busting" without knowing what rules there are to be busted in the first place. Based upon this discussion, it seems to me that one simply CAN'T generalize at all because different authors and different readers seem to have differing expectations for what they like.

Which leads me back to my original question, I guess. What is an author to do: go with what works for the author, whether that happens to include physical descriptions or not, or go with a perceived expectation of the reader which, as an author, one simply can't make any rational or reasonable guesses at? I'm currently leaning towards "write for the author, and if the story and premise is good enough, no matter how the story is told, the reader will come along for the ride". Is this a reasonable assumption to make?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by underwhere

I guess thats really the heart of the question I was asking, though. What, exactly, are "the rules" here? One can't, after all, effectively engage in "rule busting" without knowing what rules there are to be busted in the first place. Based upon this discussion, it seems to me that one simply CAN'T generalize at all because different authors and different readers seem to have differing expectations for what they like.

Which leads me back to my original question, I guess. What is an author to do: go with what works for the author, whether that happens to include physical descriptions or not, or go with a perceived expectation of the reader which, as an author, one simply can't make any rational or reasonable guesses at? I'm currently leaning towards "write for the author, and if the story and premise is good enough, no matter how the story is told, the reader will come along for the ride". Is this a reasonable assumption to make?

---

Dearest underwhere,

The quandry as you view it comes down to a question of why you write. Do you write to tell a story (write for yourself essentially.) or do you write to be read. Probably most people do both to varying degrees. You have a story you want to tell and hope others will read and enjoy it. The second motive is a social act that requires your ability to manipulate the thoughts and feelings of your audience in a predictable way; you want them to think, feel, and react to your story in the way that you intended. That is where we run into common rules loosely based on social expectations.

OK listen up, The long, hard, and fast, but not too fast, rule is. You use descriptives of your character if and only if.

1) It is essential to the nature of the character(blind, peg legged, pirate)
or

2) the description advances the plot of the story.(blind, peg legged, ethnically diverse pirate with a soft spot for bleach-blond Hispanic transvestites)

Now you have a rule to violate, enjoy yourself.

Mad

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Euryleia

While I understand where you are coming from, be careful about limiting your descriptions to just your non-white characters. If you only provide details about those who are different, it can serve to jar the reader out of the story and for them to question your motives. It happened to me and its a tough charge to refute. I learned the hard way that being a pornographer is one thing; its entirely another to be considered a racist.

---

Sorry, I guess I did a poor job of making my point. I agree with YOURS completely. I will use broad outlines indicating blonde, blue-eyed, medium height man. I just generally don't go into the rippling muscles, bronzed skin, bulging crotch variety of description.

And, even so, I'll admit there is a place for such detailed description. I just subscribe to the theory that the most erotic organ in the body is the brain, and I try to limit it as little as possible.

48 Double Dees!

It's a fact that the more you describe a person the more you hamper the reader to create his own picture.
That could be good or not (great help, isn't it?).
Ask yourself the question: how important is the look of the character for the story? What characteristic traits shall the person have?

If you want to underline his/her evilness, give him/her a scar across the face (I know it's an primitive example, but you get the point).

In my very own opinion it's the best to reduce, do compress the character's description to two or three very sharp, very clear distinguishing marks. Use them as a kind of "trademarks".

They could be exceptional long hair, scandinavic features, high cheekbones or even accessories like a pair of sunglasses.

To come to an conclusion: as many details as necessary, as few as possible.

It depends really, it can be mysterious if the character isn't described for a while, or at all, and the reader can create what they think the man/woman looks like themselves.

However, sometimes it's nice to know what someone looks like too.

There's nothing worse than when a story starts out, "She had blonde hair, a tiny waist but with huge DD's" and that's all the description you get of a characters; it's best to just try and integrate it within the narrative ... like saying "Blue eyes glazing over in fear, she moved a blonde curl off her cheek, smiling nervously".
Maybe not as packed with detail suddenly, but along that line :p

Overall, I agree with all of the comments that say you should leave a lot to the readers own imagination. However, you can not let the reader stagger too blindly. Who knows what mischief they might get themselves into.

For myself, I like to give a sketch, elaborating on background a little, but I will also try to add hints as to their personality (EG She was also quite rare in that, unlike other girls of her age group, she was still comfortable to wear her hair in plats.). I think that what I am saying is that it is best to give the reader a general outline, where you also hint at the emotional charactor, rather than the usual hair colour, vital statistics and job description (At 24, Cherry considered her looks to be one of her best assets. Although she was quite a successful lawyer and enjoyed the power that this career choice gave her amongst her fellows, long blond hair, a 24" waist and 34DD breasts gave her an even greater advantage, in and out of court, Blah, Blah, Blah).

Rubberwolf

Rubberwolf, I believe you are correct in wanting to give your readers a least a basic idea of what your characters look like, however it's important to remember that, here on line, you're writing for www. I live in Australia--we're in metric measurements, so a 24 " waist isn't going to mean much to most Aussies. Also, male readers who aren't as savvy about women's bras as you, aren't going to be clear on how big 34DD tits are. This is the reason people who know a whole lot more about writing than me always say: Avoid using exactly measurements.

True Alex. However, that is the point I was making. Many descriptions of a female charactor by authors tends to describe their vital statistics, age and job. It is less common to sescribe sombody as slight, lanky etc.

You are probably right about the bra size, but the UK still usues inches for it's clothes sizes. I would have difficulty visualizing metric in writing about a constricting corset, since it would mean little to me or my local readership. But a fair point and I will bear it in mind in future.