FranOnTheEdge opened this issue on Aug 11, 2006 · 11 posts
FranOnTheEdge posted Sun, 13 August 2006 at 5:27 AM
Quote - Since normally we can assume the sun rose, I think the description should only be happen if the sun didn't rise. :D
I read somewhere that one should not waste precious space on things people already commonly know, unless something unusual will happen later on in the story that makes that thing necessary and important. If the description doesn't reveal character or an important plot detail, cross it out, is my rule.
I tend to believe that. I don't see the point of telling me what an ocean looks like unless there is a storm are a sea montster about to appear. Very few people write description well.
And I have a prejudice against someone who spend three pages describing a character and that character does nothing except stand there and be admired for three pages.
Oh sure, you should always fit descriptions around the story, so that (taking a crime story for instance) you can describe the way the sunrise casts a glow onto some building - that later turns out to be where something relevant occured - or else describe the way the sunrise slowly reveals the dead body of some victim... so that you start with a really beautiful scene in which you suddenly realise that that is the shiny bald head of a dead person that the sun is so delicately bathing in an auriole of light... kinda thing.
Or have the protag try to wipe dog poo off his beautiful shiny (good quality) shoes on the grass as he walks into a wood to view the location of a body dump - that way you've included the protag's fastidiousness and his good shoes, as well as what the wood is like - all while he's walking down to the body and you get some description of the scene in as well - economical and doesn't slow the action... hopefully.
The thing is, I know the theory, I'm just not sure if I've slipped up anywhere.
Quote - I was an English major in college so the classics I read were things like Shakespeare and Dickens with some Brecht and Camus thrown in for variation. I took pre-16th century drama one year (Ralph Roister Doister, anyone?) and Persian literature (I don't know why). I never picked up a liking for fantasy (LOR lost me with the hairy feet), and the science fiction I liked was more fiction than Science (Bradbury type). Shirley Jackson wrote domestic comedy and domestic horror stories. I also like mysteries by Jospehine Tey, Ruth Rendell, and some of Patricia Highsmith's stuff. I actually have grown to admire Agatha Christie. While I know style purists turn up their noses at her, no one was more clever at turning a plot around.
I don't like Patricia Highsmith so much, and not keen on Ruth Rendal - her habit of killing off children gave me nightmares. But Josephine Tey's writing is great, I also rather like Agatha Christie - sorry about that. I also like P.D. James - I get a lot out of her writing, deep though it sometimes is. > Quote - I used to like horror when it was civilized and creepy. Now its just gory boring and I've gone off the genre. Now I'll step out and let someone else answer some questions.
Oh don't do that, if people want to talk they will - in the meantime I was rather enjoying our conversation... don't leave now. It was just getting interesting.
I'd be very happy to hear what anyone else has to say, but what if no one does? The conversation would just die away and there'd be a load of unhelpful and intimidating silence...
I'd have to go start a whole new thread to get a response again... Hey, I might even have to think of something... ma brain hurts you know, have pity!
Measure
your mind's height
by the shade it casts.
Robert Browning (Paracelsus)