Descripturbation: How to (and How Not to) Describe Characters

Hello hello!

Today I'm going to talk about one of the thorniest and most often-ridiculed issues in writing--character descriptions. Some authors describe every pimple, dimple, dent, and wrinkle of lace; some basically avoid description at all, which can leave readers feeling as though the characters are no more than wooden silhouettes with "Protagonist's Name Here" taped to them.

So, what does too much detail look like? 

Women's clothes often get the brunt of this. The men's clothes in the same works are often less elaborate, but have a look at the paragraph below.

"Her blue paisley dress had delicate puce and chartreuse ribbons on the puffed sleeves. The layered chiffon skirt was hooped, and numerous petticoats trimmed in yellow lace spilled out from beneath its voluminous edges."

Now, that's ugly, in many ways. There are too many adjectives, some passive voice, and the actual dress combination is pretty hideous. But fancy steampunk/Victorian dresses are easy to ridicule. What does overdescription with a male character in a more contemporary setting look like?

"His perfect nose was Euclidean and his brow was high and fair. He had deeply-set brown eyes with smooth lids, and his eyes twinkled under dark brows and short black lashes. His mouth was slender-lipped and his smile, very wide. His dimples dotted golden cheeks and the creases of his grin reached almost to his dark sideburns. Slick, anthracite hair that had been gelled into perfection flopped insouciantly off to the side.

His neck was slim but strong and his golden skin showed through the opening of his blue and white plaid button-down shirt, a real second-hand item, not a designer look-alike. His Gotye t-shirt had stylized doves and hands opening on it, and his jeans--which were fashionably worn and ripped, but had obviously been broken in--had a dove embroidered on the pocket as well. I stared at his Converse sneakers and fell in love."

As a friend said, "I just think it's kinda awesome that someone who writes so well can just as easily write so BADLY at the drop of a hat."

These two paragraphs are excessively detailed, to an irritating extent, because whatever else was happening in the scene stops DEAD to let the description show itself out.

"His brown eyes sparkled as he grinned at me. He ruffled his slick black hair and leaned back, his band t-shirt peeking through a plaid button-up."

This rewrite is a bit simpler, but it still gets the feeling across without stopping the action dead. It also makes the description more active, contextualizing his eyes and hair with expressions and an action.

What about insufficient detail?

My personal prejudice is that "less is more", but if a story is full of lush descriptions elsewhere, it's probably okay to let yourself go in the character descriptions. For first drafts, it's also okay to go a bit bananas--you can always cut things later. For those of us who write fantasy and sci fi, there are extra challenges, because the books exist in unique universes.

That said, it's often a good idea to trust the reader. They can imagine things, they know how tropes work, and it's okay to skim over descriptions a bit when referring to something that should be ordinary. Wastebaskets, for example, or toilets. Focus on what's different, not just what's the same. For both characters and the setting, it's often wise to add bits of description throughout the book, sprinkling them in. Using relative descriptions can also be helpful in keeping the reader immersed. One of the best things you can do is make a description active, so that the character interacts with their environment rather than being set apart from it. Here's an example.

"She smiled and stretched her long, tanned limbs. She was tall and stringy, and her grey-streaked black hair gleamed like steel in the light of the twin suns."

We know she's on an alien planet--possibly one with low gravity--and that she's an older woman already. It's not a lot, but it can go a long way. But that's the easy stuff--what about specific character description issues?

Source. This is a great resource.

How do we describe diversity without having to say, 'this character is black or Japanese'?

The best thing you can do is get yourself a colour palette of skin tones. Dark skin comes in many, many shades--there are some incredible resources to explain some of those shades.

"Her reddish-brown skin glowed in the sun, and she squinted, her full lips curving into a smile. She unholstered her pulse rifle and trained it on the scruff-rat leisurely, then fired."

Now, you could describe her skin as 'chocolate' coloured, but that kind of description has really fallen out of use. The problem with food-like descriptions is that it's othering and a bit creepy when all protagonists are edible. It's fine in small doses--and I've seen black authors use "almond eyes and chocolate skin" as descriptors, and "creamy" or "milky" skin do get used to describe white characters, but Asian characters don't have "teriyaki or sesame skin" and Latino characters don't have "corn tortilla" skin, Nor do, say, First Nations people have "pemmican complexions". The problem is that people are sometimes unaware that the way they describe others is fetishizing (which makes a person into an object) or just plain absurd.

When it comes to describing eye shape and colour, "almond" eyes are used a lot for Asian characters, but this has become contentious and annoying for the same reason mentioned above. The jury's out on good ways to describe monolids and epicanthic folds, but mentioning 'angled' eyes, 'crinkled' eyes, 'smooth' lids, deeply-set, or teardrop-shaped eyes are all possible choices. It's better to talk to someone from the ethnic background you're trying to describe if you're not sure. As always, research is your friend.

Any final words?

We'll all make mistakes. That's life, and that's writing. Experiment and do research, and run things by friends who can mock you safely (without being too mean) if you're worried that something sounds ridiculous. And, of course, there's always asking your editor or beta readers.

***

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Leave your comments, rebuttals, and vehement agreements below. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr, and find her work on Amazon. Check back on the blog to see when one of the irregular posts has careened onto your feed. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Technowank vs. Character Drama: Which One is King?

Hello hello!

So, along with the massive inequality issues heating up the field, a new subgenre of sci fi has emerged to stir the pot further. Meet science fiction romance, or sci-fi romance: it's exactly what it sounds like. And honestly, it's the only kind of romance I can read, on the rare occasions that I do read romance.

 If you think about it, it was a natural progression. It's not like we haven't had a history of romance in sci fi before. Ursula Le Guin, Orwell, and Zamyetin all had romance in their books. In We, the first dystopian book, the romance drives the plot--as it does in 1984. And do we need to mention the frequent romances in television?  Movies aren't short on it either. "I love you. I know." Of course, Farscape has a fantastic romance--more than one of them--and Doctor Who has, too. The Trek was never short on romances either. So why are people compulsively vomiting and complaining about icky girl germs with sci-fi romance?

I don't like romance.

Well, okay, that's not entirely true. I like love stories a lot. I like a bit of bittersweetness or tragedy in there, too, because I think it's more interesting, but there's no getting away from the fact that I didn't cry my way though The Fault in Our Stars just because of kids with cancer. And I edit a lot of romances, and sometimes, I do really enjoy them. A good human story is always appealing, and that's where the hook comes from, for me at least. Other people like the escapism and the heady feelings and the 'happily ever after' thing, and I can't complain about those, really. But for some reason, female-coded escapism (romance, etc, etc) is seen as 'worse' or 'icky' compared to male-coded escapism, such as technowank and space ships and that sort of thing.

A brief digression on technowank

I also don't have a ton of patience for books where the author inserts a technical manual in the middle of the action. I've ranted and raved about exposition dumps on many occasions, and so I'll try to keep this short.
As much as I like sci fi, the hard stuff can turn into a very technical description of nuts and bolts and can actually lose sight of the plot. Some people love it when authors get carried away, others fall asleep.

Robots are awesome, but what makes them interesting is all the transhumanist arguments and the 'where does humanity lie', ghost in the machine stuff. It's not about the titano-carboridium alloys. We don't like C-3P0 because of his blank expression or the six thousand known languages in his database, we like him because he flies off the handle and acts as straight man to R2D2. Moya is a great ship, but as much fun as it is to run around her corridors with Dutch-angled camera work, it's the stuff that happens on her and to her that keeps our attention.

Shiny is good. 

I think visual formats do have an easier time of it because they can get away with just showing, rather than telling us too much--the 'show/tell' thing can be a bit tricky when it comes to the description end of things. We do need to know what things look like and have some idea of how they work, but finding the balance can be hard. And there is room for those lovely sweeping descriptions of xeno panoramas, big shiny ships, and all that good stuff. And, yeah, I rarely tire of reading about a well-written, gritty spaceport and the delicious food in it. One of the things I loved about the short Star Wars anthologies that came out was that they described Tatooine and the new Jedi Academy in fine detail. It was nice to hear about the little things and the students' person effects and the bacta tanks and 'shimmersilk' robes of dignitaries. The 'shiny' stuff and the worldbuilding are fun for both readers and writers.

Why do we need to fuss about characters?

Now that you know I'm not an opponent of worldbuilding or lyrical digressions, listen carefully when I say: it's all worthless with crappy characters. I've seen it mentioned in a few writing guides, and it's true--characters are what a reader remembers. Sure, Giger is amazing and the alien is gorgeous, but we remember Ripley and Ash and even that cat. That's why Prometheus sucked compared to Alien (s). It's also why many fans bemoan the Dune sequels and Star Wars prequels--all the king's gorgeous visuals and all the king's men couldn't make up for weird, constrained acting from most of the performers and characters that most of us just didn't like. (Phantom Menace, apart from the horrible racist caricatures, was the strongest of the three because it had the best portrayals of the characters, and I will fight you on that.)  The classics of sci fi have endured because they have fantastic human stories, not because of their settings alone. Sure, settings spark the imagination, but it's the people we relate to, cheer for, scream at, and develop messy childish crushes on that keep us going.

So, what does this have to do with sci fi romance again?

Well, sci-fi romance is ultimately only as strong as its characters. It's why diversity is so important in media, and it's why those of us defending that get pretty up in arms about it. Some sci fi romance is probably not that well-written, but the same is true of the 'old-fashioned', 'traditional' technowank stuff that relies on shiny bits rather than character development. Ultimately, one or two or even ten bad books do not merit discarding an entire genre. Sci-fi romance needs a little more time to grow up and branch out, sure, but it's a very new subgenre. Ultimately, the potential of more explicitly character-driven sci-fi is really exciting. We can take the settings and the shiny stuff for granted, because sci-fi is established as a genre. It knows what its doing now.We don't have to set up and describe every damn space ship because readers know what they are. That means we can push some boundaries. And ultimately, pushing boundaries while we envision the future is the heart of gold that drives this genre forward.

*****

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr, and find her work on Amazon. Check back on the blog to see when one of the irregular posts has careened onto your feed. This is the one and only SciFiMagpie, over and out! 

Writing Workshop - Choosing Your Storyteller

Points of View in Writing, by C.E. Kilgore

So, you have your story plotted out, your character sheets prepped and your universe building on its way. Looks like you are just about ready to start writing a great SFR! 

Hold on a sec – I hate the stop you when you're about to get started, but there is still an important decision to make. Which of your fantastic characters is going to tell this story you have rolling around in your head?

Who you decide to tell your story can make a huge difference in how your story unfolds and how your readers are able to connect to it. For example, you may have a group of space rebels fighting against a tyrannical overlord. If you choose to tell the tale through the overlord’s perspective, well – that would certainly create a different tale than if you had chosen the captain of the rebel space cruiser, right?

Ah! You say you are writing in the third, so you can give an objective point of view? It’s true that when you write in third objective, you can head-hop around from point of view to point of view, but you need to still choose a focus. In SFR, this is typically the two protagonists. If you try to give too many points of view, you  risk muddling your story and exhausting the reader. You also need to choose a main point of view. This will give your story impact, allow the reader to create an emotional connection to the story and pick a team to root for.

When you are writing in the first person, choosing your point of view becomes a critical decision. A common tactic in romance is to perspective-hop in a see-saw fashion, alternating the chapters from one perspective to the other. So, if your love interests are a space captain for the rebel alliance and a commander for the imperial fleet, you would have one chapter in the captain’s perspective and the next chapter in the commander’s perspective – and then repeat this alternation every chapter.

If, however, you want to tell your first-person story without alternating, then you have to really think about which character you want your audience to connect with. Do you want to tell the story of the captain fighting for her beliefs while she falls heads over heels for a stubborn commander? Or, would you rather tell the story of a powerful commander who has to question his own imperial system as his heart begins beating for the beautifully strong rebel captain?

Hint – there is no wrong answer. 

It’s a personal choice, but you should consider who is best to tell the story. Are there certain goals or ideals you want the reader to understand? Is your chosen point of view unique, or has it been done a million times? Is your chosen point of view something that the reader will be able to relate to and connect with?  

With my own series, I use third person, but each book chooses two main points of focus. I do include side chapters that give the story from an alternate perspective, but I keep the focus of the story on the two main characters. This wasn't always easy, as my series are character-driven stories. 

Choosing who gets to have their say and who has to remain on the sidelines is never easy, but it's important to keep your story tight and let your main characters shine.  

To see how I chose to handle my storytelling points of view, you can download a free copy of Ghost In The Machine (Click Here) 

__________________________________________

C.E. Kilgore is a self-published author of Space Opera and Contemporary Romance. Check her out on her website, cekilgore.com, Facebook or Twitter. She is always open to questions about writing and self-publishing. For self-publishing help, check our her blog, TracingTheStars.com

SciFiMagpie--Editing Tips and a Free Book

Hello hello!

My name is Michelle Browne. I'm a member of the SFRB, and I'm not just a writer--I also edit! Today, I'd like to share some tips about exposition and world-building. Not rushing through the first chapter is vitally important if you're trying to sustain your readers' attention. Let's talk about why.

In addition, you ought to know that one of my books, The Underlighters, is free on Amazon from today to October 31, 2013! Be sure to have a look when you need a break from writing.

All right! So--how do you establish a setting for your readers without cramming too much information down their throats?

World-building: historical and scientific details

In the manuscripts that cross my desktop, I often find myself cutting and paring away chunks of exposition or blatant references to specialized knowledge. Science and history tend to be the most common focal points for these. It’s important to avoid barraging your readers with details from your research, because rather than adding realism, it tends to kill the flow.

For instance, take the following paragraph.

“Alex crossed the historic Rue d’Day Street, home to the Molkovian revolution in 1985. As he walked into the café, he admired the many posters of Herr Somerfeldt, the Molkovian revolution’s leader. He sneered in disgust as two Kratzenofficers munched their pastries and loudly complained about the posters. Alex, being a zunterfeldt—a half-Molkovian--had a degree of protection under the law, but not enough to get away with much. He accepted his anchovy cappuccino and walked out, keeping his head down.”

First of all, the pacing in this paragraph is off. The description is rushed, and historical name-checks substitute for actual use of imagery. What does the street look like? Are there lots of people on it? A mere line or two could tell us more than the name-checks.

Then, when we discover Alex is a zunterfelt, we get a line of info-dump. Instead of having the narrator mention this, we should show it. Here is a revision that still makes use of the historical touch-stones, but doesn’t force the research down your throat quite as ostentatiously.

“Alex scuttled across the Rue d’Day. The grand street was lined with old buildings and bustling with citizens. The glass storefronts were loaded with choice pastries, couture fashion, and sparkling jewelry, but Alex kept his eyes on the café.

He walked through the door, the bell’s harsh voice jarring his thoughts. A couple of Kratzenofficers munched their pastries in the corner. As he waited for his anchovy cappuccino, he could feel their eyes drilling into his back. A zunterfeldt like him couldn’t take any chances with bad behavior. From the ceiling, Herr Somerfeldt watched benevolently. He took reassurance in the long-dead revolutionary’s smile, but darted out, cappuccino in hand, without a word to any of them.”

The same holds true for scientific information. If we get a long scene where characters vomit information at each other, the reader will usually become bored and distracted by technical details rather than focusing on what the technology does. Remember, actions speak louder than exposition, and imagery is more important than a user manual. Use emotions to underline information’s importance, and try to work it into the atmosphere of the piece. Information alone doesn’t generate an atmosphere.

Furthermore, make sure the information is actually vital. Are you going to reveal it later? Will the reader’s understanding of something truly suffer if it’s not there? Worse—is the information killing the action, or even giving away a future plot point?

While exceptions to this rule do exist, and examples of breaking it abound, keep in mind that info-dumps of research are still a bad habit. Sure, there are times when info is engaging, but the closer to the middle you present the info, and the smaller the chunks, the happier your readers will be. Research, like other forms of exposition, should be a treat—salt the text with them, but don’t overdo it. After all, too much salt causes hypertension and high blood pressure, and too much exposition has the same effect on your editor. For readers, it can be a soporific. Don’t put your readers to sleep.

*****

Hungry for more? Want to see world-building in action? Don't forget to check out The Underlighters, free from October 29-31, 2013. 

Nightmares are bleeding into her waking world. Children are going missing. To save them, she must overcome her wreck of a personal life and a closet full of skeletons. She doesn’t know whether the horrors in the shadows are real...or if she is going mad. 

18-year-old Janelle Cohen is an electrician in an underground city. The world above has been swal-lowed by mind-destroying Dust. Her small life changes forever when a dragon attacks her on the way home from work. 

Her friends worry that she has the Fever, Dust-induced insanity. A terrifying trip to the surface of the world, the ancient and abandoned Up, deepens the nightmare. With no world left above, she and the other Crows cannot afford to fail… 

5 stars: “…You will be rewarded with a dive into the depths of imagination that may leave you questioning, breathless and inspired.” –www.TracingTheStars.com

5 stars: “… Engaging, ground breaking prose that is not afraid to test the reader’s boundaries. “—Sara Celi

5 stars: “…A wonderful read that is full of life, nightmares, fear, and dreams.” –Casey Peeler

*****

Thanks for dropping by the nest once again. Don't miss any of the phuquerie. Find Michelle on Twitter, Facebook, and on Tumblr. This is your darling SciFiMagpie, over and out!