How do you describe a tree... ON FIRE! =O

[Breezy]

I mean, what do I write? Do you think it's okay if I just say something like "Adam panicked as hot flames licked the bark of the tree" or should I elaborate on it like...

Adam, fists clenched tightly at his sides, his brow furrowed, glared his brilliant crimson eyes at the burning oak, the tree's branches flailing about in the harsh, whipping wind, almost as if it were trying to fight off the flames feverishly. Thick clouds of gray, choking smoke filled the air, covering the perfect summer sky, the sun's golden rays lost within the darkness. The tree crackled, cinders dancing toward the ground before fading away into nothingness or into a forgotten ash. Adam stood there, not able to tear his eyes away.

.
.
.
.
.

STOP STARING AT THE TREE ADAM DAMMIT.

;-;

Oh Adam. Why are you so mad at the tree too?

...

Yeah, I'm not asking about how to describe a tree on fire. If I were, I will officially retire as a fanfic writer. ._. Haha sucks. Stuck with me still.

Anyone, there have been a lot of these "description" threads opening up. They're fun threads to read and some of the examples provided and really good. But some of them...

=3

Really. Do we have to rant on about the wind? You know what what you remind me of? Moby Dick and how Melville wrote an entire chapter on the whiteness of the whale. Symbolic yes. Go ahead and take a few sentences or maybe a paragraph or two if you need. You don't need a chapter for it.

My point is, how do you feel about overdescription? I understand somethings, like if the thing being described plays a particular importance in the fic, but if your describing something that doesn't mean much, do you really have to elaborate on it? Do you really need to describe how many bricks are in the brick wall? Or how many yards away the center is from where Adam and the burning Moses tree (yes I know it was a bush. -.- And no, btw the tree held no significant importance either) are?

I like reading description. I like being being able to picture what I'm reading. But I also like to move along with the fic too.

What's your thought on this?

Edit: Lmao, wtf? You guys rate this and not respond. I cry. ;-;

 

[BirthdayPirate]

This, my friends, is the worst problem of these forums. If I comment that your fic has description so real I can taste the tree burning, I've just insulted you, your fic, and your mother. Why the heck do I have to know what the dang tree tastes like? What does that have to do with the story? Stories are about people, plot, and action. If a tree burns in the process, tell me how it affects the people, the plot, and the action. Don't tell me how it tastes unless it tastes like your antagonist's urine, in which case you're really telling me your antagonist was there. If it tastes like smoke and sap... Why do I care?

 

[Orange_Flaaffy]

Like I said to one of my writing friends on the same topic:

I think if feeling that you have to add pages worth of description into your fic in order to win over readers gets in the way of you actually writing the story the way you feel it should be written, that is going a bit overboard...

Description is fine, as long as you write the level of it that suits *your* style, not someone elses...

 

[PDL]

I do agree that too much description can bog the reader down, but I also admit that I'm guilty of this in my fic

 

[Ryano Ra]

OMG, Breezy! (I know don't know, but everytime people make threads, it seems as though they point it directly towards me, since I'm known around here for my unique style, details, and fantasy stories. Bah)

I, personally, do not believe in such a thing as overdescription. Sure, there can be a lot of detail for such a simple flower; "the orange blossom slowly awakened from the flowerbed upon the burning sun, petals gradually rippling from the intertwined core and sparkling with a radiance"...blah blah blah, but for me, details cannot be overdescribed. Writers THINK that there's such a thing as it, and that's there beliefs, but to me, there isn't (and there's no need to point objects and opinions at me, because there's not a damn thing you can say to make me change my mind about my opinion and prove me wrong. It's an opinion - don't like it, too bad.) For details, you just have to be careful in terms of where you apply it in the fanfiction.

For example, if you want to describe a flower in ten thousand sentences, go ahead. People won't be interested, however. That's not called 'overdescription' like the detail-craze that seems to blow around in people's minds here. They want to read and see a fanfiction flourish and grow, not the entire process. They see just a bit too description and they'll instantly die like I daggered them in the back. >>;; The word was created because it is THEIR preference, because they don't like reading so much description and feels it bogs down the story. A lot of people feel this way. And I can guarantee you that a lot of others feel as though if there isn't enough, then there's no need to even write it.

Anyways, as I was saying, describing a flower in ten thousand sentences is something called 'nonsense' and a waste of time, not overdescription. Somebody responded ahead of me with a true statement - write as much description as you want that satisfies your style and your needs, not anybody else's. You aren't out there to satisfy others and win them over. So what they don't like a lot of details? They can go and hunt down something that is of their interest. Don't believe in the word 'overdescription' ; there's no such thing (and nobody will change my mind, so shut the hell up because I've already won the battle. Roar! MEOW!)

Okay, enough of my useless, rambling. I'm iffy on subjects as this. >.>;;

Just write as much description YOU think is needed. I tend to dig deep into details when it comes to describing surroundings, but that is because fantasy worlds have more of a colorful, lively perspective than the boring world and so, more things will need to described because they are creative and unique, and not something you will see daily. But yeah, don't just run around and panic because somebody thinks you wrote too much description -- they are not writing the story, YOU are. If you think it is fine, why change it? However, when a lot of people start saying the same thing, it is time to learn to paint the picture with less colors, but more beautiful than before.

 

[Breezy]

O_O I forgot that you do describe like that as I haven't read anything from you for quite some time to be honest Syra. So breathe before I call 9-1-1. I didn't even have you in mind when I wrote this thread. All the "how do I describe this?" inspired me.

My problem with this entire description thing is that so many authors here keep telling other authors that more describing is more <3, when that necessarily is not the case. Really, I could give two shakes of a rat's *** of how you write Syra lol. I know that's what you're known for and that's how you write, and I'm perfectly content with that. It bothers me that something that I could picture in my mind is prodded by some reviewer who prods the author more to describe more when it's not needed.

So I agree with Orange Flaffy on this. And you. Describe as much as you need to and feel comfortable in doing so and in your own writing style. Which is why I do frown when people ask how to describe something. It's more than likely they will copy the example instead of writing it in their own style.

 

[Dilasc]

Woosh! I am the wind. I destroy planets because I go woosh. WOOSH!

Now that I briefly have the attention I crave, adding description to a story has its benefits. Mainly, most complainers use description because a story feels too flat, and most times, they might be right. Now, as an intellectual, I must say that description to an extent does add length to your story... maybe depth, but those extra letters rambling on about the flow of the universe as the Earth makes its another hundred thousand miles further along its path around the sun do bring length to your story, and people do tend to be atttracted to the onvoy of words! Many words! Handle it, NOW!

After all, you can describe how chipped the wall paint was in ten pages or more, and your story won't get closed, even if the only actions that happen are the main anti-hero's ex-girlfriend's lost excommunicated cousin, twice removed from the Republican party, who is currently posing as a geothermal weather vale... blinks, then randomly spouts the words "Taco Pazi!" Don't ask me what a pazi is, I just made it up.

Yes, ten pages have come and gone, but only 2 actual plot actions have occurred. Call it a chapter and get a real life selling novelas and wasting paper... you've earned it.

Also, description makes an excellent source of Writer's Bloccaine, a very addictive drug that makes people unable to continue the plot of a story. This stimulant AND depressant (at the same time) cause the human body to be unable to write even less coherent plot devices and plot holes that everyone truly loves to read... or maybe it just causes people to come to a bypass in their hard wrote stories that they simply cannot find a way to move on from.

Either way, you might find yourself able to keep your readers in with a chapter solely dedicated to a scene of description. Of course, pigs can swim the deep seas, and whales can fly me to the moon in with a twizzler built slinkee (no joke!)

Description, as you can see from my very illuminating points, description helps visualize the story better, and leads to segues to further lightbulbs warm with destiny along the path of a good or bad story. Like characterization, coherent plot, and believability, description is another piece of the puzzle you cannot avoid. Do so, and the robots will take you to the land of milk, honey, and people with yeti hair dispositions... many of which are women. Trust me, describe... you can avoid going to this quirkily, yet awkwardly scary domain if you do so.

After all, without description, Adam from your example might just be a zombie raised from a Jovian dead man (who ate royal acorns) and breathes sand through his butt-hole. Is he in truth a sand farter? We'll never know. If the story doesn't tell us, he might just have green skin as we find ourselves not drawn in to his two dimensional cardboarded existence.

Nobody wants to be told that, but description is simply just too important. Like alcohol, chocolate, and even government intelligence (which is below par worldwide,) too much and too little of anything kills blue haired, blonde eyed hotdogs, stealing them away from their frank buns of eternal happiness along the way to the stomache of greatness. Think of the frankfurters next time you ignore or overadorn with description! The fate of baseball's favorite seller is in our hands. We wield... POWER, use it wisely!

Anyway, that's about it. Hope I haven't gone too far off topic from the values of good dog grooming... or whatever the topic was. I forget, it needs more description!

 

[Orange_Flaaffy]

IMHO, feeling that you can't write a story because you are holding yourself to another persons ideas of how much description to use is not a good thing.
I think that the author that uses light description and the author who uses more are not better than one another, just different. So one side or another thinking of themselfs as Writing Gods is not really an issue, since both get their own readership because of there own talents.

I go for a nice balance myself, I think description should flesh out the plot , not nearly be the plot in of itself.
I think it is sort of cheating the readers to pour on so much description that you barely have room for the plot.

 

[Dragonfree]

Uh, Serpent Syra, exactly what is your point? That we should use the word "nonsense" instead of the word "overdescription"? Kinda long post just to say that...

Personally, I dislike it when the flow of the story is interrupted to describe things that are not extremely important. I write third person limited most of the time, and my general rule is not to pay any more attention to the description than the character whose point of view I am writing is paying to the object being described. If it's not something interesting that the character would stare at for a few seconds, I try not to devote any sentences purely to description and just stuff a little into sentences describing action. Fics lose my interest very quickly if they spend too long describing something that's not interesting - especially in the beginning, that's a real attention-killer. (That especially applies if the thing being described is clothes. Sorry, but I'm really not interested enough in what this person is wearing to really bother ploughing through three paragraphs about it.)

 

[Ryano Ra]

Uh, Serpent Syra, exactly what is your point? That we should use the word "nonsense" instead of the word "overdescription"? Kinda long post just to say that...

o.o;; Um, my point is that so many authors believe in a word as overdescription because it is more of their beliefs, and since they think alike when it comes to the subject, they just throw out the word and everybody gets all scared. I made my post long, but people will say stupid comments if I just got to the point without my long reasoning; that's how it is with me. But yeah, I know it was a long post...as I said before, I'm very iffy on topics like this, basically because I tend to put my skills towards it. That's the reason I try and stay away from these topics (chases Breezy) I just had to say that. I tend to explain so much stuff over and over, and I was tired last night. ;_;

*claps hands and runs in tight circles, crying*

Oh, no; Breezy, I wasn't directing my comment towards you whatsoever. I always feel like that when description is targeted in topics, partly because a lot of people do not like how I tend to pinpoint details in my story and therefore, act upon it by saying such a stupid term that I will one day burn using my Flygon's Flamethrower; overdescription (omg, I'm starting again...*shuts up*), but I can understand what you mean...some things are left with less description and can really drag the story down greatly when it is details that are not needed. I just can't stand how some people always throw out the word 'overdescription'. That's such an odd word. Ew.

*tosses it around*

 

[Elemental Charizam]

OMG, Breezy! (I know don't know, but everytime people make threads, it seems as though they point it directly towards me, since I'm known around here for my unique style, details, and fantasy stories. Bah)

Your style is hardly unique Ry. Apart from the fact its been nicked, battered and smeared around the forums until it becomes the norm, its actually very simmilar to many b-fantasy books out there.

And as Breezy said, this wasn't targeted at you. More at the plague of 'How do describe a ball?' threads, methinks.

And if you think 100, 000 pages of description is ALWAYS too much description (as you said), what else is it but overdescription? Call a spade a spade & all...

Also, I disagree. You can have too much description (like IMO you admitted), and nothing you can say will change my mind. If you don't like it, tough.

 

[Ryano Ra]

Really, it is? o.o;; Fantasy books I've read have that uber-good writing and write somewhat similar style-wise. Mine is like, a cheaper version of it. ;_; *sulks* Wait, I'm admitting they are similar styles, though. o.o Gah! *spins*

I just don't like the word 'overdescription' because you can't describe something 'over' its limit. For me, it is just you need to emphasis some things more than others. A paper does not have a 'limit' when being described; you can't go 'under' and 'over' this so-called 'limit'. You are describing it. There is no limit, but as I said, this is my own crazy opinion and you will be allowed to shoot me with daggers if you must. ^_^ But yeah...I did admit that you can write so much description, and sometimes, people will say it is too much and you should change it. Do you have to do it? Oh course not. It's their opinion and their own liking, and they can go find something they like to read that's their preferred style, genre, ect. o.o;;

OMG, overdescription...that word annoys me. *stabs it*

 

[Negrek]

Ah, overdescription. A topic that inspires in me much hate. So let's leave off it for a while, and instead focus on other things. Say you have a generic human, a generic fish, and a generic bacterium. All of them require different amounts of oxygen in their environment to survive. If, however, you put any of them into a pure-oxygen environment, they will all die just the same.

Point? The point is that overdescription exists, and that no story is immune to it. People write in different styles; their stories require different amounts of description to work. However, no matter who you are or how you write, there is always a point where it becomes too much and you kill the plot with irrelevant pretty words. It works like this: everyone has their own style, and therefore has their own idea of how much description is necessary for a piece to work. No matter what that style is and how much description is deemed appropriate, however, there always comes a point where it is simply too much. Too much of a good thing, ya know. To claim that there is never any upper limit to description, a point where you are, simply, overdescribing something, is patently absurd.

Ultimately, you write to communicate something to an audience. This is true no matter how much you claim that you are "writing for yourself." If you come to a point where your readers are being distracted by the amount of description that you put in, to the point where they can't concentrate on the message of the piece, then there's something dreadfully wrong. And guess what? It's your fault.

No, no, stop right there. I'll say it again: YOUR FAULT. Your readers do not need to go read "something more to their tastes." It is not that they do not wish to read your story, but are attempting to and failing to understand the message that you're trying to convey. To accuse them of not understanding your masterful grasp of literary technique is ridiculous; that would be the same as someone writing an indecipherable novel full of gibberish, and then accusing the people who see at as nothing but gibberish of not being sophisticated enough to understand its beauty. You, as a writer, have a duty to give your readers the information needed for them to glean what you want from your story. Sometimes description prevents this. Deal with it. Fix it. Do not blame your readers for it.

Let's review. Overdescription: it is definable. It exists. It is bad. It is very, very bad. It is YOUR FAULT.

 

[Ryano Ra]

Oh, dear -- that word is about to kill me. *stabs it*

True, it is the writer's fault for placing more description into the story, but then again, what about those who are able to come across it and say that there's just enough, or surprisingly, there's not enough? How do you come across that subject? As you said, it is the writer's fault, but that doesn't mean you should change it. What happens if you understand it, that you have to adjust your style for other's likings, not satisfied with your work and its supposed 'success' that graces the books, novels, forums, whatever? And who said they wouldn't be able to understand? What about the people that understand everything you are saying? What do you say to them? Good job? I've had many people understand my description, but prefer not so much of it. And then, there have been a couple that told me I do not have enough. I'm basically stating that elements of a story do not have "limits"; this is an opinion and you might call it 'patently absurd', but I have my reasons and I will stick to them. I just think that people have their own "tastes" and description is something that many do not like a little over some of. If they do not understand me, and others do, am I supposed to automatically consider his or her problems about my writing and change them? I just tell them to read something else that's more of their liking. And then, people just love throwing out the word 'overdescription' because too much is 'over its limit'. Does description have its limits? It's to describe -- if you can't get the picture across yourself, I'm assuming you just edit the whole thing, get to the point, and keep moving, right? Oh, but it needs to be described! Sure, it doesn't need to have all of the pretty words, but words are needed to describe. What are we to do -- use simple words? Use whatever words you want, that doesn't mean this so-called 'overdescription'. Extra or not-needed details DOES NOT involve pretty words of the literature world; I thought it meant placing in details that aren't needed for that specific moment. Hmmm.

o.o;; OMG! *jumps on skyscrapers* I'm going to be writing a ten-page explanation on description. o.o;; *nerves have been worked* ;_;

 

[Elemental Charizam]

Off topic slightly, but using 'short words' correctly is better than misusing 'long/pretty words'.

 

[Negrek]

True, it is the writer's fault for placing more description into the story, but then again, what about those who are able to come across it and say that there's just enough, or surprisingly, there's not enough? How do you come across that subject?

How do I... "come across" that subject? What?

What happens if you understand it, that you have to adjust your style for other's likings, not satisfied with your work and its supposed 'success' that graces the books, novels, forums, whatever?

Whether you understand it or not is moot. As I said before, the point of writing is communication, and what matters is what the audience is able to comprehend, not what you are able to comprehend. Don't like it? Tough.

I'm basically stating that elements of a story do not have "limits"; this is an opinion and you might call it 'patently absurd', but I have my reasons and I will stick to them.

What reasons are those?

I just think that people have their own "tastes" and description is something that many do not like a little over some of.

I think you didn't quite get the point of my above post. I'm not talking about whether people like the amount of description you use or not. I'm talking about whether it gets in the way of the story's other aspects to the point that it disrupts readers' experiences or not. You're right, some people may not prefer a more descriptive style and should seek something more to their tastes. But that's not overdescription--that's someone not liking a style. Overdescription is where even fans of a certain style have difficulty following something.

If they do not understand me, and others do, am I supposed to automatically consider his or her problems about my writing and change them?

Not if the majority of your target audience is with you, no. If there's a significant number of dissenters, however, it may be time to at least step back and reevaluate. Sometimes, it is others that can assess your problems better than you yourself.

And then, people just love throwing out the word 'overdescription' because too much is 'over its limit'.

...so if they conside there to be too much description they're supposed to call it "ham and cheese omelette" instead of "overdescription?" Where's the sense in that? I see no problem with throwing out a word in its appropriate context and usage.

Does description have its limits? It's to describe -- if you can't get the picture across yourself, I'm assuming you just edit the whole thing, get to the point, and keep moving, right? Oh, but it needs to be described!

Sorry, I don't get what you're trying to say, there.

Sure, it doesn't need to have all of the pretty words, but words are needed to describe. What are we to do -- use simple words? Use whatever words you want, that doesn't mean this so-called 'overdescription'. Extra or not-needed details DOES NOT involve pretty words of the literature world; I thought it meant placing in details that aren't needed for that specific moment.

WTF does vocabulary have to do with description? Issues with abuse of words, long vs short, etc, are a whole different barrel of apples and irrelevant to this discussion. For the record, your last sentence is correct--useless details do not necessarily involve the use of pretty words. Again, that's not a part of this discussion.

 

[Act]

Breezy is my hero. ;;

I love how everyone defending overwordy prose is like writing nonsensical essays on it. Seriously, you're only hurting your cause.

*blames modern literature, as it is crap*

I think description should flesh out the plot , not nearly be the plot in of itself.

Therein lies the point.

The thing that's worst about it is that, unlike Melville's chapter about the whiteness of the whale, it doesn't mean anything. It's meant as a showcase, a look what I can do, tell me itsounds pretty kind of thing. Make it mean something. You need to stop turning description into a cheap prostitute-- when you can get as much as you want at any time and it doesn't mean anything, it's worthless and frankly rather annoying.

And then of course there's the fact that most people end of making zero sense with their prose, and I laugh because I find it funny. ;; Translation: Just because X is a synonym for Y does not make them interchangable. Hahahah. Good times.

 

[Ledian_X]

Here's my take on it...

That just a thread on how to describe a tree on fire. This is description as a whole. How much is too much and how little is too little. Me, I try to go for a medium with a few paragraphs describing something, someone or some event. I even describe some history, too. They I have dialog with some info in it. In my chosen style, I have to be very descriptive. But, not that much. You do need to describe. You need to tell a story after all.

There's such a thing as not enough description if you just say things to the point. The characters show no emotion and are essentially robots. You need to describe in detail so that the world seems alive and not some dead place.

Breif I know, But ironically I could go into more detail. LOL.

LX

 

[Komedic Konservationist]

Like I said on my duplicate thread, the balance of description is extremely hard to get right. But I've come to the conclusion that it usually depends on what scene you're writing: if it's a very slow-paced scene involving a slow, steady, uneventful trek through the countryside, or something involving the intraduction of a new character or location, then a lot of description is fine because it won't bog down the story too much, and will help the reader get an affective mental image of the surroundings. But if it's an action-oriented scene, like a car-chase, battle, or escape from a collapsing building, then the description needs to me more fleeting and concentrated towards actions and emotions rather than how the characters and scenery look. For instance, if the story went like this....
Tommy braught the vehcile careering round a narrow bend, grazing a building and knocking down a lampost as he did so. Behind him trailed two more cars. One was a sleek, streamlined black car that looked like a bizzare, oversized beetle. It had a series of crimson lightning bolts imprinted on its shining flank, the windows were polished to perfection, and it had three sets of wheels as opposed to the typical two wheels seen on the majority of everyday road-vehciles.....
then the reader would not be able to string together a mental image of the car-chase due to the long-windedness of the description. A good action-scene would need to be very pacy, and if the action-scene is bogged down with description, its not going to deliver that requirement.

 

[whit19]

lol, I've neva been known for bein overdescriptive. Only underdescriptive... -_-

Yea, description is my worst enemy in writin. Most people say I lack description, and I been tryina be more description, but for some reason it's just too difficult for me. I think my vocab is weak too... but I won't give up and as long as I keep writin I'm sure I'm a get betta at it.