Lush Descriptions
Too much of a good thing

My aim is to put down on paper what I see and what I feel in the best and simplest way.  —Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961)

I've been taken to task recently for being stingy with description. And I admit I'm quite sparing when it comes to painting characters' physical attributes. Often I'm satisfied to describe hair color, which I think is the one essential, complexion, height in general terms. Then I let the reader take it from there if such considerations as body shape, missing limbs, etc. aren't crucial to the story or understanding the character. A lot of description, be it a character's physical appearance, or a lush landscape, bog the story down for me. Just give me the essentials and I'll let my mind fill in the rest.

I have read loving descriptions ... usually of a female body ... that have made my mouth water, but I don't need them. But it seems some readers require a lot of description, almost like set decoration.

Any opinions on this? If you like lush description, do you do all your painting early on, or sprinkle such attributes through the story? I will say this I've found it jarring to imagine a character perhaps as a redhead, then have the writer reveal deep into the story that she's raven-haired. But that's a technical thing.   —Bob

Interested in this topic?
Follow the Participation image and share your thoughts with us.

From Jerry
Bob is 95% correct. Too much description can bore the reader; even the great Stephen King does it on occasion. But when I read my story for that final draft, I usually find that I have been a little to niggardly in one or more places; and too little is probably worse than too much.

From Elizavetta
G. Gregory said "It's our job as authors to be the catalyst. The rest is up to the reader." I agree wholeheartedly. Especially in erotica, we should always be writing with perfect trust in the fact that the reader will complete the text. Give her a map and compass, but let her complete the journey using her own muscle and ingenuity.

However, a writer does has to give the reader enough to go on so that catalysis can happen. But, rather than waxing lushly on descriptions of the physical, I try to give the minimum here (letting the reader complete that part of the text) and instead concentrate on a lush treatment of how the characters move around inside themselves (mentally and sensually), how they respond/react to other characters or to the environment of the story, or how they experience the dilemmas of limitation or sudden freedom brought on by the twists and turns of the plot. As Volponia says, "The things[...]characters do help us know how they feel." And, for me, therein lies the turn-on.

So, as a writer, I'd have to say that I'd rather spend my time crafting lush description of interaction (not only character-to-character, but character-to-predicament, character to self or environment as well) rather than writing paragraph upon paragraph of physical description. And as a reader, I want a writer who can set out before me just enough physical description to go on, let me know how the characters are coping, what they are risking, etc., and then trust me to figure out or fill in the rest for myself, and most importantly, in my own erotic way.

From Tasha P
(From a readers perspective) Reading something that describes too much often makes me turn pages and skip ahead. I like description as much as the next person however I don't want the writer to take away my own vision of what that person/object/location looks like. On the same subject though, if a writer doesn't bother to describe anything your often left with no idea what anything is supposed to be like or look like.

(From a writers perspective) It's up to the writer to be able to tell how much description needs to be used. Pages of description is way too much. Often a paragraph or two should get the job done and even then it can be pushing it. It's generally a judgment call.

From Seneca Mayfair
I think that how much and what kind of description is in a story depends on how it serves the story. If it doesn't serve the story, then it doesn't belong. As others have said, some writers use description for mood, or sometimes place is described since it may be integral to or a reflection of characterization, or perhaps the landscape is a character in a story, and so on. Having said that, I believe that the use of description is largely a matter of style and of the author's voice.

From Rose
I hate to sound cliché, but I think it's in the eye of the beholder. I agree with you on letting the reader fill in the blanks for the most part. If I say, "She sashayed boldly into the room, her hair a cascade of wildfire. 'What a knockout,' he thought, his groin tingling," well, perhaps you and anyone else, who doesn't need anymore description than that, are already fleshing out that picture with the details of whatever their version of a knockout is. If I start adding a lot more details, then I'm trying to give the reader my idea of what a knockout is and I think, especially with erotica, that is a rather crucial issue. IMHO, what becomes more important now, at least to me, is the interaction, if any, between the knockout and the guy.

I suppose it rather depends what the writer is going for (characterization and plot, gentle, passionate build-up, or a quick stroke job) and on the proposed length of the story; a flasher, a quickie, short story, novel? 

From this female's perspective, I believe that, when it comes to painting word pictures in erotica, it's so reader specific. I know when I read erotica, if the writer is detailing the male character's appearance and starts listing attributes that for me are not turn-ons, or especially if they're turn-offs, then I do one of two things I either mentally start morphing him into what appeals to me, or I skip over the physical description completely, and go straight to the stuff the character is saying and doing to either get me interested in the plot, or to arouse me. The dialogue and action, to me, are way more important. And by the same token, if the writer is describing the female in the story and she's a 5' 10", willowy blonde, with cool blue eyes and the imperious demeanor of a Nordic goddess, well, I definitely can't identify with her, so once again, I'll just try to ignore the description and get on with the dialogue and the action, which I hope will be what I can identify with. But that's just me. Maybe I'm just shallow when it comes to the writer's purpose, or I just make it too personal. For me, what's going on inside the characters' heads, what they're saying, and what they're doing and how they're saying and doing it is more important than an inventory of their looks. I want to feel what they're feeling; I want sensory input.

<I have read loving descriptions ... usually of a female body ... that have made my mouth water, but I don't need them. But it seems some readers require a lot of description, almost like set decoration.>

This is true, and I think there is nothing wrong with set decoration covering either characters or setting, especially if the writer needs to create a particular mood or moods as the story progresses. It's kind of fun to think of the phrase, "It was a dark and stormy night." Now if you want to draw out the description because the damsel is lost on the moors, fearful of sinking into a bog while being tracked down by the evil lord of the manor, well then, you might want to build up the suspense; describe her haggard appearance, the torn bodice, describe each trip and fall as he gets closer and panic sets in. On the other hand, maybe it's just "It was a dark and stormy night and Bubba and Bobbi-sue were fucking like bunnies in the back seat of his Chevy." At this point, any further description of Bubba's Chevy is most likely irrelevant, even if it is a classic '59 two-tone, with whitewall tires. Who cares, right?

From Keziah Hill
I think it depends on what you're writing and how long it is. I don't describe as much in short stories. I like to set up something of how the main characters look if only for myself, fairly early in the piece. If it's going to be a complex story probably more description. I do like some idea of where they are in time and space, but that said I've read plenty of stories that didn't have this which were great. Maybe if the setting is integral to the story the description is more important.

From Teresa Lamai
Beyond questions of pace and mood (i.e., in a fast-paced thriller, you're not going to be rhapsodizing on someone's skin color), I think the need for visual description is something highly personal; it really comes down to how you experience things.

I use a lot a lot of visual descriptions, some people have told me too much, but that's just the way I have to describe things Most characters appear as vivid images first off, and if I don't let you know the shape of their eyes or the texture of their skin and hair, it feels like I'm just writing a story with stick figures. I think that's just how I'm always going to write.

But that's a personal thing I see other writers who focus on voices and dialogue and the interplay of inner and outer drama, and I envy that immensely. You [Bob], for instance, have a genius for rendering someone's personality in just a few lines of dialogue -- I can absolutely hear it, and I feel like I'm listening to people I know. That's why I find your stories so deeply absorbing.

So, I'm thinking if you tried to put in a bunch of visual details just because you think you ought to, it would just feel perfunctory.

From remittance girl
I think I write a lot of description because when I read it, that's what gets me off. I tend to be more long-winded about settings and atmosphere than I am about physical attributes though.

I tend to do the bulk of my descriptive writing at the beginning and add to it as the environment, the mood, or the characters change. However, I know that a lot of people find my descriptions almost unbearably long. Hey, I have to get myself off first.

If I read a story that starts off describing the protagonist as a 5'9" busty blonde with a perfect figure, I'm afraid I find it almost impossible to relate to her - and I can't get into the story. But thankfully, there are lots of erotic stories about short, dark-haired girls of medium build too phew!

From G. Gregory
I think "description" needs more description before you (Bob) walk away with the burden of feeling guilty for being stingy. I get a great deal of description from your stories through your superior job of developing dialog. What someone says or how someone reacts to what was said or some other external stimulus provides a great deal of description for me. It does not matter that they may be a fat, gay, blonde brunette that's a s wide as he/she is tall.

What's going on in someone's head or heart may be enough description to explain or justify an action or thought. Emotional descriptions or insight to a state of mind or a bit of personal history can also be adequate enough description regardless of the fact that she has a narrow face and outrageous dick-sucking-lips...although...now that I think of it...I'd definitely want to know about those lips...so forget what I just said about that.

Descriptions are in the eye of the beholder. Some need 'em, some don't. Descriptions can choke the reader when there's too much of it. I feel that there is a large market of readers of erotica that would rather have the author jerk them off than have to do it themselves by reading and thinking about or feeling a story. For some that's too much work. I would wager to say that those who complain about something like that have their brains between their legs and no imagination between their ears. I don't write to appeal to them, and I'd be waaaay disappointed if you change ANYTHING you do as an author to appease the lazy-ass readers who expect you to spank their monkey for them.

If they can't visualize strong or weak, tall, tired, aroused, blushing, erect or flustered because there's not enough description...well...fuck 'em. There's a silent majority who can and the richness of that description belong to them. It's our job as author's to be the catalyst. The rest is up to the reader.

From Scarlet Wings
I kinda agree with you and I kinda don't.

I'm thinking that it really depends on the type of story that you are writing or reading (fantasy and sci-fi pieces I often think should be saturated with descriptions). Certainly the author's intentions weigh heavily on this. I'm currently working on something where I'm leaving a lot of the main character's physicalities very ambiguous, mostly for the very reason that you've stated Bob, that you, the reader, may have your own ideas of how the character looks. I've worried if maybe I haven't done enough to describe them when I think of how it will come off to an audience but feel that I'm making a good choice because the characters' looks, in this case, matter less than their actions and motivations in this piece.

I find it best to have the descriptions sprinkled through out. If the setting is important to the storyline, then embellish it -- if it's not then it's unnecessary excess to me. Now if it's a love scene/sex scene then every fine detail only heightens the reading experience to me. I most often want to know everything down to nail polish color and pattern of chest to the way their neck and hair smells.

From Kathleen Bradean
I don't want a writer to hold my imagination's hand, lead it through the story, and stop to point out that "this feature" makes this character instantly desirable. What if I don't care for raven hair and ruby lips? And don't get me started on green eyes. I think the incidence of green eyes in erotic is ten or twenty times the true occurrence in nature. (guilty of that myself this weekend)

Heart of Darkness has three pages where Conrad describes the African coast. Those have got to be the three longest pages ever written. I told my literature professor that must have been Conrad's proof to the IRS that he really took that fact-finding trip to Africa, and therefore could legitimately write it off his taxes. In contrast, in Count of Monte Cristo, Dumas throws Edmund into prison at the end of chapter two, I believe. Any other writer of his time would have lovingly painted every day of imprisonment that followed. Not Dumas. He was a soldier, and it showed in his writing. Cut to the chase. The beginning line of chapter three? "Eleven years passed." God, I love that man.

From Volponia
I'm no good at it myself, but something I really admire the lush description of a character's character, especially if it is done with subtlety and suggestion. The things her characters do help us know how they feel.

I enjoy exercising my vocabulary writing lots of description, but believe it is counterproductive most of the time. My end result usually winds up sounding like a very pedestrian paperback novelette.

  E-mail this page

Copyright © 1996 and on, Erotica Readers Association, Inc.
All Rights Reserved World Wide. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or
medium without express written permission is prohibited.