Does any of you have trouble at writing a description?

[ChaosGodOfJashin]

So my question is particularly simple. Do any of you have any difficulties in writing description of an object, a person or others?

 

[Lloyd]

Yes

 

[SailusGebel]

Yes.

 

[Lorelliad]

As long as the object in question isn't too complicated, then no.

 

[Gryphon]

Used to, until I realized I go just go on google and find the picture of what I want to describe, then use that as a reference.

Unless if it's like a thing I totally made up, which then I just try my best.

 

[ChaosGodOfJashin]

Used to, until I realized I go just go on google and find the picture of what I want to describe, then use that as a reference.

Unless if it's like a thing I totally made up, which then I just try my best.

Well yeah, I kinda do that too but.. even with pictures I still suck! But rn I'm trying my best to do it because it's part of an important english lesson anyway:)

 

[NotaNuffian]

Yes.

Because words are troubling things, you can write one thing and somehow to the reader it can mean another.

The best option will be to write a simple and general description, like that bitch is blonde and have sadistic sparkles in her eyes. Her hips promise babies and buxom full enough to feed them.

This is broad shit, I can write this and most people will start to think about their own version of a vixen blond.

You can add in height, 3 sizes and extra features to make her stand out. But be warned, the more things you add, the bigger the text wall.

 

[Gryphon]

Well yeah, I kinda do that too but.. even with pictures I still suck! But rn I'm trying my best to do it because it's part of an important english lesson anyway:)

The best advice I can give is to not get too into detail when describing the actual object. For example, here's me describing a drawer:

The oaken drawer, which reached to my hips, carried my lamp that would stay on whether the stars were in the sky or not, and the book that the local librarian recommended to me. When I laid my hands on the dark brown surface of the oak, I always expected to find a splinter embedded in my thumb due to it's age, but strangely it remained smooth as gratitude for my care. I opened the top drawer, the sound of wood sliding against wood was music to my ears, and inside the compartment was the pamphlet for the upcoming concert.

See how I didn't give much detail on the object itself. Instead, I just described more about the character interacting with the actual object. It advances the story while giving an adequate description of the thing in question. Though, I wouldn't do this all the time, especially for a drawer.

 

[Paul_Tromba]

Yes. I'm currently working on giving my stories better descriptions because I am so bad at it.

 

[Macha]

Yes. Add too few details and your story end up suffering from white space syndrome. Add too many and it become overly wordy and daunting for readers' comfort. The key is to describe it as you perceive it in real life. You don't spend an hour describing a chair in real life, right? Unless it's an IKEA chair.

 

[BlackKnightX]

So my question is particularly simple. Do any of you have any difficulties in writing description of an object, a person or others?

Not really, no. Try not to describe everything, just focus on the striking parts of what you’re trying to describe.

For example, if you’re trying to describe a throne room, first just literally close your eyes and imagine a throne room, adjusting it however you like. See it, observe it, then look at what stands out the most in the image.

As I see it, the first thing I notice is the golden lightings coming from the glow-stones on the pillars and the walls; there is a red carpet on the marble floor leading from the huge, exquisite entrance toward the throne; the throne sits in the very center, looking very majestic with the finest craftsmanship and the golden accent.

That’s pretty much it. There are still more than that in the image in my head, but I just left it to the readers’ imagination. If I go into describing every decoration and painting and carving and all that, it would be too overwhelming—I’m not Tolkien, so let’s leave it at that. Just focus on the most striking parts, sketch the image, paint it with a brushstroke, and then move on with the story.

Remember: “If you can’t describe it, that means that you don’t quite see it.”—Stephen King.

 

[K_Jira]

Yes. They will inevitably become repetitive

 

[Anon2024]

I tend to skip over long winded descriptions unless I find them relevant or an object of interest. I prefer describing an action over an object, but I guess I spend a lot of time describing certain organs in my R-18 story.

 

[trinitys_gadget]

In many cases, less is more. The goal is to engage the readers' imaginations, and at some point you obviate that. The point I find most authors struggle (myself included) is describing settings. Settings are incredibly important, but you don't want to spend half your book describing them unless you're Victor Hugo.

 

[EternalSunset0]

Not exactly, but I do run out of words often and get bored in the middle of writing as a result.

 

[ConansWitchBaby]

Not really. I've read too many traditional books and Animorphs. I never understood how people could get to "The Eye of Argon" levels of description or the opposite of too little. Simplicity is for most of the story. Details are given in bulk for when things are ramping up in the story. Not just climax but, tense situations, confusions, awe-inspiring, wonderment, eureka moments, etc.

 

[Ai-chan]

So my question is particularly simple. Do any of you have any difficulties in writing description of an object, a person or others?

Not really. Just be logical. Look at it as if you were there. What would you have seen? Describe what you would have seen.

You can train this really easily. When you go out, be conscious of what you're looking at. For example, you at looking at a telephone pole. What did you see first? Describe it. What did you notice next? Describe it. So on, and so on.

It may be hard at first, but boyscouts/girlscouts (proper boyscouts, not the dweebs who just joined for the credits) practiced this as one of the most basic skills of scouting. They would cover a container with cloth, then open it for 1 minute for the members to see. Then it would be closed again and the scouts were asked to provide a description of what they saw. Then they were allowed to look at it again for 10 seconds, then asked to provide a description of what they saw. The third time the cloth was taken off, they were asked to compare their modified description with what they currently saw. As a result, boyscouts in Baden Powell's days were as good or better than the typical army scouts, though they were never used in the military and were mostly used as postal service in the homeland.

 

[gaylolis]

Yes, I often get too horny and sleepy, I tend to stop midway.