Description and Imagination

[IronDuke]

Speaking firstly about books; do you prefer an author to use heavily descriptive writing when talking about the environment or concise and brief prose that leaves your own imagination to create the environment in a void of great description?

I will use fantasy novels, as they seem to be simply full of description owing to the alternate world nature of the books. J.R.R Tolkien and Sean Russell are two heavily descriptive writers, and I love it, I love the imagery and the feeling of actually being there.

Dusk deepened. Mist lay behind them among the trees below, and brooded on the pale margins of the Anduin, but the sky was clear. Stars came out. The waxing moon was riding in the West, and the shadows of the rocks were black. They had come to the feet of stony hills, and their pace was slower, for the trail was no longer easy to follow. Here the highlands of the Emyn Muil ran from North to South in two long tumbled ridges. The western side of each ridge was steep and difficult, but the eastward slopes were gentler, furrowed with many gullies and narrow ravines. All night the three companions scrambled in this bony land, climbing to te crest of the first and tallest ridge, and down into the darkness of a deep winding valley on the other side.

- The Two Towers, J.R.R Tolkien.

In the moving landscape only the men were still. They sat at the
long table atop Summer's Hill as motionless as stones in a running stream. Around them
the wind was in flight, more joyous than a swallow, as heedless as a child. It swept
down onto the new green oats and raked through the hay, making waves and patterns
like sand on a riverbed. Gusts bent and swayed the trees, pulling away the spring leaves
and spinning them up into the wind-washed sky.

- The One Kingdom, Sean Russell.

As for minimalistic description, you are given the basics and nothing more. It is less evocative, however it does not limit your imagination, and so the beauty is limited only by your ability to picture a place in your mind. In my experience minimalistic writers tend to perhaps focus more on dialogue and actions rather than creating vivid images. I don't believe I am imaginative enough to fill in the gaps.

Towards midday, the three Uryd warriors and their pack descended into the middle of the three small valleys on their southeasterly course across Rathyd lands.

- House of Chains, Steven Erikson.

Now, as for movies, mostly horror; do you prefer a full reveal, or do you prefer, a monster for instance, to be something that is always in the shadows and only seen in glimpses?

In novels I love description, however in movies I absolutely hate it when everything is given up easily. In movies I prefer to let my imagination fill in the gaps and rely on the psychological aspect of fearing the unknown rather than physical danger of a clear and visible danger (in horror movies obviously).

So, what about you guys? Sorry about the length of the OP.

 

[SharPhoe]

I've always preferred to use my imagination in stories, so the minimalist description style appeals to me far more. Which isn't to say that the other style is bad, of course.

 

[badgersprite]

Well, when I write, I always write detailed descriptions, actions and settings because my imagination sucks, and, if I don't have the details written down, I find it too hard to picture what's going on. Besides, if the description isn't there, it ruins the pacing.

In movies, you get those subtle facial expressions that tell you a lot. It's harder to convey those through text. I mean, just look at how often sarcasm is misinterpreted on the internet. No, I definitely like dense description. That said, I don't like to be told what to think or to have characters constantly go into exposition about what they're thinking and feeling. That feels as contrived in books as it does in movies.

 

[A Weary Exile]

Concise language has always been my thing, which is why reading Atlas Shrugged was such an ordeal for me. I read The Stranger in four hours because of how to-the-point Albert Camus is.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

I like a balence. Like heavy discription is good, but sometimes, it can bog you down. Liek take Tolkien(As I am currently reading The Two Towers). he has a bad habit of takeing a whole page to say "Frodo, Sam, and Golumn quickly walked through the lush forest."

 

[IronDuke]

I like a balence. Like heavy discription is good, but sometimes, it can bog you down. Liek take Tolkien(As I am currently reading The Two Towers). he has a bad habit of takeing a whole page to say "Frodo, Sam, and Golumn quickly walked through the lush forest."

Actually I should have elaborated. I love description, but I also believe that it should alternate between quick concise prose for action or tense moments, and longer prose when coming to a new area in a non-action central section of the book.

I agree that Tolkien gets a bit bogged down in description at some points. I think it is worst in the Return of the King, when Frodo and Sam are in Mordor.

Well, when I write, I always write detailed descriptions, actions and settings because my imagination sucks, and, if I don't have the details written down, I find it too hard to picture what's going on.

What do you write, what genre?

 

[badgersprite]

Well, when I write, I always write detailed descriptions, actions and settings because my imagination sucks, and, if I don't have the details written down, I find it too hard to picture what's going on.

What do you write, what genre?

Actually, I don't stick to any one genre, but I'd say almost everything I write is character-based, so having a lot of description suits that style of writing. Also, since some of my characters don't talk a lot, and they're very inwardly focused, the description has to carry the story, both because the outside world has to reflect what's going on inside them, and because it has to blend seamlessly with their thoughts.

 

[TheGreatCoolEnergy]

Actually I should have elaborated. I love description, but I also believe that it should alternate between quick concise prose for action or tense moments, and longer prose when coming to a new area in a non-action central section of the book.

I think detailed descriptions should be saved for things important to the plot, Like Helms Deep, Or Gandalf the Gray. But if it's just some random forest in the ass end of nowhere, don't over do it.