Which type of reader/writer are you?

[hh5]

But I ain't fond 'a Faulkner (B either.

 

"The cerise orb called the sun ascended altitudinous in the eastern sky; there was a deep, burning heat I felt as the egest water pushed its way up from my core only to meander down my visage."

 

Good God what is wrong with these people!!

 

So some people love words as much as some people love having acid or delusional trips.

 

Its something very visual and stimulating ... a book worms delight until

 

"Marvin will you get your dairy end out of the john ... there are people out here with serious business to do!!"

 

Ok that was to the point but you wonder what Marvin been reading to endure reading in a stinky place.

 

"I was enduring blah blah blah blah blahhhh just to shake the hands of Stanley Livingston ... in darkest reaches of ...."

 

"Marvin on the count of one... two..."

[Forty-Two]

Perhaps it is not the style of the writing that matters... it is the quality of the style.

 

I vary. I like to add detail, as anyone who read my stuff will note, but I typically avoid doing it for people, reserving it for background scenery and animals/creatures. I don't like the stories that start out, well I guess I should describe him or me and then go on to give height, weight, hair and eye color almost as stats but it won't preclude me from reading the story, though it does turn me off it a bit and I might take points away if I was ranking it. I like to add detail as the story goes along if I can. If it's a short story then I admit, that's a lot harder. Besides, over-detailing prevents the reader from making their own mental pictures.

 

I tend to agree with these kinds of comments. Description can be good or bad depending on whether it suits the situation, is written well, and isn't excessive. When describing physical features, it always reads as fake when the hair/eye/skin colour, weight, and physique are listed in a row (unless it is a situation such as the character is struck dumb the first time seeing someone due to their beauty). Simply slipping in these details as the story goes on is much more natural, or only focusing on the details that matter, such as if a character dyes their hair to hide from the police, it's probably a good idea to let the reader know what the original hair colour is before hand.

 

I definitely agree that the reader will fill in mental pictures and sometimes too much description ruins that. Also, if you only mention a physical feature once or list a whole bunch at a time, a few chapters later the reader probably won't remember them anyway.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Forty-Two

[nightsky]

As a reader, if I have to pick between A and B (for fiction), I'll take A. I can fill in some details on my own.

 

For me, the verbosity in B does not enhance; the purple prose detracts from what I imagine the author is attempting to convey.

 

Personally, I enjoy reading the most when an author knows when the reader would either need more description, or might want it. The author doesn't spend too much time/space describing the mundane (although, some writers do such a terrific job of describing the mundane... it can make you feel like you're right there.

[StormyParis]

not sure I could fall in love with a guy who had "a white teeth" (sic) :-p

 

More seriously, I can't say with just 1 sentence if I'd read the novel or not. Terseness works well in certain cases, rambling descriptions.. too. In general, I like description of actions, interactions and feelings better than physical descriptions, though. Especially if the subject is the standard blue-eyed blond-haired jock or twink.

 

For example, I'd like if that description was interspersed with the narrator's feelings about how the guy looks, with his preconceptions; with his current preoccupations; with flashbacks to his past... more than excruciating minutiae about how exactly his teeth shine... unless the minutiae is a second-degree way to convey those feelings, flashbacks...

 

This is where I should insert an example of what I like. Fat chance !

 

 

Edited June 18, 2010 by StormyParis

[Londonlolly]

B for me!

Luke

[Elias Rosine]

It depends on the work and the scene. Sometimes it's best to go with version B, but sometimes version A. I can tell you that I used to write very flowery and was over descriptive until I wrote for my school's newspaper. Now I'm closer to the A.

[Bumblebee]

im a B reader most of the time, but sometimes when my minds wondering i prefere reading stuff more like A

and an A and B writer, because sometime my stories have got hardly any details in some bits, and to much info in the rest!!!!!!

[phana14]

Yeah after reading some of the Anthologies (at #19) so far, I've just begun to realize that I felt like my writing is in the [A] category and I was worried it might be a little too simple, perhaps too elementary. I'm not a pro-writer and I've never even taken a class that helps but improving my writing style never really hurts.

 

Just wondered if it was time to start shifting to .

I wouldn't worry about the details too much. There are a TON of you guys that I haven't gotten around to yet, but believe me, I will!

Both Nephy and Comsie pretty much write *B* style, and I love both of them to death. But recently I read a story by Nephylim in which she gave NO description of the characters at all. I didn't realize it until she pointed it out. Why? Because I was so INTO the story that * I* combed the blond wavy hair, *I* stared into those deep blue pools of reflective love. I didn't need Neph to dress anyone in that story! *I* dressed them ALL, and yeah, I undressed some of them too.

My point is this--You write in whatever style YOU want to and trust US to take it from there. p

And WHATEVER you guys do, please don't stop writing!

[Former Member]

Neither one, apparently. It really depends on the story type and genre.

 

If I am working on a historical romance story set in Georgian England, descriptions are going to be more detailed...whether I'm reading or writing it.

 

Also at times within a story I may gravitate from more succinct to more descriptive. It depends on the timing and events going on.

 

For example, if a character just arrived in Venice, 1st trip ever to Italy, they're going to be looking around, catching quick impressions of this and that. And I like to reflect that. I don't want to slow the mood down, and I want to try to convey excitement to the reader.

 

Once they've been there for a few days, and they're now sitting at a sidewalk café and watching people go by, the descriptions would then be more detailed and varied. The reader can expand their field of vision as it were with the writers help.

[phana14]

Neither one, apparently. It really depends on the story type and genre.

 

If I am working on a historical romance story set in Georgian England, descriptions are going to be more detailed...whether I'm reading or writing it.

 

Also at times within a story I may gravitate from more succinct to more descriptive. It depends on the timing and events going on.

 

For example, if a character just arrived in Venice, 1st trip ever to Italy, they're going to be looking around, catching quick impressions of this and that. And I like to reflect that. I don't want to slow the mood down, and I want to try to convey excitement to the reader.

 

Once they've been there for a few days, and they're now sitting at a sidewalk caf

[soup]

I like writers who understand that their readers are intellegent, imaginative and can take a hint. So although i like descriptive writting, sometimes it's nice having things a little vague to let me use my imagination.

 

I also think that although authors try to convey certain journeys through their stories (be it phsycial, spiritual, emotional or imaginative), stories are often retreats and/or escapes for their readers, it's an imaginative journey for them as well and sometimes allowing them to fill in the blanks can help them relate more to the characters and events, possibly making it more enjoyable and realistic.

[wacko9001]

somewhere in between a and b

[Agaith]

I can normally be somewhere in between, but for me it can also depend on the genre or setting. For example I like fantasy writing so i like the writer to convey in detail the world they are trying to build so i can picture clearly the scene.

 

In more modern settings like urban areas or schools, we know what these involve so very little detail is needed.

In relation to characters, I would give some details but respect the fact that readers can imagine for themselves via a short description what the character looks like.

 

Even with a long description there would be variation im sure between the images in different reader's eyes.

I suppose, personally, that I have an image in my eyes and I want to show the reader exactly what i can see. (But then a re-read and the backspace button comes with a vengence!)

When writing I can describe and describe and describe...then come back later and hate what ive written.

Its all about balance

 

Ramble over

Edited July 9, 2010 by Agaith

[Heart]

Neither, in certain instances subtlety could work, I'd lean towards B but not so much of the detailed describtion. Just one or two words could give the reader the extent of their feelings for each other, or have them do something that leads a reader to imagine the extent of their love

[DragonMando]

I'd have to say I'm more a Type B here I grew up reading Lord of the Rings and Anne McAffrey, so more detail = more real = better story for me, at least reading. I'm sort of a mix of both in my writings.

[brosentha21]

I have a hard time with this. I have been trying to write a story for a while now but I keep switching back and forth. I think it may be because I am partly autistic but what would you call people who can write in both styles?

[DragonMando]

I would simply call it "varied." Personally, a mix of a lot of detail in some sentences along with some short and sweet ones can greatly aid the flow of the story. It also helps keep the mind from getting detail-overload or feel like things were too rushed. It takes some work to get right though.

[Amelia]

Between a and b, but tending towards the b. I think if A were what was out there, stories would be too similar. I enjoy the spice author's words add to a story. Its why I'm not a writer and why I appreciate good author's use of words. I can't express myself that way, and I enjoy reading things by people who can.

[Neo]

I usually don't care if it's much description or not. If the writer succeeds in catching my interest then I'm stuck, there can be a lot of description or none at all. My imagination makes up for it if there is none and I have a really bad way of just skipping parts I think have to much description (somehow I kinda do this automatically without thinking.)

 

As a writes I'm an A... I suck on describing things :wacko:

[option]

Are you more of the

 

[A] He had blond hair, deep blue eyes, and a perfectly white teeth. His face was undoubtedly handsome. I wanted him and he wanted me. At that moment, we were in love.

 

or

 

His hair was blond. It clung to his face with the softness of velvet. I looked into his deep blue eyes and saw myself reflected in its beauty. His smile showed perfectly white teeth that suggested rigorous hours spent caring for his dental hygiene. As we stared into each other's eyes, I saw desire in those beautiful blue gems. They seemed to say "take me, take me now!" In that moment frozen in time, we were in love and nothing else mattered.

 

I must admit, I think I'm more of an (a) reader/writer. I tend to prefer things simpler and more direct (good plot being a must!)

 

 

 

context is important, & also that the details are realistic to the setting

 

eg; someone noticing/meeting someone else for the first time, A would be more realistic

when/if theyre together, then B becomes more realistic

 

also, both can be used when writing, A leading to B

[Nemui]

I'm an A writer, but I love to read stories along the B option. I know I'm strange for that, but I'm not good with heavy detail, yet love to read it when it's very descriptive.