There seem to be two basic approaches to character description in fiction.

Method 1: Painting the entire picture

This is the method I grew up learning in high school creative writing classes: lots of adjectives and descriptive details intended to paint a complete picture of the character for the reader.

I think authors can sometimes fall into the trap of believing this is what “good writing” is supposed to look like. The more detailed the description, the better the writing. But it can easily be overdone.

Much like fractals, or measuring a coastline, you have a nearly unlimited ability to zoom in on a character at finer and finer resolution. You can go on and on describing infinitely finer detail as to the hair, the eyes, the clothes, the wrinkles, the way someone stands and on and on.

The problem this often creates is something I call letting the words get in the way of the story.

Too many adjectives or too much descriptive prose creates a longer journey for the reader to get to the underlying plot.  That doesn’t mean detailed description is bad. Sometimes the details matter. They can establish mood, tell us something important about a character or even reveal something about the plot, but the question is whether the detail is actually doing something for the story.

Here is an example:

She held the white, dew-covered lilies at her side.

vs.

She held the delicate, white, fragrant, dew-covered, freshly cut lilies at her side.

We do “see” a lot more when it comes to the lilies, but is that really important to the story or is the main point that we understand she has the lilies and they are being held at her side for some reason? Note that “dew-covered” could also be cut if there isn’t an important reason for us to know that.

I try to use no more than two adjectives in series to describe something, sometimes three at the very most if I feel I really need to have it.

Method 2: Giving the reader just enough

The second approach is what I think of as the Stephen King method: provide enough detail for the reader to get a feel for the character, but allow the reader’s imagination to fill in the rest.

King will often give a character some kind of hook: a memorable physical trait, habit, or mannerism that helps us quickly orient ourselves to which character we are reading about.

This is particularly useful in the kind of fiction King often writes: long novels such as It and The Stand, with large casts of characters who may disappear for many pages before showing up again. Giving a character a memorable trait helps the reader recognize them when they return.

I also think part of King’s strategy is to avoid giving us the entire character all at once.

Instead, he organically reveals more details along the way. We learn about the character as they move through the story through actions and dialogue.

In some ways, this is closer to how we actually get to know people.

When you first meet someone, you don’t receive a paragraph describing everything about them. You notice a few things. Then, over time, you learn more. I am not sure if he has ever said this in an interview or a talk, but I feel like it is one of his strategies.

The answer is likely somewhere in the middle

As with many things in writing, taking either approach to an extreme can become problematic.

Describe too much and you let the words get in the way of the story.

Describe too little and we risk the reader not identifying with the characters.

For me, the key is to allow character description to serve the story rather than compete with it.

What do you think? Do you prefer detailed character descriptions, or would you rather have the author give you just enough and let your imagination fill in the rest?

-James