Support for Indie Authors discussion

So, apparently my methodology for storytelling is inept. When I started, I had heard a lot of positive feedback, so I assumed I had made the right choices. Lately though, all of the feedback has been incredibly constructive, but it would seem I have been failing.

I had read and firmly believed that it was a reader's responsibility to meet the writer somewhere in the middle, particularly regarding descriptions of characters. For example, one author of fantasy fiction recommended describing a character by the clothes they wear, and from that, the reader should create their own impression. Another said that he never once described a character in his books but that the readers seemed to get an impression anyhow.

Regarding my main characters, which are admittedly an alien species, I gave details early on about their small size. I even described some of their internal anatomy (it was important to the story). I described--as the story unfolded--their foxlike prehensile tails, and their pointed ears. By the ninth chapter, which is late into the novella, I explained their cute bunny-like faces. Each time I described a feature of the character was when it mattered. But I've been told that I failed my readers somehow. (I have received largely positive reviews from my main reader base.)

There were certain other species I didn't spend a lot of time to describe. For example, there was a small animal that some kept as a pet, which I didn't bother to describe.

There were other species which I didn't describe well since the characters who interacted with them in the dark caves could hardly see them. Was I wrong to avoid a description of anything beyond what the characters personally noticed?

Fortunately, I have sold few enough of these books that I can adjust and send out a fresh batch. But before I do so, I figured it would help to hear your personal feelings on description, as in, if something has no significant impact on the plot, how necessary is its description?

I've been told I don't describe enough (Mostly by my co-author wife) so I'm probably no help here. Maybe try to describe the whole creature when you first meet them, that way peoples expectations aren't shattered? (I do a lot of that too from what I hear...)

Thanks Riley and B.B.

I'm a huge fan of plot and atmosphere, and it sounds like you did it appropriately, though it is hard to say without reading it. I also prefer limited pov. Some readers want an omniscient pov. If you feel as though it would be a better book with a little more flesh, then do it. Otherwise, move on.

Art is never finished, it is only abandoned.

-Leonardo da Vinci

I just had a conversation with someone who is reading my book. She commented that the descriptions made her feel that she was right inside the story. I'm a big believer in describing people and locations. Also, in letting dialogue drive a story.

To be clear, I didn't actually say bunny-faced. I think my biggest issue is that describing an alien by earth terms almost drops a reader's focus on the story being told. See, I feel that the best way to tell a description is from the eyes of a character who hasn't seen it before. Each time I describe a detail, it's important. For example, the characters are small, when they see a human for the first time and she's twice their size. Leon's tail is described as "bushy" when it gets run over by a truck and Jendra must stitch it. The tails are described as prehensile when Jendra uses hers to save Leon's life. The characters become slightly more rabbitlike when Jendra hits her head and rubs her pointy ear to sooth the pain. And the characters are described by the amnesiac human in chapter 9 when she must decide whether to trust them with her life.

And thanks to all of you for your feedback and assistance.

One other point. The best thing about the series I am telling is the many artists who shared their inspiring artwork. With the release of book 2, I have built a gallery on my website iffixysantaph.com
I think this should help greatly.

B.B. wrote: "I think it all comes down to personal preference. No matter what you write, someone won't like it or agree with it..."

Pretty much my take on it, too. There's really no right or wrong way to do descriptions. Every reader is going to be looking for something different, so no matter what you do, some will like it and some will not. I've read all your posts on this Iffix and it seems you're doing well with it. Keep it up. Don't let the readers shake you.

I think rather than try to give examples, I will instead say this. After the second edition of my novel, I knew something was missing. It was in-my-face evident as I "read" best selling audiobooks on my commute from work. That quality was description, but more than that. It was describing things in such a way that set moods, gave depth to the characters, and generally added spice to your whole theme.

I went to the Library, and picked up a few books on writing novels. One of them that helped me the most was a book by Monica Woods, called, "Description."

Check it out,

Morris

I'm generally a fan of little explicit description of character looks in anything other than general terms. There are times when it makes more sense, of course, to go through the whole height, weight, hair color and style, eye color, clothes worn thing. But unless there's a real reason for that, I'd opt for just enough detail to let the reader imprint their own image of the characters on their mind.

Iffix wrote: "...one author of fantasy fiction recommended describing a character by the clothes they wear, and from that, the reader should create their own impression..."

Which brings up something else...Some genres demand more description. Fantasy and Romance tend to be more obsessed with dressing up paper dolls than some other genres.

The problem with this, I think is it can become really obviously extraneous. And often you end up with cartoon characters in the process--character who never change their freaking clothes because they have to wear their signature floppy hat with a peacock feather in it. (Seriously, the Scooby Doo cast never changed clothes in how many decades?)

Iffix wrote: " I feel that the best way to tell a description is from the eyes of a character who hasn't seen it before. Each time I describe a detail, it's important..."

For details I would agree. But think about how people really look at someone new: they start with a general overall look...male/female, tall/short, fat/thin, sexually attractive or not. It's only after they get into closer contact and more extended conversation that they pick up on specifics that aren't obvious.

So when a new character or creature is introduced, I think a general overall description is required (as V.M. suggested).

Stretching out the description of a species over multiple chapters is fine, but when it's something obvious like what their faces look like and it's coming up late in the book you run the risk of your reader having already formed an impression, and getting irked when it doesn't match up to their own mental image. 'Rabbits? I was thinking lizards. Get out of here with yo rabbit-nonsense!'

I have to agree of the way you did it Iffix. Little by little so you don't get an info dump makes sense to me. I don't know which POV you use. If it's third person POV, it might be easier to say more. I deal with first person POV and he describes as he sees it. Like someone said already, the first thing you notice is male/female, etc. Unless the person who describes the other has a whole lot of time to do so (seeing the person from the distance etc.) they may only have but a few seconds before they need to talk/reply etc. It would make no sense to start a detailed description.

Yet, if the rabbit face alien is seen earlier on, and not in the dark, maybe that would be the first thing someone would notice. I mean, sure men will sometimes notice boobs before they notice a woman's face but...you know what I mean. I think it's important to stay in POV. If that's what your character always notice first, then heck... Still, the face should still come soon after. :P

Same goes with the person in the dark. If in first person POV, unless that person or alien or whatever has night vision, he wouldn't normally be able to see details. By not telling much about it, you stay in POV.

There will always be people who prefer more of something while others prefer less of the same thing. If everyone tells you the same, maybe you can consider changing the way you do it, but never because of a few.

My first question would be: Who is giving this feedback? As we all know, preferences vary, and usually the feedback we authors get is from a small minority of readers. It's hard to know if the feedback is representative. Chasing reader's opinions can be a distraction and lead to confusion. For writing to be effective, I think the author needs to believe it. When authors start trying to respond to feedback that does not resonate with them, but amounts to follow "directions" about how things "should be done", their writing tends to became mechanical.

That said, Micah has a good point about different genres needing more description. As Igzy pointed out, when dealing with things like aliens, it's possible for the reader to get confused if they got a wrong impression early on. So the main thing is not allowing the reader to get confused, and that is often avoided by (as has been said) giving an overall description when the alien first appears.

Another question that occurred to me is in regards to the comment that each time a detail is described, it's important. What made the detail important to describe then, and not before? Whether something has no significant impact on the plot or not, may vary between readers. It might not seem like it does to the author, because the author is carrying around the world in their head with all the backstory, while the reader is inferring things as they read, and that detail might clarify something or help them recall something later, or suggest some relationship that the authors is taking for granted. So there could be a mismatch between a reader's expectation and the author's at that point.

As a reader, I have a quirk: I like hints and some degree of front-loading when it comes to details. When I'm reading along and a new detail is introduced, depending on how significant it seems, I'll stop and think: "Was I supposed to know this? Did I miss something?" At this point, I stop reading and go hunting back through the text to see what (if anything) I missed.

We write the same way. Because we don't like things coming "out of the blue", we scatter a few mentions around early on to hint at things that will become significant later. (Sometimes more than a few.)

Some people like this and some really dislike it, and they say so in reviews. It does place a burden on the readers, in that we are expecting them to remember things that may have seemed off-hand at the time when they pop up later. But that's the way we tell stories and we have no desire to change it.

So "inept" may just mean some people don't like your style. If the feedback makes sense to you, and if the flow feels better to you (or doesn't feel worse) when/if you alter the descriptions, that's good. If it really goes against your grain, it is probably not so good. As said above, the bottom line is that you need to write like you.

Thanks all for the feedback. I wish I had a million readers to give a concensus, but since the book really isn't selling, I have just a few voices to base my insights on. One says it's a 5. One says it needs work. Can the story still be enjoyed by someone with an open mind? I think so. Perhaps for now I shall leave it alone and keep it in mind for future writing.

Iffix wrote: "Thanks all for the feedback. I wish I had a million readers to give a concensus ..."

That's the catch-22, isn't it? If one has enough readers to provide a robust consensus, the book would be selling so well that the question would not even come up.

Sounds like it might be a situation where you need to get the book in front of the "5" crowd more than trying to "fix" it for the "needs work" crowd.

Iffix wrote: "Perhaps for now I shall leave it alone and keep it in mind for future writing."

For what it's worth, we know there are things in our first book that could be improved. And we do try to apply those lessons to future books. We firmly believe in always moving forward.

Thanks for the encuragement Owen.

Owen wrote: " I like hints and some degree of front-loading when it comes to details..."

That was something I was thinking about as well. If you have certain details about an alien's appearance that are not important early on, but become important later, there's no reason why you need to wait until later to spring it on the reader. Details like this can be a kind of foreshadowing.

I don't know about you, but when I see some bits of data in a book that don't seem important at the time, I often file that extraneous data in memory, thinking "Hmm...now why was that information dropped on me?" If it later turns out to be important, I feel pleased that I was able to spot it.

That's especially true in mystery stories. "Excuse me, but you've got a little blue piece of paper stuck to the bottom of your shoe." Why did the author bother to tell me that? I bet it's important later on...etc.

It works especially well if between the first mention of the detail and the point where it becomes important there are story elements that might make sense with that data. You know, it gives the reader something to go "Oh...you know, we already know these aliens have prehensile tails..."

Owen wrote: "My first question would be: Who is giving this feedback?"

This is definitely something to consider as well. My wife is one to ask for more explicit detail especially on technological devices. But she's not used to reading/watching SF. She isn't familiar with its tropes.

Like if I mention a character is communicating via NPlant channels, talking directly from mind to mind with someone else, she's likely to ask me to explain how that works.

But people familiar with SF will know without much explanation at all that I'm talking about a brain implant that allows wireless communication. I don't have to get specific for the average SF reader.

In fact spelling it all out would be boring and kind of an insult to the average SF reader, while those not familiar with this genre may feel out of their comfort zone.

OTOH, I tend not to believe the 5-star rating crowd. A lot of people are very easy to please, or don't want to insult the author and therefore rate works higher than I think they should. I mean, have I written a real 5-star book yet? Hmm. Honestly? I don't think so. 5-star to me is "a true classic of the genre" or "a groundbreaking work." Or "Damn, I wish I could write that well!"
];D

Micah wrote: "Owen wrote: "My first question would be: Who is giving this feedback?"

This is definitely something to consider as well. My wife is one to ask for more explicit detail especially on technological ..."

In this case, the 5-star crowd can be interpreted in two ways: people who are not exercising critical judgement or are not expressing it (for whatever reason); and people for whom the story works (regardless of what they might actually rate it).

I don't think we've written a 5-star work, either -- yet. But of course, what's the benchmark? Personally, I benchmark by genre, so my standard for literary fiction and for sci-fi are markedly different.

Iffix wrote: "So, apparently my methodology for storytelling is inept. When I started, I had heard a lot of positive feedback, so I assumed I had made the right choices. Lately though, all of the feedback has be..."

Hi Iffix, I agree that it is a matter of personal preference. I was told by one reviewer my characters weren't developed enough and by another they fell in love with my characters. It is your story and you tell it the way you want to. Sounds to me like you are spot on. I have re-published four times because of readers opinions and then decided enough was enough. That's until the next time I guess :)

S.J. said "I was told by one reviewer my characters weren't developed enough and by another they fell in love with my characters."

yeah, got the same feedback. One said they were flat and others said they were well-rounded and complex.

If you check that book out I recommended, this definitely will improve your descriptive ability. I know it did mine. If you want to see an example of an author who is a master at description, check out, "I Lay Down My Sword and Shield," by James Lee Burke. he is not only a master at describing the outside, but describing internal confict as well.

Morris

@Morris: One of my favorites was overly descriptive in my opinion, but I marveled at his way of making a fifteen minute scene feel like a day. That was the late great Robert Jordan. Just reading his work, I felt my own descriptions improving. Perhaps it's time to read the Wheel of Time again (but that could take years).

I tend to under-describe, and have to look closely at every description when I'm on the later edit passes, to make sure I've said enough. Having said that I had at one point a brilliant tutor who told me that by providing a few clues it was possible to get the reader to fill in the rest. Like this:

Later that evening there was a polite tap on Jane's cabin door.
‘Who is it?’
‘Eva.’
‘Come in, would you like a drink? Coffee?’
Eva shuffled into the room. Jane took her by the hand and led her to the best of the three chairs. Eva sat, staring out of the curved window, unwilling or unable to meet Jane's eyes.
‘N—Nothing thanks,’ she stammered, and began to fiddle with the hem of her threadbare red skirt.
‘Come on,’ said Jane, ‘I don't bite, at least not people who don't deserve to be bitten.’
Eva smiled. ‘Coffee then, if you have some. I don't see any cups or anything.’
Jane opened one of the lockers built against the curve of the wall. ‘Force of habit, my ship accelerates a lot harder than the Consort.’ She took out a small filter coffee machine and two plastic tubes. ‘If I left something like this,’ she pulled the jug out of the coffee machine and went to fill it in the bathroom, ‘on the galley worktop, and then opened the throttles, I'd find it in small pieces against the engine room bulkhead. You learn to be tidy in an eighty-footer.’ She poured water into the machine, and plugged it in.
‘Now,’ said Jane, as she picked up the tubes, ‘what's on your mind?’
‘Why are you doing this?’
‘Doing what?’ Jane broke the end off one of the tubes with a loud pop.
Eva cowered, and gripped the arm of her chair.
Jane smiled, ‘Don't worry, that was only the vacuum seal on the coffee. Nobody's shooting at us. I'm going to open a second one—there it goes.’

How it works: Best of the three chairs tells you how big the cabin is and how well furnished. Curved window tell you the cabin is built against the outside of the spaceship's hull and reinforces the idea of luxury. The skirt tells us that Eva is short of money and nervous. The coffee machine being in a cupboard hints that Jane is efficient and tidy. The idea of the cabin is reinforced by the en-suite bathroom. Eva's reaction to breaking the seal tells us that she is frightened.

I personally find large chunks of description distracting, and skim read them so I can get onto the good stuff. Your method - describing an alien species gradually - makes perfect sense; who notices everything about a person or place all at once? Besides, a writer should give the reader the freedom to fill in their own gaps; your idea of "plain but pleasant" or "exotically attractive" won't necessarily be the same as theirs.

R. wrote: "I tend to under-describe, and have to look closely at every description when I'm on the later edit passes, to make sure I've said enough. Having said that I had at one point a brilliant tutor who t..."

I agree. This is a very effective way to convey an atmosphere and some necessary information

@R: This is very much the way I strive to write, though I'm not nearly as smooth. Do you write mysteries? If not, I'd recommend it, with an eye for detail like yours.

I'm not big on description. I'll give some general features of my characters, especially if there's something about them that's out of the ordinary. (One female character has white hair, for example, so that gets mentioned.) I want the readers to come up with their own images of the characters.

Iffix wrote: "@R: This is very much the way I strive to write, though I'm not nearly as smooth. Do you write mysteries? If not, I'd recommend it, with an eye for detail like yours."

I'm afraid there is only one way to achieve smoothness, and that's lots of rewrites.

Actually there is a mystery component to my SF. In this one Jane is investigating Arthur, Eva's ex-lover. The WIP is much more a whodunnit:

The victim was a male of athletic build, with cropped, sandy hair. He lay face-down on the firm sand, arms outstretched, waves lapping at his feet. His fawn jacket and pale blue jeans, dusted with salt crystals, were hardly discoloured by the seawater.
What drew Jane's eyes was the tell-tale trace of the weapon that had killed him, a neat hole in his back half an inch across, the fabric of the jacket singed and the flesh charred.
No projectile had done this. It was a spacegoer's weapon, something that delivered a pulse of pure energy, converting blood, flesh and bone to vapour in microseconds.
It looked very much like the burn from an Arcturian Confederate Space Fleet hand energy weapon. But as far as Jane knew there was only one on this planet.
And that one was clipped to her belt.

Morris wrote: "S.J. said "I was told by one reviewer my characters weren't developed enough and by another they fell in love with my characters."

yeah, got the same feedback. One said they were flat and others s..."

Thanks Morris

Another point to bear in mind is that readers adapt (many of them). As they learn your style and the way you describe things, they adjust their focus and their expectations.

We throw our readers some curves and for the most part, they go with it. Our first book and our second are markedly different. The first was more tightly written and faster paced, and went comparatively light on descriptions. The second was much longer, built more slowly, and used more elaborate descriptions. A number of readers commented on the contrast, including one who said that based on the first book, he was a expecting a more "rip-roaring space opera", but "now that I see you're writing Dune, I get it."

So yes, I think readers will often meet you halfway.

Sometimes I think I'm not descriptive enough based on other authors I read, but then when I go back over their works, I decide, well that was a little too descriptive for me. I like less description, just enough to give the reader an idea, but not too much to overload them. I think what you described was decent. You're never going to get every person to agree because we all have our own opinions. I would go with what works best for you. I agree with a lot of what everyone else said on here. So I guess I can't add much, but write what comes to you. Otherwise I think you're forcing something out that isn't going to sound very good.

As a writer of top shelf literary fiction, every word not only counts for something with me, but may have to serve several functions. I may write elaborate back stories for my characters with no intention of sticking them into the book itself. Just knowing them affects how I have them move and breathe. if two characters are sitting in a room watching light come in through the slats, one may see it as though some sort of blessing from God while another notices all the dust swirling about in the shafts of light and feel dismayed. Every detail says something about the state of mind and being of the character and something and probably much more besides:
"It is so hard to think “was” about your mom. While I’m awake, I can’t think back to her without crying.
"I dropped down on the threshold, not quite inside, rocking a plain cardboard packing box on my lap. I was coming all apart, blubbering. I wanted so badly to hug it. I would never find the courage to open it again.
"Inside it: nothing, really. A few old tarnished and thread-worn tidbits anyone else might have thrown away. Mom’s fuzzy blue robe she’d always worn at the table over her Nescafe Instant Coffee on my rare visits home. So many times I’d bought her fancy percolators, gold filters, exotic coffee grinds from Jamaica, Guatemala, and beyond; but she’d always had to have her instant. She’d lean in over her cup, embracing it with both hands, listening intently to anything I wanted to share, no matter how trivial."
- From "The Mourning After".

Another Example from the same book:
It was a dense, moldering night, smelling of damp old basements and times best left unstirred. All those long dark hours, grief-strewn winds wailed through the trees. Calling like tender misplaced memories. Moaning, “Vrrommm … Mrroammm …” Not just lamenting, but beckoning. I took it in as someone crying out for me to “Comme … hommme…”
But I had no home. Homes were filled with loss and I’d had enough of that. I’d squandered my childhood locked up inside, catching glimpses of life and the world only through windows and books, as my parents had waited for my heart to finish me off. Then death had taken them first. I’d spent my few adult years running away from any threat of settling down, refusing to take in any more grief, but felt it following as I’d fled.
I’d gone out into the world, intricately lacing distractions and busywork around the long-gnawing emptiness, only to find I’d merely embellished rather than hidden it. I’d buried death under deep mounds of chitchat, but still heard it rustling in there.
This troubled old cabin with its veiled history had called to me from so far away. But even here I was infested with the roving misery of spirits who could never touch their loved ones again.
Especially here. I couldn’t heal their wounds, couldn’t even pat them reassuringly; but I would not be just one more who’d turned away.
It all felt so hauntingly personal. We were all lost spirits, neighbors in need, afraid to knock, lingering just along the fuzzy edges of each other’s most intimate buried memories.
On through those long hours, my heart shredded by the winds, I stayed up; unpacking, writing by moody, tossing candlelight, or stalling out to listen in on the sorrow. Letting it soak through me, draw me into its churning, writhing bosom.
Darkness crept through. Shadows pried at doors, teased dull edges of recollections that never quite took hold. Memories that would have shriveled under the blinding sun of daylight. And reason.

- I'm trying here to pull people into his mood, his history, his loss, his pain, and the mystery behind all of this that haunts him. It reads as though I am giving all kinds of details, but I am really just sort of indirectly hinting at them.
- Details are hinted at. Like what normal person thinks of an opportunity to settle down as a threat? Why was he only able to see life through windows as a child? And what does this say about him that he was so drawn to books? - Picturing moody tossing candlelight while shadows pry at doors and disturbing memories almost surface ... We can as readers picture this - and THINK of this as very detailed description, but again; this is only hints and observations through veils of character's internal states.

R. wrote: "I tend to under-describe, and have to look closely at every description when I'm on the later edit passes, to make sure I've said enough. Having said that I had at one point a brilliant tutor who t..."

R--you have intrigued me, is that from a published book? Which book? Please?

Iffix, I bought it and will read it and tell you what I think. It might take a while to get to, though.
Overall, what you described in your post sounds great, especially not describing something the pov can't see. No fair throwing God's view in there.

It looks like your first book, and it takes a while to be found by readers, so it is hard to say what readers think at this point. You should write for yourself first, paying customers second, critics never--that is my opinion.

That sounds like great advice, Diana. I want you to know that I have spent 20 years writing for me. I always knew I wanted to be an author, though I'm sure not everyone in my life has admired my pursuit. It's only recently that I've started to share my stories with my audience and it's only now that I've really started to be concerned with their advice regarding my own work. I truly believe it has been given for my benefit, so I want to do right by my audience. And a sincere thank you for your support.

Iffix wrote: "I truly believe it has been given for my benefit, so I want to do right by my audience..."

Both those things are admirable, but feedback may be well-intentioned and still misleading. The big issue I have with giving feedback to other authors is trying to make sure it doesn't boil down to: "You didn't write this like I would've written it." It's very hard to divine the author's intent well enough to give constructive feedback that works from their perspective, instead of the book I want to read.

That is not to say that reader's feedback is not valuable, but I Diana says, it's secondary. I have a strong sense that reader value "authenticity" in writing in the sense of the author saying true to their voice and their vision. Straying from that usually leads to muddled work and almost no one likes that. (Compare the reactions people get in conversation when they are being genuine, as opposed to when they are putting on airs or deliberately trying to impress their audience. Writing is a conversation with the reader, and the same factors apply.)

It's all about cultivating faith in your work so you can learn without losing focus.

Diana wrote: "R--you have intrigued me, is that from a published book? Which book? Please?"

Thanks, yes it is published, it's "Run From The Stars", Chapter 4.

http://arcturian-spacefleet.com/the-b...

This is available in both electronic and print editions.

Thanks R!