# I am very curious about something.



## modhatter (Jul 31, 2010)

For you avid readers of many books, I have a question: As I am just now getting back into reading, I find myself quickly bored with endless descriptions, of what I call "word eating fluff". What that means to me, is the inordinate amount of space taken up by descriptions of what I consider minutia. If it is an exceptionally beautiful countryside, just say so with perhaps two or three sentences describing it's landscape. I don't want to hear a page about the crimson color of each petal or the amount of dew drops on every leaf.

Do you all like this type of writing? Am I alone with the mindset I seem to possess, which is I suppose _forget the fluff, and just give me the meat. _ Am I lacking in my willingness to properly picture the object or the scenery. Do authors really feel this is what the readers want?

*Is it* what people want? I realize there are some things in writing that need adequate description to fully feel the moment, but not every other page.

Perhaps, it is just in the writers ability. I could not say this about "The Old Man and the Sea", as most of the book was a visual explanation of what was happening, silent thoughts in the fisherman's head, and yet it was a fantastic read.

In addition to this, I am drawn to period pieces (Austin, James, etc.) because I thoroughly enjoy the wordage and the manner in which they spoke in those times. What today, would be a brief and to the point sentence in real life, 2010 style, I rather enjoy the beauty of the conversation of that era. But this is getting away from the point. My question does not pertain to period books, but to modern present century books. I do not find contemporary visualization in most books nearly as entertaining. I find myself saying "yade dah, yah de dah", and skipping through till I pass it all and get back to the actual story.

It may just be a personality type that I fall into. I also find I enjoy non fiction books considerably more than fiction as a rule.
What say you all. I am very curious.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Occasionally I find the descriptions to be beyond what adds to the storyline, but not often. Most of my recent reading has been authors who post here on KB.


----------



## catherinedurkinrobinson (Sep 3, 2010)

I'm not sure what you're asking. I skipped the fluff, then you mention something about meat, and finally something about you're "curious." 

So I'm afraid I'm lost.


----------



## Debra Purdy Kong (Apr 1, 2009)

It's strange, but the older I get the less patience I have for long descriptive narrative. I used to read Thomas Hardy, Margaet Atwood, Robertson Davies and other literary writers, and I've read many mysteries because it's the genre I write. A few years back I was reading a book by a well known, highly regarded mystery writer, who stopped his story flat by writing a 3-page description of a street in Jerusalem which in fact had no direct bearing on the plot. Since then, I started writing shorter descriptions in my own work. My second mystery has far few than my first.

Debra


----------



## mparish6 (Apr 14, 2010)

Long passages of purple prose are a veritable sin. Authors enjoy writing long passages of description, but readers generally don't enjoy reading them, so the result is a kind of self-indulgence we permit the author if the plot is good enough. I'll admit I'm guilty as often as anyone else, but I'm trying to break the habit


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

LOL I have to agree that for someone complaining about lengthy passages, that was a long post. 

But I'm with you - it's one of the reasons I think JRR Tolkien is so overrated. I find it a bit pretentious or at least attempting to be such, as though the author is trying way too hard to prove themselves. I tend to glaze over or skim parts with unnecessarily long descriptions.


----------



## tbrookside (Nov 4, 2009)

Some readers feel just as negatively about stories they perceive to be too short as you feel about excessive description.

Perhaps some authors feel pressured to overdescribe to meet the ever-increasing page count demanded for publication?


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

I'm not a fan of long-winded authors (which is odd because I tend to be long-winded myself...at least when writing.)  

Might be why one of my favorite writers is Robert B. Parker - I love his "economy with words".  He can say a lot without a lot of excess verbiage.  Which isn't to say I don't like long books - but when I get the feeling the author is just "writing to hear himself write", so to speak, I lose patience (and interest) pretty quickly.


----------



## modhatter (Jul 31, 2010)

My critique has nothing to do with how short or long a book is.  It is what is in the pages between Page 1 and THE END that matter.
I would much prefer to read a 180 page book I find interesting 95% of the time, as to a 450 page book, I find interesting 55% (and have to put up with the other 45%) of the time.

I would think as an author, I would want to know how people (as readers) feel on this subject.  I am speaking as a reader, not an author. Is it so difficult as an author to extend the story line further, then to just eat up the pages with endless descriptive narratives.  This in no way meant to be an attack on the authors on this board, as my observations and sentiments extend to many popular published authors that most likely don't frequent this board.

I use the word curious, because I am.  These are my feelings, and I wanted to know if anyone shared them.  Perhaps you are all authors first and readers second, and it is difficult to see only the side of the reader.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

I think this is really interesting. I think sometimes it's placement that matters. A long description plopped into the midst of an action sequence can totally derail it while an unremarkable setting can leave you wondering, "Wait... where are we?" I guess it comes down to judicious application on the writer's side and judicious patience on the reader's side. Sometimes a long description of something mundane is boring, but a short description of something fantastic, to me, is just as frustrating.


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

It's not usually a problem for me. Generally speaking, the more I read, the more I get into the world the author has created.

Maybe I just read good writers.


----------



## Guest (Sep 5, 2010)

I've read a Ludlum book where he described the quality of the carpet fiber in an office.  It amazed me that a Pub would let that stay, but he is Ludlum... I imagine he gets what he wants.  When writing I try to make relevant observations, that evoke enough of the image that the reader can supply the rest.  In one book by Stephen Hunter, after ten sentences describing the woods his sniper was hiding in, he writes the sentence...  "I could go on cataloguing nature for hours."  That made me laugh, but it took me out of the story.  

I don't know how relevant my response was to the OP but there are my thoughts on description.  M.R. Mathias


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

I tend to prefer lean writing, but there are exceptions. I've read some books that have extensive descriptive passages that are just snoozapaloozas. Those usually pull me out of the story and feel like vanities. They're serving the needs of the writer, but not the needs of the story. Then, there are others that wax on and on and I'm happily along for the waxy ride. Conversely, if a book is too terse, it can feel choppy and rushed.

In short, it depends.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

I want the author to provide me with a good sense of location. However, being demanding, I also want the author to do so with _just enough_ description and no more. The very best are able to use a combination of carefully chosen words and a clever simile or metaphor, emphasizing just a few aspects of the scene that will trigger my imagination to fill in all the little details that he or she left unwritten, in order to establish the location without a feeling that the story has been interrupted.


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

I'm a minority among readers.  I love long descriptions.  I love the long, detailed descriptions in Lord of the Rings -- to read Tolkien describe every tree, boulder, and flower in the forest.  I love the detailed descriptions in George R. R. Martin's books -- the way he describes armor, embroidery, weapons.  I love the long descriptions in Dickens' novels -- the way he describes the little details of daily Victorian life.

Long, detailed descriptions?  Sign me up!

In my own writing, however, I do try to limit them... for the sake of those readers who want the page turners.


----------



## Danielleqlee (Jun 21, 2010)

100% agree!!!! That is honestly one of the reasons I began writing, I like to get right to the meat of the story and hang on to my readers until I'm ready to let them go. lol


----------



## David &#039;Half-Orc&#039; Dalglish (Feb 1, 2010)

There's a precious few authors that can pull this off. They are the ones that care about setting just as much as the story. They're the ones who seek to not just tell you a story, but get you into a certain mood so they can tug on the emotions they desire. Ray Bradbury is my favorite at this. Some of the imagery he can summon up when describing locations (such as the midnight train arriving in Something Wicked This Way Comes) are absolutely wonderful.

Now if the author does this not because of a desire to set a mood and improve the book, but instead because of an ego-fueled desire to listen to themselves talk and write a bunch of pompous irrelevant nonsense just to show off their linguistic gymnastics and establish themselves as 'literary'...yeah, I'll start skimming, or eventually stop reading altogether.

David Dalglish


----------



## durphy (Nov 5, 2008)

The style of the day is more plot driven. We are bottom line people. Show, don't tell. If a picture's worth a thousand words...use your camera.

I'm liking the new writers I've been reading here.


----------



## tnt (Aug 17, 2010)

I remember a book I read some years ago... the great Joseph Heller's _Gold as Good_. It wasn't one of his best books, but I really liked it.

After I finished it, I thought about it... and something struck me as odd even though I didn't know what it was. So, I started rereading it and then I figured out what was odd...

... there wasn't a single description of anything.

There were interesting characters and situations, but those characters existed in singularly undescribed world. A large family would gather around the dinner table, but Heller never described that table or the room they were in, or, whatever.

The point is that I loved the book and never noticed what wasn't there.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

Yeah, for every writer who is good at this there are twenty who are either padding out their books or have spent too much time on writing critique web sites.  

Believe it or not, my all-time favorite book when it comes to description is Deliverance by James Dickey.  His descriptions (he's a poet) never grew tiresome and I really felt like I was out there in the woods with those guys.  

Then there are some who just get carried away with themselves.  One of my favorite authors wrote two paragraphs about snipping off the end of a cigar and lighting it.  I know what he was going for, and some writers could have pulled it off but he was just trying to be somebody that he isn't.  I stuck a post-it to that page so I could go back and laugh at it once in a while.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

I think the key to offering setting without boring the reader is to mix it in with the action.  You don't have to set the entire scene FIRST, and then begin the action.  If the character is running through the woods, tell me whether he's crunching dry leaves or slipping in the mud or stomping on ice and snow.  That way, action and setting are one and the same.

--Maria


----------



## D.A. Boulter (Jun 11, 2010)

Reading, I tend to like sparse description.  Writing, I often have to go back and add description.  Not enough to be obtrusive (I hope), but enough to give a feel for the place and, at times, set a mood.  I'm of the opinion, when writing, that the reader's imagination is superior to my ability to describe.  So, I'll say that the character had a cluttered desk and let the reader imagine the nature of that clutter, rather than describing each and every item thereon.  My own imagination, when writing, sees everything.  I just have to pick and choose what I think will give the reader satisfaction.

I grew up reading westerns.  I grew to dislike Zane Grey for his descriptions.  At the time I knew nothing about the harsh world of being paid by the word.  I learned to skim pretty quickly.


----------



## Roger E. Craig - novelist (Aug 28, 2010)

Nowadays, I'm definitely on the side of; "great dialog and paint a picture quickly". Authors such as Charles Dickens and Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote stories describing every detail of the scene. But they wrote before television was invented. Nowadays, you can say three words (I exaggerate) and most of us can conjure up an accurate picture of just about anything.
James Michener was a great writer but I was horrified when he said " If readers are not interested enough to stay with me for a hundred pages of description, let them go elsewhere." This is not an exact quotation. I either read it in his memoirs or in his book on the 'art of writing'. I stopped reading his novels after that. How dare he treat his customers so offhandedly. However, I had read his greatest, "The Source". I must look back see how much description there was in that book. It is a novel of the prehistory of _**** sapiens_. It was mind bending.


----------



## modhatter (Jul 31, 2010)

I agree to a degree with with an earlier poster that for every capable author using effective descriptive narrative, there are 20 who can't.  What I don't agree on is the number.  I would put that at a minimum of 1000 to 1.  How many Old Man and the Sea books or Deliverance Books can you name on your fingers?  And, if the consumer as a whole would like to be spared this type of literary pros, why do it?  That is unless every writer secretly aspires to the greatness of Earnest Hemingway or such others.  Are there not fantastic books whose merits lay with the story tellers ability to tell a good story without such narratives.

I read a book recently: a very short book in fact (165 pages I think)  It was an autobiography of sorts called "Wishful Drinking" by Carrie Fisher.   I think it was that short, because it was void of most descriptive narrative. It was very funny and made me laugh a lot, and I thought the writing was very witty and the author very talented.  So much so, that I felt compelled to go on her website and compliment her on the book. I apparently was not alone, as there were endless posts from other readers who felt the same way.  

Now the author is no Earnest Hemingway, but she has other unique talents I feel.  She is able to look at life's tribulations a second time,  and see the funny side of it, and conveys that very effectively in words.

Now, for sake of disclosure, I will admit that I picked this book up at a Goodwill store for $2.59, so the if there were any pangs of feeling cheated by the brevity of the book, I was immuned.  But, I doubt I would have felt that way even if I had paid full price for it, as I enjoyed it thoroughly.


----------



## Linjeakel (Mar 17, 2010)

Better to have a short but pithy description that the reader will actually take the time to read, than to be too verbose to the point where the reader starts to skim in order to get back to the plot. That can leave the reader with a pretty flat and far less satisfying read and achieve exactly the opposite to what the author was intending. As is often said, sometimes less is more.


----------



## JoeMitchell (Jun 6, 2010)

I love R.A. Salvatore's style of writing.  Brief descriptions of fantastic things, with great characters and lots of action that keeps the story moving at a good pace.  I'm spoiled by his writing, and now I have little patience for long descriptions and flowery prose.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

When Shakespeare wrote "brevity is the soul of wit" he wrote it to show that because Lord Polonius could not express himself briefly, he was a dumby. Still, when I read Henry Miller describe one thing for forty pages and make it work, that's anything but brief and he was no dumby. I don't think it's nearly as simple as "people prefer brief descriptions so they can get on with the story" but then what's simple? I'll stop there so as not to risk appearing witless.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Honestly, it depends on the book.  I like descriptions, BUT - in my opinion the reader should never notice the descriptions.  If I'm noticing the description, it's too long; it has pulled me away from the story.  With that in mind, a couple of descriptive sentences or a paragraph to "set the scene" are great, but more than that... ugh.  Again, though, the writers I like describe without describing.  You can say that the street is dark and quiet, or you can tell me that the protagonist is skulking along at night and they are leery about a rustling sound (it must have been quiet, otherwise they wouldn't hear said noise above the background sounds) or that they're nervous at a particular shadow moving over there (it's not very well-lit).

My .02


----------



## modhatter (Jul 31, 2010)

I think the above poster is correct.  Me thinks that perhaps some authors are too enamored with their own command of the English language, they tend to over use it sometimes in an effort to be clever.


----------



## John Brinling (Jul 25, 2010)

I don't like lengthy descriptions unless it directly affects the plot/character. Sometimes a description is very informative about something I don't know a lot about and therefore I learn something. These descriptions are acceptable to me, but it's hard to know when I will stumble on one of them until I'm into it or finished with it. In general, I prefer fast moving stories where action is mixed with the description.








[/url][/img]


----------



## prairiesky (Aug 11, 2009)

I guess I must love lengthy description.  I enjoy  James Lee Burke's work and his novels are full of description.  His writing takes me into the Louisianna bayou with all of it's sights, sounds and smells.  I am always sorry when the story ends.  I think that all of the details he includes helps me to immerse myself in the story.  Maybe it's just that he is so good at it.
On the other hand, brevity can be fun too.  I enjoy Robert Parker's Jesse Stone books and he has very few descriptions....mostly dialogue.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Generally, I don't like a lot of description and tend to skip it when I read, but James Lee Burke is an exception for me too, so when it's a place I've never been and is well done....

As to your other question, I read mostly fiction and prefer it, but I do read non-fiction now and then, history mostly.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

Florence King, my favorite essayist of all time, wrote about this very subject in her book _Reflections in a Jaundiced Eye_--she quotes passages from several books in which the writers engage in long, lifeless descriptions of clothes, food, or interior decorating that have nothing to do with the ongoing stories or character development--some of the descriptions are little better than lists of things. Then she quotes a long, descriptive passage from _Gone with the Wind_, in which Scarlett is going through her wardrobe and trying to decide which dress to wear to the 12 Oaks barbecue--the energy in this passage leaps off the page, especially following the boring list-like descriptions. The descriptive passage in _Gone with the Wind _ engages me because the carefully selected details tell me so much about Scarlett's character and how she views her rival Melanie, whereas the other descriptions reveal nothing except the writer's knowledge of modern furniture design or gourmet food or top clothing designers, etc. If I wanted to learn about gourmet food or clothing, I would buy non-fiction books about those subjects. When I'm reading a novel, I want insight into engaging characters and entertainment--not a cooking or geography lesson.


----------



## HeidiHall (Sep 5, 2010)

Less is definitely more! I have my own imagination, give me a starting point and I'll fill in the rest.


----------



## Budo von Stahl (Aug 31, 2010)

I think the point that if the description fails to hold my attention, it's too much, holds true for me.  Good writing is good writing, descriptive or not.  A descriptive passage that sets the scene, mood, or tone is good as long as it holds my attention.  I'm guilty of skipping a few and probably of writing a few, each individual reader has to pass judgment on his own.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

Budo von Stahl said:


> I think the point that if the description fails to hold my attention, it's too much, holds true for me. Good writing is good writing, descriptive or not. A descriptive passage that sets the scene, mood, or tone is good as long as it holds my attention. I'm guilty of skipping a few and probably of writing a few, each individual reader has to pass judgment on his own.


This is perhaps a more apt expression of what I was trying to say. The relationship between reader and writer is an interesting one and there's a lot of variables involved case by case.


----------



## Valmore Daniels (Jul 12, 2010)

I prefer lean and mean. Plot driven, character driven.


----------



## modhatter (Jul 31, 2010)

Well, I think this garnered some good insight into what readers like and don't like.  It should prove helpful to authors I would think.  I can only speak for myself, but I think that is what put me off on reading for a while.  I just got tired of sifting through the long tedious parts in what I feel were not the integral part of the story.  Yes, I do want to know what a character looks like.  This is useful information to in able me to see the characters like the author intended.  But, as mentioned before I do not care to hear about every blade of grass on the estate.  My opinion as a whole (with few exceptions noted), is that descriptive narrative is often overdone.  Yes, I concede their are authors who may do it well, but what percentage?  Sometimes, even established beliefs must be questioned.

However, for those who said they did not mind, I did notice they seemed to favor only certain authors that they felt could engage in this type of writing effectively.  So how limiting might this be?  Understand, this is just the feelings of a sole reader.  And as I am only one of many, I wanted to hear how you all felt about it as well.  I wonder if there were not so many authors involved in the consensus, if the replies would be any different?  I can see both sides.  Being involved in the literary world seems to give you better understanding of what is out there.  On the other hand, as you see things more as an author, then the consumer, perhaps it makes you less objective.  It has been most interesting hearing all your comments.  I hope more will be willing to offer their feelings and experiences on this subject.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

modhatter said:


> Well, I think this garnered some good insight into what readers like and don't like. It should prove helpful to authors I would think. I can only speak for myself, but I think that is what put me off on reading for a while. I just got tired of sifting through the long tedious parts in what I feel were not the integral part of the story. Yes, I do want to know what a character looks like. This is useful information to in able me to see the characters like the author intended. But, as mentioned before I do not care to hear about every blade of grass on the estate. My opinion as a whole (with few exceptions noted), is that descriptive narrative is often overdone. Yes, I concede their are authors who may do it well, but what percentage? Sometimes, even established beliefs must be questioned.
> 
> However, for those who said they did not mind, I did notice they seemed to favor only certain authors that they felt could engage in this type of writing effectively. So how limiting might this be? Understand, this is just the feelings of a sole reader. And as I am only one of many, I wanted to hear how you all felt about it as well. I wonder if there were not so many authors involved in the consensus, if the replies would be any different? I can see both sides. Being involved in the literary world seems to give you better understanding of what is out there. On the other hand, as you see things more as an author, then the consumer, perhaps it makes you less objective. It has been most interesting hearing all your comments. I hope more will be willing to offer their feelings and experiences on this subject.


I see this kind of thing a lot on the boards and I'm happy to get the chance to to reply to it. I am an author, but I think it's a common (and inexplicable) misconception that authors aren't also consumers and readers. I love to write, but if I did not read and, in one way or another, acquire good literature, I would not be able to do so. Reading is an integral part of growing as a writer. Any writer worth his or her scribblings decides (yup, that's right, if you're a writer and you're not making these decisions... you're not really a writer) things like how much description to use where largely based on the kind of literature he or she likes to read and the style it's written in. The expression "write what you know," I've always thought, isn't worth beans. "Write what you like to read" is much better. And much... well... just something that really happens, ok?

Also, the idea that authors are more lenient when it comes to other writers just isn't true. Perhaps when it comes to an author's own work he or she might be more apt to get his or her subjectivity on, but, in my experience, writers often make the most brutal book critics when it comes to the work of others. This is tempered by the fact, I think, that writers are often among the most passionate fans of of their favorites, but if a writer doesn't like one he or she is likely to not only rant about it, but also to write about it. And writing doesn't blow away on the wind. Especially not if it's published on Kindle (little Kindle joke there to lighten the tone ).

To sum up, any writer who claims he or she isn't a reader first is some kind of phony. Authors don't exist in some magic dimension of literary production without source or objective standard. We're just peoples too.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

Reading this I wonder if someone would be pushed too far to the non-description side. At least for me, I also don't like books that give no background description and just have characters hopping around on a bare stage, so to speak. Books like that are probably less common than overly descriptive ones, but they're certainly out there. As Sibel said, there has to be a balance.


----------



## modhatter (Jul 31, 2010)

Yes, I see your point.  And there probably is no better critic than that of another author. And I agree, a good author should also be a good consumer.   But don't you think "style" is sometimes copied, when it is perceived to be the norm?  Perhaps I have not read enough, and have not found enough of those special authors that might suit my taste in fiction.  Perhaps it is why I have gravitated to non fiction (not that non fiction is totally void).  

I also agree that a good balance of descriptive narrative and story is essential.  I guess the argument lies in ones perception of what good balance is in each book.  Thus far, I have noted that balance to be a little too heavily tilted in many fiction books in the descriptive department.  But maybe it is just a matter of taste.  Perhaps my taste buds are too narrow.  Perhaps I have not found the right authors for my tastes. I know in movies, I can only truly enjoy that which appears and resembles true life in a sense that I can see this actually happening.  (This narrows my selection down a bit)

I think I need to read some of your books and judge for myself, as to whether I agree with you or not.  Maybe this is why the worlds best touted books (or movies or products), when reviewed by enough people - will have some 2 stars on occasion, along with the overwhelming 4's and 5's.


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

modhatter said:


> Yes, I see your point. And there probably is no better critic than that of another author. And I agree, a good author should also be a good consumer. But don't you think "style" is sometimes copied, when it is perceived to be the norm? Perhaps I have not read enough, and have not found enough of those special authors that might suit my taste in fiction. Perhaps it is why I have gravitated to non fiction (not that non fiction is totally void).
> 
> I also agree that a good balance of descriptive narrative and story is essential. I guess the argument lies in ones perception of what good balance is in each book. Thus far, I have noted that balance to be a little too heavily tilted in many fiction books in the descriptive department. But maybe it is just a matter of taste. Perhaps my taste buds are too narrow. Perhaps I have not found the right authors for my tastes. I know in movies, I can only truly enjoy that which appears and resembles true life in a sense that I can see this actually happening. (This narrows my selection down a bit)
> 
> I think I need to read some of your books and judge for myself, as to whether I agree with you or not. Maybe this is why the worlds best touted books (or movies or products), when reviewed by enough people - will have some 2 stars on occasion, along with the overwhelming 4's and 5's.


That seems totally fair to me. Maybe you should try out some historical fiction. I bet you'd enjoy it. I'm a fantasy/science fantasy fan myself, but if you're looking to expand your fiction reading and you like stuff that seems true to life it's not a bad genre to give a chance. Although I might also suggest avoiding anything set in Victorian London. Talk about lots of description. And so much description of fog. I wonder how many descriptions of fog in London there are in literature? Probably millions.


----------



## Maria Romana (Jun 7, 2010)

jbh13md said:


> writers often make the most brutal book critics when it comes to the work of others.


Absolutely. I for one am very harsh when I read. All the little technical issues will just jump off the page at me--poor POV or tense switches, excess exposition, weak characterization, and so on. If I write a review, I have to remind myself that "normal readers" (ie, non-author-readers) probably won't notice or care about that stuff, and just focus on whether it was a good story. On the other hand, when I read a book that I think is really well done, I will write a long, glowing, detailed review, that will probably cinch a few sales, so I guess it goes both ways.

--Maria


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

modhatter said:


> *snip*
> Do you all like this type of writing? Am I alone with the mindset I seem to possess, which is I suppose _forget the fluff, and just give me the meat. _ Am I lacking in my willingness to properly picture the object or the scenery. Do authors really feel this is what the readers want?
> 
> *Is it* what people want? I realize there are some things in writing that need adequate description to fully feel the moment, but not every other page.


Probably going to be repeating what others have said, but in my hanging around some boards for writers, I'm finding that a LOT of writers who are now self-publishing, have NO CLUE about how to begin a book. I'm getting shot down in particularly glorious flames on one site, and all because I started a thread that advised writers to "not warm up your engines" when beginning a story. What I mean is, writers feel that for some inexplicable reason, they need to set the scene; describe the alien green landscape or the wafting autumnal paratroopers quietly committing suicide (falling leaves--Hey! That's good!), when they *should* be beginning at the start of the story, where the conflict happens.

Sometimes, writers are attracted too much to the sound of their own schlocky voices, and unfortunately, the reader is the one punished. Also unfortunately, some reputable editors and publishers allow this type of fluff through the slush-pile trap, again, punishing the readers. No, it's not what MOST GOOD writers think the reader wants. If a writer has learned his craft properly, then he will KNOW it's not what most reputable and large publishing houses want for their books, either.


----------



## dpinmd (Dec 30, 2009)

modhatter said:


> Well, I think this garnered some good insight into what readers like and don't like. It should prove helpful to authors I would think. I can only speak for myself, but I think that is what put me off on reading for a while. I just got tired of sifting through the long tedious parts in what I feel were not the integral part of the story.
> 
> I wonder if there were not so many authors involved in the consensus, if the replies would be any different?


Sorry, I don't think there's any way (here or elsewhere) to get a *consensus* on "what readers like and don't like." If it were that simple, there would only be one kind of book! Books come in all different shapes, sizes, and writing styles because readers come with all different tastes! If you were "put off" from reading because you got tired of sifting through long descriptions, maybe you were just reading the wrong books for your taste! Some readers (sounds like you would be included in this group) prefer plot-driven stories without a lot of description. Others read less for plot and more to appreciate beautiful prose. Neither is right or wrong, and I think it's misguided to think you can arrive at some sort of "consensus." (Just as you won't find a consensus as to what's "better," fiction or non-fiction.)

BTW, I am a reader only, not an author, although I don't think that really makes a difference. I tend to prefer plot-driven novels, but there are times when I prefer more character-driven stories with more emphasis on the characters' inner workings than on the "action." And there are also times when I love immersing myself in a new "world," with lots of beautiful descriptions that make me actually feel like I can see, hear, and smell the setting. And I rarely read non-fiction. But that's just me -- and that's the wonderful thing about books; there's no one-size-fits-all, there's something for everyone!


----------



## jbh13md (Aug 1, 2010)

opuscroakus said:


> Probably going to be repeating what others have said, but in my hanging around some boards for writers, I'm finding that a LOT of writers who are now self-publishing, have NO CLUE about how to begin a book. I'm getting shot down in particularly glorious flames on one site, and all because I started a thread that advised writers to "not warm up your engines" when beginning a story. What I mean is, writers feel that for some inexplicable reason, they need to set the scene; describe the alien green landscape or the wafting autumnal paratroopers quietly committing suicide (falling leaves--Hey! That's good!), when they *should* be beginning at the start of the story, where the conflict happens.
> 
> But you'd have thought I was turning tricks with their fathers when I mentioned this heresy. Sometimes, writers are attracted too much to the sound of their own schlocky voices, and unfortunately, the reader is the one punished. Also unfortunately, some reputable editors and publishers allow this type of fluff through the slush-pile trap, again, punishing the readers. No, it's not what MOST GOOD writers think the reader wants. If a writer has learned his craft properly, then he will KNOW it's not what most reputable and large publishing houses want for their books, either.


I would like about five things clarified in this post, so I'm gonna break it down. You say you find a LOT of writers self-publishing that don't know how to begin a story. Name five (I don't think that's too many to justify requesting when someone writes "lot" in all caps). You say good stories always begin at the point of conflict. False. Why false? Because, if true, how then do you explain the ones that don't? I mean, take the stories of John Steinbeck for example. He began many of them by setting the scene first and many of those same stories are now undeniably American classics (it doesn't matter whether you personally like them or not; they are part of the American tradition and it is a fact that they are classics; "Of Mice and Men"; yes, this is a lot of semi-colons). You say reputable editors and publishers let fluff through the slush-pile trap. Really? Are you sure reputable is the word you want to use? It seems to me that if this is what they're doing, they're disreputable. Or just lazy and bad at their jobs. I'm concerned that you might be making these editors and publishers up for the sake of argument. No offense meant, but it just doesn't make any practical sense that these reputable editors and publishers of shlocky voiced writers exist or that there can be a LOT of these shlocky voiced writers in existence either, for that matter, and that makes me suspect that they do not. Exist. I suspect they don't exist. Sorry. That sentence is a bit wonky. Moving on.

Writing for big publishing houses and crafting your style to fit their standards is a fine way to make a living if you're good at it. However, if you feel strongly that you would be better served by appealing to a smaller market and this market's wants are less represented by big publishing or you simply want a shot at selling direct and ACTUALLY letting the people decide what they want, then those are both strong reasons to self publish. Whether you do one or the other has no bearing on whether or not you are a good writer. That's like trying to argue Tiger Woods is a better athlete than Michael Phelps when what you mean is that he's a better golfer than Michael Phelps. Being able to clearly express your meaning? Yeah, that's something that ACTUALLY makes you a good writer. That's real craft, proper or not.

Ah, I do go one. But two more things: No author who is selling books to people who want to buy them is punishing anybody no matter how much or how little description they use (I suppose that sums that up).

Long Live Artistic Freedom,
And Best Regards,
JB


----------



## JL Bryan (Aug 10, 2010)

Roger E. Craig - novelist said:


> Authors such as Charles Dickens and Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote stories describing every detail of the scene. But they wrote before television was invented. Nowadays, you can say three words (I exaggerate) and most of us can conjure up an accurate picture of just about anything.


That's a really interesting point. 19th century novelists were describing so much that their readers hadn't seen. In our media-saturated society, you can pretty much say "a boulevard in Paris" or "a Caribbean island" or whatever and most people will already have the basic visuals already inside them.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

OK folks, take a deep breath.  I'm locking this thread while I read through it.


Betsy


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, 

We've gone through and removed the last few inflammatory posts.  There were a few too many personal comments and finally some name calling.  I've also edited a couple of posts to remove language designed to provoke others, which is against our forum decorum. 

Please don't take general comments about the writing businesss personally and remember to use your smiley icons when appropriate.

I'm going to unlock the thread again because it was a good discussion going on before it got derailed.

Thanks.

Betsy


----------



## AnnetteL (Jul 14, 2010)

In general, it seems like leaner descriptions are more in fashion than longer ones. Today, you couldn't get away with two-page descriptions of a sunset like LM Montgomery could or massive internal monologues, character, or room descriptions ala Dickens. Styles change. 

I personally love LMM and Dickens--I don't mind reading lengthy passages when I know what era the writer is coming from and what the expectations were then.

Today's writers don't usually have the luxury of lengthy descriptions--unless you're a massive best-seller, in which case you can pretty much break every rule and still sell well.


----------



## Alice Y. Yeh (Jul 14, 2010)

DArenson said:


> I'm a minority among readers. I love long descriptions. I love the long, detailed descriptions in Lord of the Rings -- to read Tolkien describe every tree, boulder, and flower in the forest. I love the detailed descriptions in George R. R. Martin's books -- the way he describes armor, embroidery, weapons. I love the long descriptions in Dickens' novels -- the way he describes the little details of daily Victorian life.
> 
> Long, detailed descriptions? Sign me up!
> 
> In my own writing, however, I do try to limit them... for the sake of those readers who want the page turners.


Agreed. I like the long passages. It's Edith Wharton v. Ernest Hemingway, no? It's not a matter of patience exactly, but rather the way that people think (IMHO). Some people are more direct, while others like to focus on obscure details that have nothing to do with the situation at hand. It probably comes out in both their reading preferences and their writing. I'm making broad assumptions here, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

Alice Y. Yeh said:


> Agreed. I like the long passages. It's Edith Wharton v. Ernest Hemingway, no? It's not a matter of patience exactly, but rather the way that people think (IMHO). Some people are more direct, while others like to focus on obscure details that have nothing to do with the situation at hand. It probably comes out in both their reading preferences and their writing. I'm making broad assumptions here, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.


I don't necessarily see it as a thinking vs. sensing issue, but rather what the type of writing the story dictates. I still choose historical fiction over contemporary--Wharton, Austen, Dickens, Henry James--they are my absolute favourites. As I said, chances are high that most historical fiction writers wouldn't be published today, but that's not because readers today don't want to think as much. I see it more that the type of story, before a reader delves headfirst, is understood. For instance, I have just finished a historical fiction novel. I used languid descriptions (while still beginning my story at the point of conflict) but allowed myself longer sentences, thus, slowing the pace a bit, and more sensory descriptions between the scenes where there is no tension.

However, in my contemporary fiction, it's short bursting sentences to pick up the pace, as well as quick dialogue and backstory and setting skillfully woven into my tension-filled scenes and dialogue. But I think readers who are fans of the historical fiction automatically purchase a book of that genre because they KNOW what they are in for. On the contrary, readers of contemporary fiction know that there won't be nearly as much superfluous and languid description, but a quicker pace overall to the story. They will never be surprised by what they usually get in contemporary fiction.

Which is why it's so important to find the right publishing house when querying a MS; to make sure they know the genre inside and out, and will do it that justice in the editing process.


----------



## traceya (Apr 26, 2010)

This has certainly been an interesting discussion.  As a reader - and I am first and foremost a reader - the story itself is what is most important to me.  Sometimes that brings long descriptions, sometimes not.  I tend to think that if you're skimming parts - whatever they may be - then you're not really engaged in the story and the writer - whoever that may be - hasn't done their job properly.  Surely the first rule of fiction is to provide the suspension of disbelief?  If I can't 'get lost' in the story then I'm not really enjoying the story.  

As a writer I try to engage the reader - I'm trying to tell a story and I want the reader to read every word, not skim over parts to 'get back to the action'.  That's why I try to make every word count and not worrying about counting every word.

My $0.02

Cheers,
Trace


----------



## Cathymw (May 27, 2010)

I used to be frustrated reading (and writing) long descriptions of anything. I was a dialogue whore, just wanted to read what the characters were saying (and thinking and doing).

After taking a class on description, I realized that description and narrative can be very useful to help the reader understand the characters or the situation. Describing the obsessively ordered desk (or cluttered) of the protagonist can be used to give glimpses into the characters'... um, character.

As a mystery reader/writer, description is even more important.  If you only occasionally describe something, and it's because it contains the CLUE, then it will pop out to the reader. Therefore, you need to occasionally give unimportant details as well.

Description can be important, useful, and when well-written, captivating.  However, description for the sake of description, especially if it's written in flowery language, still bores me.


----------



## jackwestjr_author (Aug 19, 2010)

Modhatter,

I can appreciate a book with "fluff" if the fluff is describing something with which I am unfamiliar.  Of late, there have been many books that are set in the Middle East.  I particularly liked the Kite Runner.  As I am unfamiliar with life in the Middle East, I appreciate the time the authro takes to set the scene.

My bread and butter are thrillers.  These is a genre where you do not frequently find much fluff.


----------



## WilliamEsmont (May 3, 2010)

Reader perspective:

When I was young (late teens?), I devoured Tom Clancy books. I couldn't get enough of his style. I LOVED all of the descriptions of military hardware, the detail, the history, etc. There was nothing more appealing to me than a nice 600 page book overflowing with intricate details about tanks and planes and troop movements, etc..

A few years ago, however, I tried to re-read one. I made it about 20 pages before I fell asleep. Too MUCH description, too much history. Bleh.

So, I guess I've changed. Who knows, maybe five years from now I'll be back into that sort of thing..

Writer perspective:

Learning which details to focus on takes a LOT of practice. It's also dependent on your genre. I write thrillers, so the only relevant details (IMO) are those that make the reader turn the page. That can be frustrating however, because sometimes I have something else I'd like to say (darlings) - some little observation on life, etc. Those things go into the 'future idea' folder.


----------



## modhatter (Jul 31, 2010)

As the original poster, I will reiterate. I expressed "My Feelings", and asked others to tell me theirs. I am interested in hearing what others feel, even if it doesn't coincide with my own observations and feelings. I think it is a way to gather insight. I have noticed a wee bit of feather ruffling here which is a shame. The questions posed was not meant to criticize any particular authors.

It appears to me that we all agree that a certain amount of descriptive narrative is necessary and can be very beneficial to the story. I can even say I especially love some of the classics, because I love the beautiful prose as one poster mentioned. Language can be beautiful. I sometimes wish we could readopt some of this language today.

However in my original post, I think it was a question of writing style, and what I feel has become a standard to some degree in all genres, and if my observations hold any truth to them, doesn't it warrants a civil discussion? Some people have made some excellent points.

I think society sometimes without knowing or or stopping to question gets into the flow of _following the leader_ But then later in life (some time centuries later) we look back, and say "what were we thinking". I just think it is healthy to always question things, even when it goes against the stream and the so called norm. Yes, of course tastes vary. There is no question of that.

But when it comes to writing style in the specific area I mentioned it might be a worthwhile endeavor to find out how many readers might share the same feeling that I do (or don't share). I can visualize the authors desire to be artistic and clever and to demonstrate their fine command of the English language. But how many of them really succeed at pleasing the reader with it?

Can authors be guilty of writing for their own enjoyment as opposed to the readers? This should be another topic. When I compare this to current Hollywood movies, I would say the inclination is to make movies that sell, not what is necessarily good (to my taste anyway) But then most movies today are made to appeal to the kids, as they are the ones buying the movie tickets, but this does not hold true for books.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

> I think society sometimes without knowing or or stopping to question gets into the flow of _following the leader_ But then later in life (some time centuries later) we look back, and say "what were we thinking". I just think it is healthy to always question things, even when it goes against the stream and the so called norm. Yes, of course tastes vary. There is no question of that.


I think society as a whole, does *not* think. Which has probably been the biggest reason for precipitating the style currently being published by publishing houses. (MAN, I wish Kindle would fix these boards to stop balking and quirking every time an author has a comment that can't be summed up in three succinct words!)



> I can visualize the authors desire to be artistic and clever and to demonstrate their fine command of the English language. But how many of them really succeed at pleasing the reader with it?
> 
> Can authors be guilty of writing for their own enjoyment as opposed to the readers?


Absolutely. But the two are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes I think authors, or at least young writers, forget that if they don't write what they know and love, then there will be a great deal of passion lacking from their writing, and chances are high it won't be engaging enough to sell anyway.

When I sit down to write comedy, I write for me. I cannot get into the habit of second-guessing whether a joke that makes me laugh will make my reader laugh. That is a slippery slope to writer's block. When I write historical fiction, I write what I would want to read, which means I write what I LOVE. Passion in one's writing is not something one can easily fake. And it's something your reader will notice right away.



> When I compare this to current Hollywood movies, I would say the inclination is to make movies that sell, not what is necessarily good (to my taste anyway) But then most movies today are made to appeal to the kids, as they are the ones buying the movie tickets, but this does not hold true for books.


For me personally, I've never been able to understand this "we vs. them" mentality when it comes to writing good literature and being able to sell literature. Again, the two are not necessarily automatically mutually exclusive. WHY ON EARTH do authors write if not to eventually make a living and SELL their works?? Why is selling one's work automatically equated with whoring out, and where did this antiquated POV come from? And for that matter, why is selling one's wares always dismissed as being an inferior product? Everyone likes to cite the classics when this topic comes up: "Well, Bach and Beethoven and Renoir didn't sellout to commercialism. They created for the artistic endeavour." Do you realise how stupid that statement is?? Of COURSE they sold out. Every piece of classical music was commissioned and paid for by the King, his royal court, or some other snooty who had money. The same with artists like Van Gogh and Renoir. Commissioned paintings. Bought and paid for. They didn't just sit in a window sill in France eating grapes, dressed in fig leaves, going "Today, I will be ah-TIStic and paint. But only for me."

I don't know about anyone else, but my writing is incomplete without an audience; without a reader to complete the symbiosis.


----------



## purplepen79 (May 6, 2010)

opuscroakus said:


> Absolutely. But the two are not mutually exclusive. Sometimes I think authors, or at least young writers, forget that if they don't write what they know and love, then there will be a great deal of passion lacking from their writing, and chances are high it won't be engaging enough to sell anyway.
> 
> When I sit down to write comedy, I write for me. I cannot get into the habit of second-guessing whether a joke that makes me laugh will make my reader laugh. That is a slippery slope to writer's block. When I write historical fiction, I write what I would want to read, which means I write what I LOVE. Passion in one's writing is not something one can easily fake. And it's something your reader will notice right away.


Great post--I wish I could quote all of it, but that would be repetitious. As for the part I quoted, I've always felt that when I write, if I'm not entertaining myself with it, how am I going to entertain anyone else? If I start to get bored with my own writing, that's when I know there's a problem that needs to be fixed if I want other people to read it and enjoy it.


----------



## modhatter (Jul 31, 2010)

opuscroakus said:


> I think society as a whole, does *not*
> 
> When I sit down to write comedy, I write for me. I cannot get into the habit of second-guessing whether a joke that makes me laugh will make my reader laugh. That is a slippery slope to writer's block. When I write historical fiction, I write what I would want to read, which means I write what I LOVE. Passion in one's writing is not something one can easily fake. And it's something your reader will notice right away.


I can't argue with the above statements. I could only write what I would also want to read. I could not change my sense of humor to suit someone else;s sense of humor. So maybe that means, I should never become an author or I'd be a very poor author ($)

The first time I picked up a "popular" book by a "popular" author ( I think it was Nora Roberts, can't remember for sure) and read the first few pages, I thought to myself "what dribble". The triteness of the dialog was painful to read. I thought to myself "this is what a best seller book sounds like today." Why is it a best seller? Is this what the current population want to read today? Have books become what so many movies have become today?

I am not saying every book out there today falls in this category. That obviously is not the case. There are excellent books available.
Just think there could be more, I question why people (and publishers) seem to accept something so inferior, when there must be an abundance of good writers to chose from and better stories to tell.

I suppose when I think about it, I have conflicting sentiments. I love the classics (Jane Austin of course. What female doesn't?) and currently reading Jane Ere again. These are hardly lacking in the description arena. But as another poster mentioned, these descriptions are an integral part of understanding the time and thinking of the time. In contemporary books, I prefer less unless it is something I need to know about the country or it's people. One thing for sure, I will be evaluating descriptive passages ever more closely now.


----------



## opuscroakus (Aug 7, 2010)

modhatter said:


> But this still goes back to my original commentary. Do the authors who use what I feel is excessive descriptive dialog, enjoy reading this in books themselves? Are they really writing the way they like to read? Or do they over indulge because others do


Well, you could be asking for absolutes when there aren't any. All ANY of us here can do is speculate based on personal experiences.

That being said, one way to gauge this is to scientifically break it down into two component questions:

1. Will an author get published if he changes his writing to merely be commercial, thus losing the description if that's what the publisher requires?

2. But the more telling question is, will an author actually SELL his books to a publisher if he completely derails his own writing from what he likes to read? This one, I can answer an emphatic, probably maybe not. If a writer doesn't like long passages of description, but chooses to change his style of writing just to please some publisher, then it's not going to contain passion needed to really reach the reader. If he doesn't enjoy reading long, superfluous descriptions, then I don't believe he will possess the inherent talent to pull those off, because we learn a lot about the way we write from reading.


----------



## Philip Chen (Aug 8, 2010)

My personal feelings about descriptions in a novel can change from story to story. If the description is necessary to put the reader into a place that he or she has never been nor are ever likely to be, then a fair amount of description might be necessary. Not many of us, I rather suspect none of us, have ever been on a Russian nuclear missile submarine, particularly one with a silent drive. What made the descriptions of the submarine and the silent drive work in _The Hunt for Red October_ was the need to put us, the readers, into the Russian submarine and to help us understand why the silent drive was so important.

In _Silence of the Lambs_, there was no need for chilling descriptions of the horror that Hannibal Lechter visited on his victims. The author Thomas Harris knew that our imaginations would immediately explode with vivid images when Lechter says something like, "_I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti._" He didn't have to say something like, I first cut all the gristle off his liver and then fried it with some butter in a sauce pan for three minutes while I parboiled the fava beans ..... It was far more chilling to simply let the reader fill in the gaps.

In contrast, I found the gross detail that Brett Easton Ellis felt he had to pound into us in his novel, _American Psycho_, to be utterly without redeeming value. Do I really want to know that his character had a gold American Express card (or whatever color it was) or that this same person would drape bloody body parts on his head? I threw that book away before I finished reading it; it was that gross.

Description is necessary where you need to place people someplace where they have never been; you don't need it if the sole purpose is to horrify or hector the reader about some idiosyncratic mannerism of your character. Do it like Thomas Harris did in those circumstances and let your reader fill in the details; they can do it so much better.

Personally, I like fava beans, but not with liver.


----------



## daveconifer (Oct 20, 2009)

I was talking about this with my wife, a voracious Kindle reader who is currently halfway through the first Stieg Larsson "Girl Who..." book.  I'm curious about these books so I peeked over from time to time.  It seemed like every time I did, I saw an "APB" on a new character.  "Blond, green eyes, muscular, etc."  I asked her if she liked all that information dumped on her at once and she said she did, because it helped her picture the character.

Then she showed me a part where the story moves to a set of offices, and there's a ton of physical description of a rather ordinary setting.  It even mentions the dimensions of each room.  She found this unneeded and uninteresting and said that after it happened the second time, she started skipping past these descriptions.

my conclusion?  I don't really have one...


----------



## Carolyn J. Rose Mystery Writer (Aug 10, 2010)

I agree that too much description can seem irrelevant and perhaps even appear to be an information dump or a sign of an inability to edit. In the past, before TV and all our electronic diversions, readers were more "tolerant" of description.
For me, good description must also be linked to character. For example, a few lines describing a person or place, and then some kind of reaction from the point-of-view character--an opinion, a thought, a memory, etc.
And I want description to focus on what's important to the point-of-view character or the plot. So if that character is looking down a country road, I want more than generic details, I want to "see" the thing that stands out in his mind.


----------



## emalvick (Sep 14, 2010)

This is an interesting thread. I am only a reader, and not a very proficient one at that (my only writing was a dissertation which was purposely boring). I have, however, through the course of schooling and my own love of great literature read over a decent spectrum of books. At the first post, I would have said I am a reader who prefers things short and sweet, but I do appreciate sufficient description to keep things from being too cut and dry.

However, in reading other posts here, I realize that I really enjoy a lot of the authors and books that have been considered more descriptive than not. I love Hemmingway (although I dislike Dickens). I now realize 3 pages into this thread, that what I really like is when the description isn't noticeable. If an author is using a lot of description, that is fine. As long as it doesn't detract from the book or flow, it is great.

It is the cases when I find it detracts, i.e. when I notice it, that it makes me think I don't like description. One of the biggest culprits in my mind has been Stephen King. Many of his full on novels have seemed to get carried away with descriptions to the point where I feel like I can't use my imagination at all. Specifically, _Needful Things_ and _The Tommynockers_ felt that way to me. Yet, I do love his books, but it just makes what should be so much more go slow.

Keeping with Stephen King, one of my favorite contemporary stories (since it isn't in its own novel) was Stephen Kings _Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption_. Why did I like it so much? Besides being a fantastic story, Stephen King wrote a full novel in 200 pages at the sacrifice of all the detailed description he normally puts into his larger books. In fact, I find that Stephen King of all authors is at his best when he is writing short stories and novellas.

Ultimately, I do think it is a matter of preference, but I love it best when I don't notice things being descriptive. I am also the type of person who enjoys short stories, which by the limitation of being short are often more limited in their descriptions, often sticking with what is most essential.

This is a great thread by the way. Keep it up.


----------



## Cathymw (May 27, 2010)

emalvick said:


> I now realize 3 pages into this thread, that what I really like is when the description isn't noticeable.


I think that's a really good way to sum it up, emalvick.

If you notice the description or it's slowing down your enjoyment of the book, then it's not working. If you're reading a scene, completely able to visualize it as the author intended, without even noticing the cleverness of the description, then it is working.


----------



## Holly A Hook (Sep 19, 2010)

For me, it depends on how the description is done.  I dislike it when description 'pauses' a story, if that makes any sense.  What I do like is when it flows along with the action of the story, especially if it brings in a lot of sensory details and makes me feel like I'm there.  So for me, it's all in how it's pulled off.


----------



## nmg222 (Sep 14, 2010)

Sometimes the 'fluff' or as I call it 'filler' can go way overboard.  Nelson Demille's 'Gate House' is a great example.  740 page book with about 625 pages of 'filler'.  Absolutely brutal.  And the sad part is that it is the sequel to one of my favorites, 'The Gold Coast'.

I'm also having issues with the Jack Reacher novels by Lee Child.  I've read the first 5 or so and believe I'm done.  The last one I read, 'Echo Burning' was 'filler' to the extreme.


----------

