After Happy Hour is currently in the middle of its reading period for the winter issue, which means that I've been reading a lot of short stories lately. I look for a lot of different things when I'm reviewing stories for the issue and trying to decide which ones we should publish, from rounded characters to an interesting voice to a logical plot that I haven't seen a thousand times before. One thing that I've noticed consistently across genres, though, is that the author's command of descriptive language usually directly correlates to the strength of the piece overall.
Descriptions in fiction do more than just help the reader picture what's happening on the page. What characters notice about their world, and how they talk about it, gives us a lot of insight into their worldview. Writers can also use descriptions to teach the reader what's important about the place, time period, or culture that the story inhabits, and to direct their attention to key details of the setting that impact the plot or how characters behave (or to set up misdirections or red herrings that lead to nice moments of surprise later in the piece). The strongest stories we get at After Happy Hour recognize this multi-faceted potential of the seemingly humble description, and that's consistently true whether the piece is literary or hard sci-fi or anything in between.
Mistakes writers make with descriptions
I always feel like I need to give the caveat that writing is subjective, and the kind of descriptive language that I love isn't necessarily going to tickle every editor the same way. That said, there are a few issues I see consistently that I think it's safe to say most editors would flag as a problem. The ones I see the most often are:
- Overwritten descriptions. This is something I see especially in sci-fi and fantasy stories. The writer really wants to make sure that the reader can picture their unique planet or creature or technology or whathaveyou, so they go on and on describing every little minute detail. In the process, they bring the story's forward momentum to a grinding halt.
- Missing descriptions. On the other end of the spectrum, some writers fail to provide the reader with any physical details of the setting or characters. Sparse descriptions can be very effective, but if there isn't any information about the sights, sounds, smells, or other tangible details of the story, the reader can't completely get immersed in it.
- Focusing on a character's “driver's license details.” There's a habit I've noticed newer writers often develop where they introduce new characters in a very formulaic way. In the first introduction, we'll get the character's basic physical description—age, height, eye color, hair color, the type of information you'd find on their ID. The instinct to pair a description with the character's introduction is sound, but those are the exact wrong details to pick because they don't tell us anything distinctive about that individual.
- Descriptive language that doesn't match the story. Flowery gothic-inspired descriptions definitely have their place, but if the story is set in the present or future, and the other narration and character dialogue are more down-to-earth and modern, that kind of language is going to stand out in the wrong way. The same is true of other mis-matches, where the things that are described, or how they're described, don't fit the tone, genre, and character's perspective.
- Relying on weak or overused words. The more expected and familiar a word, phrase, or description is, the less interesting it is for the reader. That means it's also less useful for describing characters or places since it will be less likely to stick in the reader's mind. Descriptions are a lot more entertaining to read if you swap common, vague words with a more specific term or detail.
Tips to write stronger descriptions
Avoiding those mistakes in the last section is a solid place to start, though I'm also aware that it's not always so easy or obvious as that. For me, the first step is remembering the purpose of descriptions. Like I said in the intro, they really need to do three things at the same time:
Effectively convey whatever is being described
Reflect the voice and perspective of the viewpoint character or narrator, and
Give the reader insight into the setting and/or characters
...and to do that, you need to know more than just what the thing you're describing looks like. This tells you the “what” of the description—the actual straightforward physical details that you could share with the reader. But you also need to put it in context—how the viewpoint character would relate that thing, for starters, but also how it fits into the broader world or society your story exists in. That's what tells you the “how” of the description writing, things like your word choice and which details you'll focus on.
A few other suggestions:
1. Match description length to the person, place, or item's importance in the story.
While novelists get some more room to play, short story writers need to operate more efficiently, and save their descriptive passages for things that they want the reader to focus on. As a general rule, the things that are most important to the story should get the most description. You can get away with a chunky description of the protagonist, for instance, but the gas station attendant that only comes up once should get a few words at most.
2. Skip expected or mundane details.
Anything that your readers have seen before, they can generally use their imaginations fill in the gaps in your descriptions. As the writer, what you need to tell readers is where your version is different from their mental template—and, specifically, the differences that are important for them to understand. The reader probably doesn't need to know things like the exact color and placement of the furniture in a room, just the key pieces the character navigates around as they move through it. Similarly, you usually don't need a full head-to-toe accounting of characters' outfits—highlighting a favorite piece of jewelry or a clothing item that sums up their vibe will do more to focus the character in readers' minds.
3. Use descriptive language to form emotional links with the character.
Showing a character's connection to their setting helps them feel integrated into it, which makes the world feel more lived in and creates the kind of setting where the reader can see themselves moving through it. The best uses of this approach also integrate something that's central to the plot or the character's emotional journey. So for instance, say your protagonist is in their apartment the day after their long-term partner broke up with them and moved out. Instead of just describing a few random details of the apartment, you can hone in on the things that remind the protagonist of their ex, or visible signs of their absence, like too-clean spaces on the rug or walls. The same approach can be used if you're describing an object or person. Framing that description in the context of the character's relationship to it inherently connects them in the reader's mind, and can be a way to slip in backstory details without it feeling like an info dump.
4. Consider pacing when placing description.
In fast-paced action sequences when you want to keep the reader pushing forward, stick to short one-to-two-word descriptions worked into active sentences that maintain that energy. Lengthy descriptive passages in the middle of fast-paced scenes or conversations break the rhythm and steal their momentum. You want to save longer descriptive passages for moments when you want the reader to linger.
5. Check figurative language for logic and character consistency.
You can apply the same advice for other descriptive language to metaphors and similes. The point of reference the thing or person is being compared to should feel like it fits within the viewpoint character's framework. So it makes sense if a 20th-century mechanic compares a noise to a revving engine, but not if your character is an Arthurian knight. Along with this, make sure that the comparison you're using actually makes logical sense and conveys the qualities you intend. So if you think about a simile like “sharp as a tack”, it makes sense because a tack is very sharp in a very specific way. But saying “sharp as a rock” doesn't work as well because not all rocks are sharp. I always give all of my figurative language a quick logic check on a late editing pass just to make sure they all work.
See similar posts: