Description or Dialogue?

[The Comedian]

So, I've been wondering if my preference for long descriptions is flat-out weird or only moderately weird.

Here's the deal: I could read 6 pages of a description of a room, a tree, a hill, or a person and linger joyously on every word. But I think that most people like to "skim" this type of stuff. If I were to skim, or read-with-less-vigor, it would always be dialogue: the tedious "I said. . . .blah, blah, blah" the "Oh, my! she remarked. . .."

What about you? "Are you more likely to skim the dialogue?" I ask -- or the drawn-out description.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I wouldn't skim anything, but of the two I definitely prefer descriptive passages over verbal. My wife thinks that women generally prefer dialogue and men description, but I wonder if there is anything in that?

[The Comedian]

I wouldn't skim anything, but of the two I definitely prefer descriptive passages over verbal. My wife thinks that women generally prefer dialogue and men description, but I wonder if there is anything in that?

I'm not that much of a skimmer either, but when I do, or when I find myself silently muttering to myself "would you please just get on with it. . ." it's almost always dialogue that I'm addressing.

I think your wife has a point about the general gender-difference with this issue (wives are usually correct, I often note, especially to mine own) because, while we both have literary tastes, she can't handle all of the environmental non-fiction that I read (Mary Austin, Rachel Carson, Barry Lopez, Farley Mowat, & co) because it lacks a "story", which is sort of right. But mostly, that kind of writing lacks dialogue and is highly descriptive.

[Haunted]

I'm conceptually wired so I tend to skim over long drawn out descriptions. It's "get to the point" for me. I can appreciate a long beautiful paragraph about a table and how the light brings out the wood grain with plenty of 4-syllable adjectives, but I prefer going for the jugular: A table. And a box that hasn't been opened for 50 years. I guess I like the intrigue that conjures up in my own imagination than have someone describe it for me blow by blow.

As for dialogues, I like it short and edgy. A carefully and selectively worded 2-word remark can be more stunning and powerful than a long meandering monologue, which I would feel the urge to skim over also.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I'm not that much of a skimmer either, but when I do, or when I find myself silently muttering to myself "would you please just get on with it. . ." it's almost always dialogue that I'm addressing.

Yes, I know what you mean, same here. (Just a short reply as I am trying to work out how to get a spell checker on firefox, you don't know do you?)

[DocHeart]

I learned to enjoy lengthy descriptions (particularly of locations or landscapes) when studying the Gothic tradition at university, but I did find it quite tiresome at first.

Comedian, you place description and dialogue at opposite ends of the spectrum, but I would guess that your lengthy descriptions do at times contain a form of communication between your characters.

"There's only so much you can say with dialogue."

"Correct."

But you can write about the way she holds her cup of tea and the way he hesitantly nibbles on his biscuit and much more effectively convey the tension between them.


At any rate, I don't like skimming lengthy non-dialogue texts, lest they contain vital elements that are important to the story - and they often do.

I like the directness of this thread, I find talking about different approaches to "reading" fascinating, and I look forward to more replies.

Best,
Chris

[PeterL]

So, I've been wondering if my preference for long descriptions is flat-out weird or only moderately weird.

Here's the deal: I could read 6 pages of a description of a room, a tree, a hill, or a person and linger joyously on every word. But I think that most people like to "skim" this type of stuff. If I were to skim, or read-with-less-vigor, it would always be dialogue: the tedious "I said. . . .blah, blah, blah" the "Oh, my! she remarked. . .."

What about you? "Are you more likely to skim the dialogue?" I ask -- or the drawn-out description.

Your "preference for long descriptions is flat-out weird".

[drakemortuare13]

I actually tend to stick to dialogue, but I've been working on balancing it with description

[Helga]

if you enjoy endless descriptions of a room or a place you should check out Laxness, he's Icelandic but has been translated to English. he describes in details the rooms, I do enjoy it up to a point but probably not as much as you seem to do Comedian...

[Emil Miller]

I wouldn't skim anything, but of the two I definitely prefer descriptive passages over verbal. My wife thinks that women generally prefer dialogue and men description, but I wonder if there is anything in that?

I can confirm women's preference for dialogue. My first book Pro Bono Publico is told in narrative form and a female friend said she didn't like it. When I asked why, she said she liked a bit of dialogue. In order not to dissapoint her I wrote a second book The Fateful Circle with dialogue and she said she liked it. Similarly, I gave a copy to a younger woman of my aquaintance and she said she enjoyed it and had passed it on to her mother to read. Of course, the subject matter may also have had something to do with it as the first book is a political novel and the second a psychological thriller.

[kiki1982]

I don't know... I'm a woman and I don't mind, really. I never skim. It would always haunt me after that, wondering what I have missed...

But... there are writers that are absolute crap at description, and there are the ones that do it well.

Dumas, f.e., started as a playwright, so his dialgues are very good. To the point and not boring at all. But he always starts his chapters with description with exception of The Three Musketeers. Sometimes to the point of 'why?'. Certainly when he employed a ghost-writer it got sometimes a little ridiculous, wondering when the description was finally finished and the interesting bit was going to come as the description was like ornament or something.

Saramago writes very interestingly and does not bore. Either way. His descriptions and narrations are mostly even very original. So I don't mind that.

Two descripions that I really loathed and almost skimmed were the descriptions of Petit Picpus and Hougomont in Les Misérables. They were so unbelievably detailed and so much drawn out (about 100 pages) and we actually wanted to get on with the story. SPOILER ALERT Imagine, Jean Valjean has just got into the convent, away from Javert and then you have to put the excitement on hold for a detailed description on how the nuns lived in Petit Picpus-convents... SPOILERS OVER. But, I did not skim. Skimming is for sissies :D.

[dfloyd]

these can only be compared in novels. And if the novel is interesting, the right amount of each will be appropriate. What makes The Great Gatsby the almost perfect novel is that no words are wasted: It was an excellent editing job, probably by Maxwell Perkins.

Dumas may have been the best writer of dialogue ever. That's what makes The Count of Monte Cristo so fast paced for a long novel.

I don't buy women like dialog, men like description. No matter what the sex, much is dependent on the book and also the sophistication of the reader.

Another writer who could write with the right amount of description and dialog was Somerset Maugham. Of Human Bondage is another long book that is fast paced because of the writer's skill.

A so called post modern book which I gave up on is DeLilo's Underworld. It starts off great with the penant winning home run by Boby Thompson, but rapidly derteriorates into just another elongated narrative which needed some serious editing.

If you enjoy reading 3 or 4 pages of exposition about the shape of a tea cup handle, read Henry James. But a novel can't be judged on the ratio of dialog to description. A good novel will have the right proportion to tell the story well.

[MANICHAEAN]

It depends on what you are reading & when. At university I learned to gut a book of its essential points. Now in later life with no exam deadlines when reading Balzac for example (Father Goriot or The Wild Asses Skin) I get drawn into the most descriptive "setting of the scene". Switch to Hemingway & the dialogue is everthing.

[Eryk]

I skimmed portions of A Taste for Death by P.D. James. Every time Dalgliesh interviewed someone there was a meticulous description of house and furnishings. It's like the novel was constantly getting started until you got to the last 25% of it.

But in Rain Gods (James Burke) the descriptions of the landscape and the weather are essential, as integral as the characters.

[papayahed]

I can confirm women's preference for dialogue. My first book Pro Bono Publico is told in narrative form and a female friend said she didn't like it. When I asked why, she said she liked a bit of dialogue. In order not to dissapoint her I wrote a second book The Fateful Circle with dialogue and she said she liked it. Similarly, I gave a copy to a younger woman of my aquaintance and she said she enjoyed it and had passed it on to her mother to read. Of course, the subject matter may also have had something to do with it as the first book is a political novel and the second a psychological thriller.

Well, it's settled then. 2 out of 3,214,983,000 (http://ask.yahoo.com/20060608.html)is fairly representative.

For me it depends on what is being described. I can read about technical and sciency stuff no problem but when it comes to feelings or battle movement like in war and Peace forget it I fade fast.

[Emil Miller]

Well, it's settled then. 2 out of 3,214,983,000 (http://ask.yahoo.com/20060608.html)is fairly representative.

For me it depends on what is being described. I can read about technical and sciency stuff no problem but when it comes to feelings or battle movement like in war and Peace forget it I fade fast.

Perhaps I should have added based on my own experience but I thought that was obvious anyway.

[Paulclem]

Another writer who could write with the right amount of description and dialog was Somerset Maugham. Of Human Bondage is another long book that is fast paced because of the writer's skill.

I couldn't get along with Maugham's The Painted Veil. The thing that I didn't like was a lack of description about place. I felt that it could have been set anywhere. (Here I have to admit that I didn't persevere with it very much).

So I like a good balance, and I feel that good description is vital in some genres such as historical novels. For example CJ Sansom's historical thrillers set in 16th Century England.

[Emil Miller]

Another writer who could write with the right amount of description and dialog was Somerset Maugham. Of Human Bondage is another long book that is fast paced because of the writer's skill.

I couldn't get along with Maugham's The Painted Veil. The thing that I didn't like was a lack of description about place. I felt that it could have been set anywhere. (Here I have to admit that I didn't persevere with it very much).


It's a pity you didn't persevere with The Painted Veil because there are some very descriptive passages about China: a country that Maugham new well. It is considered by some critics to be his best novel.

[African_Love]

I won't skim anything but I sometimes find excessive description tedious. I care a lot more about the dialogue because I'm interested in the story which involves the characters and their interactions with each other, not how large a room is or what color the walls are (although that might be relevant to some extent). I'm more concerned with the state of mind of the characters than I am their external environment.

Description is only relevant to me if evokes an emotional response in one of the characters. To me, fiction is entertaining because it sharpens your empathy skills.

[kelby_lake]

I definitely prefer dialogue over lengthy description. I'm used to reading a lot of plays and I love how things can be conveyed so exactly with just a few words.
Makes you realise how superfluous a lot of stuff in novels is.

I feel with dialogue I'm more likely to miss something if I skip it than in someone's 6 page description of a flower.

I think women prefer description actually because it tends to be more beautiful and sentimental. Men would probably not want to read lengthy descriptions of the beauty of a garden.