Describing a setting can easily be too much or too little. What research says about how readers imagine, plus 3 questions to decide what to keep and what to cut.
As an aphant (someone with aphantasia because unfortunately "aphantastic" isn't a real word), I struggle with description. I tend to skip over long bits of it because to me, if it's really just scene-setting, it's not important. I can be told it's a jungle and I'm good, but I totally understand that other people want to SEE that it's a jungle, hence the description. Mention the mosquitoes if that's going to be important in some way. Not necessarily as a Chekov's gun, but maybe simply as a distraction.
With my own writing, yeah, I'm very much having my characters in a white room. I have to do serious edits to describe SOME things around them, or to remember to have someone drum their fingers, or get up and pace.
Action scenes, however, can be very accurate because I want the reader to know EXACTLY what happened and where, because this bit (to me) is an important but. Again this gets edited, but down, not up.
Thanks for sharing this! It's interesting hearing it firsthand from an aphant. Action scenes I feel deserve to be precise, so it's cool that you put though into it. Many times when I read an action scene sometimes I have to re-read two or three times to understand what's happening and that kills pacing. I'm not an aphant, but I don't like overly long descriptions. I find myself reading then very quickly so I can get back to the story.
Thank you for another informative article! I don't think setting necessarily determines mood, because you could take the same setting (like a rainy afternoon) and give it different moods (a flat mood, a cozy mood, or a bleak mood, for example). I like long, detailed descriptions as a reader if they accomplish something, and it's a bonus if they're written well. If they pull me into the story more or help me better understand the area the characters are in (especially helpful in settings for which I have no point of reference), then I enjoy reading them. And if they rely on concrete or beautiful prose, then I enjoy reading them even more. If they feel like they're rambling, but they still have nice prose, I might like reading them. But if they feel like they're rambling and the prose feels dry, then I tend to speedread, skim, or skip them.
I think you're right about the mood thing... a rainy day can have very different moods depending on the characters or the specific point in the journey they're in 🤔
Would you say dry prose with rambling is what they describe as "purple prose"? I think I read some people like it, but I still haven't dig too much into it yet.
I feel like I'm good at having vivid images in my head, but I'm not good at reading long setting descriptions.
That’s a good point about how mood can vary depending on the specific point in the characters’ journey.
I thought “purple prose” was more for when prose is beautiful, but actually makes a story worse, not better. I did a quick search, and found one source that describes it as “writing that is considered too wordy, formal, or needlessly poetic, bringing attention to itself and the author rather than what the author is writing about.” Here’s the source: https://thewritepractice.com/purple-prose/
That’s great you have vivid images in your head! (It sounds miserable to not be able to picture things.) Do you think long setting descriptions are more fun to read if their details become more important later? For example, if a battlefield’s uneven terrain becomes a vital part of the story when the main characters are fighting enemies there?
Another question, when the setting description is of a room, do you prefer when an author uses “tell” to describe it, or when an author “shows” what it looks like by having characters interact with it?
Thanks for the source! It basically sounds like purple prose is the author wanting to show off. (Not necessarily bad but not my drift).
I wouldn't say I like long setting descriptions BUT if as you say they become more important later, then they may be worth it. This is just my opinion as a reader but the first time I'm going to read it, I'll do it quick because I don't know that it's going to become important later. And when it appears later on, the author may have to remind me again of the important stuff.
On the second question, I think I like both. I've read scenes in which the setting is just told as well as ones in which it's shown through characters actions. I do prefer the second one though.
Since you like long detailed description, do you also prefer a setting that is described by the character actions around it?
Yeah, by that explanation for it, I guess sometimes I like purple prose. I just wouldn't want too much at once.
That's a good point about the reminder. I think character interiority/thought could help with that--the character remembers the important details, thereby reminding the reader of them.
Thank you for sharing which one you prefer.
I think overall I prefer setting that is described by the character actions too, but I think it depends on the genre.
Elizabeth Klein is my favorite fantasy author, and often describes setting through tell in such a way it feels more like a vivid scene than a description of the scenery. I think that kind of atmospheric style works very well for fantasy, where worldbuilding/description can be more central to the story.
S. E. Grosskopf is one of my favorite historical mystery/thriller authors, and some of the setting descriptions in the Lowan books are similarly vivid, using tell that feels very atmospheric. However, the writing is also a lot tighter, more for setting the stage for the plot's action than for worldbuilding.
I think the atmospheric nature of the descriptions works really well for historical fiction, which is often better when it's more immersive, and the tighter, stage-setting writing works really well for mystery/thrillers where action is often central.
Anne Social is my favorite YA author, and the books in The Outcasts and The Skinless Series are kind of a blend of more detailed, atmospheric descriptions, and tighter descriptions. I think the descriptions get more detailed and atmospheric when an environment needs to be depicted for the reader to better understand the action without extra detail during the action, or when there’s something beautiful (like autumn colors) to be described. Other times, the descriptions are tighter, setting the stage for later action without being as descriptive.
And a lot of times, the environment is described through character actions. I think that type of description is especially effective because it lets readers fill in the gaps more. For example, the readers know one of the protagonists has a desk in his room because he sat at it, but we don’t know as much about the room’s layout, so our imaginations fill in those extra details for us.
I think a blend of different kinds of description works really well for YA, where atmosphere, action, and plots that are more character-driven are often combined.
I'm definitely one of those people who skips over long swaths of description, maybe because I don't picture things well in my head. I don't include a lot of description in my stories, but I've learned over the years that detail can sometimes substitute for actual description in my readers' minds. 😄
I will skip them if they're super long, if they're just long I will read then very quickly (rarely understanding everything, lol), so I can get back to the good. And now that you mention that about the detail vs the actual description, I think you're right. I found similar advice while doing research for this one.
This was insightful, thank you! I think I usually have a case of white room syndrome, but when I correct it I sometimes overcorrect it. It’s helpful to think about the goal in writing the setting, which I don’t do often enough.
Unlike some, I do picture things very vividly in my head. But I also skip massive description-infodumps because my brain is very goal-focused and I want to get back to the action. I like enough description to see what's going on, but not so much that it slows the pacing. Just the details that feel relevant. Sometimes a hard balance to find.
Same👊. I picture things in my head, but I don't like when the descriptions are overly long. I often find myself reading quickly to get to the good stuff. Or sometimes it just makes me completely stop.
I'm making more peace with DNFing books. I used to not do that, but some books are really difficult to digest, lol. I often give them until 30% or even 50% to make me change my mind. But lately it's been more like 20%
So glad your article somehow ended up on my feed. Such great points. I too, read quickly long descriptions of things. It is quite enough to give me a time and a place and my imagination will do the rest. Thanks for helping me understand that.
One way to keep descriptions short is to use a metaphor Raymond Chandler was a master of this technique, although his metaphors were maybe too humorous. Consider: "
““I'm an occasional drinker, the kind of guy who goes out for a beer and wakes up in Singapore with a full beard.”
or
“A few locks of dry white hair clung to his scalp, like wild flowers fighting for life on a bare rock.”
This was a great article! Thanks for writing it and for taking my suggestion, dude! I’m going to keep the pov, worldbuilding, and grounding questions in mind for the future 😎
Funny aside, I know a graphic artist who’s an aphant, and he’s been one of the more helpful critics when it’s come to the settings in my novel.
I am also an aphant, and just like TN Nielsen, I tend to skip over any description that is overly long. Short descriptions that seem pertinent, I'll read.
I do want to add some information as to how an aphant comprehends description. My brain uses the writer's descriptive passages to create context rather than creating images. It's different, but the effect is the same -- I understand the setting. I hope that makes sense. I think if more writers understood this, it would help everyone trim overly long descriptions.
As an aphant (someone with aphantasia because unfortunately "aphantastic" isn't a real word), I struggle with description. I tend to skip over long bits of it because to me, if it's really just scene-setting, it's not important. I can be told it's a jungle and I'm good, but I totally understand that other people want to SEE that it's a jungle, hence the description. Mention the mosquitoes if that's going to be important in some way. Not necessarily as a Chekov's gun, but maybe simply as a distraction.
With my own writing, yeah, I'm very much having my characters in a white room. I have to do serious edits to describe SOME things around them, or to remember to have someone drum their fingers, or get up and pace.
Action scenes, however, can be very accurate because I want the reader to know EXACTLY what happened and where, because this bit (to me) is an important but. Again this gets edited, but down, not up.
Thanks for sharing this! It's interesting hearing it firsthand from an aphant. Action scenes I feel deserve to be precise, so it's cool that you put though into it. Many times when I read an action scene sometimes I have to re-read two or three times to understand what's happening and that kills pacing. I'm not an aphant, but I don't like overly long descriptions. I find myself reading then very quickly so I can get back to the story.
Thank you for another informative article! I don't think setting necessarily determines mood, because you could take the same setting (like a rainy afternoon) and give it different moods (a flat mood, a cozy mood, or a bleak mood, for example). I like long, detailed descriptions as a reader if they accomplish something, and it's a bonus if they're written well. If they pull me into the story more or help me better understand the area the characters are in (especially helpful in settings for which I have no point of reference), then I enjoy reading them. And if they rely on concrete or beautiful prose, then I enjoy reading them even more. If they feel like they're rambling, but they still have nice prose, I might like reading them. But if they feel like they're rambling and the prose feels dry, then I tend to speedread, skim, or skip them.
I think you're right about the mood thing... a rainy day can have very different moods depending on the characters or the specific point in the journey they're in 🤔
Would you say dry prose with rambling is what they describe as "purple prose"? I think I read some people like it, but I still haven't dig too much into it yet.
I feel like I'm good at having vivid images in my head, but I'm not good at reading long setting descriptions.
That’s a good point about how mood can vary depending on the specific point in the characters’ journey.
I thought “purple prose” was more for when prose is beautiful, but actually makes a story worse, not better. I did a quick search, and found one source that describes it as “writing that is considered too wordy, formal, or needlessly poetic, bringing attention to itself and the author rather than what the author is writing about.” Here’s the source: https://thewritepractice.com/purple-prose/
That’s great you have vivid images in your head! (It sounds miserable to not be able to picture things.) Do you think long setting descriptions are more fun to read if their details become more important later? For example, if a battlefield’s uneven terrain becomes a vital part of the story when the main characters are fighting enemies there?
Another question, when the setting description is of a room, do you prefer when an author uses “tell” to describe it, or when an author “shows” what it looks like by having characters interact with it?
Thanks for the source! It basically sounds like purple prose is the author wanting to show off. (Not necessarily bad but not my drift).
I wouldn't say I like long setting descriptions BUT if as you say they become more important later, then they may be worth it. This is just my opinion as a reader but the first time I'm going to read it, I'll do it quick because I don't know that it's going to become important later. And when it appears later on, the author may have to remind me again of the important stuff.
On the second question, I think I like both. I've read scenes in which the setting is just told as well as ones in which it's shown through characters actions. I do prefer the second one though.
Since you like long detailed description, do you also prefer a setting that is described by the character actions around it?
Yeah, by that explanation for it, I guess sometimes I like purple prose. I just wouldn't want too much at once.
That's a good point about the reminder. I think character interiority/thought could help with that--the character remembers the important details, thereby reminding the reader of them.
Thank you for sharing which one you prefer.
I think overall I prefer setting that is described by the character actions too, but I think it depends on the genre.
Elizabeth Klein is my favorite fantasy author, and often describes setting through tell in such a way it feels more like a vivid scene than a description of the scenery. I think that kind of atmospheric style works very well for fantasy, where worldbuilding/description can be more central to the story.
S. E. Grosskopf is one of my favorite historical mystery/thriller authors, and some of the setting descriptions in the Lowan books are similarly vivid, using tell that feels very atmospheric. However, the writing is also a lot tighter, more for setting the stage for the plot's action than for worldbuilding.
I think the atmospheric nature of the descriptions works really well for historical fiction, which is often better when it's more immersive, and the tighter, stage-setting writing works really well for mystery/thrillers where action is often central.
Anne Social is my favorite YA author, and the books in The Outcasts and The Skinless Series are kind of a blend of more detailed, atmospheric descriptions, and tighter descriptions. I think the descriptions get more detailed and atmospheric when an environment needs to be depicted for the reader to better understand the action without extra detail during the action, or when there’s something beautiful (like autumn colors) to be described. Other times, the descriptions are tighter, setting the stage for later action without being as descriptive.
And a lot of times, the environment is described through character actions. I think that type of description is especially effective because it lets readers fill in the gaps more. For example, the readers know one of the protagonists has a desk in his room because he sat at it, but we don’t know as much about the room’s layout, so our imaginations fill in those extra details for us.
I think a blend of different kinds of description works really well for YA, where atmosphere, action, and plots that are more character-driven are often combined.
I'm definitely one of those people who skips over long swaths of description, maybe because I don't picture things well in my head. I don't include a lot of description in my stories, but I've learned over the years that detail can sometimes substitute for actual description in my readers' minds. 😄
I will skip them if they're super long, if they're just long I will read then very quickly (rarely understanding everything, lol), so I can get back to the good. And now that you mention that about the detail vs the actual description, I think you're right. I found similar advice while doing research for this one.
This was insightful, thank you! I think I usually have a case of white room syndrome, but when I correct it I sometimes overcorrect it. It’s helpful to think about the goal in writing the setting, which I don’t do often enough.
I don't blame you. I'm not good at writing descriptions... I'm the "just dusty jars" type of writer, lol. I'm glad you liked it :)
Unlike some, I do picture things very vividly in my head. But I also skip massive description-infodumps because my brain is very goal-focused and I want to get back to the action. I like enough description to see what's going on, but not so much that it slows the pacing. Just the details that feel relevant. Sometimes a hard balance to find.
Same👊. I picture things in my head, but I don't like when the descriptions are overly long. I often find myself reading quickly to get to the good stuff. Or sometimes it just makes me completely stop.
Yes! Just hurry up and get to the good stuff! 😎 If too many paragraphs bring me completely to a stop, I am highly likely to DNF the whole book.
I'm making more peace with DNFing books. I used to not do that, but some books are really difficult to digest, lol. I often give them until 30% or even 50% to make me change my mind. But lately it's been more like 20%
So glad your article somehow ended up on my feed. Such great points. I too, read quickly long descriptions of things. It is quite enough to give me a time and a place and my imagination will do the rest. Thanks for helping me understand that.
Thanks for reading 💪
I feel like I'm the same. I don't like overly long descriptions of setting. Time and space are almost always enough.
One way to keep descriptions short is to use a metaphor Raymond Chandler was a master of this technique, although his metaphors were maybe too humorous. Consider: "
““I'm an occasional drinker, the kind of guy who goes out for a beer and wakes up in Singapore with a full beard.”
or
“A few locks of dry white hair clung to his scalp, like wild flowers fighting for life on a bare rock.”
Really, what more do you need?
I find when writing I can imagine the scene in full surround sound technicolour, but the dialogue doesn’t reflect the environment.
And because I see it so vividly, I’m missing out those key descriptors that I’m referencing in my imagination.
Your observation about the castle - just enough reference points and the reader will fill in the gaps. I worry I’m leaving holes.
The story has to carry all readers with it, if it’s to be accessible to a wide audience.
This was a great article! Thanks for writing it and for taking my suggestion, dude! I’m going to keep the pov, worldbuilding, and grounding questions in mind for the future 😎
Funny aside, I know a graphic artist who’s an aphant, and he’s been one of the more helpful critics when it’s come to the settings in my novel.
I'm glad you liked it! And niceeee, having that kind of critical reader on tour side is a great flex
😎
I am also an aphant, and just like TN Nielsen, I tend to skip over any description that is overly long. Short descriptions that seem pertinent, I'll read.
I do want to add some information as to how an aphant comprehends description. My brain uses the writer's descriptive passages to create context rather than creating images. It's different, but the effect is the same -- I understand the setting. I hope that makes sense. I think if more writers understood this, it would help everyone trim overly long descriptions.
Thanks for sharing that Niamh! I love learning more about an aphant experience. I have heard this term before but hadn't really dig into it.
I'm not an aphant myself but I do prefer short descriptions ;)