You ever find yourself reading and think to yourself: Did I pick up this book to experience a story, or a landscape?" Note to authors: When I desire a book full of landscapes and scenes, I'll buy a picture book or a book of art, not a book of literature.
Oh sure, every book has landscapes and scenery, but that is all secondary. Even Hogwarts Castle had to be sketched by the Goddess J.K. Rowling for video gaming creators to envision the true picturesque vision that our imaginations never would have been able to comprehend without explicit imagery from the Creator. Let's be honest, we could envision courtyards, huts, moving staircases and portraits, a great hall, and the headmaster's personal chamber, but to put them together would be impossible to describe by the written word and hard to compile by the human mind.
So what is scenery for? Well that's easy: It's so the reader can learn enough about the scene so that his mind can concentrate on the characters, action, and dialogue without the distraction of being lost and confused about the whereabouts. So then why do some authors go through exhaustive effort to dull the senses with scenery??? Here's why: They are Narcissists! "Oh let me wow and overload you with shimmering dew on long stems of grass next to the soft bubbling brook as it rolls ever so effortlessly over moss covered, oblong stones of the softest sandstone, fallen from the towering luscious mountainside of greenery and all manner of animal life called to silence but the caw of a passing jet black crow as his poop falls from the heavens almost hitting the Sasquatch while he feasts on the 12 year and 3 month and 5 day old boy scout from Herriman, Ut on his very first camp out to the nethermost regions of the black foot forest...
WE GET IT!!! A killer Sasquatch is out to kill every last one of the boyscout troop. I can't wait to see how he does it or if the troop will over come the long odds and kill the Sasquatch and become famous for finally proving its existence. The rest is just fluff with a bunch of blah blah blah's of nonsense that sooner or later the reader grows tired of and starts skipping if the story is compelling enough to drive the reader forward.
So, as you guessed it, I'm not a detail oriented person. Which probably makes me a bad writer. But as a writer, I want my reader to do some of the work to make the story world what they want it to be. I'm just there to give the reader the foundation to build on and see what they want to see. For me to illustrate every breath and heart beat, I make a fool out of the reader and tell him what he must see for he must be too stupid to imagine even the slightest bit of detail himself.
Why should I, as the writer, assume that I am the only one with an imagination???
3 comments:
Good to see a new post here! I have to say, while I understand what you're saying, I completely disagree. Granted- pacing is very important in balancing out description and action. But I have read beautifully written books who's authors dedicate almost entire chapters to description (John Steinbeck, J.R.R. Tolkein, etc.) And I don't think it has anything to do with being a narcisist. I think it has everything to do with a love of drawing a picture with words. Maybe that's not your thing- and that's totally fine. That's why there are so many different kinds of books. Different strokes for different folks. That's why writers are encouraged to know their audience.
And sorry for being such a contrarian :)
I'm a moody reader. I want to scrape off my own flesh during some reads of unduly prolonged landscape-descriptions; and on another day that same description might trigger a memory that carries me to a pleasant escape from my current troubles. If I'm pensive and calm, I tend to enjoy the landscape imagery. If I'm feeling edgy and a little fractious, I definitely prefer a fast and action-packed read. Then, lines of imagery can definitely shove off. ;-)
Post a Comment