There’s been a shift in descriptive writing over the years. Back in the day, stories were filled with flowery prose and details that expanded beyond a single paragraph. While there are still works out there that display this writing style, editors and publishers are shying away from this. It’s not that details aren’t needed to set a tone or describe a place, but it has to do with showing versus telling.
Everyone has heard the feedback to show things instead of telling the reader. Basically, whenever you hear this piece of advice, what the person is trying to say is that they want to see a more active voice instead of a passive voice. For example: Instead of simply telling me about a coffee table situated in the middle of a lounge area in a coffee shop, you would have the character do something like lean forward from their seat on the couch to set a coffee cup on the table. You’ve shown me that they’re sitting, that they have a coffee cup in their hand, and that it’s now on a table in front of them. As a reader, I can fill in the rest of what I think the area might look like.
This kind of storytelling can also keep irrelevant content to a minimum. There are times where as an author I want to run off and describe every detail sitting inside my head, but this can be boring for a reader while also narrowing their imaginative thinking. Readers don’t need descriptions for every day items because they already have real life references. So, when do you know what you should describe in your story?
I would say whenever you’re building a new world, method, object, or character. Take an apocalyptic, futuristic, magical, or ancient world. Readers need to know what the rules are and how they apply to their surroundings. Or if you have a new invention that we’ve never heard of. Or you’re introducing a character that’s a unique species or has abilities beyond our comprehension. These are things that readers should have descriptions of to tell us what’s going on and why this stuff is relevant to our story.
If you’re simply describing a bedroom or a park, we don’t need all the details. You can give a general description and the readers can fill it in for themselves. Editors and publishers see this minimization as a gateway to clarification. They tend to think that too many details about mundane items or tasks can muddle the overall work. Not that I believe details lead to confusion, but I do think it can lead to rambling which can delay the plot and therefore the action people are looking for.
Perhaps, publishers and editors should take this same approach with writers who write in 1st-person POV because I’ve read some doozies of internal monologues. But I digress.
The bottom line is that we want action and that gets lost in overly explained descriptions. When a reader feels stuck in a scene where nothing is really happening except for descriptions, their mind tends to wander. Who wants to read about a tree for a whole chapter? *Insert side-eye emoji here if you catch the reference*
Either way, I can see people putting the book down if they feel like they’re not getting to the point of the story or if it’s not progressing. It’s all about the pacing and that’s what a literary agent is going to be looking for if you decide to go that route. But Lauren, what if I have to tell the reader everything so they can get a bigger picture? That’s fine, but if you must keep every detail of your story, then I would suggest the self-publishing route. An agent, editor, and publisher are going to completely pick a story apart and frivolous details are one of the first things to go.
Author Lauren Eason 