By Elizabeth S. Craig, @elizabethscraig
Detail and description is, I think, a little tricky. Two of my series require a lot of it because of the nature of the subgenre. The quilting mysteries and the Memphis barbeque series are both cozy series with a series hook (crafting and cuisine). My editors for those series have mentioned to me many times that readers of these series really appreciate a good deal of description in terms of the hook. My most current editorial letter asks me for more detail on the quilts the characters are working on, for instance.
On the other hand, my self-published Myrtle Clover mysteries don’t have a series hook (I’ve wondered before if this were a reason the series was dropped by the publisher years ago). The descriptions I use for the characters and settings are sketchier—more of the types of descriptions I like as a reader. I like to get just enough so that I can mentally say, “Oh, okay. So that character sort of resembles my Uncle Joe. Got it.”
Here are examples of the kinds of detail my editor wanted elaborated in the book that will release later this year:
More detail on the festival described in the book. Where is it held in the town? How many acres does it take up? Could I describe the bluegrass musicians?
Describe the new quilters that are at a workshop that’s being sponsored at the quilt shop. Show readers what they’re working on.
Since one character is a professional florist, what does her yard look like?
More description on a character who is a suspect in the book. Since this character is also marrying a recurring series character, my editor also wanted a bit of backstory fit into dialogue: how did these characters meet? When were they engaged?
In addition, sometimes I’m too quick to end a scene that isn’t directly tied into the mystery or that might further develop a relationship.
Some examples from my edit letter:
Show more of the bonding of my protagonist and another important character.
How does the constant canceling by the protagonist’s boyfriend bother the protagonist?
Show the protagonist’s daughter comforting her mother following a frightening event.
Show the protagonist and her boyfriend finally enjoying a lunch together…their conversations.
Show more of the hour the protagonist and her boyfriend spend together at the festival.
Instead of saying that the protagonist’s daughter and the protagonist shared a nice dinner, show the dinner happening and what was said.
It seems that I’d rather tell instead of show when:
- The scene doesn’t have direct relevance to the mystery
- It covers something I feel I’m not particularly adept at writing…romance, for instance, or description.
I know that I’m a writer who likes to stay on-task and on-topic and who is especially focused on the story’s mystery. Although I know these things to be true about myself (because, really, of the last six years of reading edit letters and comments from editors in Track Changes), it’s still hard sometimes to gauge where elaboration would be useful versus where it would just bog down the story. My personal preference is for very little description, but then I read customer reviews where the readers rave about ‘feeling as if they were there.’ That wouldn’t have happened if my editors hadn’t pushed me to fill in more of the detail.
The more I write detail and, yes, the more I write the romantic subplot, the better I get. As with anything. I clearly shouldn’t just avoid it if I’m insecure about it. It’s an opportunity to learn and develop as a writer.
I know now that one of the reasons the readers are buying the crafting cozies and the culinary cozies are for those descriptions. They want to feel the texture of the fabrics and taste the barbeque. This was just something I didn’t completely understand about the subgenre that I write. It’s not all about the mystery.
So…I’m thinking this applies to other genres too. Obviously we all need description in our books. And sometimes we need to veer off the main plot to expand on relationships in our stories. Maybe there’s a horrible virus that’s wiping out the planet…but expounding on the relationships or alliances formed during the race for survival will flesh the characters out and make them real to readers. And make readers care more about the outcome. Keep them reading.
The amount that’s required may vary, according to our genre or subgenre. Whatever it takes to hook our readers, to make our world and our characters real to them…that’s what we’ve got to deliver. And an editor who’s very familiar with our genre can help us figure out what level that is. Readers help with this, as well…I’m one for monitoring the customer reviews on Amazon for research.
How much detail, background, and relationship-oriented scenes do you offer readers? How do you gauge whether you’re on-target?
Image from Death to the Stock Photo: Seattle
What an interesting post!
I’ve written a traditional murder mystery (in Dutch, but it takes place in Mendocino California’s) and I’m at the stage of thinking about sending it to a publisher.
Coincidentally, yesterday my collegue said that when she read my manuscript she thought there was a lot of detail in it, but now she was reading a ‘real’ book, she noticed there was also a lot of detail (character walking with a cane, limping with one leg). And she found that normal. I’m not quite sure what it tells me about the amount of detail in my manuscript, but she did mention that it made a difference knowing that I had
written the manuscript.
I must admit that I enjoy detail. I’ve always preferred books where I felt like I had been ín the story, also as a reader.
But I agree that details that are not relevant to the story should be avoided.
I think you can thank your editor. They do an awful lot of work, by the looks of your list.
Best wishes
Anita Willems
Anita–Thanks for stopping by and congratulations on finishing your story!
Detail is a personal preference for readers, I think, but…the trend right now is for more description in traditional mysteries such as you’ve written. As a reader, when I read mysteries, I’m even combing the scenes that *don’t* seem to relate to the mystery for clues, so I do find description and extra scenes sort of distracting, but editors definitely disagree with me!
And you’re right–my editors do a fantastic job on my stories.
What does her yard look like? That’s kind of funny.
You know I write with a minimum of description. It takes effort to go back and fill in those bare bones.
Alex–That startled me a little. :) I’d picked up the scene at the front door, skipping the yard altogether.
My most unpleasant part of a story, besides writing the ending, is the descriptions. You’re right–it does take effort.
Elizabeth – I’m learning the same lesson you are about how much elaboration helps a story without overburdening it. I think it can be useful; for instance, I don’t know much about quilting myself, so I like your descriptions of the process, the quilters’ communities and the tools you use to do quilting. It helps me get a picture of quilting, since I have no experience to rely on to make that image. On the other hand, too much detail can be annoying. I don’t need long descriptions of what a pillowcase looks like unless for some reason it’s absolutely crucial to a story. I’ve seen lots of pillowcases. I suppose it comes down to two things: what’s necessary for the story and what are readers not likely to already know.
Margot–So, so right. Yes, the last thing I want is a description of something that’s just not important at all to the story or the characters. And *too* much, I feel, insults the readers in a way.
Fab post, Elizabeth! I grapple with the same writing issues. Readers who enjoy historical mysteries want to feel as if they are right there, immersed in that period of time, so a certain amount of detail is crucial. That’s why I do so much research before writing. Still, I tend to hold back (especially in the first draft) because I don’t want to slow the pace of the story. I think adding it in the second draft is actually better, because by then you can see the whole arc of the story, and place the details where they won’t affect the pace.
Have a great weekend!
Kathy–I think you’re so right. I think historical mystery readers and cozy readers have a lot in common…liking to feel as if they’re immersed in the scene. Good tip about waiting until the following drafts so we won’t slow the story’s pace!
You had me at bar-b-que.
I can see the need to wrap the premise right around the reader. Smoke them in it, as it were. That’s demanding but then, I enjoyed Peters’ Cadfael series.
I suppose the right amount becomes the amount which maintains the constant immersion in the world of the character. Hadn’t thought of it like that before?
Now, I want ribs.
Jack–Ha! It’s lunchtime. :)
Good point about the immersion level…keep the reader engaged in the story world. Not so much description that it’s distracting and pulls them out of that world.
It’s not easy to strike that perfect balance between enough description so the reader “feels” the scene without slowing down the pacing. IMO, this is where critique partners become invaluable. As a reader I enjoy learning about different jobs/careers, so for me, extra descriptions work in that respect.
Sue–Good point about the helpfulness of betas or crit partners in this area!
Have you seen the movie, Broadcast News? There’s a scene where Albert Brooks is at home, watching a special news report on television. Albert makes a call to Holly Hunter and gives her information to relay to William Hurt, who is anchoring the report. Albert says, “I say it here and it comes out there.” Sometimes I feel that’s happening when I read your blog, Elizabeth. I’m going through the editing stage right now and find your post timely and comforting. Thank you!
Jeanne–That’s so nice of you to say! I appreciate that. :) Glad the post helps.
Currently struggling with this one, myself. I know I probably overloaded my first book with catalogues of description. I did so in order to convey the sheer mass of stuff that the characters had to deal with. But it probably could have been done with 10,000 fewer words. So in the second book, I eliminated quite a few extra descriptive scenes, contemplative scenes, romantic scenes, and interesting but not plot-relevant side stories. I have mixed feelings about the result. Maybe I’m not used to “killing my darlings” yet.
Currently reading a Louise Penny mystery, paying attention to how she uses description. She does pick and choose which details to show–for instance, the flowers on a mantle. The average writer would just say what kind, what color, and maybe if they were wilted or fresh or real or fake. But Penny chooses a couple of adjectives which convey the mood of the entire room and portends the tragedy that hasn’t yet occurred. I still don’t remember what kind of flowers they were, but I do remember flowers and the mood, almost as if I was there. She describes clothing, especially when we first meet a character, but never describes them again unless needed, because just once is enough to convey the kind of person that character is–and then leaves it at that. Boy, that’s a skill I’d love to develop!
I do think your editors are correct, because genre readers enjoy immersion, which description provides. I also suspect gender plays a part. None of my male readers are fans of my descriptive scenes, but the women absolutely relish them. Cozy and hook mysteries are immersive and are mostly read by women. Thanks for this thought-provoking post.
Meg–I’ve been reading your second and I think you’ve achieved a really nice balance (but then, I’m someone who doesn’t care as much for description, so you should take that with a grain of salt…ha!)
Louise Penny is one of my favorite writers. You’re right–she does an amazing job with description and mood and it never bores me. I spoke with her at Malice Domestic years ago and she was just a really lovely person–it comes through in her writing, I think.
And you’re right. I think most cozy writers really want that feeling of immersion (and most of my readers are female, too, as you mention).
I like to use a lot of description, even when it might not be essential to the mystery. I believe it helps us get to know our characters better. Also, our local writers group had a publisher come and speak to us once who told us food is very important in a book. Readers for some reason like to know what people are eating. So I will describe even what my characters order in a restaurant. Sometimes I overdo this and have to do some serious editing, but I admit it’s something I enjoy reading about myself in a book. And it does display something about a character to now what they like to eat–and why. In my first book (which I hope to have available trough Amazon in the next month or so), my detective takes someone to lunch who explains why she prefers Manhattan Clam Chowder to New England Clam Chowder. That says something about her character. I also like to accurately describe settings and how people dress.
Sharee–Oh, that’s so true. The only reason my edit letter wasn’t full of questions about what people were eating is because I finally learned my lesson on that and I describe food really thoroughly!
And it sounds as if what you’re doing with your description really *means* something. Your description is carefully thought-out to show readers more about the character…to give clues about them. And that’s definitely worthwhile.
I love cozy mysteries, but I’ve stopped buying the crafty and food series because there is too much description that has nothing to do with the story. I only like description if it applies to the mystery or enhances the character.
I’m not your editors’ target audience, I guess. :-)
Deb–Well, and the funny thing about that is that my non-hook cozy series, the Myrtle Clover books, seem to sell really strongly although there is no crafting and no cooking (Myrtle being hopelessly awful at both) and very little description. So definitely an audience for those books (heads-up to any cozy writers out there. Just don’t try to sell them to a publisher…self-pub them).
Description is hard to do well, which is why so many readers think they don’t like it and why so many writers don’t like to do it.
Rex Stout so clearly described the foods Fritz Brenner prepares for Nero Wolfe and Archie Goodwin that he eventually had to publish the Nero Wolfe Cookbook to satisfy fans who wanted to prepare the dishes themselves.
Perhaps it’s a series thing, but in the Myrtle Clover book I read, I desperately wanted a better mental image of her gnomes in the yard, and I felt almost no connection between Myrtle and her son, which could have been remedied by some brief descriptions of their body language, proximity, things like that.
I abhor reading “she was 5′ 7″ tall and thin, her red hair cut short to show off her long neck.”
But let me hear her suitor talk about those things in flowery romantic terms, and suddenly it’s story again.
Joel–Yes! Excellent point. Readers have read too much poor description and writers know the challenge.
And thanks for the thoughts on the gnomes and Myrtle and Red’s relationship. I think I remedied both of those issues finally by book seven…ha! It took a while.
Elizabeth, it truly is tough to know how much detail to add. Sort of like the three bears thing…too much? Too little? Just right?
Right now I’m on draft 2 of a manuscript, so I’m just focused on getting the story straight. Later, like draft 5 or so, I’ll read it as a reader, and that sometimes helps flag where details are needed.
Good luck with your edits!
Julie–A Goldilocks problem for sure!
My edits are now finished! Well, *that* round of edits, anyway. We’ll see what my editor comes back with.
And good luck on your second draft!