I'm writing my novel but in it there are no descriptions of places, locales etc. I just write about the characters and their psyches. Is this a redflag?
I'm writing my novel but in it there are no descriptions of places, locales etc...
Michael Robinson
Other urls found in this thread:
Julian Sullivan
Short answer: yes.
Long answer:
>In the light of the historical development of artistic vision, Dostoyevsky is a very fascinating phenomenon. If you examine closely any of his works, say ''The Brothers Karamazov,'' you will note that the natural background and all things relevant to the perception of the senses hardly exist. What landscape there is is a landscape of ideas, a moral landscape. The weather does not exist in his world, so it does not much matter how people dress. Dostoyevsky characterizes his people through situation, through ethical matters, their psychological reactions, their inside ripples. After describing the looks of a character, he uses the old-fashioned device of not referring to his specific physical appearance anymore in the scenes with him. This is not the way of an artist - say Tolstoy - who sees his character in his mind all the time and knows exactly the specific gesture he will employ at this or that moment. But there is something more striking still about Dostoyevsky. He seems to have been chosen by the destiny of Russian letters to become Russia's greatest playwright, but he took the wrong turning and wrote novels. The novel ''The Brothers Karamazov'' has always seemed to me a straggling play, with just that amount of furniture and other implements needed for the various actors: a round table with the wet, round trace of a glass, a window painted yellow to make it look as if there were sunlight outside, or a shrub hastily brought in and plumped down by a stagehand.
Thomas Wright
Jesus fucking christ who cares. Nobody's going to read your book anyways.
Elijah Kelly
Well, if it's good enough for Dostoyevsky, it's good enough for me.
But what if it's really, but I mean, really, good?
Lucas Jones
Do you honestly believe people read books that they're read because the books are good?
Levi Reyes
I feel like I can see you, or an outline of you, in my mind's eye. Your political and economic opinions, your aesthetics presumptions and persuasions, your emotional antagonisms even. You're not an open book, more like a cheap pamphlet.
Elijah Moore
>Your political and economic opinions,
Yeah, and what are they, user? Since you know it all about me, say what I believe in.
Samuel Kelly
Dostoevsky is boring af. Nabokov was right. I'm no a great writer and I write in a similar fashion to Dostoevsky because, like him, I have no clear vision of my settings or characters.
Andrew Morgan
No, you do you.
Mason Watson
No.
Nathaniel Lewis
Do what your heart tells you Kierkegaard-san
Matthew Rogers
Not necessarily. It can easily be a reflection of how self-absorbed your characters are. One can be so preoccupied with his own business that external details can be overlooked out of negligence for awareness.
Alternatively, you're just lazy.
Camden Sanders
only if you're a Russian realist
Henry Walker
I read some of a book before that I found to be very lacking in physical description. Couldn't picture the landscape, the buildings, I can't even recall if the people were described. I didn't like it, but then again the books I've written typically involve lots of visual descriptions so maybe it's just not for me. There might be a potential fanbase out there who don't care about physical descriptions and just want characters and their minds. My hunch, however, is that such a fanbase is quite small.
Bentley Sanders
There's nothing more I hate than reading long-winded descriptions of trees and buildings and whatever other shit that doesn't matter and that I don't care about.
Sebastian Butler
He's just fucking with you.
Anthony Cooper
I don't think I've ever read a statement of his that I've agreed with.
Blake Roberts
At the same time, novels offer the opportunity to ponder the situations more intensely than it would be possible with plays. And the sheer amount of characters in his novels and the in depth exploration of their psyche would be impossible in any play because of its shortness and the attention spam of the audience.
David Ward
Whenever you feel that you should be describing a scene, landscape, or any object in detail. Ask yourself this: Does this add to the story? Is it important? If the fragrance and color of a rose is ultimately irrelevant to your story don't spend a page describing it. In the story I'm currently writing I'm putting quite a bit of description into a single room. That's because it is a proxy for my protagonist's character, as well as being an important locale in the story itself. If your MC spends 30 seconds walking by an indistinct office building don't make the reader read about it for 2 minutes.
Anthony Sullivan
No, nowadays that's probably the best way to write.
You're going to have a hard enough time convincing anyone to read your book as it is, why make things even harder by boring your reader's social media fried brain with descriptions of things they don't give a shit about?
Lucas Diaz
Whatever works.
Don't expect to get picked up by an agent or a callback from a publisher.
Thomas Gray
I hate books like this with grey worlds. I considered farenheit 451 to be a grey book like this.
Owen Parker
I think a lack of visual description doesn't work if you're writing something in an abnormal setting, like science fiction, etc. You have to give the reader something to go by in that case. It's less of an issue if the settings are sorts of places that they are familiar with and can easily picture in their minds.
Noah Russell
He seems to miss the point. Dostoyevski writes his stories as though they are a story he'd heard leaning against a fence, talking with his neighbor, after the planting but before the harvest. There are very little descriptions of place, because natural stories rarely have anything to do with the weather. Weather is for small talk. Fashion and decor are the subject of sewing circles. It is only the long, ambulatory ramble of a stationary afternoon that have ever really achieved anything of real meaning. Nabakov's idea of a novel is writerly, delighting in the techniques and styles by which an author can be praised for his storytelling, despite those details being completely superfluous. Dostoyevski abandons the flourishes of a "more creative mind" in order to let the story speak for itself.
Gavin Parker
>no descriptions of places, locales etc
These are the best kind of books; on the other hand, if anything needs to be described, write as if the reader knew about it already.
Jackson James
I write like this too. I don't care about the damn setting. Tell the story.
Easton Baker
Who cares, retard. Write whar you like because you like writing it. There is no other reason for someone like you to write.
Andrew Scott
Yes let's kill people's dreams for no reason, that sounds like fun.
Lincoln Young
Since the advent of cinema there's be no reason to concern literature with material things.
Xavier Sullivan
Bitch
Austin James
This guy fucks
Benjamin Bell
Bullshit. That's the same shitty thinking that's gotten us stuck with abstract expressionism. Cinema and literature are inherently different; even the same scene expressed by each will have a distinct meaning and effect.
Eli Turner
Everyone who’s ever written a book thinks it’s really, really good.
Colton Cook
>really, but I mean, really,
You should probably find an editor
Thomas Parker
>Dostoevsky's Moscow?
>Snowy
>Shakespeare's Verona?
>Fair
>Hotel?
>Trivago
World-building is optional desu.
While my ex skipped war preparations in every Tolkien, I yadda-yadda-ed long descriptions of landscape. So consider your reader's expectations.
Lincoln Jenkins
youtube.com
Gay man says smudge around