Christian Speculative Fiction discussion

I'd love to get your thoughts on the phenomenon of "overwriting", or using unnecessarily descriptive prose, in fiction (specifically speculative fiction); what you think of it as a reader, how you approach it as a writer, how much of it is a matter of personal writing style.

A recent review for one of my books mentioned that it was overwritten in places, so I've been trying to do some research into that and improve my writing moving forward. Any insights you might have would be greatly appreciated!

My thoughts are . . . I hate it. I have a friend I rib for taking three pages to describe a rose.

Purple prose, although acceptable years ago, is not as well received by readers today who have much shorter attention spans than previous generations. My advice is to write wildly, but then trim your manuscript carefully in the editing process.

J.L. wrote: "My thoughts are . . . I hate it. I have a friend I rib for taking three pages to describe a rose.

Purple prose, although acceptable years ago, is not as well received by readers today who have mu..."

Thank you for your insights! I'm actually one of those readers who leans toward enjoying more descriptive prose and older writing styles, but I also acknowledge that I'm a little bit of an oddball and most readers think differently. It's a tough balancing act.

But I agree that taking three pages to describe a flower is a bit much.

A three-page description was purely hyperbole, but it is funny.

As for me, I edit like crazy, so I go over my work again and again and again to ensure it's the best it can be. This includes being cognizant of any areas where the reader might feel the temptation to skip ahead because of a part they're reading that bogs them down. Thus, lengthy descriptions are one of those things I am vigilant of.

When a thorough description is required for the story, then so be it, but if it's not, then it goes.

I think to some extent it is a matter of preference, though do take into account the modern attention span. Now admittedly, I read Tolkien’s “The Fellowship of the Rings” back when I was in middle school, but that book felt like one insufferably long description with a hand full of chapters with action. But some people love it. But it was also written 75 years ago.

So, in this world of instant gratification, brevity is better. You could also try cutting up the description. Describe only what’s in the room that relates or has importance to the moment, and the rest in another scene as it becomes relevant. Maybe the character is full of romantic idealism and sees only the petals of the rose now, but when the harsh realities of life set in later they notice the thorns.

Kathryn wrote:
"You could also try cutting up the description. Describe only what’s in the room that relates or has importance to the moment, and the rest in another scene as it becomes relevant. Maybe the character is full of romantic idealism and sees only the petals of the rose now, but when the harsh realities of life set in later they notice the thorns."

I second that!

Hmm, that makes sense. Actually, one of the reasons why I love Tolkien's writing is because of all of his descriptive prose. That's the sort of thing I grew up reading and enjoying, so it makes sense that it's reflected in my own writing. I'm also very much into worldbuilding, and a world's setting and history is often equally as important to me as the characters and plot, in both reading and writing. I love books where the setting comes to life so vividly that it's as if the world itself is a living, breathing character.

I like the idea of breaking up the description to avoid irrelevant prose. When I was younger, I often struggled with writing because I thought you had to describe everything, and all at once--for example, if a character walks into a room, you have to immediately spend several paragraphs describing every last detail of the room, down to the fabric on the furniture. As you can imagine, that got overwhelming fast as a writer.

I think you have to take into account both your writing style (if you like it, own it!) and what your readers expect for your genre. If you like the prose but spec fiction readers don't, then trim it down to the max level allowed by law.

On the other hand, you can write what you like and blaze new trails, but there are always trade-offs.

Stoney wrote: "I think you have to take into account both your writing style (if you like it, own it!) and what your readers expect for your genre. If you like the prose but spec fiction readers don't, then trim ..."

Thanks for your insights! You make a good point, there are prices to pay for originality.

I personally try to avoid being overly descriptive, mainly because when I read I find I often don't retain the level of detail the author bothered to go into. Whatever a character is wearing, eventually my mind will replace it with whatever it thinks people of that era wear. Whatever a creature looks like, I'll only remember what is important based on what it can do, or what asserts itself as a dominant feature of some kind.

Because of that, I decided to adopt a "theatre of the mind" style of writing, where unless I want to assert something, or it becomes important to the story somehow, I won't bother to describe a feature at all. I almost never go into descriptions about clothing outside of highlighting something of importance, and I almost never even mention things like eye color unless there's something striking about the character's eyes. I tell the reader what I believe they need to know, or what I believe will strengthen a feeling I'm trying to incubate.

With my books having so many non-human characters and so much fantasy for the readers to take in, I'm finding that most readers describe my work as "well-paced" or "fast-paced," and I find most discussions I'm able to have with readers are centered around events of the story. I've never had anyone ask me for more details about a character, or tell me I lack descriptive power. I think their imagination is taking care of that.

I'm not entirely sure this has ultimately helped me, but from what I've seen so far, my feedback has lacked opinions that my work is slow or boring. That being said, if I was to write a story that was less eventful or more grounded in the familiar, I don't believe this style would work out very well - what I'm purposely leaving out would become apparent very quickly.

I think it's best to decide on the style you want to go for based on the kind of story you want to tell, and how quickly events happen in that story. Then just go for it.

J.K. wrote: "I personally try to avoid being overly descriptive, mainly because when I read I find I often don't retain the level of detail the author bothered to go into. Whatever a character is wearing, event..."

Thanks for your insights! It sounds like you enjoy painting your descriptions with very broad strokes and letting the reader's imagination fill in the rest. And from what I can tell, your work does sound spot-on with the pacing, which is excellent. I think you've struck a great balance between how much time you want to spend on description and atmosphere, and how much you want to spend on action, and I think it's working very well for the story you're presenting and your personal writing style.

Reading your comments as well as everyone else's, I've come to feel like there's no clear line that divides descriptive writing from descriptive overwriting. I think some writers and readers enjoy more in-depth and poetic description, and some don't. Obviously my descriptive prose was sometimes a bit much for this one reviewer, but I can see why it would feel off-key if he was used to - and prefers - more terse and snappy writing.

I think for me, personally, I might tend to lean toward the more descriptive side of things because of my background in visual media (film/TV in college, then game development, webcomics, and illustration). I think visually - and often even cinematically - when I write, and I usually develop very clear mental images of characters, objects, and settings. I also tend to be engineering-minded when doing my worldbuilding, so I enjoy taking the reader on a journey of not only that something exists, but how it works.

Now, obviously when I sit down to write, I don't try to labor over making sure I describe exactly what I am seeing in my head down to the tiniest detail. But I do like trying to describe as much as I think is reasonable, in order to try to share with the reader that clear image I have and the general aesthetic I'm trying to impart.

As for settings, in reading and writing I tend to really enjoy immersive, atmospheric worldbuilding that makes a world come alive. Of course I don't like when someone is obviously spending far too long and being much too obtuse in a description, but I find it fun when a setting is described so artfully that I can feel I know what it's like to really be there.

Anyway, I know everybody has different ways to approach description, and those differences are what make the world of writing so lively! I actually discussed this issue with one of my editors, and she said she enjoys my descriptive prose and doesn't see any problem with it. That being said, I'll definitely try to keep an eye on my descriptions moving forward and make sure they're not too overwrought. I think it's always good to be told things to look out for in one's writing--that's how you can stop problems before they arise.

I think that there needs to be a clarification between wordiness and descriptive writing. Overwriting is often a problem with using too many words to convey a specific idea. Classic literature is extremely descriptive, but they tend to pack a lot of power into as few words as possible.

I once had a heated discussion about how long Tolkien spent on a battle scene. The person I was talking with was convinced it was multiple chapters. It turned out to be 5 pages. In just a sentence, Tolkien can give the feel of an epic conflict:

"Now Bard was fighting to defend the Eastern spur, and yet giving slowly back: and the elf-lords were at bay about their king upon the southern arm, near to the watch-post on Ravenhill."

It isn't the adjective, but the specifics of the conflict in so few words that give it so much power. Most writers do know this is good writing, but it's very hard to accomplish. I try, but I tend to have more complaints about people not being able to imagine what I am describing than complaints about wordiness.

Tolkien is less florid than many writers before him. I found Lord Dunsany, et. al., worth the effort but those works are no linger in my library because I know I will not reread them.

I struggled with Book 1 of the trilogy but it was mostly because I was a reader of much simpler works like those of Andre Norton at the time (my youth) than later. After multiple rereading of the trilogy I saw the strength of those chapters before Frodo leaves the Shire. A point the movies missed, even in extended format.

Lara wrote: "I think that there needs to be a clarification between wordiness and descriptive writing. Overwriting is often a problem with using too many words to convey a specific idea. Classic literature is e..."

Great distinction between wordiness and descriptive writing. I think, comparing the two, The Count of Monte Cristo is overwritten and Scaramouche is descriptively written. This difference is what has made me a fan of Sabatini's work.

Thanks for the insights! I do think there's a difference between using too many words and just enjoying being descriptive; the former is problematic because it shows that a writer has not learned how to get their point across clearly and/or pace the story well, while the latter is a matter of personal taste and writing style. Tolkien loved and worked with medieval European epics, which were full of very detailed descriptions of battle, so it doesn't surprise me that he would incorporate that element in his own fiction. And considering that the Battle of Five Armies (what Lara's referring to) is a huge part of the climax of The Hobbit, I think 5 pages does it justice quite nicely. If Tolkien would have, say, spent 5 pages describing what Gandalf was wearing, that would definitely be overwriting (unless there was some reason in the plot to justify it, possibly).

I know a lot of popular literature these days trends toward terser and snappier prose, but often those types of books are just far too dry for my tastes. For me, good description and intelligent wordplay enliven prose and make every paragraph a treat. It's not just about getting the reader from plot point A to plot point B; it's about crafting a fulfilling imaginative experience along the way. Again, that's just what I prefer in my writing and reading.

That being said, after learning about overwriting, I have tried to be more cognizant of when it might start to pop up in my prose. I recently finished some minor revisions on an older novel in preparation to get it made into an audiobook, and I did find some places where I felt like I didn't need quite that much description to get the point across. I must say, though, that these were minor and almost nitpicky occurrences where I usually just deleted a single word--I don't think the entire thing was terribly, noticeably overwritten to the casual reader.

I think I also need to keep in mind that most reviews are extremely subjective and can sometimes say more about the reviewer's preferences than about the overall technical quality of the book. I think anybody who prefers less description will think I'm overwriting, but in that case I'm just not the right author for them.

Very well put. My writing changed when I took an online course from Professor Books Landon of the University of Iowa through Great Courses. The change in technique surfaced in my Prequel and my upcoming book.

The basic writing technique is using commas to build sentences and keep the flow going. I believe this is a "school of thought" because I have run into other authors, and editors, who rather cut the sentences short, thus (in my opinion) stalling the movement forward. I recently read a sentence written by Pearl S. Buck that uses this “flowing” technique in the Imperial Empress. "He towered above her, his shoulders immense, his head square and large, his features roughly shaped and course, a figure powerful and crude." Now grant it, this is not about a battle scene, but the technique I am referring to is the same. The best part of this sentence is that the first four phrases are summed up in the last phrase.

I like the rhythm of this type of writing, but I must watch that I don't do it too much. That is where I agree with your overwriting advice.

I do like using shorter sentences in fast-moving scenes because I hope to increase the reader's heartbeat and desire to insatiably devour each word. Thanks for posting this.

Rick wrote: "Very well put. My writing changed when I took an online course from Professor Books Landon of the University of Iowa through Great Courses. The change in technique surfaced in my Prequel and my upc..."

Thanks for sharing! I like doing the same as you, using different prose structure depending on the overall rhythm of a scene. A wise editor taught me a while back how to make my prose a little snappier and punchier for action scenes, and I find that's been fitting my writing style well.

Rick's comment seems very well balanced to me. It's how I go about things too.

Rick wrote: "Very well put. My writing changed when I took an online course from Professor Books Landon of the University of Iowa through Great Courses. The change in technique surfaced in my Prequel and my upc..."

Using commas to build flow is underrated in my opinion. I've worked with editors who just don't seem to get what you're going for when you do that - and actively fought me on just about every point. In my first book, in retrospect I wish I had stood my ground a little more on that specific point (granted, I addressed that somewhat in the rerelease).

J.K. wrote: "Rick wrote: "Very well put. My writing changed when I took an online course from Professor Books Landon of the University of Iowa through Great Courses. The change in technique surfaced in my Prequ..."

I know that feeling! One of my constant challenges with editors is finding ones who understand what I'm trying to do with my work and are on the same wavelength as me--and telling myself it's okay to just flat-out ignore what an editor says if I feel like it isn't right for what I want the book to be. I had an editor for one of my earlier books where I felt like it was pretty obvious that she didn't like the book in general, and she kept going on about how her favorite part was the villain, and she wanted me to incorporate more of his depressing backstory and twisted psychology. She even wanted me to write a prequel all about the villain. That was the last book I hired her for, because at that point it was obvious that what I was going for and what she wanted the book to be were two completely different things. I didn't appreciate her trying to alter the core themes and tone of the story when it was just her job to make sure everything worked on a technical level.

For several of my novels, I was really blessed to have an amazing content editor (and personal friend) who is a huge fan of my work to begin with, and was all about helping me tell my stories and present my themes in the most polished way possible. She was spectacular to work with, but she retired from that occupation recently. I found another pretty decent editing business that handled my latest novel and will probably hire again for the one I'm writing now, but I'm still working on discerning between rock-solid writing know-how and things that are just a matter of personal opinion and style. (I'm also finding there's often a finer line between those two sides than I expected, but perhaps that's the nature of art.)

For my latest novel, I was told to remove all the exclamation marks from the manuscript, which I thought looked really weird because three of the main characters are emotionally-charged teenagers, and there's an entire species in the book that tends to be pretty energetic in their speech. And this novel I'm working on now has several episodes of intense space combat, and one of the main characters is hyperactive and childish and practically shouts most of her lines, so I'm not sure zero exclamation marks are going to work there. I know it's trendy nowadays to hate on exclamation marks, but some writing trends are just baffling to me.

One of the really nice things about indie publishing, though, is that you can make new editions whenever you want, so if you follow an editor's advice and then later feel like it's not working, you can easily revise and publish a new edition, as you did. I did that for one of my earlier novels where the editor really pushed me to go darker and grittier, and I thought I had to because "the editor's always right" (hah). But it never sat well with me, and a couple of years later when I was feeling more assertive, I revised it and made it lighter in tone and less violent.

T.K. wrote: "J.K. wrote: "Rick wrote: "Very well put. My writing changed when I took an online course from Professor Books Landon of the University of Iowa through Great Courses. The change in technique surface..."

I wonder, sometimes, how much of an effect trends have on an editor's opinion...

J.K. wrote: "T.K. wrote: "J.K. wrote: "Rick wrote: "Very well put. My writing changed when I took an online course from Professor Books Landon of the University of Iowa through Great Courses. The change in tech..."

That's a good point. With the exclamation mark thing, I was specifically told that publishers simply would not accept a manuscript with more than one or two exclamation marks and that it looked "unprofessional". Nothing was said about whether or not it actually fit the story or was a matter of personal writing style, it was all about what the (hypothetical) publishers wanted to see.

That's one of the reasons why I'm an indie author; something in me balks at the idea of having to take away from the artistic integrity of my writing to make it fit an arbitrary mold imposed by publishers who are looking for a certain "image". I'm all for learning how I can improve my writing on a technical level, and I really value editors for helping me with that, but when it comes to things that are purely a matter of getting a manuscript to align more with what's trending or expected in a genre, I'm not looking for that.

(Actually, part of what I think causes friction sometimes is that I grew up reading a lot of older literature, so my writing style can often pull from that and sound old-fashioned. I like the eclectic edge it gives my work, but I can understand that editors who are used to working with more contemporary-sounding prose don't quite know what to do with something that sounds like it came from early last century.)

Anyway, like I said, I do really appreciate editors and the work they do for us writers. Most of the time their suggestions are extremely helpful, and I always learn something new and useful every time I get a manuscript edited. But I think some editorial feedback should be taken with a grain of salt, because sometimes it is just a matter of personal opinion or going along with current trends.

T.K. wrote: "J.K. wrote: "T.K. wrote: "J.K. wrote: "Rick wrote: "Very well put. My writing changed when I took an online course from Professor Books Landon of the University of Iowa through Great Courses. The c..."

I also enjoy using an antiquated style. I think it makes my work sound more timeless. The problem with trying to keep up with what's "trending" is that it gets really easy to date your work. It seems that those who care about trends are both the cause of dated work and also its loudest opponents.

J.K. wrote: "T.K. wrote: "J.K. wrote: "T.K. wrote: "J.K. wrote: "Rick wrote: "Very well put. My writing changed when I took an online course from Professor Books Landon of the University of Iowa through Great C..."

That's a good point! It's just like in any other form of art/media, you can tell when the creator was trying to do what they really wanted to do with the work, and when they were trying to follow what was in fashion at the time. I think most books/movies/music/etc. that stand the test of time fall into the former category and have more universal appeal than the latter. Terse, minimal prose may be all the rage right now, but that doesn't mean it works for everybody or every story.