Landscapes

[member 737]

My question is: what do you think about descriptions of nature in books? Many readers regard them as always boring and unnecessary (as they apparently don't add anything to the action) and try to avoid them, which can be troublesome, especially when the picturesque woods and meadows are presented quite often.

On the other hand, the nature can play a significant part in the book, for instance if the author's aim is to familiarise the readers with the place where the action takes place.

To conclude: do you regard numerous descriptions of landscapes as an advantage, or a nuisance?

 

[Halo]

I suppose it depends on the book. If it helps the plot or clarifies something, all well and good. I have read a lot of Dean Koontz and he does tend to write huge paragraphs describing houses and the surrounding flora, which can get a bit tedious when you want to get to the next bit of action.

 

[cdm]

If you're describing a battle in a rocky, mountainous region, or a murder by a river, or a chase across the desert, you have to describe the place. It is part of the action. In a fantasy setting, you have to describe a fantasy landscape. In a romance, you have to describe the gardens or whatever.

In a literary work, it is often overdone. If a person is walking across a sunny meadow in the morning, a few words will suffice. There is no need to describe each dewdrop with its attendant rainbows sparkling like diamonds in the refreshing blah blah blather.

What is necessary to the story, put into the story. What is nothing more than word count, leave out.

This is true of most parts of writing. I can get verbose and filibuster on a forum, but, do it in a book, and you won't get readers. Rightfully.

 

[Dawn]

Sometimes it's what that author chooses to leave out that makes the book interesting.

 

[member 737]

Originally posted by cdm

In a literary work, it is often overdone. If a person is walking across a sunny meadow in the morning, a few words will suffice. There is no need to describe each dewdrop with its attendant rainbows sparkling like diamonds in the refreshing blah blah blather.

I totally agree with you here. I don't like long, overdetailed descriptions of nature, which sometimes take few pages. It seems to me like they are put only to show an icredible and rich range of author vocabulary. They may be useful or interesting maybe for those people who imagine themselves the events or places, about which they read. But I think it would be better for them to enjoy a picture or simply to go a forest.

Dawn, there was a poet, who wrote literally in accordance with your rule. He left blank spaces in his poems - C. K. Norwid.

 

[Dawn]

Idun, I was wondering if someone would bite. I'd be interested in reading that poetry, but, as a rule, I like descriptive writing. Unless it's overdone. I feel that, as most of us has agreed, if the description is important to progress the story or to "dress the set" by all means, carry on. But economically. It shouldn't take more than a paragraph or two...IMHO.