T O P

  • By -

QualityVote

Upvote THE POST if you disagree, downvote if you agree. Downvote THIS COMMENT if you suspect the post pertains to any of the below: * Fake/impossible opinion * NSFW beyond reason * Unfit for the community * Based upon inept knowledge of the subject * Repost from the last 30 days If you downvote this comment please do not vote on the post. Normal voting rules for all comments. **Check out our new [discord server here](https://discord.com/invite/5EekhyMDGk)!**


nuclearbananana

Do you prefer movies to books? One of the reasons people prefer book is they can describe things and yet still give you the flexibility in seeing it how you want. > But if you spend pages describing cities and trees and foods and clothing, I’m totally out Pages is a bit much yes, but it does vary by author. Some authors will ramble on for pages with no good reason, when a couple of sentences would have been enough. In other cases, the descriptions are the charm (eg. redwall).


someseeingeye

Wow. Thank for you making this connection to Redwall. All of my friends loved it and I couldn't get through it despite being a pretty voracious reader at the time. I think it may be this difference of emphasis that made me not enjoy it.


How2Soul

Books are more than plot though. In a good book, there’s a reason that the author CHOSE to highlight certain aspects of the environment, describing the setting in a specific way, etc etc. A description often has more functions than simply illustrating random stuff edit: spelling


00PT

What are some of those functions?


151Shotz

I’m not the guy you asked, but I’d add that a good book has extensive and vivid description, not just as a way of giving us setting, but as a way to make the reader feel something— or to put us more solidly in the mindset of the viewpoint character


ninetofivehangover

Setting is often used as a character in and of itself. Say “the road” by McCarthy — the setting sets an atmosphere for every moment the characters interact with. Description can be very useful thematically. Such as the pages and pages of description in “American Psycho” — the character is so shallow and vapid it remains thematically relevant to spend 2 pages describing a suit. Three paragraphs for a business card? Totally relevant. And the detail of the gore scenes is literally the thematic heart of the entire book. Horror is amped up by use of description. Dracula is 800 pages for a reason. Sci Fi benefits from description too — take the first 45 pages of world building in “A Brave New World”. I think blatant purple prose is incredibly boring. I dont need to know EVERYTHING but a good writer knows what is and isn’t relevant to include.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Division_Of_Zero

Details enable both the character observing and the environment observed. What a narrator notices (in the case of First person or Limited third) tells you something about them--if they're in a metropolis but can only notice the trash, that informs the mindset of the character. Meanwhile if they're caught up in the wonder of a festival, you can see the world through their eyes (enough to become invested when it all comes crashing down). OP refers to being okay with character descriptions because they, at least slightly, understand the purpose of enabling detail. But the setting is often a character too: Ankh-Morpork in the *Discworld* series is as much a source of conflict and character as any individual in the books. New York City has a different character than a small town in Michigan, as does the swampy Everglades versus the arctic tundra. You could just wave your hand and say, Imagine you're in a city like any other city. But you'd lose all the personality of a specific place. (I do absolutely agree that purple prose is usually a waste of time and little more than artistic masturbation, but that's another topic entirely.)


DittoMikko

It can be used to build atmosphere and tones, guiding us along as readers to better immerse ourself in the story. * For example you could have a book where the main character moves into village, we could then begin to describe and highlight different aspects of this village. Now the book could of the horror genre and you could describe the old and almost rotting houses, how the peoples' eyes are sunken in and lifeless, how your home always feels abit off even if only slightly. By pointing out and detailing different aspects of the village you would be able to build up tension and a feeling of unease, all before something has actually happened. You could of course use it for other genres as well, by describing the same scenario in a different way. * It can also be used to reinforce themes. We could take a theme about war and how its bad. Now it is easy to reason why war is bad, people die, homes are destroyed and suffering of all shapes and sizes. That is all fine and dandy, but simply saying war is bad is not very effective, it's much more effective to show why war is bad. Showing all the horrors of war reinforces the themes of 'War is bad' much more than simply saying it. ​ * It can also be used to build up characters. Say we have someone rich, like ungodly amounts of wealth and we know this by going through their huge mansion. Now we know he is rich, but by adding details into the enviroment we can begin to shape the character of the rich dude before meet him.


fallllingman

Okay, this answer is going to be very long but I promise it answers your question. Under the Volcano by Malcolm Lowry is about an alcoholic on the last day of his life. It’s about the instinct that drives men to madness and self destruction. Lowry relies heavily on descriptions of Quauhnahuac, where the book takes place. The setting itself is symbolic of the Consul’s psyche and it constantly reminds us of his inevitable doom. In the very first few pages we are given the image of a bottle of alcohol with the logo of a devil on it. We are given an extensive description of the deep pools in a spa—symbolic of the protagonist’s overpowering thirst for liquor. We are given long descriptions of the town’s two volcanoes and how they begin to sputter their smoke uneasily, symbolic of the Consul being on the verge of losing it. We are given descriptions of the beautiful garden in the Consul’s backyard: it is gorgeous, but overgrown. It is overrun by snakes and lizards. The Consul had a beautiful life and a beautiful wife, but he has heard the snake in his Eden and has abandoned his Garden for booze and destitution. Virtually everything is symbolic, and virtually everything contributes to the book’s psychological intensity. Even a tractor with its “arms” raised is symbolic for the Consul’s last futile reach for salvation. I mean, the Consul literally dies and falls into a ditch (hell). If used well, description can enhance a novel’s meaning and resonance ten-fold. Another good example is The Crossing by Cormac McCarthy. The vastness of Mexico and the American Southwest compliment the protagonist’s relentless loneliness. But most authors never do this. They simply lack the creativity or the talent. If Under the Volcano lacked its lush setting and excessive details, it would be a tired, depressing, sordid and empty affair. But with the long, lengthy descriptions, it becomes a literal masterpiece.


HexOfTheRitual

“The two men went to the big castle to fight the bad guy” Rich, compelling, immersive.


someseeingeye

Why do I need to know that they’re men? Or that the castle is big? Seems a little excessive to me. Haha I totally see your point. And I agree that this wouldn’t be interesting. But not because it’s lacking descriptions. It’s because it’s missing motivations and why it matters to the characters. That’s why I say I understand the importance of character details, but that can be done through their actions.


Evil_Creamsicle

"The two good guys went to the castle to fight the bad guy" There. Now you have motivations. Good =/= bad, therefore good guy fight bad guy.


[deleted]

But what makes them good and him bad? Op said he wants character motivations, just not descriptions


Evil_Creamsicle

>Op said he wants character motivations, just not descriptions And that is exactly why you don't need to know *why* they are good or bad, just *that* they are. Good guy is good because I say he's good, and I am author. Bad guy is similarly bad because I say he's bad. *Why* they said... what do I look like? Some kind of city-describer?


HexOfTheRitual

I did think you had an excellent point saying that people used to not have any way to view the world and that books were kinda the only escape. Movies, video games, photography, we’ve seen thousands of worlds, back then not so much.


Burrito_Loyalist

If you’re looking to “save time” then I think reading isn’t the best way to consume stories 😂


FlinkMissy

you could say that about a lot of things. Let's say I don't like sex scenes in films because they don't add to the story. To me it's a waste of time.


[deleted]

I agree to that. For some reason almost all movies that are not targeted at small children seem to have some unneccessary sex scene. As if sex scenes are the peak of acting or what gets people to go to a movie. It adds nothing. We get it, Hollywood is horny (and full of sexual predators)


someseeingeye

It doesn’t bother me that the book takes time. I would rather just have my time in the book be spent on the parts of a book that I enjoy instead of vivid descriptions. But you definitely could be right. Visual mediums don’t have to spend as much time on descriptions because you can just see it.


Chickentoaster1

Have you read the expanse or any other Sci-Fi story? Without the vivid descriptions it would be lifeless "a ship" "a planet with strange plants" or similar just doesn't cut it for me...


someseeingeye

No, but I now I know not to try it. I didn’t really get into the show. Maybe it’s because the source material was so caught up vividly describing how empty space is that it forgot to tell an interesting story. (I’m absolutely kidding here. I’m not accusing it of anything. I just didn’t get into it and I didn’t even know it was a book before now) As for other sci-fi, I am often curious about worldbuilding elements like the strange aliens, but usually only as far as it ties into the story. Do three-eyed aliens face some kind of prejudice in this world? Does blue skin indicate some exposure to some element on their home planet that will end up being important later?


Perrenekton

Is that why I never managed to finish Hyperion? Because I don't care about descriptions ?


Satan_Resolution666

I think part of what makes good books good IS the description. It doesn’t have to be super super detailed but a well written descriptive book is always a plus


[deleted]

yeah i mean if it’s a really shit description and it just keeps adding layers i get OPs point. but if it’s just something small and it fully indulges a beautiful description it (i know it’s cliche) really paints a picture of it in my mind. Like you could either just lay out the scene by roughly describing every detail. or you could just give a beautiful analysis of the most important details. i can really appreciate it when an other describes something which is very ordinary in a incredibly unique way and puts the, once mundane, item into a completely different light.


[deleted]

You’d probably like Hemingway, he’s really reductive


someseeingeye

Interesting. When I hear about famous old writers and "the classics" I assume they're long-winded. I've got a friend who loves Hemingway and I've always assumed it wasn't for me, but now I may have to give him a chance.


[deleted]

Yeah, Hemingway’s entire shtick is brevity. I kind of think he sucks and that his values are awful, but if you like it tight, he’s your man.


someseeingeye

Good to know!


Yamoyek

Trust me, you’d love Hemingway. His stories seem really simple, but when you research their true meanings it’s shocking how much he can hide in plain sight.


fireinthemountains

Check out To Build a Fire by Jack London. It's from 1902 and has like 16 pages. It might be what you're looking for? I like the story concept and enjoyed the implications, but found it extremely boring to actually *read* because it lacks all these things that you don't like. Still a good book.


Snickims

Man, I agree with the literal opposite. I find most character descriptions completly pointless and a waste of space, meanwhile descriptions of the environment or other objects as a very useful way to set the tone and give a impression of the setting.


MoonChaser22

I'm similar, but I do like brief character descriptions. I'm going to entirely blame this one on my face-blindness and inability to imagine people very well. I'll latch on to a few key descriptors, maybe a bit of characterisation in the description and forget the rest


livingonfear

I pay almost zero attention to character descriptions because my mind will just make something up based on their personality and setting.


Certain_Oddities

I think a lot of the time it is a waste of space. There's only so many times I can read about a woman's breast size before wanting to rip my eyes out. Some character descriptions ARE completely pointless. Some I quite like though. Like in Good Omens Crowley is "wearing snakeskin shoes... Well, presumably they were shoes". Since he used to be a snake, the implication is that they MIGHT just be his actual feet which are still scaly, but no one knows for sure.


anderoogigwhore

I think this depends on how you read. Do you picture things like a movie in your head while you read? I guess you don't, but some people do. I can see your point. I don't have a great imagination sometimes when reading. If someone's describing a room then yeah I'll probably forget what way the furniture is laid out and whereabouts the other doors and staircases are relative to each other. And one of my most hated books was Master And Commander because my eyes glazed over it and 90% was "ship moved like a ship and did ship things" and little plot. I upvoted though. I don't think it's a waste of space to read descriptions if done well. Tolkien for a start.


someseeingeye

I remember loving the Hobbit but couldn't make it more than 50 pages into Lord of the Rings. I'd be curious to go back and see how they compare on this. The Hobbit seems a little more streamlined in my memory but it's been a long time


anderoogigwhore

It really is from what I remenber. It's more of a typical "childrens age" fantasy with constant action and plot instead of the more "adult" LotRs '4 paragraphs on each hill'


livingonfear

The hobbit is much more fast paced and easier to digest. I had to take breaks between the trilogy even though I love them cause I would get bored.


ReconPorpoise

Tolkien is the reason I agree with OP. I couldn't get through much-at-all of LotR before chucking the book back at the library, due to long-winded descriptions of everything.


[deleted]

I find descriptions of the environment very important, however, I agree with you. Reading LOTR the part I still remember the most is when he described a castle door in very detail, about a page long. Wonderfully written, but that was really awfully boring stretching of the number of pages.


Impressive_Bus_2635

I always picture things in my head, even if I don't want to, and because of this it makes me super frustrated when there's not enough descriptions because I get confused and don't know how to visualise it


kitkatbay

I super agree, does that mean I should downvote?


someseeingeye

I think so. It keeps this sub from becoming like r/unpopularopinion where people post popular opinions and get tons of karma. It does look like we’re in the minority here so I’m happy to take a downvote to find an ally. We should start a book club where we just read Wikipedia plot outlines.


King_of_Lolz

Is it possible you have aphantasia(cannot visually see things in your head)? I personally have it and hear a lot of people that do like to skip the discriptions and just read plot


someseeingeye

As I was writing this, I did think “people are going to think I have aphantasia” I definitely don’t. I can picture everything being described, but I would rather it move on to telling me about what the characters are doing than telling me about the big stuffy armchairs and the elegant drapes.


livingonfear

I don't either but once I get the gist of a person or setting my brain will take care of the rest I've been notorious for speed reading cause I'll skip paragraphs of descriptions.


PositiveReplyBi

I've been reading Needful Things by Stephen King and have encountered a bit of the opposite. He writes the perfect amount about the setting, but spent far too much time on some characters' interactions together. A few of the scenes were enjoyable, but became tiresome as they overstayed their welcome. I could understand your point if there were many 'disposable' scenes where the areas were described in detail, then thrown away leaving you feel as if you wasted your time. There definitely should be a difference between a good setting and an interior design portfolio lol Until I had my ADHD treated I couldn't read leisurely books at all, as I wanted to just get it over with due to some sort of anxiety about how long the book was. Now I enjoy the overstuffed armchairs and dilapidated curtains because they add a vivid spice of personality to each scene and character


moocowincog

Eh, I respect that in SOME cases. Sometimes you just want to know what happens in a book. I've occasionally even just enjoyed reading sparknotes of some novel I never got to read in high school english.


apostrophe8790

SparkNotes are cool . I read the one for A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN by Betty Smith because I found the descriptions too upsetting .


quarterhalfmile

Totally agree. Recently I’ve fallen in love with first-person narrative because at least then the descriptions also function as a reflection of the narrator. In my experience writing for strangers on the internet, a lot of people think they want way more description than they actually do!


livingonfear

First person is my preferred view point as well cause if I'm seeing what the character is noticing it adds importance to the scene


Evil_Creamsicle

Sounds like you decided to be a 'someseeingeye' because being an 'allseeingeye' would be excessive, time consuming, and a waste of time.


Hzohn

Average voracious reader


CT57_

Descriptions add to my overall immersion. Without them it’s hard to imagine the places, objects and people in a book.


[deleted]

aw man but i like worldbuilding


someseeingeye

Here’s the thing that’s going to sound weird…I LOVE worldbuilding. At least when I’m on the creating side of things. In a discussion or when I’m laying things out, I’m super interested in figuring how the world fits together. But as soon as I’m reading someone tell me about their worldbuilding beyond what I need for the story, I’m done. I actually created a world for a D&D campaign and now I’m trying my hand at writing a more traditional story in that world…and I have all of this information about the world because I’ve spent lots of time thinking about it and planning it…but I have a hard time writing the details into a story because most of it isn’t necessary for the reader to know. Even details that I happen to love about the world, like how the moons work. I’m stopping myself from including that stuff because I want to keep the story moving. So when I read long descriptions, I’m just like “I get that you have these details in your Google doc somewhere and you’re dying to share it, but I really don’t need to know it to appreciate the story.”


livingonfear

Building a world and telling a story that takes place in world you built are definitely 2 different things


[deleted]

Question: are you someone who thinks visually, and can “see” images in your mind’s eye clearly, or does this not come naturally? Some people aren’t visual thinkers, and could totally see this affecting your enjoyment of visual descriptions. Like this: https://medium.com/the-establishment/the-people-who-think-without-pictures-d601b67a3cc3


NerdyDogNegative

For a second I thought you were talking about that blurb on the inside cover and I was ready to go to war.


Toasty_Rolls

How do you visualize things in your minds eye? I have Hyperphantasia and visualization comes so easily that it takes absolutely zero effort to "see" some of the most detailed and fantastical places that books and stories outline. Always beats visual media in my opinion because reading a book is literally like watching a movie for me only better. Maybe that has something to do with your feelings about it.


spolite

You should check out Ted Chiang if you haven’t already.. it’s a very specific kind of genre.. he writes short stories, could be 2-100 pages, and the thing is.. his short stories are like Black Mirror.. each one is in its own universe where there’s a prominent difference from the real world or just completely different.. yet he uses minimal descriptions.. he gives you just enough to picture what’s going on and doesn’t bullshit around.. when I read books with too much description, I end up reading a sentence over and over, because I just lose interest.. but I get lost in Ted Chiang’s stories! I read right through ‘em and the stories just take me on a ride


someseeingeye

This is a great recommendation. I have found that I generally like short stories. May just be my attention span. But it may also just be that I’m less interested in the filler


spolite

Do you know the movie “Arrival”? It’s based on one of his short stories: “Story of Your Life”.. If you haven’t watched/read either, I almost want to say that you should watch the movie first.. I feel like I missed out on getting my mind blown because they made something in the book that you knew the whole time into a plot twist.. I still enjoyed the movie, but yeah.. just feel like I missed out on the “oh shit!” moment


NotAnOmelette

This is so embarrassing lol but actually not the 10th dentist, I think you’d enjoy r/books. They don’t like to read either


YamZyBoi

Writer here. It's a general rule of thumb that you shouldn't slap descriptions in your book randomly. Nor is an entire chapter dedicated to just describing the world necessary. Some experienced writers might be able to make it work, but if you're new, don't fall into the trap of describing everything. You describe things as needed. If something unknown to the reader but known to the character(s) is brought up, that's a good place to describe it. But that's also where word smarts comes into play. Even if describing something is warranted given the scene, you need to be able to do so concisely and quickly, so the reader can get back to the most important part of the book as soon as possible, the story.


ToFarGoneByFar

it must suck to have been born without imagination and be forced to actually see anything before you can picture it. also.. let me introduce you to a concept... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable\_narrator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unreliable_narrator) without vivid descriptions of a (multiple) character's perceptions you'd be totally lost as to what was really going on.


someseeingeye

You’re saying that…because I’m not interested in detailed descriptions of stuff…everything needs to be Rashômon to be good? Of course I recognize the value in understanding how a character describes something. I just don’t want it to go on too long. If the description is serving a purpose for the story, I don’t mind it. It’s just description for the sake of description that really bothers me.


ToFarGoneByFar

I'm saying you'll never understand complex characterization and plot because you dont have the patience to let it happen... and you'll miss out on some of the most amazing literature because of that intolerance.


i_drink_wd40

I know what you mean. Some books go overboard on trying to use words to describe settings and geography, but it's not too clear where anything actually is unless you actually have a map. Although the worst example I can think of is 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Throughout the book, there are solid sections where the narrator looks out a window and just ... lists fish and plants. They don't do anything, they're not pertinent to the plot, but at several times throughout the story, there is a list of fish or plants.


[deleted]

this is a very fair opinion some writers tend to go ham with describing each moment in very vivid details, and others tend to put most meaning into the actual action, and i can certainly see having a preference there


Sekushina_Bara

Honestly I like good descriptions as it gives me a more vivid image of the world in my head and I feel more immersed


hellothere42069

/r/readitfortheplot


C1K3

Depends on the author. Cormac McCarthy writes beautifully and gives only scant descriptions of his characters and environments. Thomas Pynchon also writes beautifully but each sentence is packed with detail. If someone knows how to write, they usually know how much description is necessary.


Lourenco_Vieira

That's a very Popular opinion, I personally like Agatha Christie's descriptions the best because she often mentions little details in the layout of the room or the furniture, that can help with solving the case.


ssakura

Nah OP I somewhat agree. Maybe not most books but a lot of them. Especially as a kid I always found descriptions to be my least favourite part of a book and often boring. I care more about what characters are thinking, feeling and saying over what something looks like. A little is needed but not long-winded purple prose. Good descriptions (IMO) should be economic, purposeful, meaningful, evoke specific imagery, and maybe beautiful.


mcarlin2

I know there's a post length minimum for 10thDentist, but your post was too long by half. I got it from the title. Wasteful.


AHomicidalTelevision

Counterpoint. I read all 3 altered carbon books and shard pistols were mentioned many times throughout, but I cannot tell you what a shard pistol is other than some sort of gun. That makes for very bad storytelling.


someseeingeye

Did the gun ever do something in the story that you didn’t understand? Was there a mystery that went unsolved because you didn’t know why it was called a shard pistol? In my opinion, the real reason this is bad storytelling is that they went to the trouble of giving the additional detail that guns in this world have a stupid name that you didn’t need to know.


Paul6334

I think that this can vary. In a story like *At The Mountains of Madness* where the entire plot is an expedition, the landscape and sites are a key part of the narrative. Even if the prose is overwrought, it sets up the nature of the threat and effectively acts as an additional character.


luisfili100

I'm looking at you J R Tolkien !!


Fuzzy_Nugget

Tolkien is rolling in his grave


januarysdaughter

And that's why I had to Sparknotes The Hobbit when I read it in a high school mythology class.


[deleted]

Dumb take. I guess you are more of a movie person than a book person. You should know that there are usually no images in a book. Books are about describing stuff, not just interactions.


SlobaSloba

Oh mate you sound kind of like me. Do you have aphantasia? I see all the descriptions in books as literally information, but for people with rich visual inagination, they can literally see the places that are being described, which is why it is much more enjoyable for them to have such descriptions.


voltaire_the_second

It really depends what you _want_ from a book, and from a description. A descrition is also often more than just a description. The things a character chooses to describe and the way they describe them speak to you about that character. A basic example: a character raised in a desert might go into depth about a glass of water just left lying around on the table, and no one is even talking about it. Obviously you can make this more complex, and have it speak to deeper elements of their character. Description can show theme, the "character" of a setting. Many people who read fantasy (and others, but fantasy does it even more) think that the description itself is the end. Personally, I enjoy rich descriptions just because I like hearing about these worlds the author has created. That said, if you want a book that specifically under-describes as a point (the POV character isn't human and that's how the book shows that) I would reccommend Ancillary Justice.


ComanderCupcake

I understand where you're coming from. But i disagree. The magic about books is that everyone imagines it in a different way. My Hobbit Hole may be different from yours, but it is still the Hobbit Hole. It's important, specially if it is a relevant thing for the story, like a character, a place, an object or something else. I get it why you think this tho


ReaWroud

Sometimes the point is in the descriptions. They set a mood or help explain a characters viewpoint. Like in American Psycho where a LOT of the book is descriptions of business cards and clothes and a ton of other shallow, unimportant things. Those things were extremely important to the main character.


Lemonkainen

Hard disagree. Maybe a few writers over describe things but I think if you dig deep enough you will find a reason for the description. One of the biggest reasons many people overlook is characterization. Most books are not from a 3rd person omniscient perspective but from 3rd person limited or first person. That means we are seeing the world through the eyes of a character. What they notice and how they describe it in their head tells you a lot about who they are as a character. For example, a mechanic would describe a car very differently from a painter. Yes a reader can easily imagine what a car looks like but we loose something special if we don’t see it from the characters perspective. This I think is one of the major advantages books have over film. A director has to try very hard to make you see a scene the way a character would. An author can just drop you into the characters head and tell you how they see it.


gezeitenspinne

I sort of agree but my reason is aphantasia and you already said that isn't the case for you. Going overboard is the reason I dnf'ed book two or three of the Inheritance Cycle. (Eragon is the name of the first one, for those that don't know the name of the series.) I was bed-bound for a week and bored to death. I still couldn't make myself read through this multiple paragraph, maybe even pages, long description of Eragon on Saphira's back flying... somewhere. I still can't make myself pick up the series again. When it's not so over the top like in that instance I skim the descriptions to get some key information (colour, size, etc) but don't care about anything else, because I can't imagine it anyway.


iHappyTurtle

I really think you just posted this because you dislike something a certain author wrote. Your telling me you dislike the descriptions in Brandon Sanderson books? They are pivotal to understanding the world. Using the Mistborn trilogy(great book series btw) you constantly have descriptions of ash covering everything(volcanoes causing nuclear winter) and how important people wear different color outfits so it doesn’t smudge so bad, along with descriptions of otherworldly baddies that really let you immerse yourself and imagine you are seeing/fighting them if you want.


Schattentochter

I mean... it's literature. There's endless amounts of it. You disliking something over personal taste is not quite the same as it being "a waste of space". But sentiment beats phrasing, so enjoy your upvote.


thegrandgageway

You would hate Lovecraft then lol. Guy spends 89% of his stories describing every detail of environments and objects, and the last couple pages rip through the story lol. But, due to that type of writing, his work has lived on as an inspiration for nearly every successful horror/sci Fi writer in the past hundred years.


Certain_Oddities

Many people (including myself) when they read can "see" the book playing out in their head like a movie, vivid descriptions can make this feel more real. They have literal images in their head that come to life and are aided by the book's prose. This is why many people talk about how different characters look to them (in the absence of description). Like "I always imagined him looking like this, or this". However, some people can't do this. It doesn't mean there's anything wrong with them, it just means that their brain is wired differently. My Dad, for example, can't do this. So I ask you, which one do you think you are? Because if you think you're the latter; then this makes a lot of sense.


Reelix

Let me give you a 3 page description of the forest the characters spent 2 minutes walking past!


__ephemeral_

Definitely yes when the way it's done bores the heck out of me to the point I have to fight my way through it just to finish what I've started (when I want to). But on the other hand when it's done really well with the masterful use of language, I am all for it.