Jane Espenson on character introductions:
I know you see the difference. The second description is highly physical. In fact, it uses visual characteristics to try to convey things about the character. This is a very good way to quickly convey character in, say, a novel, but it’s not especially helpful in a script.
Actually, I think I’d extend that and say it’s significantly worse in a novel. I think she’s absolutely right that “if you describe that character too precisely [in a script], you frustrate everyone during production, and you tip off any reader of a spec to your inexperience.” But I also think that, if you throw in any physical descriptions, in any writing, they need to matter. They can’t be there in place of characterization. It’s much better to get me inside a character’s head than to tell me what color the hair is on top of it. I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve read that lead off with a string of physical descriptions — hair-color, age, height, weight, etc. — but that tell the reader absolutely nothing about the characters who have them.
I’m of the opinion that you don’t tell readers anything they don’t need to know; and you only tell them what they do need to know when they need to know it.
That’s something that I like about Gaiman’s American Gods. At the end of the novel the only thing you really know about Shadow is that he’s a big man. And even Wednesday is hardly described more than as tall with light gray hair, and rather lupine in appearance.
I would tend to agree with you on this one. Pages of elaborate description bore me and I usually skip over it, looking for the action. The weird thing is, when I write, I usually kick off with scene/character descriptions.
I can see the other side of this, though. I know a few people who like to have it all spelled out for them, so they can close their eyes and envision the setting and the characters down to the last detail. These are the same people who screech in horrified indignation when the print becomes visual and those details aren’t followed – like Tom Cruise as Lestat or a brunette Murphy instead of a blonde on the Dresden Files. So there is something to be said for leaving something to the imagination.
I may not write that way, but I agree that physical descriptions that don’t do anything to increase our understanding of the character are a waste of time. And any information given should add to the overall story in some way, at some point. (I am of the opinion that it’s ok to give seemingly random info early on and then reintroduce it as a plot device later in the story – I kind of like that) And actually, you’ve got me thinking about this now. I’m going to have to start watching myself and easing off on those superfluous details (too much English class brainwashing, I think). I’m sure my audience isn’t completely made up of detail seekers with no imagination.