A Matter of Appearance

There has been some discussion in the media and online about the way some male writers depict female characters in their books, particularly those men who seem to focus - in a teenage boy sort of way - on the breasts and figure of the character, as well as using descriptions of figure, face, and clothing, to imply sexual availability or inclination.

This article in the Guardian is a case in point https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2018/apr/03/male-authors-write-female-characters-twitter

The Guardian article particularly highlights the way some male writers have their female characters dwelling on - for example - their own breasts or legs or hips, but in a way that is obviously from their own male perspective of what is attractive in a woman.  In essence, projecting their own feelings into the female character.

It made me wonder about the way I describe the physical attributes of characters, so I opened up the first chapter of the novel I am working on.  A quick read showed that I had put very little direct physical descriptions of characters into the work, and certainly have not indulged in that behaviour some call an "all points bulletin" - that top to toe, point by point itemisation of height and weight, skin and hair, that can so derail the flow of the story. 

This could, in some ways, be a good thing, as too often a writer can end up displaying more about his own prejudices than actually helping the reader understand the character and why the story is progressing as it is.  On the other hand, how little physical description can an author provide and still engage the imagination of the reader?

The question seems to be, what physical characteristics are important for the development of the plot/story etc and how might those aspects bring about reactions or behaviour from the other characters in the book or story?  I asked a writerly friend - one who is actually selling books - what she thought was the appropriate amount of description.

My friend offered the opinion that description is good as long as it adds to the story - but that there should be plenty of room for the reader to insert their own images of the characters, including imagining themselves into the position of the heroine (or hero)  - this relates to the romance novel that she is successfully selling at the moment - the hero gets a reasonably thorough description; after all, he has to be attractive, but even then she leaves leeway for the reader to apply their own preferred characteristics to the love object.

Yet some authors insist on dictating the physical attributes of the characters - often going into bullet point descriptions of the person, with extrapolation from certain of the attributes and how they are displayed or how they are thought of by the character, to indicate the character's feelings towards the hero or other people.

So, how much physical description of a character is needed to satisfy the reader?  For another opinion, I pulled out a few of the classic novels of various genres, and found quite a variety of approaches.  Some hardly say anything, while others offer half a page of physical detail for each character.

It is a vexed question, but an important one - for it is well established that we humans have a habit of looking at other humans, and quickly coming to conclusions about their character and honesty based on the first impressions garnered from that initial glance. 

We take in their height, gender, skin and hair colour, and hair-do, clothing (style and cleanliness), and footwear - and very quickly process that information through the filters of our past experience and prejudices (we all have plenty of both).  It is rarely done in a careful, conscious, item by item way - instead, it is a judgement based on a glance. 

At times, if the judgement is intense, we have a sudden sense that we have detected a good or bad "vibe" around the newcomer.  We can even take an instant dislike to that person, or fall head over heels in love (or lust - they are both four letter words that start with 'l' and can both get us in considerable trouble) - and it is not just authors dealing with this problem; vast reams of paper have been dedicated to the musings of scientists trying to understand this troubling aspect of human behaviour.

That suggests that when we write a phrase describing one character, we are doing it for two sets of people - our readers, and our fictional characters in the novel.  The reactions of the latter to the appearance of a new character can have a material effect on decisions and actions yet to be taken by the characters already on the page.  What one character says or thinks about some aspect of the appearance of another character can tell the reader so much about what has happened, and what might be going to happen as the story unfolds.

Le Carre tells gives the reader a strong description George Smiley while also, in a paragraph, letting us know what people around him think and feel about him.......

Short, fat, and of a quiet disposition, he appeared to spend a lot of money on really bad clothes, which hung about his squat frame like skin on a shrunken toad. Sawley, in fact, declared at the wedding that ‘Sercomb was mated to a bullfrog in a sou’wester’. And Smiley, unaware of this description, had waddled down the aisle in search of the kiss that would turn him into a Prince.

Lee Child lets us know why the other characters in his books might be intimidated by Jack Reacher....

“His lazy lopsided grin. His tousled hair. His arms, so long they gave him a greyhound’s grace even though he was built like the side of a house. His eyes, cold icy blue like the Arctic. His hands, giant battered mitts that bunched into fists the size of footballs.”

Likewise, Bernard Cornwell makes sure early on that the reader can see the image of a tall, strong, scarred and battered man with eyes that have seen and survived much violence, and will not flinch at more.

But then there are the often sardonic descriptions offered by the thoughts and words of Chandler's battered private detective, Phillip Marlowe - his opening, self-description tells us not only what he looks like, but how he feels about himself and the world around him.....

“It was about eleven o'clock in the morning, mid October, with the sun not shining and a look of hard wet rain in the clearness of the foothills. I was wearing my powder-blue suit, with dark blue shirt, tie and display handkerchief, black brogues, black wool socks with dark little clocks on them. I was neat, clean, shaved and sober, and I didn't care who knew it. I was everything the well-dressed private detective ought to be. I was calling on four million dollars.” 

I haven't answered my own question, have I?  The best an author can do is what feels right as the words fall to the page - and perhaps we should not worry too much, because, no doubt, an editor is waiting, red pen poised, to correct us if we get it wrong.