Is it true that some authors spend time describing a character eating breakfast or the texture of toast?

[CrimsonGenius]

Why?

 

[Representing_Tromba]

I do because it adds depth to a scene and makes the characters feel more realistic or 3D. It also gives more fluff to the scene for gaps between dialogue. There's also the aspect of adding recipes to stories for DIY additions or to emphasize a character's favorite food for a later scene.

 

[SRB]

I do it to let readers know when a character has a stroke.

 

[CrimsonGenius]

I do because it adds depth to a scene and makes the characters feel more realistic or 3D. It also gives more fluff to the scene for gaps between dialogue. There's also the aspect of adding recipes to stories for DIY additions or to emphasize a character's favorite food for a later scene.

I add fluff I mean like spending more than necessary. Trying to learn cooking, reflecting, eating is fine, I’m just saying to the point where you don’t need to spend too much time or am overthinking

 

[HisDivineShadow]

The magic is in the details.

 

[Dec]

[...] I’m just saying to the point where you don’t need to spend too much time or am overthinking

Tell that to Marcel Proust (In Search of Lost Time), who spends literal dozens of pages unpacking a single madeleine dipped in tea.
Or to Charles Dickens, who could spend an entire chapter just describing a house, or mapping out the foggy streets of London.
Or Virginia Woolf (To the Lighthouse), where she spends pages describing how light plays on the water without a single bit of "action."
Let's not forget Tolkien and his "famous tree" (not as long as others, but still "longer than needed").

Are all of those meaningless? Nope, they all add to the story in their own way. Some will like it, some will not, but each of these scenes adds something valuable, even if it doesn't look like it at first glance.

 

[Deleted member 166465]

I do it to let readers know when a character has a stroke.

good one.

I do because it adds depth to a scene and makes the characters feel more realistic or 3D. It also gives more fluff to the scene for gaps between dialogue. There's also the aspect of adding recipes to stories for DIY additions or to emphasize a character's favorite food for a later scene.

No it doesnt, most people just skip it and go straight to the next dialog. Reader with some experience knows when some text is pointless. Dont get me wrong I spend like two pages trying to describe the cleaning and butchering of rabbits and birds, it was more like a personal excersice, I was remembering when I did it, back when I was a kid. 30 years have past since then, ohhh god I feel old.

 

[Zagaroth]

Sure, on occasion, though not too much detail. It's not generally a major focal point, but it can add some depth to a scene and character.

Example: this was part of a little bonding scene between Fuyuko and some adoptive family.

"...And if it's too bitter for someone your age, we've got some sweet cream, honey, and fruit here."

Fuyuko frowned slightly at Kazue, she was pretty certain that the older woman was teasing her with the 'your age' bit, but Fuyuko couldn't resist rising to the bait. "I'm not a little kid," she groused as she joined them at the table, "and aren't we supposed to be saving room for dinner?"​

[several paragraphs]

While the others talked, Fuyuko started in on the cake she'd been served. It was incredible, but she had to admit that Kazue was right, the bitter notes were kind of strong. So she poured a little of the sweet cream over it and tried again. Better. Mm, maybe she should try the honey too? Yes, that was good. The fruit was a nice contrast to the rich cake too. Huh, she was out of cake and had cream, honey, and fruit on the plate now. Maybe she should get a second piece of cake to clean up her plate with.
​

A giggle from Kazue pulled Fuyuko's attention away from her plate, and she blushed to find all four women watching her with amusement.

"Well, I see that it meets with your approval," Kazue said with a smile before taking another bite of her own slice of cake.​

 

[Deleted member 166465]

The magic is in the details.

Nope, too much fluff is a problem. Lets take tolkien for example, most people have never read his books. Some bought them after watching the movie and were incapable of reading it. This generation of "new readers" does not have the patience to read too much fluff. Gotta find the right amount of description... that is tricky.
What do you guys think?

Sure, on occasion, though not too much detail. It's not generally a major focal point, but it can add some depth to a scene and character.

Example: this was part of a little bonding scene between Fuyuko and some adoptive family.

That is not so bad. You can skip it and it wont affect the story at all. But your description is not as heavy that you get bored, three to five lines is ok. But I am sure a lot of people skip it.

 

[whitesculptor]

Nope, too much fluff is a problem. Lets take tolkien for example, most people have never read his books. Some bought them after watching the movie and were incapable of reading it. This generation of "new readers" does not have the patience to read too much fluff. Gotta find the right amount of description... that is tricky.
What do you guys think?

That is not so bad. You can skip it and it wont affect the story at all. But your description is not as heavy that you get bored, three to five lines is ok. But I am sure a lot of people skip it.

As new writers read more and more their brain will automatically seek greatness. That's when they try things like Tolkien and realize 90% of what they read before was 'trash'.

 

[Representing_Tromba]

No it doesnt, most people just skip it and go straight to the next dialog. Reader with some experience knows when some text is pointless. Dont get me wrong I spend like two pages trying to describe the cleaning and butchering of rabbits and birds, it was more like a personal excersice, I was remembering when I did it, back when I was a kid. 30 years have past since then, ohhh god I feel old.

I wouldn't say that is not true for every story as many stories can have differing levels of description and dialogue. As for the readers, I do not believe that is the majority of readers, especially when Romance is the #1 most read genre.

 

[Deleted member 166465]

I wouldn't say that is not true for every story as many stories can have differing levels of description and dialogue. As for the readers, I do not believe that is the majority of readers, especially when Romance is the #1 most read genre.

Yeah, and most romance is trash. Is description of erotism, that is why tolkienish (I made that up) description doesnt work anymore. Is not enviroment description they looking for, is feelings and emotions with a grain of eroticism.

As new writers read more and more their brain will automatically seek greatness. That's when they try things like Tolkien and realize 90% of what they read before was 'trash'.

Well trash is what people read the most now days and everywhere i look, they want more of it, not less. So I dont really understand where you get that vision from... although I could be wrong. Anyway, time will tell, but just in case if you are a betting man, dont bet on your idea.

 

[Representing_Tromba]

Yeah, and most romance is trash. Is description of erotism, that is why tolkienish (I made that up) description doesnt work anymore. Is not enviroment description they looking for, is feelings and emotions with a grain of eroticism.

That may be true for many romance stories but not all. Looking at the second most read genre, Fantasy, is avidly using similar description methods and still has a wide range of readers. Sure, most fantasy is trash but most of them do not become top sellers like Sanderson and other top fantasy writers, the ones with the most Tolkienish level of descriptions.

 

[Deleted member 166465]

That may be true for many romance stories but not all. Looking at the second most read genre, Fantasy, is avidly using similar description methods and still has a wide range of readers. Sure, most fantasy is trash but most of them do not become top sellers like Sanderson and other top fantasy writers, the ones with the most Tolkienish level of descriptions.

Sanderson is mostly an exception than a rule, he broke the classic method and make it work, so I wont deny his geniality but that is about it. aside from sanderson the queen of the crown is Rawling with harry potter... that is pretty much the same as the count of montecrist, star wars, dune or any other fantasy of the kind, but for kids and the story grows with them. Then you have the deranged Martin with his song of ice and fire. Still, what made all those so famous and their writers rich as F, was the movies and tv series, so being a purist, Sanderson is the real king of fantasy right now since he hasnt been made great by media.
Now, if we remove those factors, the atractive of fantasy pale in comparison to romance, that is mostly light sadomasochist literary p0rn (And you know you cant deny that, dont even try).

That may be true for many romance stories but not all. Looking at the second most read genre, Fantasy, is avidly using similar description methods and still has a wide range of readers. Sure, most fantasy is trash but most of them do not become top sellers like Sanderson and other top fantasy writers, the ones with the most Tolkienish level of descriptions.

Excuse my broke english, It is getting late and I am tired, I just read what I wrote and... may the heavens (and shakespeare) forgive me. But I am to lazy to fix it. I thing I should just go to bed.
By the way, I speak from jelousy, I wish I could write romance, but I hate it, I have a severe alergy to anything romantic, erotic or anything realted. I am even alergic to filial bonds. Yuk, it gives me the creeps. Wish I could write anything even close to that. I go through hell each time I have to write something like that.

 

[Representing_Tromba]

Sanderson is mostly an exception than a rule, he broke the classic method and make it work, so I wont deny his geniality but that is about it. aside from sanderson the queen of the crown is Rawling with harry potter... that is pretty much the same as the count of montecrist, star wars, dune or any other fantasy of the kind, but for kids and the story grows with them. Then you have the deranged Martin with his song of ice and fire. Still, what made all those so famous and their writers rich as F, was the movies and tv series, so being a purist, Sanderson is the real king of fantasy right now since he hasnt been made great by media.
Now, if we remove those factors, the atractive of fantasy pale in comparison to romance, that is mostly light sadomasochist literary p0rn (And you know you cant deny that, dont even try).

I won't try to disagree with you on the romance thing as everyone knows it's true. Though I think this speaks more to an ever declining lack of literacy and/or reading comprehension among the recent generations than an issue with descriptions themselves. Most well read people still enjoy such descriptive details, even if they aren't the majority, and they are the ones actively supporting Sanderson and many other ever growing authors of this style the most. I won't deny the appeal movies and TV have brought to many series but there are still a lot of popular series that reach the charts without being garbage, smut, or sellouts. If there wasn't a desire for good literature among readers, even if they are a smaller group than the majority, then these stories would never have sold so well. Right now, classic literature is booming with more and more older fantasy stories being rediscovered and becoming more popular among the younger generation. Though this is also due to the cheap price of older books with lesser known titles being a better alternative to spending $15-$20 on a new book.

 

[HisDivineShadow]

Nope, too much fluff is a problem. Lets take tolkien for example, most people have never read his books. Some bought them after watching the movie and were incapable of reading it. This generation of "new readers" does not have the patience to read too much fluff. Gotta find the right amount of description... that is tricky.
What do you guys think?

That is not so bad. You can skip it and it wont affect the story at all. But your description is not as heavy that you get bored, three to five lines is ok. But I am sure a lot of people skip it.

I disagree with you on many points, but I’m too tired to argue.

 

[Danja]

Let's not forget Tolkien and his "famous tree" (not as long as others, but still "longer than needed").

Peter Jackson infamously cut down to a few seconds of screentime a scene that Tolkien had spent fifty pages describing in Lord of the Rings.

I wish I could write romance, but I hate it, I have a severe alergy to anything romantic, erotic or anything realted. I am even alergic to filial bonds. Yuk, it gives me the creeps. Wish I could write anything even close to that. I go through hell each time I have to write something like that.

I'm not crazy about writing romance, either.

 

[Plantorsomething]

Why?

Obviously not all the time, but when the vibes call for it why not? Usually when the character themselves is having a quiet moment and taking in the scene, or when the author wants to depict a certain mood for the scene to the readers without spelling it out

 

[Supperset]

Yes.

 

[Zagaroth]

By the way, I speak from jelousy, I wish I could write romance, but I hate it, I have a severe alergy to anything romantic, erotic or anything realted. I am even alergic to filial bonds. Yuk, it gives me the creeps. Wish I could write anything even close to that. I go through hell each time I have to write something like that.

So, for a moment I thought maybe you were a sex-repulsed asexual (https://lgbtqia.wiki/wiki/Sex-Repulsed) but that wouldn't explain your reaction to filial bonds.

That one, um, might be something you want to talk with a counselor or therapist about.