There’s as discussion over on DorothyL which I sort of started and I’m shanghaiing the topic to discuss here. It seems that I began something when I referred (and not for the first time but this time it caught on) to some forms of description as “lazy writing”.

Here’s the thing: I really dislike reading a book where someone is brought to me as “she looked like Halle Berry but taller” or “he was a dead ringer for John Malcovich, only with a beard” or some form of pop culture/famous actor reference. I believe that you can describe someone better and that sliding in the “substitute a real person” is, well, yeah, lazy.

I have problems with it because, while I know movies and television shows in my country, I don’t see a lit of movies or watch a lot of tv. So the likelihood of knowing the person referred to goes down a bit. I also think that – well in some cases, it’s useless information because you don’t agree with the author about someone’s appearance. In the case before us on DL I really seriously don’t get what it means. Because one of the people referred to simply doesn’t DO that for me. The idea of universal attraction or beauty is….isn’t. No one thinks the way I do. I don’t think the way you do. I had a friend who thought that writer Margaret Atwood was breathtakingly beautiful. As in the case of the DL post, I have never comprehended – and I have tried – the attraction of Marilyn Monroe. I think she’s creepy looking. And no, it’s not because I’m heterosexual; I’m able to understand attraction in people with tastes other than mine.

What about “at what point in her career?” “in what role?” Some actors look great some moments but maybe their most memorable hart has them looking like death warmed over. Some Hollywood actresses started out as glamorous – or made up to look that way – but ended up less than that. Which reference do we use?

It seems to me too that I’ve been spoiled by reading some amazingly talented writers and so I have high expectations. Those of you who’ve been here for a while know of my extreme respect of the work of Ursula Le Guin. Of course she’s never written that way – in large part because it would be ludicrous in her science fiction or fantasy writing to say “he bore a striking resemblance to Orlando Bloom in ‘Lord of the Rings’” because a) she just doesn’t write that way and b) in her world(s) Orlando Bloom doesn’t exist. (ooooo, OrLANdo!!) (sorry, but I think he’s just DARling!)

And Jim Sallis, whose praises I’ve sung here, too. He uses description. He knows how to set a scene, describe a person, show what’s happening without relying on other forms. Which is good because if he were to do that, I suspect it would SO throw me out of what Iw as reading. And good books don’t do that.

I do not think you have to go overboard, describing every detail of someone’s appearance to get the idea across that your protagonist thinks that guy is hot. “I always went for that short stocky tough guy type and Frank looked like the poster boy for short stocky and tough. I was lost” or even “I don’t know what they called “matinee idols” for women, but she had that look. She stood there, with a hesitant smile, in a dress that seemed way too young for her, but looking straight at me, with hair cascading down. She was beautiful.” I don’t know what either of those mean, I just made them up. But they strike me as purveying at least as much information as “he reminded me of Elvis Stojko” or “she looked just like Sandra Dee/Patsy Cline/Dinah Washington.”

And see? There’s the other problem I have with the “lazy” description. What if you have no clue what that person looks like? Of course there are things in every book that you’re not going to know, but I don’t want to spend my time looking for a photo of someone on the internet. Especially of course because it doesn’t matter, but if you provide references that don’t work for me, will I feel lost? Or even dumb? As I tried to point out on DL, Marilyn Monroe – though a cultural con, died OVER 40 YEARS ago. Many many readers were born long after she left the scene. Movie stars whose best days were in the 60s,the 70s are unfamiliar to younger people, just as Scarlett Johansson, Keira Knightley or Jessica Simpson might be to older people. Or – hey – readers in other countries. It’s not that we don’t all share some of the same cultural references, but 10, 15 years from now? Not everyone leaves a huge mark.

Someone, arguing that this is not new and no, I never said it was, offered the example of Ian Fleming describing Bond as looking like Hoagy Carmichael. I remember that, in whenever it was in the 60s that I read a few of the 007 books. And I had NO CLUE what that meant. I knew HC was a songwriter, but had never seen a television show or movie he appeared in. It meant nothing to me – and we didn’t have the internet movie database then. It wasn’t a helpful description. I mean we all know what Bond looks like (he looks like Sean Connery of course!) and I recall Fleming did provide some real adjectives.

I’m probably overreacting and maybe even showing some snobbism here, but I really do think that “lazy” is the appropriate word to use in describing this phenomenon. It’s seldom a major issue but how difficult can it be to, in a couple of sentences, describe WHY she scared you, or why he was so attractive, or why you thought he’d be PERfect for your sister to date, or WHY her looks or behavior made you uneasy. Shouldn’t that be part of a writer’s fundamental skills - to be able to describe something? Or someone?