Question for female writers & readers

[neadods]

I seem to be spending this morning in the world of Not Getting The Point. Part of this is CAP Alert's ever-entertaining ability to condemn movies for realism. (Ladder 49 is given a red light, in part for the "wanton violence" of showing "firefighting and rescue perils," "death by fire," burns, and "life/death decision." One assumes that in CAP Alert's world, movies about firefighters would only show them polishing the engine and walking the dalmation.)

The other, major, part of this is dealing with authorial expectations about a female readership. I've just read The Butler Did It (a pretty amusing historical romance) and am now starting a cozy mystery (which shall remain nameless because I'll be reviewing it.) In the former, every time a woman dressed up, I was informed exactly what colors, materials, and accessories she wore. In the latter, although I am only six pages in, I already know that a protagonist drives a BMW, wears rose petal lip gloss, has a mauve mohair throw, and a bunch of other personal details. It's my understanding that conventional wisdom says that women readers really dig that kind of detail.

I guess one of my X chromosomes is broken, because I don't give a shit.

To me, this is like flipping through Vanity Fair, trying to find the articles among the page after page of advertisements. Like a bloody pop-up ad in the text. It's one thing if these details add to the character ("She hated wearing the pale colors required of a debutante; they made her look sickly and insipid. She could hardly wait to get married so she could wear the bold blues and shocking reds she preferred.") Or if they add to the plot. ("You know, Kathy was wearing a jacket just like that the night she disappeared.") But throwing in gratuitious details just annoy me. I was irritated enough that the heroine had to put on makeup before "answering the doorbell before it drove her crazy." Knowing the shade of her lip gloss was just too... distracting.

My question is twofold - Authors, is it really conventional wisdom that women like this kind of minute detail? Readers, do you like it?

I want to know if I can legitimately complain that the opening of this book is waffling around with gratuitous nonsense, or if I have to preface it with "unlike most women readers, I don't like..."

Comments

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I mean, what do we know about 90% of the physical characteristics of *any* of her characters?

Exactly! She told the story, and only mentioned things like that if they were germane to the plot. (Northanger Abbey has a fair amount of clothing detail, but it is used to introduce the characters and then dropped.)

Even in Regencies, where it's expected, I find it annoying. Not half as annoying as Marion Chesney's "look, I did the research!" splorts of exposition, but still a distraction. He looks hot, she looks good, yeah, yeah, we know already!

[veggiebelle.livejournal.com]

I find an overabundance of detail distracting. I think we all create a mental image in our heads anyway, and the more minute the details, the more I have to stop and revise that image. I'm far more concerned with the characterization and the plot than the shade of lipstick. If it's just detail for detail's sake, I'd rather do without it.

[lynx-rufus.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of what seem to be gratuitous clothing details in books is a lazy way of trying to establish time and place and character. Kind of like when you read a story set in the seventies, and every paragraph is larded with a brand name or cartoon show specific to the seventies, so that the sense of the seventies is beaten into your head.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I'll vouch for the laziness quotient. As I cite further downthread, other historicals, both cozy and romantic, don't have to be so fulsomely annoying. (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Murder works in the historical exposition without patronization.)

And to go upthread for a moment - I rather think that one of the reasons why Jane Austen's books remain so relevant is because she doesn't go into a lot of gritty detail. Because we can focus on the characters instead of their possessions, we can more easily sympathize with them.

[lynx-rufus.livejournal.com]

one of the reasons why Jane Austen's books remain so relevant is because she doesn't go into a lot of gritty detail. Because we can focus on the characters instead of their possessions, we can more easily sympathize with them.

Excellent point -- definitely one to mull over as I read.

[chickwriter.livejournal.com]

Details - hmm - to me, there is a fine line in good detail (that which helps describe something about a character; moves the action forward, etc) and too much detail (the kind of stuff often found in today's chick lit books.

I don't think this is a province of women readers. It's mostly a province of readers who like the more fluffy fashionista kind of fiction.

As a reader, I'm fairly particular, I want just enough description to get a sense of physicality, just enough of the surroundings to get a sense of who the person is (do they drive an ancient wreck, the latest sports coupe, a truck?). I don't need to know lipstick color, shoe designer, etc. Not necessary in many cases.

As a writer, I try to walk that fine line. I usually err on the side of less. Knowing that my protagonist prefers jeans and flannel shirts to dresses from Neiman Marcus is inherent in understanding her. Other specifics aren't particularly necessary unless I'm making a point.

Again - I believe that generalizing that "women readers" prefer the fashion magazine approach to fiction is highly suspect.

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I believe that generalizing that "women readers" prefer the fashion magazine approach to fiction is highly suspect.

It is, however, becoming more and more germane to this particular book review. We shift POV every chapter, as if we're reading articles instead of a novel. We are informed of colors, designers, and once even price, as if we're reading ads. And to really cap it all off, there's the same magazine-like drumming about how everyone has to be thin - one character's (over)weight was mentioned 7 times in 3 pages. Seven times!

[terri-osborne.livejournal.com]

As a reader, I've never been a fan of gratuitous detail. It basically holds up a "look at the research I've done!" neon sign to me. Unless we're talking chick lit (which I don't usually read outside of my writer's group, but understand has a slightly different set of genre specifics), if there isn't a specific story reason for me to know that so-and-so is wearing a specific designer's jeans, then just saying "designer jeans" is just as good for me.

As a writer, I'm also not a fan of gratuitous detail. Mostly for the same reasons.

This is a large part of the reason why the historical paranormal romance (yes, I'm serious) I'm in the middle of writing right now is driving me crazy. :)

[neadods.livejournal.com]

the historical paranormal romance (yes, I'm serious) I'm in the middle of writing

Of course you're serious, and I want to know when it's out, because I really like that kind of book. Which time period?

[terri-osborne.livejournal.com]

It's got a very specific setting, Ireland in 1940. :)

What amuses me is what some of the guidelines I've read define as "historical" versus "contemporary." There are a couple of publishers that use, and I quote, "the World Wars" as a dividing line between contemporary and historical in their submission guidelines, completely forgetting there's a roughly 20 year gap between the two World Wars that includes the Prohibition era. *sigh* Perhaps a more apt description would be "on the contemporary side of historical". *chuckle*

Still, it's working out best in 1940, so that's where it's going to stay.

[karentoe.livejournal.com]

It may be conventional wisdom for certain type of books within a genre. Historical cozies, for instance, go in for it, in part to establish the historical feel.

I don't care for it that much, and don't encounter it in less cozy mysteries by female authors, unless it's something like "she never wore makeup". A male writer a saw a few months ago said he never describes his characters physically in great detail. He wants the reader to picture the guy or gal for herself. He mentions height, and general build, but never hair or eyes or clothing unless it's pertinent to the story. That's the way I like it.

(he also does it this way so in case his books get filmed - he's been optioned more than once - he won't be disturbed by who they cast. A good friend of his had her characters, settings, etc., totally ruined by Hollywood and for a while that gave her fits as a writer until she decided to pretend the TV movie didn't exist.)

[neadods.livejournal.com]

and don't encounter it in less cozy mysteries by female authors

Not even the cozies are quite this... itsty-poo, usually. The sentences in question:

"Sophie went into her dressing room and ran a brush through her hair, renewed her rust-colored lip blush, then ran down the stairs before the chiming doorbell drove her mad."

and

"'Tuck that wool throw about your knees. You're shivering like an aspen leaf.' Meg complied by pulling a mauve mohair throw around her legs."

For some reason, the phrase about lip blush and "mauve mohair" are just pissing me off. Why? Who cares? There's no earthly importance to these details! (Not to mention the redundancy of the second sample.)

I like crazy-character cozies and I like society novels, but so far, this is the worst of both worlds.

I've read historical mysteries that don't hammer us too badly with the details. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Murder had a relatively soft touch even when explaining some of the more fiddly bits of life in the past. It's just that in this case, instead of getting into the character, I'm thinking "just answer the damn doorbell, lady!"

[twistedchick]

As I think about it, I first noticed that kind of 'establishing character by details about clothing and household goods' overuse in early Danielle Steele and Rosemary Rogers books in the 80s; total consumption-as-culture. It shows up in some historical novels, though not the ones I like best (Jane Aiken Hodge, for example). I tend to flip past it looking for the next bit of dialogue.

[lynx-rufus.livejournal.com]

I first noticed that kind of 'establishing character by details about clothing and household goods' overuse....

One of the most extreme examples of this for me was "American Psycho" by BE Ellis where he devoted pages to describing the clothing and accessories of characters. I understood why he did it, but it was meaningless to someone outside that subculture, and I ended up skimming over those pages. Not exactly what an author would be wanting a reader to do. Especially since I also skimmed the gory sections as well.

When people talk about what happens to fiction writing after a writer attends some of the more famous creative writing programs, this is the kind of fiction I associate with that.

[elasg.livejournal.com]

Personally, I don't give a shit either, but I do like details about the surrounds, the environment, the mood of the room, the colors of the sky. The feel of the place. What she's wearing doesn't matter one jot and yes - I feel like I am being patronized when an author provides such detail.

[deire.livejournal.com]

I like detail when it contributes to plot or characterization. I don't like specific brand names. And I couldn't care less about someone's lipstick. Unless she specifically and knowingly wears it to drive another character to near homicide, in which case it might become interesting again.

Clothing in stories

[shawan-7.livejournal.com]

I wonder if this is asked for by editors who feel this is part of "women writers", or if it's a sign of a younger writer. I agree with most of the comments here.

I used to put in more detail until someone pointed out it was cluttering up the writing; now I try to use it to make a point or set a scene. Usually the flour mentioned in paragraph 1 ends up scattered by the end of page 5 -- the detail has a point to be there.

So, I wonder if the writer needs a good editor to prune her story....

Re: Clothing in stories

[neadods.livejournal.com]

I'm having trouble getting a handle on this writer. The front cover of the book advertises only two other novels in the series, but an Amazon search shows roughly a dozen. She's obviously shifted publishers, and possibly editors in the deal.

Prune is an appropriate word, though, as it's about gardening. The azalea show in Bethesda, to be specific.