Describing people to engage the reader

I was thinking about how, as authors, we describe things. In particular, I was pondering how to describe people. While it is relatively easy to describe some inanimate object or scene—though even this can be problematical—people are difficult.

Why?

Well, they are human beings. Individuals. Characters in the story. Whether a major character or a passing individual, they need to be drawn in such a way that the reader recognises them as people, as a real individual with all the agency that comes with this. It can be hard. Of course, we can resort to the usual cliches, but this means our writing lacks originality. For instance, describing a wizard as having a pointed hat, a long flowing (white!) beard, and a coat with runic symbols or stars is such a cliche, Disney ripoff, that if anything is a real turnoff to a reader who wants, at least, some originality.

Yet, as writers, we want to economise on description. We need a way to thumbnail characters so as not to bore and turnoff readers. I aworry about this a lot. Personally, I am not a fan of the whole (long?) paragraph description that some authors deem necessary when an important character first appears. You know the kind. “She wore a soufflee blue dress with chiffon that billowed out from her slender waist…etc., etc.” Five hundred words (I’m exagerating, <smile>) later, the story resumes. My brain simply goes into idle mode when I get to something like this and I simply imagine what the character looks like and skim until the action resumes. I write what I like, so my descriptions are short. They used to be longer.

A far better approach IMHO (humble, yes, humble opinion!) is to give a few highlights that help delineate the character. Something that once you say, for example, he is a swordsman, gives you a sense of his personality or traits. Perhaps it might be the sown up nature of his clothes (implying these had been ripped in fights) or his well worn boots (he walked a lot and didn’t earn enough to buy new ones), and so on. The idea is to make the character believeable or to convey what the POV charactr first sees. If the character stays around, I will add detail such that as the story moves on, the POV and the reader learns more of the individual’s traits. To me, this seems a more sensible approach than the info dump description.

To add: As a visual person, I can imagine my characters and don’t feel the need to give a lenghty description of their dress or looks. In fact, I am quite content when reading to make up my own views as to what characters look like based on my understanding of the story and genre. Like anyone, I have my sterotypes as to what various people might look like. I’ve even used this to comedic effect in my books (The Sorcerer’s Lackey; Hamlette! And the Prince of Darkness). This is particularly the case when the character is POV. Who describes themselves? Others, they observe and register their appearance and behaviour. But to show how you look to yourself is a real mood breaker. With multiple POV, you can—of course—use another POV to describe the character. But why bother?

At this point in my writing journey, I have moved from a lot of description to minimalist. I will probably drift a little the other way. Here is a recent example of two (a POV and non-POV character’s first “meet”):

Analia sensed rather than saw Rosy turn and head back in the direction from which they’d just come. Now she was on her own. She knew little of the man who’d accepted her mother’s request to provide her hospitality. All she knew was he was known as Lord Ellsberg on account of his title to the town and the surrounding area.

When she’d come to the correct distance, she curtsied. “My lord.”

Lord Ellsberg patted the empty seat on his right. “Analia, why my dear, you look ravishing.” She’d only put on a dress as Rosy had insisted it was polite to do so; she’d have much preferred to remain in the breeches she’d worn whilst journeying. Ellsberg smarmed, “I have reserved you the seat of honour; that way we can talk whilst dinner is served.”

Analia knew the correct response. “The honour is mine.” This made him laugh. Those at the high table took this as permission to resume conversation.

She took her seat and Ellsberg took her hand.

“It’s not every day I have such a pretty relation to come visit.”

There was an undercurrent to his words that made her wonder whether she should know of some family business between him and her mother. She’d have to ask her when she returned home. Analia dared not ask her host. She remembered her manners. “I thank you, my lord.”

There is no description of Analia here (or earlier in the passage) nor is Lord Ellsberg described. Does it matter? Can you imagine what he might look like? If your vision of this nobleman differs from mine, as the author, does it matter? Is it not better to learn about the character as event unfold, as we do in real life? I would answer in the affirmative since there is a better flow here. We don’t have a whole paragraph describing the Ellsberg wore a leather doublet and breeches and a scarf around his neck; that his hair was unkempt and he had a sanguine complextion. What does any of that add to your immersion in the story?