{"id":2265,"date":"2009-12-08T11:58:33","date_gmt":"2009-12-08T17:58:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/doycetesterman.com\/?p=2265"},"modified":"2009-12-08T19:28:29","modified_gmt":"2009-12-09T01:28:29","slug":"more-on-the-descriptions-the-when-and-why","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/doycetesterman.com\/index.php\/2009\/12\/more-on-the-descriptions-the-when-and-why\/","title":{"rendered":"More on the Descriptions: the When and Why"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"befaft\"<\/a>So after De asked for it, and I thought about it, and I read her post, I figured I knew what she was asking about with regard to descriptions. Then I wrote a post about that thing I thought she was asking about<\/a>.<\/p>\n

I was, of course, wrong.<\/p>\n

But that’s okay! The post itself came out all right, and people had some good feedback and thoughts on it, so let’s call it a win and move on.<\/p>\n

De clarified her interest in comments:<\/p>\n

The kind of thing I\u2019m looking more at is \u2013 when do you describe a building? When do you not describe a building? Why? When you do describe a building, how elaborate should you get? What is it that you\u2019re trying to accomplish when you\u2019re describing the building? What is it that you lose when you describe the building, other than the ability of the reader to fill in the details for you?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Ooh. I like that. That’s interesting. Let’s talk about it.<\/p>\n

\n

We join spokes together in a wheel,
\nbut it is the center hole that makes the wagon move.<\/p>\n

We shape clay into a pot,
\nbut it is the emptiness inside that holds whatever we want.<\/p>\n

We hammer wood for a house,
\nbut it is the inner space that makes it livable.<\/p>\n

We work with being,
\nbut non-being is what we use.
\n— Tao te Ching<\/em>, verse 11<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

I am a big fan of not describing anything that I don’t absolutely have to. In Adrift, here’s the stuff that I’ve described:<\/p>\n