Descriptive Language in Fiction: Cerebral vs. Visceral

Recently I came across on article on a blog called YA Stands (a great writing blog, by the way, check it here) titled, “Physical Telling: Action Speaks Louder Than Body Parts!” by Nicole Steinhaus (September 10, 2012). Nicole’s article got my attention. Here’s what she said:

“[W]riters rely too heavily on body parts – specifically the heart, lungs, guts, mouths, eyes, cheeks – to show character reactions/feelings/responses. It’s natural, I suppose, to fall back on the most obvious degree of description (aside from flat-out telling the emotion), but that’s the problem – it’s obvious, it’s easy, and guess what? It’s lazy.”

Wow! When I read that, my heart started to race and I felt a sweat break out on my brow. *wink* 

If Ms. Steinhaus doesn’t want to hear about a character’s physical reaction to stimulus or be told the feelings, what does she want to see on the page? In order to illustrate how writers (in her opinion) should write, she quotes from John Green’s Looking for Alaska:

"Dolores insisted that Alaska and I share the bed, and she slept on the pull-out while the Colonel was out in his tent. I worried he would get cold, but frankly I wasn’t about to give up my bed with Alaska. We had separate blankets, and there were never fewer than three layers between us, but the possibilities kept me up half the night."

Steinhaus goes on to explain that she loves this example because author Green “didn’t fall back on the obvious reaction Miles would be having sleeping next to the girl he loves and can’t have. No doubt Miles’s heart was racing and his breath was rapid, palms sweaty – all those nervous reactions.” She points out that the last line of the quote says more.

I agree with everything Steinhaus said in this brief blog post. She’s absolutely right to point to John Green as the master of this sort of descriptive language. I reviewed The Fault in Our Stars here on my blog and think that John Green has written one of the best YA books ever written – maybe one of the best books ever penned.

But for a few days after reading the post, I found myself stymied in my writing. I could see what Steinhaus was saying, and I agreed with her that John Green's work was amazing, his descriptions reflecting his command of language. I felt like, if I need to write like John Green, well, I might as well give up. I mean come on, John Green! He's a master of craft, and more adept than most anybody at creating just that kind of description Steinhaus quoted above. And he doesnt' just spit out one or two gems like that per book - he creates whole books written like that.

I've been known to describe a knotted stomach, a racing heart, or sweaty palms and such. I asked myself, "Am I a lazy writer?" If one relies on physical - or what I prefer to call sensory description - does that imply poor or lazy writing? 

Fortunately, another voice from the writing world came across my vision a few days after I read the Steinhaus post. I’ve recently taken up the calling of reading the Game of Thrones. George R.R. Martin had me hooked just a few pages into the first of his tomes. When I came across an ode to Game of Thrones cookbook, my curiosity was piqued.

This is a lengthy quote from the Introduction to the cookbook, but stick with me. It will all become clear in the end. Here is what George R.R. Martin said in the Introduction to A Feast of Ice and Fire: The Official Game of Thrones Companion Cookbook:

“It is true that I spend a lot of words in my books describing the meals my characters are eating. More than most writers, I suspect. This does draw a certain amount of criticism from those readers and reviewers who like a brisker pace . . . Whether it is a seventy-seven course wedding banquet or some outlaws sharing salt beef and apples around a campfire; these critics don’t want to hear about it unless it advances the plot.

I bet they eat fast food while they’re typing too.

I have a different outlook on these matters. I write to tell a story, and telling a story is not at all the same as advancing the plot. If the plot was all that mattered, none of us wouldn’t read novels at all. The Cliff Notes would suffice. All you’ll miss is . . . well, everything." (Emphasis added)

George R.R. Martin, Photo by Karolina Webb

When I read this quote from George R.R. Martin, I was immediately thrust in my mind back to the Steinhaus article. Now, Ms. Steinhaus is not arguing that there should be no physical description, but she is expressing a preference for what I'll call rational descriptions for feelings. You may also call it cerebral. The writer takes a visceral feeling, like Miles' lust, and uses language to describe it in a way that requires your brain to get involved to puzzle it out. ". . .there were never fewer than three layers between us, but the possibilities kept me up half the night." The readers needs to noodle on this  to ferret out what John Green means. I refer to this as cerebral writing.

And I'm not sure there could be a larger contrast to this type of writing than George R.R. Martin. If John Green is cerebral, then George R.R. Martin is visceral. Here are a few examples of George R.R. Martin's descriptions from A Game of Thrones (Book 1):

"Bran's heart was thumping in his chest as he pushed through a waist-high drift to his brothers' side.

Half-buried in bloodstained snow, a huge dark shape slumped in death. Ice had formed in its shaggy grey fur, and the faint smell of corruption clung to it like a woman's perfume."

.      .      .

 "Dread coiled within her like a snake, but she forced herself to smile at this man she loved, this man who put no faith in signs."

These are but a few examples, culled from the first chapter of the first book in the Game of Thrones (GoT) series, but I think you can see the marked difference in descriptive language each author uses. The GoT is high fantasy. Martin relies on the senses to pull readers into his fictional world. He describes in detail the smells, sights, sounds, and tastes of his fictional world. But he also describes the internal visceral feelings and sensations of his characters. "Bran's heart was thumping in his chest. . ." We all know what that feels like. No need to use cerebral description here. This author wants to put you in Bran's shoes; he wants you to feel that way Bran feels. Sometimes a simple, to the point "heart thumping in his chest" is the best way to do that.

I would hardly call Martin a "lazy" writer. The man can consistently maintain no less than a dozen different "voices" throughout his 700+ page books!

I would argue that both of these writers, John Green and George R.R. Martin, are masters of their genre and masters of craft. They have two diametrically opposed writing styles, but both work.

As I compared these two writers and prepared this post, it reminded me of how we must not get bogged down in didactic truisms, quoted from all corners by those who claim to know the "truth". It also reminded me that we can learn from all kinds of writers. The best writing teachers, in my opinion, are the ones who recommend that you read - a lot - in all kinds of genres and styles. Then, as you sift through it all and allow it to percolate in you, your own style will emerge. Maybe you're a "cerebral" writer like Green. Or perhaps a more visceral writer like Martin. Or maybe you're a little bit of both.

Write what is in you to write, and write it the way that you prefer.

What do you think? As a reader, which type of writer do you enjoy reading more - a John Green-type cerebral writer? Or a George R.R. Martin-esque visceral writer? Do you have the patience for description, or do you skim over it? Which author do you prefer to read, John Green or George R.R. Martin?

If you're a writer, sound off in the comments and tell me what you think about this.

Friday Book Review: Where Things Come Back & My Recommendation for How to Win the Printz Award

I recently finished reading Where Things Come Back, a young adult literary fiction novel recommended to me by a writer friend.

Here is the summary from Goodreads:

Just when seventeen-year-old Cullen Witter thinks he understands everything about his small and painfully dull Arkansas town, it all disappears. . . . 

In the summer before Cullen's senior year, a nominally-depressed birdwatcher named John Barling thinks he spots a species of woodpecker thought to be extinct since the 1940s in Lily, Arkansas. His rediscovery of the so-called Lazarus Woodpecker sparks a flurry of press and woodpecker-mania. Soon all the kids are getting woodpecker haircuts and everyone's eating "Lazarus burgers." But as absurd as the town's carnival atmosphere has become, nothing is more startling than the realization that Cullen’s sensitive, gifted fifteen-year-old brother Gabriel has suddenly and inexplicably disappeared. 

While Cullen navigates his way through a summer of finding and losing love, holding his fragile family together, and muddling his way into adulthood, a young missionary in Africa, who has lost his faith, is searching for any semblance of meaning wherever he can find it. As distant as the two stories seem at the start, they are thoughtfully woven ever closer together and through masterful plotting, brought face to face in a surprising and harrowing climax. 

Complex but truly extraordinary, tinged with melancholy and regret, comedy and absurdity, this novel finds wonder in the ordinary and emerges as ultimately hopeful. It's about a lot more than what Cullen calls, “that damn bird.” It’s about the dream of second chances.

At the outset let me say that I give this book 3.5 Hawks and recommend it for the quality of the writing. If you enjoy literary fiction for young adults, then this is up your alley. The author, John Corey Whaley, is a gifted writer and I would read his next book solely based on the strength of his writing. But if you weren't a fan of The Catcher in the Rye and/or Looking for Alaska, then you may want to pass on this book.


There are several things keeping this book from getting a higher rating and if you read through some reviews on Goodreads, other reviewers point out things I agree with (cheesy naming of characters; annoyance with the protagonist breaking into 3rd person reveries that slow down the plot (a lot); the chapters about the religious fanatics told in 3rd person; and the stupid woodpecker that I frankly just never thought fit with this story no matter how much the author wanted to use the story of that damned bird).


Despite its faults, Where Things Come Back was a quick read and its ending was satisfying. It even got an emotional response out of me at the end.


But my biggest beef with Where Things Come Back is its stylistic and overt  reference to The Catcher in the Rye. I'll put my cards on the table and state emphatically and without any hesitation that I did not enjoy The Catcher in the Rye and wish wholeheartedly that people who want to write books for young adults would stop being taught J.D. Salinger's single opus magnum so that writers (especially young males trying to write hip books for other young males) would stop emulating Mr. Salinger. It is the 21st century. Can we please find a new paradigm for award-winning young adult novels other than the cynical, trying to be hip, sardonic, swearing-every-other-word, protagonist-so-annoying-that-you- want-to-hand-them-a-gun-so-they'll-do-themselves-in-already style of The Catcher in the Rye? 


It was in fact both the overt reference and stylistic reference to Catcher that had me dogging John Green's Printz Award winning novel, Looking for Alaska. When I hear a character in a novel written in the 21st century refer to  The Catcher in the Rye as their favorite book, it makes my eye twitch. In the 2000's, with the proliferation of so many amazing books available now to young adults, it seems like a writer with any imagination at all could think of a fresher read for a person aged 14-18 to carry around with them as their favorite.


If I read one more award-winning book that references Holden Caulfield, The Catcher in the Ryeor emulates the writing style of J.S. Salinger, I will likely throw it - hard - across the room and cause a ripple in the force with my scream of anger.


If you are a writer and you love The Catcher in the Ryeso much you have an orgasm just thinking about it and want nothing more than to emulate the "hip" writing style of J.D. Salinger, then I say go for it. Write that story. Then kindly hide it in some lost-somewhere-hidden file on your hard drive. Forget about it and go write a book in your own style that doesn't include a Holden Caulfield character.


That is, of course, unless you want to win the Printz award. If you aspire to write books that make the Printz award committee gush and give you the gold sticker, then by all means write a novel that is Salinger-esque. Make sure you find a curse word to repeat over and over again, such as goddamn (Catcher) or ass-hat (Where Things Come Back). Fill your main character with existential angst. And make doubly certain your protagonist is an annoying son-of-a-bitch that a majority of readers will wish would die already rather than speak one more sentence. Then shoot your Salinger-esque manuscript off to an agent. Make sure your promotional materials make you sound Salinger-esque


Thankfully John Green didn't talk himself into believing that winning that Printz award early on for Looking for Alaska was an endorsement of the Salinger-esque style and stay forever in that mode. Fortunately for us, Green matured as an artist and this year brought us The Fault in Our Stars. TFIOS is a novel all about existential questions. It is full of teen angst. But not once when I read it was I reminded of Catcher. There is no reference to Salinger. TFIOS is the masterpiece it is because it is all Green. Not John Green trying to write like J.D. Salinger (or anyone else). TFIOS is John Green writing like John Green.


So you see it really is unfair of me to dog poor John Corey Whaley for doing the same thing that John Green did back when he was writing his first novel: emulating J.D. Salinger. But I do hope that Mr. Whaley is able to grow beyond it - to stretch and try out his own voice. He is a gifted writer and the fact that I give his book 4 stars even though I hated with a passion how it hearkened back to Catcher is a testament to his skill.


Perhaps the next legion of young writers will find a new icon to emulate. Fifty years from now a book blogger may be bitching about how all the award-winning books sound like John Green.


3.5 Hawks for Where Things Come Back

Friday Book Review: Fracture

This weeks' Friday Book Review is of Fracture, a debut novel by Megan Miranda.

Premise/Plot: Seventeen year old Delaney is getting ready to play man hunt with her friends around a frozen lake (they live in Maine). The ice begins to crack and Delaney falls through. Her friends, being from Maine, know how to rescue people from the ice and set about gathering rope. When they finally pull Delaney out, she has been in the water for 11 minutes and is officially dead.

Delaney's best friend, Decker, begins CPR and Delaney is brought back to life but is in a coma. Miraculously, Delaney comes out of the coma and appears normal. Well, she appears normal. While scans show significant damage to her brain, she is completely fine except that she is drawn to people that are dying. Delaney keeps this fact secret from all but one person, Troy Varga, who it just so happens was once in a coma and has the same affliction/gift that Delaney has.

What ensues is a book that is part love quadrangle, part exploration of the meaning of life, with a splash of paranormal (sort of) thrown in.

Review: I'm doing this review in sandwich format - some good, some not so good, and some good again at the end ;-)

First the Good: The novel starts out right in the middle of some great action with Delaney falling through the ice and dying right off the bat. Since it is told in the first person, it is chilling to hear Delaney describe her own death. I was hooked immediately and felt compelled to keep reading. I liked Delaney's witty and somewhat sassy voice.

Out of the chute this is a fast-paced and intriguing read. The author does a great job describing the brain injury and sets up a plausible scientific explanation for why Delaney may have her strange ability while still leaving an open question: Is it just a brain anomaly? Or is there a true paranormal aspect that happened to her because of her own death? The questions set up in the first 50 pages or so (plus the blooming love interest with her best friend Decker and the new guy on the scene, Troy) move us into the middle of the book.

The Not So Good: While I devoured this book in one day, upon reflection there are some things that keep me from loving it completely. First there's the relationships. Delaney is making out with one boy before her coma, but in love with Decker, her long-time best friend (though they don't actually talk about their feelings for each other), then there's Troy Varga, the creepy fellow who stalks her and has the same ability (condition?) she has. Delaney's actions are all over the place which I can buy to a point. Sometimes it's just confusing how one feels. But she is a very bright young woman (vying to be first in her class) yet she just goes along with Carson making moves on her when she seems to not want him to. Is she completely powerless? At first she seems like a kick-ass female character but soon falls into the damsel in distress, going along with the "cool" guy to save face, even if it means hurting her friends or compromising her own needs. From a writer's standpoint, it seemed like perhaps the author wasn't totally clear what Delaney wants or who Delaney is. The character seemed inconsistent.

Second, there is the whole paranormal aspect. While I really appreciated a more literary take on paranormalcy, at the end of the day I'm not even sure this is paranormal fiction. It seemed in some respects that the author was steering us in the direction of a "rational" scientific explanation for Delaney's ability. Which is it? I was really loving the literary telling of the paranormal story, the author putting quality into the telling of this kind of story. But then it lost its paranormal feel and that's when I felt a bit disappointed.

The story then switched in some respects to being a story about the meaning of life. I recently read The Fault in Our Stars by John Green (a 5+ Star book, BTW, you must read it - NOW! here's my review of that one), and there are aspects of Fracture that reminded me of Fault in Our Stars. Both books explore death and life through the eyes of teens that have experienced death - either their own or loved ones. Both have active roles for the parents in the book, something that is lacking in most YA books. And I think both authors in some respects come to the same conclusions. I enjoyed this aspect of Fracture - the more literary aspect.

In my opinion, Fracture was, well, fractured. It tried to be two stories at once and didn't 100% succeed at either.

Megan Miranda, Author of Fracture

The Rest of the Good Part - Wait, before you think I'm not recommending this book, I do recommend it! As I said, I read this in one day and it was a compelling read. The faults I've noted above were found more upon reflection than in the moment. Despite a few blemishes, this is a compelling read. If you enjoy literary fiction, I think you may very well enjoy this offering by Megan Miranda. If you are a fan of paranormal fiction, give this one a try and let me know if you enjoy the different feel of this author's treatment of paranormal. I think this is a wonderful first effort by Megan Miranda and I look forward to her next book.

4 Hawks to Megan Miranda's novel, Fracture

5 Hawk Review of The Fault in Our Stars by John Green

I read this in one sitting, was up half the night, and went through a half a box of tissues. You WILL cry. And not just because this is a book about teenagers with cancer (it is) and not because John Green uses emotionally manipulative author tricks to pull the cry out of you (he doesn't - thank you John - 'cause I hate books that do that). You will cry because of the masterful way that John Green weaves a story full of love. You won't just cry when people get sick or when they talk about death (you will). But you'll maybe cry during tender parts where the love between Hazel and Augustus (Gus) is so real and so huge and so beautiful that you are filled with such appreciation for it that all you can do is cry. And you'll cry because Hazel understands the suffering of her parents. And you'll cry because of the amazing lover Hazel's small family has for each other.

But you won't just cry. You'll laugh too, sometimes maybe even out loud. John is his usual super-smart witty self and the repartee between Hazel and Gus is sometimes wickedly dark  and funny. And then you throw Isaac into the mix and the three-way conversation is delicious.

Many loved Green's Looking for Alaska. I did not love that book. I liked it fine, but honestly I felt that it tried too hard and was pretentious. That book made me a fan of John Green, but not a mega fan.

The The Fault in Our Stars tackles some of the same issues as Looking for Alaska but with so much more maturity and grace, that I can hardly believe it is by the same writer (except that it most certainly is - Green's unique voice is here and familiar to Green fans). But Green has had time to mature, both as a writer and a person, and I don't think you could ask for better treatment of such a tough and emotional subject as Green's tender hand in The Fault in Our Stars.

Given that the book deals with death, and the inevitability that one feels from the start that a death will happen (it is a book about cancer after all), the book appropriately discusses existential questions: What is the point of all this? Is there a God? Is there life after death? I got the sense that John Green argued this theme with himself by way of three characters: Hazel,  Gus and a cynical author Peter Van Houten. There's little to no attempt here on the part of the author to tell us what to think or provide some grand answer (though perhaps through Hazel's father's simple yet profound statements on the topic we get as close as we can to an answer). And to address a topic like this and not provide grand statements and "answers" takes a hand of restraint on the part of an author. I think this hand of restraint can only be exercised by an experienced author at the top of his game.

My only fault with the whole book is that Hazel does not sound like a 16 year old girl - she sounds like John Green pretending to be a 16 year old girl. But just a few pages in, you'll forget that she sounds like John Green because you're so invested in her and Gus and the other characters that you'll forgive this one little fault.

If I could give more than five stars I would. This is a knock out of the park homerun of a book.
Thank you John Green for writing it.

5+ Hawks