Here’s Lookin’ at you, Kid

I recently read a really good article by Margaret Atwood (I can’t find a link to it online, which is a shame) about the importance of dressing your fictional characters, and getting it right. She talked about the fashion cut-out games she used to play with as a child during the war, where you took printed ‘dolls’ and printed clothes, cut around the outlines, and used one to dress the other in any way you pleased. I remember them from my own childhood, too; they were endless fun, particularly the ones you could colour in yourself. Customisation, baby. It’s key.

The point of talking about dolls was to illustrate the importance of clothes, appearances, and the descriptions thereof in your writing. For Atwood, this appears to be important; she discussed the lengths to which she went in order to get the clothes right for her novel Alias Grace, which is set in a women’s prison in nineteenth-century Canada, for instance, which involved months of painstaking work. Only the most astute of readers would have known, in all likelihood, if she had got it wrong, but that’s not the sort of writer Atwood is. She also wrote about her influences when designing the clothing for the characters in her masterwork The Handmaid’s Tale, which drew on historical sources as well as advertising imagery from her youth. She argued, persuasively, that clothing ‘maketh’ the setting – if a reader can’t believe in a character’s clothing (i.e. it’s not functional for the role they’re playing in their world, and completely logical and sensible and ultimately, easy to picture) it undermines the whole believability of the story.

Well, yes. I found myself nodding along with all this, agreeing wholeheartedly – and then realising, like a slap across the chops, that I don’t do any of this in my own writing. None of it. In fact, something I tend not to do at all is describe the people in my stories, unless it’s a situation where they have three heads, perhaps, and that knowledge is vital to the reader’s understanding of the plot. In my most ‘finished’ work to date, my début novel The Eye of the North, I don’t describe my main character very much besides the fact that she’s wearing a dress. What colour is the dress? I never say. What fabric is it made from? Unspecified. Her coat? The same. She’s wearing one, but it could be black, or blue, or canary yellow. It could be a floor-length, fur-collared beauty, or a dinner jacket. This never struck me as being significant; as a reader, I tend to like it when writers leave imaginative space around a character’s looks, so that we can picture whoever we like in the lead role.

But maybe I’m wrong about that.

It could also be down to the fact that I, as a human person separate from my writing life, do not care about clothes at all. My mother despairs of me. I have, at most, two pairs of wearable jeans (one for the body and one for the wash – it’s logical, right?) and maybe three or four shirts/tops which I alternate, without a lot of thought as to fashion, colour coordination, and so on. If something fits me, I wear it. If it’s clean, all the better. I’ve never been fashionable, because it just doesn’t come into my sphere. I’m interested in fashion as a human endeavour, and as an art form, and I love the style of the forties and fifties, for instance – but I’m entirely the wrong shape, everywhere, to dress like a glamourpuss from the war era. For me, it’s strictly an ‘admiration from a distance’ thing. So, maybe that’s why I don’t dwell overmuch on physical appearance in my writing. Emmeline (my main character) is described, in sketchy terms, somewhere near the end of my book, but as a throwaway comment; how she looks isn’t important to the fact that she’s strong, independent, intelligent and resourceful. Her dress is only described when it gets in the way, and likewise her boots. Essentially, Emmeline dresses for convenience, a lot like me.

I wonder if I’m alone in not being too invested in an author’s physical descriptions of their characters, though. I love Haruki Murakami, for instance, but one thing that drives me round the twist with that author is his tendency to linger, rather lasciviously, on the physical attributes of his female characters. It irritates me both because it’s not necessary but also because it’s rather unrealistic, and makes me think ‘oh, yes. Here’s the author again, intervening in the thoughts of his made-up people.’ I also tend to get annoyed when an author introduces a character to us by saying something like: ‘And then Tony turned the corner and there was Billy, all six-foot-four of him, his straw-yellow hair askew beneath his flat cap. He turned, his bright green eyes lighting up as he smiled at his oldest friend, the gap between his front teeth making his broad, sunburned face look relaxed and almost childlike. He took a step in Tony’s direction, holding out one broad, rough-palmed hand in welcome.’ I’d rather know that Tony had to look up to meet Billy’s gaze (hence, he’s tall), or that a gust of wind knocked the hat off his head (hence, he was wearing one), and have him talk about his work outdoors (hence, allowing us to imagine that he’s sunburned and weather-beaten). Is it just me?

Anyway. Next month, with any luck, I’ll be starting the edits for The Eye of the North. We’ll see, then, what my editor thinks of my tendency not to describe the physicality of my characters. There may be wailing and gnashing of teeth – and lots of research into fabric, dress design and ruffles. I shudder at the thought!



4 thoughts on “Here’s Lookin’ at you, Kid

  1. Janet

    I think someone like Margaret Atwood has the confidence to spend that time describing clothes etc. If I’m ever tempted to dwell on characters’ appearances, or descriptions of rooms, objects, clothing, whatever, there’s always a little voice shouting ‘Get on with it! Who’s going to care?’ But perhaps I shouldn’t admit to…um…hearing voices. Great post, as always.

    1. SJ O'Hart Post author

      Well, yeah. Someone like Margaret Atwood can spend twenty pages describing the inside of an eggshell, and still make it read like the song of angels. This is true. For us lesser mortals, though, maybe less really is more! Thanks for the comment, Janet. I appreciate it! 🙂

      (And, P.S., the voices thing? Don’t worry about it. Worry when they shut up talking!)

  2. Jan Hawke

    It’s an interesting point Sinead. I admit I’m similar to you in that physical descriptions of characters aren’t at the top of my list unless it’s pertinent to the storyline in some way. For my career in RPGs it’s certainly a huge investment for most participants where you’re playing for points (so arms and armour carried is always important) but for the interaction a lot of people lay big store on noticing your blue eyes, raven hair and dress or pant lengths to show they’re paying attention to scene setting if you’re doing pen and paper games…
    I guess with Margaret Atwood prison clothes are part of the scenario ambience or restrictions and punishment and ditto with The Handmaid’s Tale I would guess only with a shift in emphasis (keep meaning to, but failing, to read this….!). I don’t think it really matters that much provided it’s consistent with other descriptive elements – so my blue-eyed blonde heroine’s sunglasses and sunscreen are more important in my book as it’s set in central Africa else she’d be squinting the whole time but doesn’t need a big fuss made of it unless she suddenly gets a new male admirer and then I have her regretting not washing her hair and just shoving it into a scrunchie 😛
    So long as it’s not jarring things then cut the garment to the cloth I suppose! 😉

    1. SJ O'Hart Post author

      Yes – exactly! Thanks, Jan, for this. I can see how clothing descriptions would be vital in something like an RPG, particularly armour and accoutrements and such, but – yeah. I tend to get turned off by too much physical description. There are, of course, some genres where it’s perfectly appropriate (and even expected), but I guess, for me, I prefer to leave things loose. Atwood made a funny point about readers writing to her telling her she’d managed to get something ‘wrong’ – i.e. a particular garment didn’t exist at a particular time in history, for instance – and so maybe that’s why I avoid too much description. The looser it is, the less likely I am to have made a mistake!

      And you really (I mean *really*) need to read ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’. Really. 😉


Talk to me

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s