The DOs and DON’Ts of Writing Immersive Description

By Chelsea Hindle

We’ve all been there—engrossed in a beautiful book, with fantastic characters we’re rooting for, a plot that has blown us out of the water, and amazing, immersive descriptions that sweep you off your feet.

And we’ve also picked up that book which looked so promising, only to lay it down a few chapters in because good gracious have you ever seen such cliched descriptions?

I don’t know about you, but cliched descriptions make me cringe. Every time I read the words “it was a dark and stormy night”, or “she let go a breath she didn’t know she’d been holding”, my prose-loving heart dies a little bit. And sadly, these cliched, or downright bad, phrases and descriptions pepper modern books everywhere.

But how do you write non-cliched, immersive descriptions? How do you steer clear of the aforementioned clichés and bad writing? Well, never fear, for we’re here to give you six DOs and DON’Ts for writing the sort of descriptions that make your readers feel like they're living in an alternate universe.

Also, because we’re a C.S. Lewis- loving crew here, we’re going to be mentioning a lot of Narnia in this article!

DON’T Rely On Cliches

We all know the phrases, “it was a dark and stormy night”, “it was as white as snow”, “she was a fish out of water”, “he is a pain in the neck”. They are tired and threadbare cliches and are so overused that they’ve lost all meaning. If your main character describes the love interest as "pain in the neck", what does that even mean? So, instead of relying on cliches, think about new, and more accurate, ways to describe things. Let's take a look at an example!

“There was a boy called Eustace Clarence Scrubb, and he almost deserved it.”

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, C.S. Lewis

Lewis’s third published Narnia book opens with this famous line. And why is it such a good line? Because it sums up the boy who will become the main character of three Narnia books in thirteen words. The description is enthralling. Eustace Clarence Scrubb is a horrible name and Eustace almost deserves it. But why? What has he done? What will he do in the future? We’re enthralled, so we keep reading to find out why Eustace almost, but not quite deserves his name.

But how does this apply to our own writing? When you're writing descriptions, stop for a moment. I know your fingers are itching to write "the love interest was a pain in the neck", but think about it first. How could you better describe this character? Does he have "a swagger that screams arrogance"? Or a quirk of the mouth that speaks of overconfidence? Or an awful name that he almost, but not quite, deserves? Lewis could have opened his book with "there was a boy who was a pain in the neck", but he chooses not to. He avoids the cliche and as a result, makes his opening much stronger than it would have been.

It takes time to develop a knack for identifying and avoiding cliches, but it's worth it. A great way to practise this is by reading through a wide variety of novels. Highlight cliched phrases and practise twisting them into something original and more evocative. Or, search your own writing for common cliches and practise eliminating them! Here are a few to start with: "sly as a fox", "at the speed of light", "as old as the hills", "brave as a lion", "shy as a mouse", "sharp as a tack", etc.

DO Consider Your Character

Too often, writers fall into the trap of describing scenes and people the way they see them. This is all well and good, but unfortunately, we are not our characters. In fact, our characters often have completely different personalities and backstories to us. And this means they would see the world in a different way to us (shocking, I know!)

So how do we avoid this issue? Well, in theory, this is a very easy problem to solve! As writers, we have to consider our world through, not our own eyes, but the lens of our character. Unfortunately, this is exceedingly difficult in practice.

Thankfully, we have a great example before us in the form of Diana Wynne Jones's novel, Howl's Moving Castle. At the beginning of the novel, we're introduced to the eccentric Wizard Howl twice. Once through the eyes of a nervous, "mousy" Sophie Hatter. And the second time through the eyes of a ninety-year-old enchanted Sophie. The two descriptions we get are completely different--to the point of being contradictory. And better yet, they make a great example of this point. Namely, different characters see the world...well, in different ways. So, let's jump into these descriptions!

“…when a young man in a fantastical blue and silver costume spotted Sophie and decided to accost her as well, Sophie shrank into a shop doorway and tried to hide…he was such a dashing specimen too, with a bony, sophisticated face—really quite old, well into his twenties—and elaborate blond hair. His sleeves trailed longer than any in the Square, all scalloped edges and silver insets…he wore perfume too. The smell of hyacinths followed her as she ran. What a courtly person!”

Howl’s Moving Castle, Diana Wynne Jones

In this description, Howl makes a dramatic and courtly impression on Sophie. Jones sets him apart from the other men in the town square, being more sophisticated and romantic. So, let's compare and contrast with the next description of Howl, post-Sophie-enchantment.

“ ‘Who on earth are you?’ said Howl. ‘Where have I seen you before?’               ‘I am a total stranger,’ Sophie lied firmly. After all, Howl had only met her long enough to call her a mouse before, so it was almost true. She ought to have been thanking her stars for the lucky escape she’d had then, she supposed, but in fact her main thought was, Good gracious! Wizard Howl is only a child in his twenties, for all his wickedness! It made such a difference to be old, she thought as she turned the bacon over in the pan. And she would have died rather than let this overdressed boy know she was the girl he had pitied on May Day.”

Howl’s Moving Castle, Diana Wynne Jones

I notice two main things in these two descriptions. One is the comparison of Howl's age. In the first description, Sophie sees him as quite old, since he's older than her. But in the second description, she sees him as "only a child", since she's now older than he is.

 The second thing I notice is the description of his clothes. In the first description, his courtly clothes amaze Sophie. But in the second, she sees him as frivolous and "overdressed". Howl has not changed at all in the day or two between these two descriptions, but Sophie has. Her entire worldview and, arguably, her personality has changed due to her enchantment.

In the first description, she is young and frightened. She lacks confidence in herself and sees Howl as mature, charming, dashing and scary. In the second, she's old. Her joints hurt, she's fed up with Howl and his "wickedness", and he now appears immature and ridiculous.

So we've seen a great example, but how do we apply this to our writing? With a lot of practice, of course! Spend some time considering different characters in your current work-in-progress. What are the differences in their personalities, backstories and beliefs? How might they both approach a new person or location? Would they be wary, curious, excited? Would they describe things factually, ironically, or poetically? Then practise writing the same scene or description from different characters' viewpoints. Experiment with different word choices and make your descriptions unique!

DON’T Switch Point of View

This is a massive problem I spot at frequent intervals in young writer's books. The slang term for this is "head-hopping", and it boils down to an author "hopping" between characters. For example, showing the plot from A's view in one sentence, and then jumping to B's thoughts.

Normally, scene or chapter breaks are utilized to show a shift from one point of view (POV) to another. Having said that, there is a storytelling device called "omniscient". In this POV, the author is the storyteller, rather than a character. The author knows every characters' thoughts and experiences, and this drives the narrative. This is the POV many classics used, but it's less popular on the whole nowadays.

For example, Tolkien uses omniscient in his book, The Hobbit. Consider this paragraph from Chapter 5 “Riddles in the Dark”:

“Deep down here by the dark water old Gollum, a small slimy creature. I don’t know where he came from, nor what he was. He was Gollum—as dark as darkness, except for two big round pale eyes in his thin face. He had a little boat, and he rowed about quite quietly on the lake…he paddled it with large feet dangling over the side, but never a ripple did he make. Not he. He was looking out of his pale lamp-like eyes for blind fish, which he grabbed with his long fingers as quick as thinking. He liked meat too.”

The Hobbit, J.R.R. Tolkien

Here Tolkien gives us a description of Gollum, what he looks like, where he lives and what he eats. The facts he gives us aren’t known by the main character, Bilbo. In fact, Bilbo can’t even see Gollum at this point—all he can see are Gollum's lamp-like eyes. This works because it's Tolkien's style and he's dedicated to it. But, consider this passage in first person limited, from The Hunger Games:

“ ‘Well, let me know when you work it out,’ [Peeta] says, and the pain in his voice is palpable. I know my ears are healed because, even with the rumble of the engine, I can hear every step he takes back to the train. By the time I’ve climbed aboard, Peeta has disappeared into his room for the night. I don’t see him the next morning, either. In fact, the next time he turns up, we’re pulling into District 12. He gives me a nod, his face expressionless.”

The Hunger Games, Suzanne Collins

In The Hunger Games, Katniss is the sole storyteller. We're in her head for the whole trilogy and never see anything from anyone else's point of view. In the passage above, we never see Peeta's thoughts. We don't know what he was doing on the train when he disappeared, because Katniss doesn't know. We don't know what he is feeling, because Katniss's feelings and perception of the world is all we're given.

The most common POV used in writing is third-person limited, which I've provided an example of here:

"Long ago, on the wild and windy isle of Berk, a smallish Viking with a longish name stood up to his ankles in snow. Hiccup Horrendous Haddock the Third, the Hope and Heir to the Tribe of the Hairy Hooligans, had been feeling slightly sick ever since he woke up that morning."

How to Train Your Dragon, Cressida Cowell

Chances are, you recognise this POV from most of the novels you've read. Now, to be clear, there is nothing wrong with any of these storytelling methods! But as an author, you need to pick a POV for your novel and stick with it. Don't head-hop if you're not writing in omniscient (which most of us aren't). Don't shift POV halfway through or drop details that your character wouldn't know of. Again, this is all about practice. Practise identifying moments where you've head-hopped. And practise playing around with POVs to work out which tells your story the best way.

DO Mix Up Your Senses

"What?" You may be saying. "Doesn't she mean, 'use all your senses?' That's what these articles always say!"

Well, no, that's not what I meant, because you're right, that is the common advice. And it's great advice, too often writers rely only on their sense of sight. But today I wanted to give you some different advice, and that is to...

Mix up your senses! Allow them to coexist in unusual ways when you write descriptions. Spend time considering how your senses interact to give you a full picture of the world. And try something inventive while you're at it!

Have you ever heard of synaesthesia? Synaesthesia is a neurological condition that approximately 2-4 % of the world's population experiences.  It can be hard to explain, but in basic terms it involves senses getting "mixed up". In essence, people with synaesthesia have senses that cross over. Certain sounds might also have a smell. Words might have colours, and people might see music. The most famous example is people who see colours and personalities in association with numbers and letters.

Unsurprisingly, a lot of creatives experience synaesthesia (I’m one of them!) and use it to add an interesting spin to their descriptions. So let's take a look at how synaesthesia can enhance descriptions in storytelling! Here are some examples:

“The lights grow brighter as the earth lurches away from the sun, and now the orchestra is playing yellow cocktail music, and the opera of voices pitches a key higher. Laughter is easier minute by minute, spilt with prodigality, tipped out at a cheerful word.”

The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald

Did you catch that? Fitzgerald describes the party’s music as “yellow cocktail music”. Obviously, the music isn't actually yellow, but the use of the word is very evocative. It brings to mind that the party is fun, bouncy, cheerful. All without using any of those words, like a "sensible" description would have.

Here’s another one:

“An attractive smell came from it—what Lucy called ‘a dim, purple kind of smell’, which Edmund said (and Rhince thought) was rot, but Caspian said, ‘I know what you mean.’”

The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, C.S. Lewis

Again, this description seems strange--almost nonsensical. Purple doesn't have a smell, so how can anything smell like purple? But again, it makes sense when Lucy describes the approaching island as smelling "dim" and "purple". It adds an odd angle of authenticity to this description.

And here’s another one, also from Lewis:

“Long, long afterwards, without the slightest warning, an utterly strange voice spoke... It was a dark, flat voice—almost, if you know what that means, a pitch-black voice.”

The Silver Chair, C.S. Lewis

And a final one, from Lewis:

“ ‘Wherever is this?’ said Peter’s voice, sounding tired and pale in the darkness. (I hope you know what I mean by a voice sounding pale.)

The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, C.S. Lewis

These both describe voices as sounding pitch-black and pale, respectively. But again, voices can't sound like colours, and yet a mixing up of senses produces an interesting description.

And here’s another example, from the movie Tangled:

 Flynn: Take a deep breath through the nose! Really let that seep in. What are you getting? Because to me it’s part man smell and the other part is really bad man smell. I don’t know why but overall it just smells like the colour brown. Your thoughts?

And if you still can't picture what I'm talking about, take a look at this scene from Ratatouille:

Now that you've seen synaesthesia can make a great addition to descriptions, I hope you'll give it a go. If you have synaesthesia, spend some time thinking about how you see common things. 

And it's also a great tool for those of you who don't have synaesthesia! Do some research and then spend some time playing with some mixed-up-sense descriptions! What smell could describe a sweet bird song? What colour is that music? And how does the voice feel? Play around with it and see what amazing descriptions you can conjure up!

DON’T Underestimate the Details

Have you ever visited a scenic lookout and stood in awe at a magnificent landscape? I have, and it's an amazing feeling.

But imagine if you had to describe that valley, or mountain, or waterfall. Words would fail to do justice to the scene, wouldn't they?

Thankfully, the best way to describe locations isn't to focus on the entire spectacle. Too many writers describe settings with broad, sweeping statements, and this usually fails. Why? Because these sweeping statements, while true, fail to capture the reader's imagination. They fail to connect the reader to the experience in an emotional way. While saying the "house is old" may be correct, it fails to bring to life the "spooky" or "haunted" vibe you might be aiming for. And when this happens the reader's eyes glaze over and they disconnect from the story.

So what do we do instead? If broad setting descriptions fail to engage the reader, well, what will? The trick is to aim for the things that aren't immediately obvious to the reader and let them fill in the rest. Focus on the tiny details that make a scene seem alive and real, rather than like words on a page. If you highlight the details, you can allow your reader's imagination to fill in the gaps.

For example, if your main character stumbles across a cave, every reader will have a picture in their head of a cave. We all know what caves usually look like. So, trust your reader to lay the foundations and then build on that foundation with your details. How many of you have actually been inside a cave? I have, so I can tell my readers about the things that don't immediately spring to mind. I can describe how the air feels wet around you. I can describe the musty smell and the cold walls. Or how, when you touch the roof of the cave, glittering calcium salts stain your hands. These things are all much more evocative than stating "Jane saw a cave, and went into the darkness".

Here's another example, from the children's novel, The Eagle of the Ninth. The author is describing some standing stones and a burial mound, but note how evocative she makes it:

“There was a sudden hiss and flare of flame, as somebody kindled a torch from the fire-pot they had brought with them. The fire seemed to spread almost of its own accord from torch to torch, and several stepped out from the silent waiting crowd, into the vast emptiness within the standing stones. They carried the flaming brands high above their heads, and the whole scene, which had begun to blur with the fading light, was flooded with a flickering red-gold glare that fell most fiercely on the threshold of that strange doorway, showing the uprights carved with the same curves and spirals that swirled up the standing stones, flashing on the bronze bosses of the sealskin apron so that they became discs of shifting fire. Sparks whirled upward on the light, sea-scented wind, and by contrast with their brightness, the hills and the dark thorn-crowned crest of the mound seemed to sink back into the sudden twilight. A man’s shape showed for an instant high among the thorn-trees, and again the horn sounded its high clear note; and before the echoes had died among the hills, the sealskin curtain was flung back, its bronze discs clashing like cymbals.”

The Eagle of the Ninth, Rosemary Sutcliff

The scene described here is basic. Marcus, our main character is watching a warrior-making ceremony. But the description draws us past the big picture, and into the experience of the main character, and the scene comes alive because of it. We're shown the firelight gleaming off the bronze discs studding the curtain. The bronze clashing like cymbals. The fire "spreading of its own accord" from torch to torch. The sparks whirling up into the night on the sea breeze. These are things you would notice if you were in this scene, not watching from the outside. The description makes us feel like we're standing with Marcus, watching this ceremony.

But how do we put this into practice? Envision a scene in your mind, then zoom in on the details. What would you see if you were actually there? What would smell or hear? What would it feel like to touch it? Create an immersive description by immersing yourself in the scene. And of course, practice, practice, practice!

DO Try Something New

(Spoiler warning for The Giver!)

Young writers often look to their favourite authors to know what’s “acceptable” and what isn’t in fiction writing. While this isn't a bad thing, it can be a limiting thing. It has the tendency to stump creativity and pen authors into "what's been done before". And trust me, that be a difficult pen to break out of.

This is particularly true in descriptions. As we've already seen, the same old cliches have persisted, dominating descriptions everywhere. So why not try something new? Why not try something crazy, even? Even if the idea seems wild or ridiculous, give it a go! You never know what might come of it.

I found a great example of this in the popular dystopian novel, The Giver. The first time I read this book I thought there was something odd about it. The descriptions felt off, but I couldn't put my finger on why. Until this description of Jonas's friend, Fiona, over halfway through the book:

“Jonas stood for a moment beside his bike, startled. It had happened again: that thing that he thought of now as ‘seeing beyond’. This time it had been Fiona who had undergone that fleeting indescribable change. As he looked up and towards her going through the door, it happened; she changed. Actually, Jonas thought, trying to recreate it in his mind, it wasn’t Fiona in her entirety. It seemed to be just her hair. And just for that flickering instant.”

The Giver, Lois Lowry

A little later in the chapter, Jonas tries to explain this experience to the Giver, saying:

“ ‘Then today, just now, outside, it happened with my friend Fiona. She herself didn’t change exactly. But something about her changed for a second. Her hair looked different; but not in its shape, not in its length. I can’t quite…’ Jonas paused, frustrated by his inability to grasp and describe exactly what had occurred. Finally he simply said, ‘It changed. I don’t know how, or why.’”

The Giver, Lois Lowry

After asking Jonas several questions, the Giver then tells him:

“ ‘I’m right, then,’ the Giver said. ‘You’re beginning to see the color red.’”

“ ‘The what?’

“ The Giver sighed. ‘How to explain this? Once, back in the time of the memories, everything had a shape and a size, the way things still do, but they also had a quality called color.’”

The Giver, Lois Lowry

And with this line, I finally realised what had felt off about the entire first half of the book! Not a single description included colour. No hair, eye, or skin colour mentioned in character introductions. Clothes, buildings and scenery were never described using colour. As this passage revealed, all the characters, excepting the Giver, see in black and white. And as strange as it sounds, it works wonderfully. We discover the power of color and nature alongside Jonas, who has never seen these before. The unorthodoxy makes it striking, powerful and moving.

So don't limit yourself! Allow yourself to stretch your wings, and try something new! Write a book where no one can see colour. Or a book where people have a heightened sense of hearing. Or no hearing at all. Describe everything using synaesthesia! Try new things, don't pen yourself in with "the done thing".

 To sum it all up, the key to writing immersive descriptions that suck readers in is to choose what to focus on. Will you focus on cliches, or fresh, crisp phrases? Will you focus on the broader picture or the details that make your scene pop with life? It’s also worth reminding you that good descriptions don’t appear overnight. As writer’s, we’re always learning and improving, and that’s a wonderful thing! As some wonderfully wise person probably said, “Practice, practice, practice!” 

So collect your quills and parchments, scholars of the kingdom. Start flexing your description-writing muscles now, and watch as you improve! I challenge you, my dear readers, to choose two or three areas of description that you struggle with and using some of the tips from this article, begin on the long journey to writing immersive descriptions. 

Do you struggle with writing descriptions? What tips do you use to help with your descriptions?