Is being descriptive an advantage in a historical fiction novel? Does the reader find it emotionally satisfying reading a lot of well described prose with beautiful vocabulary? That is the way most famous classics of yore were written.
Is being descriptive an advantage in a historical fiction novel? Does the reader find it emotionally satisfying reading a lot of well described prose with beautiful vocabulary? That is the way most famous classics of yore were written.
Personal preferences are on one side of the subject under discussion. What sells with the majority of the readers is what matters. An experienced writer who has had a number of books published would be the right authority to reveal the importance of beautifully worded description of an ambiance in which the plot has been set.
I feel the right kind of description is like the frames of a film clip. I feel it transcends the reader to the environ in which the scene is being enacted and makes him/her relate with the characters in the scene.
I must admit that if there is too much description I get bored reading it. I like to have a little bit if description and for my own mind to imagine the rest. This is the reason why I rarely watch films of books I have read because after reading a book I have an understanding of the place/person in my head but when I see the film not only does it miss parts of the book out, but the places/characters look nothing ike I had imagined them to. For me, less is more.
I tend to agree, but then I write adventure-based stories. Your reader must feel the period your characters inhabit but they, not their surroundings, are paramount. If they could exist in any time you've not done your job.