The case for jewel-toned eyes

[rolanni]

Somewhere around the blogosphere lately, I came across a statement to the effect that a character with jewel-toned eyes must fall under suspicion of being a Mary Sue. People, after all, don't really have violet eyes, nor emerald, and therefore writers should give over already pretending that they do.

To which I reply: Hooey.

I'm in the business of telling lies, for Thing One. If I tell you that Er Thom yos'Galan, for a handy example, has purple eyes, my job is to convince you that this is so. And I Swear To You that Er Thom is not a Mary Sue.

For Thing Two, it seems to me that we are impoverishing the language, if we insist that Sally has brown eyes, and Jon has brown eyes, and Clara has brown eyes and -- Wait, wait! Sally's eyes are more yellow than brown -- may I say that they are amber-colored? Just to, yanno, distinguish her eyes from Jon's, which have a slight red tinge to them, like a mud puddle that's been agitated by a sudden rain shower. And Clara's eyes -- they're so brown, they're almost black. And then there's Julie, who has silver eyes -- not grey; silver, with a dark ring around the iris. And Sam, who's got grey eyes, too, but steel-colored, really, not like Julie's at all...

People -- and characters -- are unique. Why not use descriptors that celebrate their uniqueness?

So, anyway.

Today, there was cereal for breakfast, and afterward vacuuming, more laundry, and fish and potato salad for supper. Very soon now, it will be time for dinner, and! Tomorrow is Monday.

Progress on Mouse and Dragon

2,552 / 100,000 (2.6%)

Comments

[shaenon.livejournal.com]

Really, you just shouldn't waste space describing the colors of your characters' eyes. It's not necessary unless it's something the point-of-view character would specifically notice.

Jewel tones are a particularly bad choice because a) they're cliche and b) they don't actually tell the reader anything that a simpler color word wouldn't. "Emerald" isn't any more descriptive than "green," so say "green." "Topaz" sounds prettier than "brown," but it's still just brown.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

Actually, it's a pity to use up any words at all for fiction, which Isn't True, and must therefore be seen as a corrupter of youth, a waste of our limited time upon this planet, and a source of Suspect Ideas.

[jennifer-dunne.livejournal.com]

Not really. After all, why say "elm" or "birch" or "oak" instead of "tree", since that's all they really are? Because the elm is graceful, slender, swaying in the wind, the birch is brilliant white against a backdrop of brown, and the oak is sturdy and stalwart. Three entirely different types of trees, with three entirely different connotations.

Emerald is a particular shade of green, notable for the brightness and clarity. This is distinct from moss green, hazel, or blue-green. To reduce all of them to "green" renders the color generic and devoid of subtlety and meaning.

[shaenon.livejournal.com]

The thing is that you, the reader, and the characters are likely to know what oak, elm, and birch look like and roughly how they're different from each other. (Daniel Pinkwater has a great essay about how, as a youngster, he was impressed by a scene in a movie or book where a character says that to become a good writer you have to know the names of all the trees, so he went out and did that. Only much later in life did he conclude that, although it's gratifying to be able to identify trees, it's not actually very useful in writing.) "Emerald" isn't any more descriptive than "green" except to people who work with gems, and they'd specify which type of emerald.

And, again, jewel tones for eyes are cliche. The problem isn't that they're associated with Mary Sues (unless you're talking about Agate Eyes Flecked with Purest Silver which Change to Star Sapphire in the Moonlight); it's that both Mary Sues and jewel-colored eyes are associated with amateurish writing. If you said a character had eyes the color of the sour-apple shampoo on my bathroom windowsill, that would at least be interesting. Emeralds, not so much.

But even then, why am I hearing about the character's eyes? Unless it's a plot point or something the point-of-view character would notice, it's not important. What color are Elizabeth Bennett's eyes? Hell, what does Elizabeth Bennett look like at all? Jane Austen provides no physical description except for her age and the fact that she's passably attractive, because these points are relevant to the story (since the plot hinges on the Bennett sisters' chances of landing a husband before their father kicks the bucket and leaves them destitute). Beyond that, Elizabeth doesn't care about her looks, and the narrator doesn't care about her looks, so it doesn't come up.

[rolanni.livejournal.com]

it's that both Mary Sues and jewel-colored eyes are associated with amateurish writing.

Anything, if done badly enough, can be associated with amateurish writing.

As it happens, we here in the Liaden Universe(R) don't actually do that much character description. We do some, because -- the Sainted Jane aside -- readers do kinda want to know what a character looks like. And, just as anything can be done badly, anything can be done right.

Just saying that, "This is a cliche. Don't Ever Do It." ignores the possibility of wringing excellence from the ordinary.

Saying that "brown" is the same as "topaz" ignores the fact that "topaz" is a prettier word, and may fit the rhythm of a particular sentence better than "brown" ever will, no matter how true.

[brownkitty.livejournal.com]

If you feel that way, then that's how you should write and what you should read. Most of good story telling, from what I've seen, is in the details.

Your writer's toolkit won't work for everyone, and not everyone's will work for you. Your reading preferences are yours, and because mine don't match yours exactly doesn't make either yours or mine invalid.