17 Oct 2011
A nondescript post
I was reading a book at the weekend that described someone as wearing "a nondescript hat", and it reminded me of how the word "nondescript" should have no place in fiction writing.
"Nondescript" means "lacking distinct or individual characteristics; having no outstanding features".
OK. Fine.
But everything has distinct and individual characteristics. Colour. Shape. Size. Material. Weight. Quality. If you can see something then by definition it must be different from its surroundings, and therefore it must have at least one distinct characteristic.
"But what if it's something that's really commonplace, that just doesn't look out of the ordinary at all, and you want to highlight that? Like some kind of hat, perhaps?" you might ask, as you brush toast crumbs from the crotch of your faded pyjamas and wonder whether it's about time you got yourself a job.
Some kind of hat, you say? Well then, let's see, shall we?
Example 1: "He was a tall man, and whether it was rainy or fine he habitually wore a nondescript hat."
Example 2: "He was a tall man, and whether it was rainy or fine he habitually wore a plain brown hat."
Come on. Don't try to kid yourself that "nondescript" is a word that tells the reader something. It doesn't. It can't. "Nondescript" is just an adjective to use when you can't think of a decent adjective. It's a descriptor that doesn't describe. It's an anti-adjective.
Nothing in the universe is nondescript. Really, it isn't. If you find something that is then it just means that you've reached the limits of your imagination.
So if you're a writer and you label something as nondescript then you're either not very good or you're just being lazy. You're a writer - the whole point of what you do is to describe things.
So do it!
It always seems to be hats that are nondescript. What is it about the hat that causes writers temporarily to lose their descriptive powers? What dread hold has the titfer over the author? Sadly I fear that we may never know.
This post is also posted on the Tunbridge Wells Writers blog.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
But 'he habitually wore a nondescript hat' could mean he had a wide collection of hats, all different, but markedly 'plain'. That says something about character. Habitually wearing a plain brown hat (presumably the same one each day) may say something about character too, but it's not the same thing.
ReplyDeleteI agree that 'nondescript' is a word of limited value, and in many contexts even lazy and pointless, but ultimately all words are lovely, even unlovely ones like 'nondescript' (or 'unlovely') and valuable. Izzit?
As for 'what dread hold the titfer has for the author', perhaps it is a 'sorting hat': there are some who can write good hats and some whose hats are invariably nondescript. I must confez to the occasional fess.
I'm afraid I am going to have to violently and bitterly disagree: if he has a collection of hats, each of which is different, then each hat has "distinct characteristics" (otherwise they'd be identical), in which case they are not "nondescript".
ReplyDelete"He habitually wore a plain, unremarkable hat, of which he owned several" says even more about his character...
No, an unremarkable hat would be one that was, erm, unremarkable, i.e. not worthy of remark or comment, as opposed to 'remarkable' which would make it worthy of remark(The sorting hat in Harry Potter would be a remarkable hat, but please don't mention it OR J K Growling in my company!).
ReplyDeleteIt would be perfectly reasonable (but rude, possibly) for someone to say 'that's a nondescript hat you are wearing', whereas 'that's an unremarkable hat you are wearing' is, by definition, an oxymoron...
An unremarkable hat = a hat that wouldn't cause someone* to comment = an ordinary hat
ReplyDeleteA nondescript hat = a hat that has no distinguishing features = a hat that cannot be described
Only one of these hats can exist.
*"Someone" being another character - not the narrator, who comments on an awful lot of things that characters wouldn't mention