Killing The Non-Smoking Guns

This week I'm revising my novel and feel almost ready to send it out in search of a publisher.

So imagine how silly I feel when I find I've written an entire long paragraph about a woodstove.

Now this post could almost have been entitled "Kill Your Babies" because that's what I had, a lyrical and long description of a woodstove, based on, yes, an antique parlor stove that I once owned and loved. I adored the woodstove. I adored the description.

The problem here is that no matter how beautiful the woodstove was, and no matter how driving my description might have been...

The woodstove had absolutely no point in the plot whatsoever. That's right. It didn't perform any function. Nobody got burned on it, nobody touched it, nobody gained any realizations from fondling its lovely cast iron exterior. Well okay, it DID dry my protagonist's clothes.

It didn't even belong to a major character. The very minor characters who owned it were there for only one chapter, just serving as a safe place and a way to get my protagonist back to civilization.

So why was I waxing gloriously on about it? Oh damn, it hurt my heart, but I clipped the long paragraph the heck out and threw it away. Maybe I can use it someday in another book where it WILL be pertinent.

At the same time, I had noticed (see my previous post, Too Much Tea - Vary Your Scenes) that a lot of my scenes were involving cooking and mealtimes. Okay, I'm a pretty dedicated cook and foodie, so maybe that's normal, but I was determined to have some of my characters do something OTHER than cook or eat food in the revision.

Late at night, having shut off my computer, I came up with an IDEA. Rather than having a particular scene happen at the breakfast table, I'd put my characters in the living room. Firebuck (a secondary character) would be cleaning his rifle in case the evil faeries showed up. To contrast that, Cath (another secondary character) would be potting some flowers that had already shown up on the porch in a previous description. Falling asleep, I loved the juxtaposition of war and peace and the fact that it would get me away from the "food scenes".

So what was wrong? Well in an earlier-written (but occurring later in the story) scene, Firebuck does tote his rifle around for a bit. Firebuck doesn't use a gun in the end of the novel. I realized that if I added the gun-cleaning scene, readers would THINK it was a clue and be disappointed in the end when they found out it wasn't. Especially since I would now have TWO scenes with the gun in it. Guns don't work terribly well on evil faeries. Just an FYI.

Ouch. So there go my guns and woodstoves. Is my novel better for it? Definitely.

Unless you intend for them to be Red Herrings, get rid of your extraneous plot items. If you show an item and wax glorious about it, the reader will expect you to include it in the resolution of your story. If the item is a weapon, such as a gun, garotte or knife, all the more reason why your reader will expect it to show up at the end and be useful. If not, you risk the possibility of reader confusion and disgust.

Too Much Tea - Vary Your Scenes

I was reading this book review on Kat Loves Books where the protagonist spent most of her time drinking tea. It seems like every other action she took was drinking tea. (Once or twice she had wine instead.)

It made me go back and look at my manuscript and wonder if my characters are cooking and eating too much. In Chapter One my protagonist is cooking dinner, and there are a LOT of other scenes where the characters make or eat food. Now I happen to adore cooking, and I'm a Cancer (we tend to have a thing about food) so that might have something to do with it.

I also have places where my characters feed chickens,  a car chase, several walks in the woods (one of which lasts for three days),  another chase scene, a few scenes at the high school and making a Show-and-Tell project (it's a YA) several rituals cast (they're witches), doing the laundry, a manicure and other things. However my characters do spend a lot of time hanging out in the kitchen, making food and trying to figure out what to do next.

In my defense, my characters are in hiding, and there's not a lot for them to do EXCEPT hide and try to figure out what to do. Going outdoors invariably gets them into trouble. I've attempted to give them non-food activities, and I hope I've balanced it well.

Exercise:

Look over your story and make a note of the major activity your characters are involved in. Don't focus on what's happening between the characters or with the plot, just list the background activity they're doing while the scene is happening.

For instance your list might read:

Reading the newspaper and drinking tea
Riding on the bus
Going to a restaurant
Taking a bath
Playing poker
Going to a bar
Jogging
Breaking into a house
Eating breakfast

If there's no major plot/character action, then for the purpose of this exercise it doesn't count. If you summarize that your character drives home from work, takes a shower, goes out to dinner and then goes to a bar, but the only action that happens is when your character is at the bar, then the drive, the shower and the dinner don't count on your list.

Look for places where you're repeating the same background action and see if you can find a way to vary it.

What if your character leads a rather mundane and repetitive life? Let's say our character, Edna is a middle aged housewife and keeping her house clean is her main goal in life. No doubt you'll have many scenes where she is cleaning or dusting or doing the laundry.

But why not also have her:

Go shopping.
Deal with the door-to-door salesman.
Take a walk down the street and notice the general condition and cleanliness of her neighbor's houses.
Go to church (assuming she's religious).
Get a flat tire.
Weed the garden (that might be part of house cleaning, but it does get her outside).
Attend a bake sale.

For other ideas on changing up the background action, check out Go Somewhere Strange

Unnecessary Scenes - What I Learned from Nancy Drew

PLEASE NOTE: No, I don't hate Nancy Drew. In fact, she's one of my favorite childhood heroines. That said, the Nancy Drew books are an excellent example of writing that could use improvement. If we want to be good writers, we have to read a lot and face up to when we or others (even our icons) are less than excellent. For a detailed explanation of my feelings on this writing series, go here.

SPOILER ALERT! I'll be discussing the one of the pivotal climax scenes of Nancy's Mysterious Letter.

In Nancy's Mysterious Letter, Nancy is about to fly to New York to confront a missing heiress and the villain of the story.

Several pages ago we are told that Nancy is planning this trip. However it seems that the author needed to up her word count. Nancy wakes up early with "a persisting thought in her mind" and suggests that Bess and George join her on the trip. She seems to have forgotten that this was already her plan. Maybe the new part of the plan is that Bess and George are coming with her. Okay, I can let that part go.

Nancy goes downstairs and asks her father for permission to go on the trip. He suggests that Nancy can stay with Aunt Eloise while they're in the city. We find out that Nancy's aunt is a school teacher and that all three girls adore her. Nancy calls her aunt. They have a long talk where Nancy tells her aunt about the case and Eloise is thrilled about the visit, but this conversation is summed up in exposition, except for Eloise saying, "I'd love to see you."

Then Nancy eats breakfast. She phones the airport, she makes reservations. Bess and George go home to pack. Nancy picks them up in her car, and plans to leave her car at the airport.

The girls purchase their tickets, get seat reservations, sit down to chat. Then Nancy decides to call the old postman who'd gotten her into this mystery in the first place. This conversation is also sumarized. Nancy is glad he feels better. She decides not to tell him about her info on the villain (whom he's related to). Then Nancy is accosted by one of the villain's henchmen and chloroformed.

What's wrong with this?

The entire scene from Nancy waking up and suggesting that Bess and George accompany her, to Nancy hanging up the phone and being accosted by the henchman (henchwoman in this case) takes about a page and a half.

It feels like it's way longer, and slows the pace of the story to a crawl.

First, do we really need the conversation with her father? We can assume that if Nancy ends up on the plane, she's got permission. Incidentally, why does she even NEED permission? In most versions of the stories she's eighteen at the time. Though in some early versions she was sixteen. And according to some of the novels, the age of consent is 21. Besides which, since Nancy is unemployed, so I guess Dad is paying for all this. Still, if she ends up at the airport we can assume that Dad doesnt object, right?

Next, we never actually meet her aunt. Eloise doesn't play any part in the rest of the story. Nancy never ends up going to her house or visiting with her. Nancy doesn't even end up having to stay at a hotel, so far as we know, because the story ends at the New York airport. Why do we need to know where Nancy will be staying once she gets to New York? For all we care, she could have hopped a plane straight home once the story ends.

Then there's the whole business of having breakfast, making reservations, driving to the airport, parking the car, getting their tickets, and finally going off to make that fateful telephone call which allows Nancy to be seperated from her friends.

The story would have been much better with Nancy suggesting that all three of them go to New York. Then we could have had a smooth transition:

The three girls arrived at the River Heights airport late that afternoon. They got their tickets and as they were waiting for their flight, Nancy said, "I'd like to find out how Ira Nixon is and tell him where we're going."

How is this better writing? Because it doesn't drag. It doesn't slow down the action or put the reader to sleep. If you thought my summary of Nancy's trip to the airport was dull, and uneventful, you'd be right. The problem is that the actual passage in the story is almost as bland as my summary. And nothing important happens until after she makes the phone call.

In Make Your Words Work: Proven Techniques for Effective Writing for Fiction and Nonfiction, Gary Provost makes much the same point.

For example, lets say a writer needs to get his character, Sam, from a scene in Sam's apartment to a scene at church, and nothing important to the story is going to happen between those two places. A simple and obvious transition would be "Sam drove to the church." The writer simply acknowledges that Sam did get from the location of one scene to the location of another, and goes on with the story. It might look like this.

    As Sam placed the books back on the shelves, he felt a tear form at the corner of his eye. He knew he would miss this apartment.
    Sam drove to the church. Susan was waiting for him and she was not smiling. "Where have you been," she asked.

We only need to know about Sam's drive if something important happens along the way. Since his trip is uneventful, we don't have to hear about how he started his car, what turns he made, the year, make, model and color of the car he drove or anything else. 

If the scenes leading up tp the airport are bad, an earlier scene makes even less sense. Anyone who knows Nancy Drew knows that she's accident prone. In the last few books I counted several instances of capsized boats/canoes and multiple car accidents or near accidents. Not to mention the times she gets locked in closets, tied up and otherwise menaced by the bad guys.

This time Nancy trips on her dress (she wasn't wearing high heels, since she was just trying it on) and pitches down the stairs when she goes to answer the doorbell. The dress tears and Nancy opens the door to a small boy with a clue.

Could Nancy just as well have answered the door and been told the clue without ripping the dress? Yes. Is the torn dress a plot point? No. Hannah the housekeeper easily fixes it, and we never hear about the torn dress again. Does it add characterization? Nada. Other than we learn that Hannah is a resourcefull seamstress (which also has no bearing on the story) we learn nothing about the characters. Did Nancy get hurt, thus leading to other plot complications? Nope. She grabs the banister, stops her fall and she's perfectly fine.
About the only reason the author seems to have added this scene is that Nancy hadn't had a near death experience in a while. Perhaps some of the guidelines for the series is that Nancy has to be in danger x number of times per story, or x number of times per y number of words.

Throwing your character in hot water isn't a bad thing. Whether you're writing a mystery or some other kind of book, your character SHOULD be offered complications on a regular basis. But when you do get your character in trouble it should be related to the plot, it should have consequences that affect the plot, and it should offer an opportunity for characterization.

 If it does none of these things, then cull it from your writing.

The What I Learned from Nancy Drew Writing Series:
Intro to What I Learned from Nancy Drew
Part 1: Contrived Beginnings
Part 2: Lack of Red Herrings
Part 3: See Through Bad Guys
Part 4: Undescribed Characters
Part 5: Too Many Characters at Once
Part 6: Adverb Abuse 
Part 7: Unnecessary Scenes

Nancy Drew Mystery Stories
Nancy Drew Games

Adverb Abuse - What I Learned from Nancy Drew

PLEASE NOTE: No, I don't hate Nancy Drew. In fact, she's one of my favorite childhood heroines. That said, the Nancy Drew books are an excellent example of writing that could use improvement. If we want to be good writers, we have to read a lot and face up to when we or others (even our icons) are less than excellent. For a detailed explanation of my feelings on this writing series, go here.

An adverb as you probably know, is a word that describes a noun.  Mark Twain once said that, "Adverbs are the tool of the lazy writer." The problem is that in general adverbs are a sign of weak verbs. Well, it may come as no surprise that the Nancy Drew books are chock full of adverbs.

Now using the occasional adverb isn't a crime. However in the course of The Mystery at Lilac Inn:

• Maud walks away rapidly.
• Nancy greets someone pleasantly.
• The police chief quizzes salesclerks briefly.
• Nancy's car leans precariously.
• "Hi Dad! How good to hear you!" Nancy says happily when her father calls on the phone.
• She thinks indignantly that the driver who forced her off the road should have his license revoked.
• The girls finish dressing quickly (even though there doesn't seem to be a reason for them to hurry).
• She greets the gardner pleasantly.
• The new waitress at the Inn smiles shyly.
• "We'll have to douse it," John said tensely. "The whole row [of buildings] will burn down if we wait for the fire department."
• She kisses her father affectionately.
• A policeman rubs his chin thoughtfully.
• She climbs out of a car quickly to inspect some damage.

These aren't even a good half of the adverbs I found. I've left out those which seemed to work and least somewhat, and I didn't bother paging all the way through the entire book to create this list. The sentence which caused me to begin this rant was this one:

She described vividly her encounter with her double. John listened intently.

Two adverbs in two sentences? Eeek! Run away screaming!

So if we were the writer how could we fix all this to clean up the writing?

Does Nancy need to describe it "vividly"? Could she just describe it? Could she "detail" it, implying that she gave him all the details? Does John need to listen "intently"? Could he merely "listen"? Or if we need to show that he seems interested in the exchange, can we say that he questioned her. Maybe something like:

 She described her encounter with her double. John listened, questioning her on the details.

Now lets go over the rest of the list.

When Nancy greets folks "pleasantly" couldn't we just say, "Nancy greeted them," or just have dialogue do the work and have her say, "Hi!" Or perhaps, "I'm Nancy Drew, she said with a smile."

With Nancy saying, "Hi, Dad! How good to hear from you!" do we really need to be told that she's happy to hear from him? Once again the dialogue does all the work. In a similar vein, when she kisses her Dad affectionately, most kisses between a daughter and father would be assumed to be affectionate. If the kiss is sarcastic, tepid, passionate (eww) only THEN do we need to know that the kiss is something other than it might seem.

On the subject of no brainers, John saying something  "tensely" when the buildings are afire is a complete joke. Having recently (omigosh an adverb) lived through a fire, I can darn well tell you that someone is going to be tense when then a fire may be ready to spread. Why not use a stronger verb, however. "He snapped." would do a great job of showing that he's tense. Or once again, just leave it to the reader and trust the dialogue.  "We'll have to douse it," John said. "The whole row will burn down if we wait for the fire department."

In other situations we have to ask ourselves how important the timeline is as it regards the plot. If Nancy douses the flashlight quickly (as she does at one point) this adverb can help us to understand that she's nervous and doesn't wish to be seen. However is there any decent reason to tell us how long it takes the police chief to quizz the salesclerks? Do we care how long it takes the girls to dress for dinner? No, on both accounts. Both sentences read better with the adverb struck out.

Regarding the cop and his thoughtful stroking of his chin, this mannerism is a cliche all on its own. How about, "a thoughtful look came into his eyes" or "he stroked his chin, taking a moment to think."

When Nancy gets out of the car to inspect damange, why "climbed quickly" when a stronger verb such as "leapt" or "jumped" would give us the same picture in fewer words. And since she's driving her signature blue roadster, "climbed" would really only be appropriate if she were stepping from a tall wheelbase truck or van.

I'd be indignant if someone forced me off the road as well. Why not just "Nancy was indignant. 'They should take away his driver's licence," she muttered.

The  few times that the adverbs are necessary for the plot, could also be done with more polish:

As Maud walks away rapidly, we are expected to understand from the dialogue that she is angry. Why not, "she swished away in a huff" or "her heels clicked against the floor as she made her retreat," or just, "she stomped off toward her room,"?

Again, with her attitude being somewhat of a plot point, rather than having her "remark pointedly," let her gestures and actions speak.  "She raised her brows," "she smirked," "she pursed her lips" or any of a few dozen gestures might have worked.

When Nancy's car leans into the ditch, its obvious that this is a tactic to inject some drama. After all, Nancy is being forced off the road. But try something more graphic, like, "The car teetered on the edge of the ditch. Nancy's stomach clenched and she braced herself for the vehicle to topple into the roadside mud."

The new waitress is also a plot point, as is the fact that she has a shy manner, but why can't she, say something, "with a shy smile." Or if the writer wants to push the point, perhaps something like, "she seemed self conscious of her bottle-thich glasses and Nancy wondered if the girl had the energy and gusto to work out as a waitress."

As a last note, sometimes adverbs are useful and necessary. Whenever possible, prune them from your writing. There's often a better verb or a better way to phrase what you want to say. If you use them, use them sparsely and with care.

The What I Learned from Nancy Drew Writing Series:
Intro to What I Learned from Nancy Drew
Part 1: Contrived Beginnings
Part 2: Lack of Red Herrings
Part 3: See Through Bad Guys
Part 4: Undescribed Characters
Part 5: Too Many Characters at Once
Part 6: Adverb Abuse 
Part 7: Unnecessary Scenes

Nancy Drew Mystery Stories
Nancy Drew Games

Too Many Characters At Once - What I Learned from Nancy Drew

PLEASE NOTE: No, I don't hate Nancy Drew. In fact, she's one of my favorite childhood heroines. That said, the Nancy Drew books are an excellent example of writing that could use improvement. If we want to be good writers, we have to read a lot and face up to when we or others (even our icons) are less than excellent. For a detailed explanation of my feelings on this writing series, go here.

Of the books I'm discussing, The Mystery at Lilac Inn is the only real offender. But what a doozy! In Chapter One we're introduced to Doris Drake, who mentions to Nancy and Nancy's friend Helen Corning that her friend Phyl had talked to Nancy at the drug store earlier today, which Nancy denies. This sets up the Nancy-impersonator part of the plotline.

Nancy and Helen continue upriver in their canoe  where the canoe capsizes and we see a suspicious man with a crew cut.

Following this, we meet Emily Willoughby, are told of her fiance Dick Farnham, and meet John McBride, Dick's friend, Hazel Willoughby, Emily's aunt, and Maud Potter, the Inn's social director.

But wait, there's more! Hank the gardener, falls into a hole and hurts his leg. Another gardener, Gil Gary drives Hank home.

Including Nancy, we meet or are told of twelve characters in the space of only 9 pages.

As if that wasn't enough, the next chapter introduces us to Mr. Daly, the former owner of the Inn (why he's even in the book is beyond me, since he contributes almost nothing to the plot) and Hannah, the Drews' housekeeper

Those familiar with the series already know Nancy, Helen and Hannah, but by the time in Chapter 2, where Nancy brings up the subject of running into Doris, my head is swimming with names. "Who the heck is Doris?" I mutter, paging backwards, and having totally forgotten the earlier meeting, which was so brief that it took up less than a page.

What's the most characters you should introduce per chapter or per page? It's different for every story. The most important focus however, should be on making the characters memorable enough that you don't confuse the reader. If you've read my last installment in this series, you'll realize that each of these characters are just a collection of names and sometimes hair colors, making it nearly impossible to keep the names straight.


Just for fun, I'll check my shelves and see how many characters we meet in the first chapter of the books I've got handy.
 

The Darkness Under the Water a young adult novel about an Abenaki girl growing up in Vermont during the Depression by Beth Kanell starts with all of four characters. Molly is the protagonist, Gratia is her sister who died at the age of 5 and continues to haunt her, and Mama and Papa get mentioned. 

In B is for Burglar by Sue Grafton, we meet the protagonist in a one page prologue, then in Chapter 1 we meet Beverly Danzinger and are told of her sister Elaine Boyd, who seems to be missing. An attorney, Mr. Wender is mentioned, and last we meet Tillie Ahlberg, who manages the condo where Elaine was living. Two names that were on bills sent to Elaine are also mentioned, but thus far these names seem peripheral to the story and I didn't feel the need to recall the names.

Since I have The Burglar on the Prowl by Lawrence Block to read next (just coincidental that I'm reading two books with Burglar titles) I opened it and skimmed the first chapter. Only four names were mentioned besides the protagonist, though Bernie, a bookseller by day and burglar by night, and his friend did discuss the names of a couple authors and artists as part of their banter.

Two of the books on my shelf start with a much larger cast of characters in the initial chapter:

Darkwood by M.E. Breen's first chapter features our heroine Annie Trewitt, Aunt Prim and Uncle Jock, Annie's guardians. Page, Annie's sister, and Helen (their mother) and their father (unnamed yet in this chapter) and her friend Gregor, all four of whom are now dead, are mentioned. We also meet Izzy and Prudence, Annie's cats, and the villain, Gibbet, who comes to purchase Annie from her aunt and uncle. We also meet a few peripheral names: the Woefort family, who have lost a cow, Jane who reported this fact to Aunt Prim, and the names of several children eaten by the kinderstalk. Not counting the peripheral names, that gives us 10 characters. Eleven if you count the kinderstalk, a seemingly vicious race of intelligent wolf-like creatures who prey on humans. That's near (or even more than) the number of characters introduced in The Mystery at Lilac Inn. The difference? In Darkwood, Chapter One is 21 pages long (twice the length of TMLI's first chapter) and each important character is introduced with vivid description, dialogue and action to cement them in our mind.

Forbidden Land by William Sarabande starts with Zhoonali a midwife, Wallah a kindly older woman, Iana, the other wife of Lonnit's husband, and Kimm and Xhan, the wives of Zhoonali's son, helping Lonit, one of the main characters, to give birth. We meet Torka, Lonnit's husband, Summer Moon and Demmi, Lonnit's two daughters, Karana, the tribe's medicine man. Umak, and Manaravak (both dead) Torka's grandfather and father are mentioned, as are Grek, Wallah's husband, Ekoh, a tribesman and Cheanah, who is Zhoonali's son and seems to be the main villain of the novel, Mahnie, Karana's woman, Aar the dog, and Sondahr, a medicine woman and Navahk, a magician ( both of the last two also deceased) are also introduced. Okay, that's a lot. Nineteen characters! Again this chapter is 21 pages long. Also, this book is the third in The First Americans Series, so if you're reading the series, you already know the majority of the characters.

Can you introduce more characters at one time and make it work? Certainly. Just be certain to make each character vivid enough for the reader to recall. Who's more memorable?

...a dainty young woman, had chestnut hair, set off to advantage by her white linen dress. (Emily Willoughby from The Mystery at Lilac Inn)

or

She could see the pores in the creases at the sides of her wide, flat nose, and the painted patterns around her smoke-reddened, rheumy eyes had smudged and run together. (Zhoonali from Forbidden Land)

The What I Learned from Nancy Drew Writing Series:
Intro to What I Learned from Nancy Drew
Part 1: Contrived Beginnings
Part 2: Lack of Red Herrings
Part 3: See Through Bad Guys
Part 4: Undescribed Characters
Part 5: Too Many Characters at Once
Part 6: Adverb Abuse 
Part 7: Unnecessary Scenes

Nancy Drew Mystery Stories
Nancy Drew Games

Undescribed Characters - What I Learned from Nancy Drew

PLEASE NOTE: No, I don't hate Nancy Drew. In fact, she's one of my favorite childhood heroines. That said, the Nancy Drew books are an excellent example of writing that could use improvement. If we want to be good writers, we have to read a lot and face up to when we or others (even our icons) are less than excellent. For a detailed explanation of my feelings on this writing series, go here.

Believe it or not, hair color isn't much of a character attribute! Shocking isn't it? Unless of course the hair color tells us something about the character, such as the fact that they don't bother to dye the gray out of their hair (which could mean that they're comfortable with aging, might or might not be attractive on them, or could just be slovenly) or if they dye their hair in oddball colors, such as bright pink or green.

However in Nancy Drew mysteries, all we usually get in the way of description of characters other than the villains is hair color and cut, possibly eye color, and a vague idea of their relative comeliness and body shape. Sometimes, we also get a clue on how they dress.

In The Secret of Red Gate Farm, Nancy's friend George is described perhaps better than most of the characters:

...dark-haired George Fayne. Her boyish name fitted her build and straightforward, breezy manner.

Bess, George's cousin is described as "blonde, pretty" and "pleasantly-plump." Joanne Byrd, whom Nancy rescues in the story is described as "sweet-faced" and "frail."

In The Mystery at Lilac Inn Nancy herself is described as an "attractive titian blonde" and we're told that her blue eyes twinkle. Helen Corning is "slender, pretty." When they meet the folks at the Lilac Inn we're introduced to Emily Willoughby:

...a dainty young woman, had chestnut hair, set off to advantage by her white linen dress.

While John McBride, Nancy's potential love-interest in the story is "a handsome, well-built man with wavy black hair."

Finally we get to meet Aunt Hazel:

White hair framed her face in soft waves, and she was impeccably groomed.

and Maud:

...a younger woman who had an angry look on her rather pretty but petulant face.

The fact that Aunt Hazel is impeccably groomed, may actually say something about her character, as might Maud's "petulant face." Whew! Finally we get some actual character description rather than just outward details.

Do we really care however, that Emily's hair is "set off to advantage" by her dress? All that tells us is either that she's pretty or that she's got a bit of style. Neither of these suggestions contribute to the plot or to what is essentially a flat character, designed only to offer Nancy a mystery and a setting for it.

Nancy's father, Carson Drew is invariably described in the series as "handsome" and sometimes "tall." Just as the villains' are telegraphed in the stories, the people who are not the villians are apparent by their lack of description.

However the crowning achievement of non-description in the Nancy Drew series has got to be Nancy's housekeeper and surrogate mother, Hannah Gruen, who is usually described as "pleasant-faced" or some facimile thereof.

That one I want to take a special look at. "Pleasant" along with "nice," "good," and "agreeable" to mention a few others, are some of the most namby-pamby words in the English language. Interestingly enough, one of the synonyms for "pleasant" is "bland." Pretty much the last thing I'd want my characters to be.

In the Nancy Drew stories, it's almost as if we're told people's hair colors just so that the author can write, "the blonde girl said" rather than "Bess said."

To contrast, here is a character from B is for Burglar, a Kinsey Millhone Mystery by Sue Grafton:

The man appeared to be in his seventies, corpulent and benign. Old age had given him back his babyfat and the same look of grave curiosity.

And another one (conincidentally an overweight person as well) from The Burglar on the Prowl by Lawrence Block:

One look at him, the way he held himself, the way he moved, and you somehow knew he'd been fat all his life, a fat baby who'd blossomed into a fat little boy, gone through the awkward years as a fat teenager, and emerged at last as a fat grownup.

and

No, he was fat all over, and I got the feeling it was fine with him.

Both of these descriptions not only give us a view of the outer person, but of the inner person as well.
I haven't yet finished reading B is for Burglar, so I don't know if Mr. Snyder is the murderer or not. I'm going to guess that he's not, but you never know. From that first glimpse of him, however he seems innocent as a child, telling us something about his inner nature, as well as his outer self.

The Burgular on the Prowl is on my shelf to read next. So I don't have the slightest idea who Block's character is or how he fits into the plot. The rest of the description goes on to say that he looks natty and prosperous, and that his teeth are:

...perfectly white and perfectly even, so much so that one could hardly avoid the suspicion that they were not perfectly real. But then you could have said much the same thing about his smile.

From this, I'm going to guess that this gentleman is someone who's going to give Bernie, Block's protagonist some trouble, whether he turns out to be the villain or not. The fact that the character is fine with being fat also tells us about a measure of his confidence. I wouldn't expect that this is someone easily disuaded from his plans.

So I'll hope that the moral of this article is apparent: When describing characters, give them actual CHARACTER, not mere labels. I'll probably write more in depth on this subject at a latter point.

The What I Learned from Nancy Drew Writing Series:
Intro to What I Learned from Nancy Drew
Part 1: Contrived Beginnings
Part 2: Lack of Red Herrings
Part 3: See Through Bad Guys
Part 4: Undescribed Characters
Part 5: Too Many Characters at Once
Part 6: Adverb Abuse 
Part 7: Unnecessary Scenes

Nancy Drew Mystery Stories
Nancy Drew Games