Describing Clothes and certain physical appearances

It's a funny thing. I see certain types of clothing all the time, along with hair-styles and the like, but I often realize that I don't know the names of these things.

This creates a problem when I want to talk about certain clothes. I quickly realize I have no idea what they are called, and have to waste time trying to find out their names(if they have any that is).

I went years not knowing what the name for a Flat cap was, only knowing them as a Kangol Hat (based on one brand).

I had no idea what to call The shoulder pads that◊ OOT Zelda wears, until I found out about Pauldrons.

I'm still wondering if the pink scarf thingy that◊ WW Zelda wears has a name, or if it's just some kind of Shawl.

There are also some hairstyles that I don't really know. I used to mistake those long strands(or whatever they are) on the sides of Ryouko's head◊ for Bangs, but now I know Bangs are in the front of the head due to Blinding Bangs. There are probably a few other styles of hair I don't know the names of.

It's actually weird how often I see something, but don't actually know the name of it. Does that come up often with you guys?

Yes. (I'd call that pink scarf thing a mantle.)

Perusing clothing websites answer a lot of questions, too.

That's a little small for a mantle isn't it?

I mean, it doesn't even actually cover her shoulders. Mantles are a type of cape aren't they?

No, mantles are mantles. She's wearing (what I would call) a small, shawl-length mantle, because it covers her shoulders yet clasps in the front. If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty, it's a short mantelet.

Oh.

Well, that's what I'm talking about. I never would have known that.

For the hairstyle one, the long strands are pretty much sidelocks, because, you know, locks of hair to the side of your face. You can do a quick search to confirm that; just remember to filter it so that you get hairstyles of women, as the word "sidelocks" refers to both that particular thing and to the Jewish "peyot" (which for you are quite useless if you are doing a search for the purpose of verifying this).


That being said, I don't have this problem all that much. I mean, sometimes I do have to spend some time verifying how something is called, yes, but since I don't concentrate on describing clothing and hairstyles unless it's somehow important and in those specific cases simple stuff does the job just fine for the most part, that's close to being a non-issue for me.

edited 14th Aug '15 3:43:20 PM by Kazeto

I get this problem all the time with hairstyles, clothing, architecture, basically any technical term that a layperson should still know.

But the thing is, if I didn't know that the hair thing was called an "inside-out ponytail" then maybe some readers out there won't have a visual if I write that name of the hairstyle. Why would you wear an inside-out pony?

And then, why do I need to write it at all? If it serves a plot point, then a word for a thing that loses the reader becomes a story that loses the reader. But, if instead of "chignon" I write about an elegant and elaborate hairstyle, then that becomes ungrounded, rather abstract and stylistic, and that's out of fashion. If I write both, it might belabour the point.

So, if it's important to the story (and I can't shunt it to a homodiegetic narrator who can be forgiven for referring to the thing as a "thingy") then I look up whatever I'm looking for and put it in the best way I know how to.

Honestly, if I have to describe clothes or hair, then I think about whether or not the viewpoint character would know what they're called. If they wouldn't, then I try to just describe it visually, rather than go hunting up names.

A important thing I think about when hunting for names is both what was said above. How what would the characters refer to them? However what would the reader understand? I wouldn't understand some of these terms and likely some of the readers wont either.

It of course depends on what is being written. Certain things like pauldrons can be more difficult to describe without the word. (Which I didnt know for a long time.)

I've noticed many of my descriptions are basic save for the female lead that the protagonist is meeting for the first time. His appearance is only described when he's checking his bounty and taking off his clothes. The narration is in first person limited to his view.

This is why I've learned that, rather than coming up with a mental picture and then trying to precisely describe it using prose, it's usually better to focus on coming up with some really evocative descriptions and letting the reader use their imaginations from there. Use words to paint a picture of their own, rather than trying to use them to describe a pre-existing one.

I find that thinking of the words that characters would use for the descriptions is very helpful. For example, Wolfe, when describing James' attire uses the term "tricorne" to describe his hat. James, however, would not use that word and would call it a "cocked hat".

So to one person, it might be "an orange-coloured scarf of some sort" while to another it might be a "neckerchief".

And to yet another person, it will be a "travesty of a clothing".

Perzackerly!

x3 How would that rule apply in third-person omniscient?

Personally, I would research and find the names of the items if they were relevant and skip the description if not. Others may well handle it differently.

I would still have the characters use their own terminology in speech and thoughts.

Describe clothing based on their type rather than the exact specific sub-type, and simply add whatever details to the description that allow the audience to recognise the item as something more specific. This way you do have it simple for those who don't want to spend hours researching clothing just to get through your work, and you do allow people to imagine how the character would look, and you will keep your narrator mistake-free.

Many people make the mistake of making their "omniscient" narrator all-capable and all-educated. It should not be so. The omniscience of the narrator means that it cannot be fooled in the same way a limited narrator could due to its lack of ability to recognise something as taking place or existing, as an omniscient narrator notices everything. But it does not know all the details, no. An omniscient narrator in a medical story, for example, would be able to identify all the symptoms as happening, but it would be the doctor, a character, who can link them together and say what kind of malady the patient suffers from.

Also worth nothing is that when describing what something looks like, it's really better to focus on only what catches the narrator's eye, or is important to an action. If the character wears a hat, unless it's really fancy it's probably best to only make note if something happens that draws attention, like the character gesturing with it.