From: djheydt@kithrup.com   
      
   In article <20190226122757.129ec40a@asgartech.com>,   
   Matthew Graybosch   wrote:   
   >On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 14:07:57 -0500   
   >Capuchin  wrote:   
   >   
   >> My preferred method is no physical descriptions. It always backfires.   
   >> If I try to make a character sexy by saying she's a tall, well-endowed   
   >> blonde, the readers will all have a fetish for bald dwarves with   
   >> boyish figures.   
   >   
   >I've found that the more specific one gets about a character's physical   
   >appearance, the harder it gets for readers to identify with them. But   
   >you can't please everybody, and all you can really do about it is   
   >allude to "Death of the Author" and say, "This was how *I* saw the   
   >character."   
      
   I'll repeat the old tale about Isaac Asimov's work, in the   
   off-chance that some may not know it.   
      
   Asimov was never very much into character description, at least   
   not about physical appearance.  (The one character I can remember   
   of his that did get throughly described was the Mule, and he was   
   taken from life.)  Somebody chided him about that once, and in   
   response he turned to all the women in the publisher's office   
   where the question was asked, and inquired of them, "What does   
   [name of character] look like?"   
      
   Each woman described herself.   
      
   --   
   Dorothy J. Heydt   
   Vallejo, California   
   djheydt at gmail dot com   
   www.kithrup.com/~djheydt/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)