Descriptions of Pokemon?

[Minnow]

Hey.

So, in most Pokemon-themed stories, a Pokemon is usually introduced with a description of its appearance, like:

Out came a small, yellow rodent-like creature, with pointy ears and red sacks on its cheeks. A thin, jagged tail poked out from behind its back.

So much so that it seems, at least to me, that it's considered bad form or w/e to do anything but that. This seems strange to me.

I know that Pokemon aren't real creatures, and thus probably deserve such description, but think about it for a minute. If you take the mindset that these stories are written in-world then why should these descriptions exist? Why not just say, "Out came a Pikachu?" When we read regular fiction, it never says, "On a leash he led a short, waddling, canine creature."

I can easily understand if the author simply prefers the descriptions to feel more objective, or to just add to the story, but it doesn't really seem like such a necessity to me.

 

[Clover]

Personally I dislike long appearance descriptions, and agree the name of the species and any distinguishing features should be fine. (Of course, I would say "Why not just say, 'Out came a pikachu'?")

(Also, "it's appearance", "it's cheeks", and "it's back" should all be "its". :x)

 

[IcySapphire]

I usually describe Pikachu as "a yellow mouse creature", but yes, I do describe Pokemon just in case there's someone that doesn't know what they look like

 

[Karkat Vantas]

Provided that they've been previously introduced, I think it would be fine to not describe them. However, not everyone knows what a Dunsparce looks like.

 

[Blastoise Fortooate]

It's fine if the main character hasn't seen the Pokémon before. Then it makes sense.

 

[ultraviolet]

it makes more sense for people to describe pokemon in such a way if the characters have never seen this pokemon before, like if they came across something really rare like a Rotom or stumbled upon a legendary. essentially it's kind of dumb for the narrative to describe something that's common, like a Pikachu, but I think it works for the characters to address the pokemon as a 'small yellow rodent' if they don't know what it is until someone comes along and says 'hey that's a Pikachu'.

 

[Phoenixsong]

I believe the argument is that you shouldn't leave anything to chance for the sake of your readers--presumably, yes, the characters know what a pikachu is, and if your reader doesn't know what a pikachu is then that would be... odd, but just because your character lives in Sinnoh and sees starly outside his window every day doesn't mean that your reader automatically knows what a starly is or what it looks like. What if it's someone who, for whatever reason, has never played a fourth-generation game? You're then forcing them to head outside the story and find out for themselves, which admittedly isn't difficult but can be mildly annoying.

...at which point I think you need to decide for yourself how much information is too much. Readers don't like to be totally left in the dark when it comes to something as simple as the nature or appearance of some creature or other, but at the same time no one likes handholding or unnecessary infodumping. The way I see it it's a matter of style, preference and how well you know your primary audience. If you're writing short fiction and/or are reasonably certain that most of your readers have kept on top of all 493 pokémon, sure, just the species name is probably fine. If you're writing something longer, or if you really have no idea what sort of Pokémon fans will be reading your work, no descriptions at all might seem a little lax.

Either way, as with any description, the description of a pokémon should probably not be done in one paragraph as soon as it emerges from a poké ball for the first time or whatever. It's not just that it can be redundant; it breaks up the flow of the action the same way any block of description would. Intersperse the description throughout the action/activity as you would anything else, and then don't belabor it beyond the first appearance or if it's something painfully common (again, pikachu). That way it's less obtrusive for those who don't need it, but it's still present for those who are "behind the times" or what have you and are not familiar with certain species.

 

[Minnow]

I believe the argument is that you shouldn't leave anything to chance for the sake of your readers--presumably, yes, the characters know what a pikachu is, and if your reader doesn't know what a pikachu is then that would be... odd, but just because your character lives in Sinnoh and sees starly outside his window every day doesn't mean that your reader automatically knows what a starly is or what it looks like. What if it's someone who, for whatever reason, has never played a fourth-generation game? You're then forcing them to head outside the story and find out for themselves, which admittedly isn't difficult but can be mildly annoying.

...at which point I think you need to decide for yourself how much information is too much. Readers don't like to be totally left in the dark when it comes to something as simple as the nature or appearance of some creature or other, but at the same time no one likes handholding or unnecessary infodumping. The way I see it it's a matter of style, preference and how well you know your primary audience. If you're writing short fiction and/or are reasonably certain that most of your readers have kept on top of all 493 pokémon, sure, just the species name is probably fine. If you're writing something longer, or if you really have no idea what sort of Pokémon fans will be reading your work, no descriptions at all might seem a little lax.

Either way, as with any description, the description of a pokémon should probably not be done in one paragraph as soon as it emerges from a poké ball for the first time or whatever. It's not just that it can be redundant; it breaks up the flow of the action the same way any block of description would. Intersperse the description throughout the action/activity as you would anything else, and then don't belabor it beyond the first appearance or if it's something painfully common (again, pikachu). That way it's less obtrusive for those who don't need it, but it's still present for those who are "behind the times" or what have you and are not familiar with certain species.

Yes, this is mostly what I was thinking, that it really all depends on your style and who you're writing for. And, of course, the interspersing of description rather than having it all in one big paragraph is a must; I just was trying to simplify my example.

(Also, "it's appearance", "it's cheeks", and "it's back" should all be "its". :x)

Whoops, blegh. Fixed.

 

[Hiesetsu]

I totally agree with Minnow, it isn't a necessity at all. A basic description to give the reader a feel for the Pokémon such as your Pikachu example is pointless; everyone and their mother can ID a Pikachu at 300 yards. And people reading Pokéfics probably know the generations frontwards and backwards, and even if they don't, a description like that is just disappointing.

"On a leash he led a short, waddling, canine creature."

Here is where I feel I disagree. While we don't say things like that in regular fiction, we also don't assume everyone reading any story containing a dog, just to keep with your example, is an avid breeder or someone who attends dog shows. While saying "On a leash he led a dog" might suffice, isn't saying "On a leash he lead an Australian Shepard, its wavy blue merle fur tossing about as it walked" a little more conducive to maintaining interest?

I myself like little bits like that thrown in, especially when they get more descriptive. I may have seen an Onix, but I've never been shown an Onix by someone else. And if it's truly epic, such as the entry of a Tyranitar or a Legendary of any sort, it deserves a pause and a paragraph. Have any of you read A Sound of Thunder? I recommend it to anyone. The following is an excerpt from the short story, but before I do, we all have "seen" a Tyrannosaurus Rex, correct? Have you ever been shown one?


"It came on great oiled, resilient, striding legs. It towered thirty feet above half of the trees, a great evil god, folding its delicate watchmaker’s claws close to its oily reptilian chest. Each lower leg was a piston, a thousand pounds of white bone, sunk in thick ropes of muscle, sheathed over in a gleam of pebbled skin like the mail of a terrible warrior. Each thigh was a ton of meat, ivory, and steel mesh. And from the great breathing cage of the upper body those two delicate arms dangled out front, arms with hands which might pick up and examine men like toys, while the snake neck coiled. And the head itself, a ton of sculptured stone, lifted easily upon the sky. Its mouth gaped, exposing a fence of teeth like daggers. Its eyes rolled, ostrich eggs, empty of all expression save hunger. It closed its mouth in a death grin. It ran, its pelvic bones crushing aside trees and bushes, its taloned feet clawing damp earth, leaving prints six inches deep wherever it settled its weight." (A Sound of Thunder, by Ray Bradbury, first published in Collier's Weekly in 1952)

I love it. But was it a necessity? We all know what a T-Rex is, for Christ's sake, why do we need an essay on it's appearance? Doesn't it just slow the narrative? Perhaps, but I sure didn't notice. Too busy staring at an oiled beast bursting at the seams with thunder. Now, he went a bit over the top, but I always appreciate a little bit of real description. What is writing without it if it doesn't put a proper image in your head? You have to have a pretty good message to tell a story with no scenery.

I dunno if I've made a point or not, so I'll attempt to do it here. To answer the question of why not just make it simple and say out came a Pikachu, well, no real reason. If it's unimportant, it doesn't need to be gussied up, and we can assume there's no practical purpose. But for important moments, we need that extra mile.

 

[Sage Noctowl]

It does add to the story at points, but writing pages describing a Pokémon can get exhausting. It's not completely necessary to say what a Pidgey looks like, if the character has seen millions of Pidgey, but in some cases (take my fic, for example), the character has no idea, and therefore it's more of a necessity than an auxiliary description.

 

[surskitty]

It's more important not to waste words.

Personally, I tend to avoid pokémon names, but I find lengthy descriptions to usually be tedious and unnecessary. Usually, you don't really gain anything by saying more than "a small brown dog."

I really hate the use of the word "creature" for pokémon descriptions.

 

[Zeph]

Personally I tend to use relatively short descriptions. I mean, for something like a Pidgey, "A small brown bird" would suffice, and for slightly more complex ones, say, a Charizard, I'd give a short initial description, like "An orange draconian whatever", and immerse the rest of its prescription in the text of what it does, so "It swung its flaming tail around and stretched its mighty blue wings blah blah blah".

 

[Eeveelution]

It mainly depends on who's telling it. If it's a 1st person point of view being told by a human, you can use the names of the Pokémon, and then maybe add a few distinguishing features if you want. We can also include descriptions to add suspense, such as a trainer who's never seen it before and asking, "What's that?" It builds up suspense as they try to figure it out, and is also a good way to add some comedic features. For example, the trainer might pull out his or her Pokédex upon seeing a "a creature with several large green and yellow leaves forming a natural skirt, and two red flowers perched on its head" to find out what it is, and while it's easy for the reader to to identify it as a Bellossom, the Pokédex might call it something totally preposterous, such as a Hippowdon or Beedrill.

If it's told from the view of a Pokémon, though, you can either include the names or go "natural". I wrote a short story from the view of a wild Sentret, but since wild Pokémon probably don't refer to each other by human names, I found it made more sense not to use their names and instead describe some of the more distinguishing features of the other Pokémon when possible. The problem with this is that some Pokémon are harder to describe than others, such as Arceus. On the other hand, Pokémon with a trainer are more likely to know their official names, so in those stories it would be simply their names, with the option of describing some features. Overall, very similar to the human point of view.

The last option is the 3rd person point of view, which has a very large range of possibilities. You can just give their names, or describe it, or however you want to introduce a character. There are just too many possibilities to describe right now.

Overall, it just depends on who's telling the story. Sometimes it pays to give a little description of Pokémon.

 

[Tailsy]

tl;dr show, don't tell

 

[nothing to see here]

I haven't really written much Pokémon fanfiction, and I haven't read much either, so I have no idea how people usually do this.

But in the one story that I started a year or so ago but never finished, what I did was describe any potentially-unfamiliar or weird-looking Pokémon the first time it appears in a story ("a gigantic, brightly-colored spider with a sharp-looking horn protruding from its forehead"), then refer to it by its species/name ("the Ariados") or short descriptions ("a spider," "a large spider," "the bug Pokémon") after that.

Looking over the one chapter I actually finished, it looks like I skipped the detailed "introduction to a new species" description for Pokémon that pretty much anyone reading a Pokémon story would already know about (pretty much anything from the first generation, especially the ridiculously popular ones... basically, any Pokémon that people who aren't "serious Pokémon fans" would probably recognize by name anyway.)

 

[KayKay]

I have always found it important to consider the reader when writing a pokemon fanfiction.

Sure, the likeliness of a reader who is a) on a pokemon forum and b) reading a pokemon fanfic are very low for them not knowing what, say, a nidoran is is very unlikely. Very very unlikely. But the stories are best written if you assume the reader doesn't know. Some may actually not know, such as my little brother for example - he doesn't know all the first gen pokemon because he's used to fourth gen games. I, on the other hand, still don't know all the fourth gens off by heart. I'm sure we aren't the only ones who don't know the names for every single pokemon.

For those who might suggest "just look it up", it disturbs the flow of the story if the reader has to keep looking up to find out what names and references mean. That's something you'd expect from a factual book, not a story you're trying to immerse yourself in without disturbance or disruption.

Fanfics are at their best when they're written like a story where the reader has no prior knowledge of the story it is based off of or the commonly accepted canon. You're forced to add more details to give more depth, you're forced to remind yourself to be consistent (it's easy to forget consistency when you're just borrowing ideas but not describing them), flesh them out if you borrow them and see how they develop solid mass and the words and ideas and become malleable like clay.

 

[Griffin]

I usually use short descriptions. I reserve the more epic bits for attacks and such, because that is cooler. Oh, and on that topic, what do you guys think about describing attacks?

 

[Blazie]

I mostly write PMD2 and Pokemon Ranger. So when it comes to describing attacks, things are a little different from normal trainer fics. I've decided that in my little PMD2 universe, the Pokemon have named the attacks to keep track of them, but wild Pokemon and uneducated ones only know them by descriptions. So in my main story, my character comes from a place where they don't name attacks. When Pokemon use attacks around her, I describe them, and the descriptions are shortened to 1-2 words after she's seen them once or twice. Then when she goes to Treasure Town, she has to learn the names bacause the Pokemon there all use them, and after I while I'll probably start referring to more common attacks by their names.

In Ranger there are no trainers, and the moves aren't even named in-game, so I just describe them as 'jets of water' and stuff. When I actually get somewhere with my trainer-based story I'll decide how to do it there...probably a mixture of naming and describing.

So yeah, describing moves for me depends on what your view of the Pokemon world is, your character's background and species, and the point of view.

 

[nothing to see here]

In my interpretation of the Pokémon universe, most (halfway-decent) trainers teach their Pokémon what works and what doesn't in different situations and then let the Pokémon handle things on their own, rather than screaming out attack names like a bunch of idiots (or the cast of the anime... oh wait.) The only time they ever call out orders is in unusual situations (like using a move outside of battle for some other reason rather than as an attack) or if they want the Pokémon to focus on a specific strategy instead of "use whatever you like as long as it works."

The attack names are used in-universe, but they're more of an "official" thing; a trainer who's done a lot of Pokémon battles and traveling or one who's done a lot of studying would be able to recognize and name attacks on sight (especially if they had a Pokédex with them for reference), but a trainer without any formal education or references might not even know the names of their own Pokémon's attacks.

So, there's a lot of descriptions and not a lot of attack names. The names might be mentioned after the initial description just to let the readers know what attack it was... but mostly just if it's something that people could get mixed up with a different attack (was it a Thunder Wave that made that guy fall over by paralyzing him, or a Shock Wave that just knocked him out?), or an attack that I have a different interpretation of than the games/anime/etc.