Thanks for your comment, Jennifer.

Thanks for the tip about “vous” too. I would have thought here in North America the “vous” would be almost never used. If I knew this once, I had definitely forgotten it.

I love, love, love this little French lesson on my blog!

“des fois nous qui ecrivons les mots ne voient pas au fond de leur possibilites”. [Translation: Sometimes we who are writing the words don’t see to the bottom of their possibilities.]

I love this, Cynthia. It is what I love about words, the possibilities they carry and create. I think that as writers, each detail should carry weight. Yet, we also have o expect that it will not be felt by all who read.

PS. As an anglophone in
Quebec, I call everyone vous.

Thanks, Mireille! By the way, I spent a summer in Quebec City years ago, taking courses at Laval. I loved it, especially the outdoor concerts with Gilles Vigneault, Pauline Julien, and Claude Gauthier. The mass transit workers were on strike, and everyone was hitch hiking to get around. It was such fun.

Tricia, yes, it’s such an interesting question how and why in the world stuff ends up in our stories in the first place.

Of course, you can say “tu” to me. As a French Canadian, a Québecoise, I am a little bit “vieille France”. It’s a old fashion way to show are respect to the other. Today, young people don’t bother with this kind of details, this kind of tame… They just past in from of you everywhere and don’t even try to excused themselves.

No. I exaggerate… First, there a lot of people who still uses the “vouvoiement” in good society. Second, It’ take time for me to say “tu” to everyone. In english, the difference is very subtle. It’s no clearly defined. May be it is a question of meaning.

This detail is important! Bring back us to the meaning of your post.

Je te souhaite une excellente soirée de lecture et d’écriture. my friend.

Lindsay, great point about the fine line between details that create a world and those that clutter it. Just like life, as you said!

Thank you, Teresa, for your substantive comment. As you can see from the title of the post, I often get carried away with the detail itself rather than what it adds to the writing! I also appreciate your additional thoughts on Janet Burroway’s quote. The significance of the detail is the tricky part, but so often that’s where the layers of the story can be felt.

I love the notion that a detail should appeal to all the senses….

Now, when I write, I really have to ask myself if the detail is a result of the writer intruding. Each detail must come from the narrative voice, rather than the writer’s voice. To me, this means it is imbued with the same mood, and written in the same tone.

I like the quote from Janet Burroway defining concrete details as appealing to one of the five senses. I think most everyone can write a concrete detail. It is much more difficult to write what she describes as a significant detail because the idea/judgement must spring from the narrative voice.

It is difficult to hear that a detail doesn’t add to the story. I’ve found, for me, that the majority of these unnecessary details are a result of me trying to sound too writerly instead of listening to what my characters would observe as important.

Thank you for this discussion on details and meaning.