We all know what a minotaur looks like, it has the body of a man and the head of a bull. A famous creature from Greek mythology that has appeared in multiple works of fiction. There is just one issue, when I say a minotaur has the head of a bull do I mean it has a bovine like head, or do I mean it is literally a bulls head? Now I know this sounds redundant, but if you look at a lot of artistic interpretations of minotaur they don't actually have bulls heads. Rather the head is altered, and deformed, sometimes to look more human, sometimes to look more monstrous. Spoiler: Example #1 Spoiler: Example #2 Now for comparison here is a picture of a minotaur with a literal bulls head. Spoiler: Example #3 It looks pretty silly doesn't it, something you just can't take seriously. Doesn't matter what sort of story you're trying to write, it automatically becomes a joke as soon as that doofus walks into the scene. Now back to what I was originally saying. When a writer describes a minotaur they normally don't try to specify if they're being literal when they say "bulls head" they just assume most readers will be able to figure out what they should be imagining. The question is should they? Personally unless specifically said otherwise I'll picture something like example one or two. They look cooler, and I can take them seriously. So an author yammering on about how it has a head like a bull, but not literally a bulls head would just come across as condescending. What about you though, do you think an author should specify rather than leaving it to player interpretation, or keep they're descriptions simple and trust readers to reach the correct conclusion on their own. Minotaur is just the example I went with, this question can be applied to any subject.
I say just kept it simple with the description unless you want to convey the feelings the protagonist feel when they saw the Minotaur
Really they work on my end, I got them through google images. pic #2 is actually a tauren from the game World of Warcraft. pic #3 is the original minotaur you see in books of Greek mythology.
I'd rather highlight the Nouns and websearch it. Unneccessary descriptions are so redundant for readers. We all know they just do it for word count.
Just make it simple then continue with scene Assuming that MC is in predicament, some extra explanation might ruin reader immersion
A bull with humanoid features or a man with a bull's head. if you want to paint a more accurate depiction in the mind of the reader you could say something about it's muscle's or how tall it is something like "a monstrous bull like creature that walks like a man that stands as tall as a tree with muscle as big as boulders that seem to be able to crush mountains or bring down an entire castle with swipe of it's hands."
Yeah. Feels like they just read and the title and instantly commented lol. I personally would just follow traditional depiction. It's easier that way, because how in the hell do real minotaur heads express enotion through facial expression? As for how I'm gonna specify that through text: I won't. At most, I'd just write "the head of a bull", "bull-like head", or something like that. Specifying that it's more humanoid and less literal just feels unnecessary when most people already assume that to be the case when it comes to Minotaurs. Specifying these details only ever matters when you're trying to illustrate it or have someone draw it
Agree for the most part, though you can probably fit a few extra details in if you want to get a specific feel for example a more evil monstrous minotaur might be described "a head like some sort of demonic bull" It doesn't add anything super unnecessary, but sets the reader up to picture something more vicious and fiendish.