devices of the picture painter. To describe is to visualize, hence we must look

at description as a pictorial process, whether the writer deals with material or

with spiritual objects."[19]

 

If you were asked to describe the rapid-fire gun you might go about it in either

of two ways: give a cold technical account of its mechanism, in whole and in

detail, or else describe it as a terrible engine of slaughter, dwelling upon its

effects rather than upon its structure.

 

The former of these processes is exposition, the latter is true description.

Exposition deals more with the _general_, while description must deal with the

_particular_. Exposition elucidates _ideas_, description treats of _things_.

Exposition deals with the _abstract_, description with the _concrete_.

Exposition is concerned with the _internal_, description with the _external_.

Exposition is _enumerative_, description _literary_. Exposition is

_intellectual_, description _sensory_. Exposition is _impersonal_, description

_personal_.

 

If description is a visualizing process for the hearer, it is first of all such

for the speaker--he cannot describe what he has never seen, either physically or

in fancy. It is this personal quality--this question of the personal eye which

sees the things later to be described--that makes description so interesting in

public speech. Given a speaker of personality, and we are interested in his

personal view--his view adds to the natural interest of the scene, and may even

be the sole source of that interest to his auditors.