𝖶𝗋𝗂𝗍𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖳𝗂𝗉𝗌 𝖿𝗈𝗋 𝖫𝗈𝗌𝖾𝗋𝗌

𝖴𝗇𝗂𝗊𝗎𝖾 𝗏𝗌 𝖬𝖾𝖺𝗇𝗂𝗇𝗀𝖿𝗎𝗅 𝖣𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗅𝗌

I feel like in published books even, people get too hung up on being specific to their character they forget to ask if the details they've added actually mean anything.
This isn't just "he had a baggle with cream cheese for breakfast and she had toast with eggs" but authors will give really specific details about characters that might even be interesting but actually don't communicate anything meaningful.

✎ 𝖣𝖾𝗍𝖺𝗂𝗅𝗌 𝖲𝗁𝗈𝗎𝗅𝖽 𝖧𝖺𝗏𝖾 𝖥𝖾𝖾𝗅𝗂𝗇𝗀 𝖡𝖾𝗁𝗂𝗇𝖽 𝖳𝗁𝖾𝗆
When you add specific detail, they shouldn't just be cool, they should actually evoke something from the reader. Yes, what someone had for breakfast is boring, but lots of interesting facts, like what kind of music someone listens to, or that they paints something can still be delivered flatly and specifically.

ex. "John smiled at Mary, he was wearing his Kings of the Blue Death T-shirt that he had ordered online from his favourite heavy metal band for his birthday."

-This tells us that John likes Heavy Metal, but tells us nothing else. He orders it online, so what? it's just a regular T-shirt?

vs ex. "John smiled at Mary, he was wearing a faded band shirt, Kings of the Blue Death, a heavy metal group that had saved his life ten years ago when he'd the lead singer had saved him from drowning in a river."

-Not to be heavy handed, but this has a lot more meaning and history. It implies that the shirt has sentimental value, that he has a personal connection with it. He almost drowned, which was pretty traumatic, but then was saved! And even though it happened a long time ago and he could have bought a new shirt he wears the old one. That tells the reader a lot more about John the him just ordering it online would.

✎ 𝖲𝗉𝖾𝖼𝗂𝖿𝗂𝖼 𝗏𝗌 𝖴𝗇𝗂𝗊𝗎𝖾
Be unique! That doesn't mean make up random ~quirky ~ about your characters it means only mention the characteristics that are already unique. In the above example, anyone could have ordered a T-shirt online for their birthday (which was specific) but having been saved from drowning by the lead singer in a heavy metal band is probably not a universal experience.
I see this a lot with physical description.

ex. "He was a tall man, with black hair, glasses, and he was wearing a brown pinstripe suit that matched his brown eyes, even though that hadn't been intentional. His hands were large and his hair was gelled back."

Now, all in all, you can picture him clearly, and you get a little of his personality, but there's no sense of him. Nothing here is emotionally highlighted and the details given while on their own are fine, form a boring picture overall, because they are all things that anyone one person could have. This can be solved either, by drawing attention to and interpreting physical characteristics to make them more unique or picking better ones.

Making standard details unique through interpretation

vs ex. "He was a tall man, easily noticeable. Still, he might have been able to blend in somewhat if he wasn't wearing brown pinstripes, and even then people might not have thought about him too long expect for the fact that his brown pinstripe suit was, eerily, the exact same colour as his eyes, not that he actually noticed any of this."

-this paints the picture of a man who stands out in the crowd awkwardly, but isn't aware of his own awkwardness, which has a lot more character behind it.

Picking a better detail

vs. "John was 6 feet tall and his watch cost more than his house. A vintage Rolex, with a long scratch down the middle of the class, and enough weight to save in a baby's skull."

I have no idea what John really looks like, but this detail is more grabby than what colour his hair is.

✎ 𝖤𝗏𝗈𝖼𝖺𝗍𝗂𝗈𝗇 𝖮𝗏𝖾𝗋 𝖠𝖼𝖼𝗎𝗋𝖺𝖼𝗒: 𝖲𝗈 𝖶𝗁𝖺𝗍?
The biggest problem I see is that writers sometimes try so hard to describe things accurately. But no one cares about accuracy. Accuracy doesn't matter.

"The creature looked like a deer, only smaller, and with more spots on the hind legs and a set of antlers the size of a small two-door sedan."

vs

"The thing that was definitely not a deer had antlers the size of a car, and looked so top heavy it was a wonder it stood upright at all."

The first is more accurate, but the second is funnier, and draws more attention to what the details mean. It giant antlers aren't just there to be there, they serve a purpose in the narrative. Get to that purpose.
With the earlier John example, the first one description was certainly thorough and accurate, but none of the details were grabbing. So what that John has black hair? So what that the deer has white spots? Why do these details matter? Being the most accurate and thorough doesn't make people feel things. Readers don't take a five minute break to put all the pieces of description over and then form an opinion the opinion of the description needs to go ON THE PAGE. The reader needs to know so what when they first read it.

𝖼𝗋: starting-today-you-are-a-writer