Describe it

Describe it.

Enough to feed me.

A redbreast sunfish.

I know that. Write a description of it.

My mother.

It's orange.

I like it. Saved.

It looks like the sort of thing you wouldn't expect to find, in picture form, in a literature thread, posted by a faggot.

What's the difference between a description and a definition?

Fishy

Small plump Chinese Dragon with gills, it's spines are terracotta arches dyed green, while it's belly is the shimmering color of sunset. It's eyes look like an almost ripe tomato, with an olive at the center.

~Fish Poem~

Its scaly.
Its finny.
Its briny.
Its dinney.

There it is. Two characters printed on my screen, and there beside it -- a puncture. A point of punctuation. Two letters, both lower case -- both humble, bowing almost, yet not cringing beneath the majesty of capitals for they have something they have not. A stop, a breath, a pause. A reflection.

McPhee?

>he thought this would be clever

>given the most concise description
>asks for a description
"Redbreast sunfish" is the best description, since it requires the fewest words to get the meaning across. Why spend 50 words on something you can describe adequately with two?

at least it's not some goddamn fucking reverse mermaid

That fish had shiny scales and copper red underbelly.

Why not just call it a fish, its basically all it is in half the words

The sea fish was one of notable enough size. It's height was a bit more than twice it's width, and it's length not much more than it's height.

The medium-sized scales on it were not quite as diamond shaped as many lake fish are, rather they were almost of a raindrop form.

The palish orange eyes were quite large for the size of the fish with noticeably large pupils. The face was snubbed and had a elongated brow at about a 45 degree angle. The upper portion of the fish was a mixture of several different earthly colors, while the bottom was very colorful, with vibrant oranges and hints of grapefruit hues.

A "fish" could be anything a perch, a bass, a trout, etc. "Redbreast sunfish" describes the specific fish in OP's pic. It is the most precise description for the fewest words. I don't see why it's so hard to understand this concept.

But this isn't every example of a Redbreast Sunfish, it might be fatter or healthier or younger or older than most examples.
I think its already pricise enough that out of everything in the Universe it is narrowed down to a Fish.
I'd say just call it a "thing" but that takes the same amount of syllables

I HATE IT

reminds me of this game.
kongregate.com/games/gameshot/the-i-of-it

an fishe :

>it might be fatter or healthier or younger or older than most examples
That's impossible to tell without context.

We have in front of us exactly one redbreast sunfish, and since I'm not a freshwater marine biologist I don't know how comparable this two dimensional representation is to others in evolutionary fitness. There is no size scale, nor do we have weight statistics, etc.

We need more data or to actually have the fish in front of us (not mere representation) to give a fuller description.

>muh gaymen
Make like a lemming and kill yourself, you degenerate addict

CRASH! We decided to buy a fish.

Underrated. But Faulkner is still a hack.