Scribbler
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2018
- Messages
- 290
- Points
- 103
Okay, so I've seen complaints in reviews about how a series isn't detailed enough, how it reads as if the story is a summary of the actual story. And some series, though it happens far less, some series have complaints in the reviews about how there's too much written without anything actually happening.
I feel that my writing falls in the camp of not being detailed enough. But first let's talk about the pros and cons of each and the possible reasons for them.
Why do some people write so little? I think it has to do with a combination of a writer's tastes in reading and their intent, which could basically be summed up into the same thing. Some writers really want to capture the moment, writing at least 1 or 2 paragraphs for it, while some others may want to simply describe it in one sentence. Then there comes the question of is over or under detailed better? Is there a perfect medium? But sadly the answer is the same as with most things, it depends. For important moments you want it to be detailed to give it more weight. But for words you have to write to get from point A to point B you want to write as little as possible. So then how do you decide what is and isn't important? That's where the writer's tastes and intent comes into play!
Summary writers may favor things like an interesting or twisty plot with a bunch of flourishes and "What the hows!?". While detailed writers are more interested in things like scenery and other physical descriptions. I'll cite Tolkien as one of them. Most novelists are taught (either by someone else or by themselves) that the detailed way is to go since it's such common convention. But my favorite authors are the ones who find that perfect middle point. I want to say Stephen King is one of those perfect writers, but some may say he was also too detailed in his writing. But to me, I thought it was just the perfect amount. This may only be me, but I think as the years pass by less and less people are writing in the overly detailed style. I'm talking about books released in the last 10 years.
What was my point again? I'm sorry. I often forget my point while I'm explaining it. Oh yes! Most writers aren't one or the other type. Like discovery writers or planners most writers that are at least semi-experienced are somewhere between the two. Where do you think you are? Are you comfortable with where you are? Do you have any other thoughts on the subject?
I feel that my writing falls in the camp of not being detailed enough. But first let's talk about the pros and cons of each and the possible reasons for them.
Why do some people write so little? I think it has to do with a combination of a writer's tastes in reading and their intent, which could basically be summed up into the same thing. Some writers really want to capture the moment, writing at least 1 or 2 paragraphs for it, while some others may want to simply describe it in one sentence. Then there comes the question of is over or under detailed better? Is there a perfect medium? But sadly the answer is the same as with most things, it depends. For important moments you want it to be detailed to give it more weight. But for words you have to write to get from point A to point B you want to write as little as possible. So then how do you decide what is and isn't important? That's where the writer's tastes and intent comes into play!
Summary writers may favor things like an interesting or twisty plot with a bunch of flourishes and "What the hows!?". While detailed writers are more interested in things like scenery and other physical descriptions. I'll cite Tolkien as one of them. Most novelists are taught (either by someone else or by themselves) that the detailed way is to go since it's such common convention. But my favorite authors are the ones who find that perfect middle point. I want to say Stephen King is one of those perfect writers, but some may say he was also too detailed in his writing. But to me, I thought it was just the perfect amount. This may only be me, but I think as the years pass by less and less people are writing in the overly detailed style. I'm talking about books released in the last 10 years.
What was my point again? I'm sorry. I often forget my point while I'm explaining it. Oh yes! Most writers aren't one or the other type. Like discovery writers or planners most writers that are at least semi-experienced are somewhere between the two. Where do you think you are? Are you comfortable with where you are? Do you have any other thoughts on the subject?
Last edited:
