Less is more

[litfan10]

Hi Honey. This is an excellent thread idea! Here's my two cents for what their worth (probably two cents!)

First when teaching descriptive techniques to my students I use two concepts. First I tell them about Alfred Hitchcock (sadly most of my students don't know who I am talking about) who while a masterful director was a very frustrated writer. He felt, and probably correctly, that he was a horrible writer. On a set he could spend hours getting each minute detail correct even to the point of deliberately tilting paintings certain skewed angles behind characters as a means of subconsciously getting the audience to sense something wasn't right about that person. When watching the film we take that in fast and accept it. When he attempted to write he couldn't help applying that same level of detail and it bogged everything down or came off too blatant. When writing focus on the key elements.
The other concept I hit my students with is I will say the word "chair". Then I have them describe the chair. The majority of descriptions reflect chairs in that classroom or very generic chairs and an occasional highly detailed personal to the writer chair. My point to them is an a writer I have no control over what they are thinking when I say chair. If I am not doing anything important with the chair then that is fine, but if something important is going to happen say the chair breaks dumping a character on the ground then I need to establish the chair so my image matches the reader so what I want will work.
My character Diana is very important to me and I have an incredibly detailed image of her in my head. If you read everything I have said about her in the chapters it totals: auburn hair, pixie cut, very pale pink nipples, rounded breasts, birthmark on butt (comic device once) and extremely fit. That is it. I want my readers to be comfortable with her, so I let them picture her as they see fit within a little framework. I find people like her better.
So I guess, less is more if you let the reader fill in the nonessential details. If I need it I will take care of the details. Otherwise I cede ownership to the pleasure of my audience. I want them to sit in the chair that they are most comfortable in unless I am pulling it out from under them!
Again thanks for the great thought provoking topic and I hope this helps.

 

[Keroin]

One thought is that even catchy or natural sounding dialogue can bog a story down just as much as wordy narrative. The latest thing I was working on is a case in point. I won't post it here for scrutiny because it's very rough and I'm done trotting out rough draft for others to see. I was having trouble getting the dialogue to project the impression I wanted to give. No matter how I fiddled with it, the focus was skewed and the dialogue gets redundant and lengthy. I might finally be figuring out what is meant by pacing.

A really helpful thing I do when I'm having problems making a scene flow is I go back and write the entire scene without any dialogue. Only exposition. I then write the scene once more with only dialogue, (I don't even use identifiers, since I know who's speaking). You'd be amazed what jumps out when you do that. Suddenly, the necessary bits of both exposition and dialogue seem a lot more obvious. It's weird but it works.

 

[sr71plt]

But that's a bit reactionary isn't it? To always rely on that? And maybe tiresome to the editor, also.

Some of it is just taste, but it seems that when detailed narrative is done well, you don't realize it's occurring, you just read and enjoy.

Besides that, editors have preferences too. You could very well find an editor preferring verbosity when streamlined would have best fit that particular work.

The writer can't depend on an editor to make their writing good (only more readable, clearer, and maybe more organized). They need to learn to do this themselves--or settle for not being a good writer. There's not law that you have to be a good writer--or even that you have to write for sharing at all.

 

[litfan10]

Another point I think that often colludes with being a writer is that we forget writers in order to write well actually wear five hats, not just a writer's hat. Sometimes we try to do it all at once and the collusion begins, stopping the writer. First we must be a thinker (get the ideas together and research unknowns) then we must be a draftsman (get the words on paper) next we are editors (shudder, and make the words stronger or cut out weaknesses) and then we are proofreaders (correct all the damn mistakes) and finally we are publishers (get the piece ready for submission and other eyes) Too often we try to just be the draftsmen and throw the rest to the wind which weakens or kills the piece. again I hope this is helping!

 

[sr71plt]

Another point I think that often colludes with being a writer is that we forget writers in order to write well actually wear five hats, not just a writer's hat. Sometimes we try to do it all at once and the collusion begins, stopping the writer. First we must be a thinker (get the ideas together and research unknowns) then we must be a draftsman (get the words on paper) next we are editors (shudder, and make the words stronger or cut out weaknesses) and then we are proofreaders (correct all the damn mistakes) and finally we are publishers (get the piece ready for submission and other eyes) Too often we try to just be the draftsmen and throw the rest to the wind which weakens or kills the piece. again I hope this is helping!

My experience (from inside publishing) is that authors often try to wear more hats than they can fit on their heads--or have any sort of training or talent for. They tend to think of the work as only theirs, when, after it's been adopted by a publisher, it's "theirs"--and the publisher almost always has far more skills and talents and experience at hand in packaging and selling the work than the author does. But the author so often thinks he/she can do it all and they wind up mucking it up.

 

[driphoney]

Hi Honey. This is an excellent thread idea! Here's my two cents for what their worth (probably two cents!)

Again thanks for the great thought provoking topic and I hope this helps.

Thank you. Those are good points. This concept reminds me of Impressionistic painting almost. (God, can you tell I just spent 6 months in art appreciation? ) People think that it's just a bunch of smudgy pretty colors smeared in a pleasing way onto canvas, but I learned that it got its original concept from Manet who was busy watching photography get off the ground. Among other things, in Le Dejeuner Sur l'Herbe Manet was trying to paint what the mind actually recalls, the significant parts. I think this was also described below by nerk.

A really helpful thing I do when I'm having problems making a scene flow is I go back and write the entire scene without any dialogue. Only exposition. I then write the scene once more with only dialogue, (I don't even use identifiers, since I know who's speaking). You'd be amazed what jumps out when you do that. Suddenly, the necessary bits of both exposition and dialogue seem a lot more obvious. It's weird but it works.

This is a really interesting idea! Thanks. Do you not fall into over-writing the scene?

Another point I think that often colludes with being a writer is that we forget writers in order to write well actually wear five hats, not just a writer's hat. Sometimes we try to do it all at once and the collusion begins, stopping the writer. First we must be a thinker (get the ideas together and research unknowns) then we must be a draftsman (get the words on paper) next we are editors (shudder, and make the words stronger or cut out weaknesses) and then we are proofreaders (correct all the damn mistakes) and finally we are publishers (get the piece ready for submission and other eyes) Too often we try to just be the draftsmen and throw the rest to the wind which weakens or kills the piece. again I hope this is helping!

That's, that's only just a little bit overwhelming there!

Damn, I thought I attached a quote from SR, but it's not here and I'm not starting all over. Never fear! I'll just make another post!

 

[driphoney]

Besides that, editors have preferences too. You could very well find an editor preferring verbosity when streamlined would have best fit that particular work.

The writer can't depend on an editor to make their writing good (only more readable, clearer, and maybe more organized). They need to learn to do this themselves--or settle for not being a good writer. There's no law that you have to be a good writer--or even that you have to write for sharing at all.

These two points actually go together in a way. I'm not there yet, but it would seem that a writer, if he's/she's to develop and hopefully even good at it (wishful thinking and all) has to work on their skills in all levels. Overtime, this writer would gain a confidence and a voice and know whether when to and when not to bow to a editor.

Just seems like it. I'm not there yet.

 

[sr71plt]

That's, that's only just a little bit overwhelming there!

Damn, I thought I attached a quote from SR, but it's not here and I'm not starting all over. Never fear! I'll just make another post!

Yes, many authors are overwhelmed by the suggestion that just because they can write doesn't mean they can do selling book and cover design and a successful marketing and distribution plan too. These are different skills/talents. And once a publisher has taken a book project up, that publisher has as much a stake in the book as the author does (sometimes more, as prospective authors are knee deep in the corridors and most have day jobs that cover the rent).

 

[innocentscribbles]

Another point I think that often colludes with being a writer is that we forget writers in order to write well actually wear five hats, not just a writer's hat. Sometimes we try to do it all at once and the collusion begins, stopping the writer. First we must be a thinker (get the ideas together and research unknowns) then we must be a draftsman (get the words on paper) next we are editors (shudder, and make the words stronger or cut out weaknesses) and then we are proofreaders (correct all the damn mistakes) and finally we are publishers (get the piece ready for submission and other eyes) Too often we try to just be the draftsmen and throw the rest to the wind which weakens or kills the piece. again I hope this is helping!

This is exactly my biggest weakness. I have three stories in draft form, and have discovered I have a trend.

I get an idea and just start writing. After I have a page or three, I realize I still haven't decided where the story is going, so I scribble down a basic outline. Type type type, I get about 75% finished, and run into a brick wall. Happens every time, no matter what. I go back to the beginning and start editing, revising, changing, thinking the brick wall is because something earlier in the story is "off," but when I get back to that same stopping point, the brick wall is still there. I've started three different stories and set them aside for a bit of time, thinking a fresh perspective might help. I just picked up the first one (started about a month ago), so we'll see if time helped clear the cobwebs.

I've written tons of stories for my husband, and I can go from start to finish in about two days when writing for him; he's the one that talked me into writing something to post here. Any time I've scribbled something down with intentions of posting it up, though, writer's block does not begin to describe it.

 

[driphoney]

Yes, many authors are overwhelmed by the suggestion that just because they can write doesn't mean they can do selling book and cover design and a successful marketing and distribution plan too. These are different skills/talents. And once a publisher has taken a book project up, that publisher has as much a stake in the book as the author does (sometimes more, as prospective authors are knee deep in the corridors and most have day jobs that cover the rent).

You mean some writers think they have to produce cover-art and all that when they go to a hardback publisher? Wow.

 

[sr71plt]

You mean some writers think they have to produce cover-art and all that when they go to a hardback publisher? Wow.

Some think it at least initially (and almost all try turning in a manuscript designed like the book they want when it isn't even their preogative to design the book--and their files have to be stripped before the book can be set up anyway. I make a lot of money stripping down files). The problem children, though, are the ones who think they can do every function better than the publisher can.

 

[Keroin]

This is a really interesting idea! Thanks. Do you not fall into over-writing the scene?

I don't do it that often but...no. LOL.

 

[Trudy_Antone]

Hi DH,

While reading Stieg Larsson's Millenium Trilogy I found myself wishing for less. Good thing the plot was so enthralling or I would've fallen off the rails early on. As it was, I jumped ahead in all three books and discovered the ending before I'd read the middle. What annoyed me was the introduction of every new character with physical descriptions and pages of background details down to age, school, political and career history. I longed to get back to the parts where Salander kicked ass! And it annoyed me that Blomkvist had to screw every female he came across. Maybe that's my judgemental morals getting in the way.

I never had that problem with Stephen King, stories such as 'The Stand' that introduced a huge amount of characters.

As to my own writing - less is definitely more. In the editing stage I'm forever chopping out the adverbs and unnecessary bits. I tend to go on a bit. It's my curse.

 

[Sweet_Pea24]

When do you get to the point of "more is more"?

More is more seems to be a part of the problem I'm having with my first story. LoL, I submitted it but after posting a couple of paragraphs and having some of my mistakes pointed out, like repetitiveness and long winded run on sentences, I'm hoping it gets rejected so I can rework it. One can only hope...I'm not looking forward to the barrage of insults I'm sure I'm going to get.

Some people like allot of imagery and others can't stand it. Some like a wide range of vocabulary, others don't. I've never had any writing classes so I'm pretty much dependent on what can be read on the writer's resource pages. One of the first things I read was, "Show me don't tell me," as well as all the pages on how to make descriptions of various things.

To me this suggests a need for deep imagery - Though granted I went over board in describing my character, but the descriptions of the emotions and sensations I thought were ok if I can learn some control and not just write it all down and go crazy with commas. I think one problem with an area is that it was to girly or flowery to be a primal release - though I was complimented on a couple of things too as far as my orgasm went lol.

I worked to create a elaborate history for my character as well as give her a complex personality - though not so complex you couldn't feel like you know her, or relate to the loneliness which the story was about. To much maybe?

So what do you guys think? Is it better to dole out a nice vivid well worded image for readers, or is it better to lay off the detail a bit?

 

[Trudy_Antone]

So what do you guys think? Is it better to dole out a nice vivid well worded image for readers, or is it better to lay off the detail a bit?

Depends on the tone of the story, pace and flow, your own particular style, what you're attempting to convey, etc. Taste is subjective, you can never please everyone. There are no set rules, and when there are, somebody clever always finds a way to break them.

 

[Sweet_Pea24]

Depends on the tone of the story, pace and flow, your own particular style, what you're attempting to convey, etc. Taste is subjective, you can never please everyone. There are no set rules, and when there are, somebody clever always finds a way to break them.

OK - The story is about a young Marine's wife who's husband has been over seas for two years in Iraq and is finally coming home. According to the story she is very deeply connected to this Marine - Like at "soul-mates" level. So much so that in the story the wife is in a deeply depressive spiral in her longing and worry for him.

Her character before her husband, was one of those deeply conceded, spoiled brat types that tease all the boys/men and who's only real concern in life is the quality of a handbag or her social status.

Being a young woman married to an older more experienced man, she wants to learn to study ways of pleasing him, since he is her world. She studies sexual techniques via the internet and after some study, she settles on deepthroat as the perfect skill for this. Knowing she needs to learn how to do it before she does it for him she goes out and buys a latex "friend."

Now that is where I try to add some twist to the story. I tried/am trying to add a bit of mystery/mysticism to the mix by suggesting that at least in the character's mind the dildo is some sort of 'voodoo doll" connecting her to her husband and is a way of satisfying his needs from afar. Or has she slipped off her nut and lost her grasp on reality? I kind of want to leave that for the reader to decide. But in the end she learns to give a really naughty, wet, hardcore porn level blowjob on this dildo, losing herself in the carnality of it.

That's how it goes in a nutshell though. I really want to create a story that will not only cater to those people who want to read a really dirty story, but also to those who like a story line, as well as like to read about a passionate love for the one you married or are with - romance sort of, only from the perspective of one lover, alone in the world with out her husband - and will do anything to please him.

 

[driphoney]

Hi DH,

While reading Stieg Larsson's Millenium Trilogy I found myself wishing for less. Good thing the plot was so enthralling or I would've fallen off the rails early on. As it was, I jumped ahead in all three books and discovered the ending before I'd read the middle. What annoyed me was the introduction of every new character with physical descriptions and pages of background details down to age, school, political and career history. I longed to get back to the parts where Salander kicked ass! And it annoyed me that Blomkvist had to screw every female he came across. Maybe that's my judgemental morals getting in the way.

I never had that problem with Stephen King, stories such as 'The Stand' that introduced a huge amount of characters.

As to my own writing - less is definitely more. In the editing stage I'm forever chopping out the adverbs and unnecessary bits. I tend to go on a bit. It's my curse.

But there was enough of what interested you in that trilogy to drag you through 3 books. I think it can be a bit of what Sweet Pea mentioned in the below quote. Some people like a lot, some don't. It doesn't necessarily make it bad or good, just style preference.

More is more seems to be a part of the problem I'm having with my first story. LoL, I submitted it but after posting a couple of paragraphs and having some of my mistakes pointed out, like repetitiveness and long winded run on sentences, I'm hoping it gets rejected so I can rework it. One can only hope...I'm not looking forward to the barrage of insults I'm sure I'm going to get.

Some people like allot of imagery and others can't stand it. Some like a wide range of vocabulary, others don't. I've never had any writing classes so I'm pretty much dependent on what can be read on the writer's resource pages. One of the first things I read was, "Show me don't tell me," as well as all the pages on how to make descriptions of various things.

To me this suggests a need for deep imagery - Though granted I went over board in describing my character, but the descriptions of the emotions and sensations I thought were ok if I can learn some control and not just write it all down and go crazy with commas. I think one problem with an area is that it was to girly or flowery to be a primal release - though I was complimented on a couple of things too as far as my orgasm went lol.

I worked to create a elaborate history for my character as well as give her a complex personality - though not so complex you couldn't feel like you know her, or relate to the loneliness which the story was about. To much maybe?

So what do you guys think? Is it better to dole out a nice vivid well worded image for readers, or is it better to lay off the detail a bit?

I think you can wind-bag a story to death, give too, too much detail, or do an info dump of necessary info that might be better spread out across the story.

But ... I've been giving this whole thing another ponder (forgive me, I really am slow when I'm chewing something over and it's not clicking for me) recently. I think that with the emphasis here on lit on the short story, the near obsession we sometimes appear to have on tight, compact description is understandable. We want to move it along, don't tell too much outside extra info that will not be explored later since the story will be ending soon and there will not be any continuing action. SR once talked about (I hope I'm not too far off his concept because I'd never be able to find the quote) how writing a short story helps you develop as a writer. You've got it get it all done in a lot fewer words. Pacing, as Paco mentioned, is also key. Too much description would throw that off. I have a short story going attempted for just the reason but I'm having trouble developing my conflict.

If you're writing a longer story, I think the reader is probably more prepared to go a little deeper with you, and there are times when you need to "tell not show" to move things along. Every single action doesn't need to be spelled out, but might be needed. You see this all the time in print fiction.

Of course, I'm probably just talking in circles. I'm coming closer and closer to the conclusion that all this pondering is a waste of time and I need to just write and not give a flying fuck what anyone thinks until I have a story or two written, then give them (the stories) a short think when I get feedback from a couple trusted readers and editors. It's not that asking questions and trying to sort it out is wrong, it's not, but you can worry too much about procedure. This would be my advice for you, too, Sweet Pea, if you come by and happen to catch this post. Just write the way you write. Worry about the rest later. Stories usually can be reshaped, so don't sweat it.

 

[RyanBlack]

The majority of writing I do is academic, where less is not only more, it is essential.

Fiction has challenged me to at times be overly descriptive and at others to leave readers with such a diversity of impressions as to leave me wondering if they read the same story.

Less is in fact sometimes more and less is sometimes, not enough.

This thread points out the multiple facets of writing with which writers struggle; maintaining the balance between not enough, just right and too much is often challenging in individual sentences and paragraphs.

My experience with fiction publishers and editors is that there is ALWAYS going to be something an author needs to revise.

I can find something great in almost every story I read (excepting the really horrendous pieces).

My suggestion would be to write until you are mostly, almost, completely partially satisfied with the piece, then pass it to some respected colleagues for review and advice. Finally, make revisions consistant with honest critiques from multiple sources.

The final draft ought to be work you are happy with or you can end up spending all your time editing and little of it writing.

 

[TexDanL]

This is one of those things where there is no definitive answer because the parameters are to large. Less is more when you want to give someone your address. Less may or may not be more when you are telling someone how to find your house and less is definitely not more if you are trying to describe your house to a prospective buyer or just telling a friend about it.

What are you writing? what is your intended hope for your piece and who are you trying to reach with it. I write erotica because i find it relaxing. I write it generally as a story and tell it as a story.

The long or short of it depends on what I am trying to accomplish and who I am trying to tell my story too. If I am basically writing something for someone to read get excited and masturbate to brief and to the point is the name of the game. I paint a focused picture, a snapshot you might say of an erotic moment that they can focus on and do their deed.

If on the other hand I am wishing to entertain, titillate and arouse I paint a larger picture. It takes more to make you fall in love with one of my characters than to just excite you to pop your cork. It is like the difference between a stripper and a dancer. Let's face it a ballerina isn't running around in her tutu because it is the most definitive costume for the story her body is telling you. She is beautiful and her movements make your heart hurt for her where the part that hurts for a stripper is somewhat lower.

these types of stories are like a one hour TV show instead of the 30 minute sitcom sort of show. There you have the movies and then you have the Mini Series and the long run series. Each is aimed at a slightly different audience. Each is intended for a slightly different purpose. as far as concise goes there is more going on in a 30 to 60 second commercial than there is in most hour long shows. talk about getting to the point!!

My stories run from 1000 to 150,000 words. Each has a special challenge for me. I will confess that I like to write long. It is rather effortless for me and I like to marry my characters to my readers. In order to do that they have to be courted and give time to get to know them. Love at first sight happens but all to often you fall out of love almost as fast as you fell in. There are exceptions.

I love to read. I like a long thick read where I can get into the characters. I guess because of this I like to write long but I also like to write short just to challenge myself. I like to write from many different perspectives and points of view also as a challenge. I write as both male and female, gay, hetero and Bi.
Writing if you aren't doing it for a living should be fun and since I like puzzles and such I like to stretch myself in my writing.

Most of you here no doubt have more education than I. Most probably have more talent but I wager that none of you enjoy your writing any more than I do and in general I think that I pass that joy on to my readers. In the end, long or short, isn't that what matters in Erotica?

 

[Litbridge]

Good writing is, simply, painting images through the use of words. All the best (or should I say successful) authors know this if your audience is mass consumption. Images that are concrete, vibrant, telling. You want your readers to 'see" what you -- the author -- thinks. And we think in images. It's what brings a story to life. So, less is more only when you edit your work and ask the question, over and over...: "Is this description/dialogue necessary? Does it build the plot or bring life in a relevent way to the characters and the story? If the detail is extraneous to leading the reader towards a more complete and accurate appreciation of what you, the writer, are trying to convey, then it's filler... nicely written, succinct and clever perhaps, but irrelevant. Have the courage to axe it. (Or, as I do, cut and paste it on a clipboard to be used where it more appropriately belongs ... similar to consigning film footage to the cutting room floor, not necessarily to discard but often to splice it in somewhere else, or even in another movie. Hollywood doesn't do this, right? Right... So, write in imagery. Make the pieces fit and make them relevant to what you really mean to say. Then the issue of less is more, or the other way around, falls away.

 

[Vielle]

Less-is-more has been true for me. It has taken me a long while to realize my writing is better without so much unnecessary and uninteresting description. I totally agree that it is about pacing and keeping interest. Thick description can work well if it is in the right places and if it is actually interesting.

I'm not an avid reader of good writers, but I think Hemingway is interesting because he is so sparse about describing his characters motivations and thoughts, but he spends a lot of time describing what they eat and drink at every meal and this kind of thing. He somehow makes even incidental description express something subtle about character and motive and moves the story forward.

Anne Rice is the kind of writer you are more likely to find me reading--i find that she has very long winded descriptions of certain things like historic architecture. You could say it adds to the atmosphere perhaps, but it probably isn't necessary for the story. But it works (i think anyway) because she makes it interesting. If feels like she is describing things that are interesting to her.

 

[Firebrain]

I'm going to wholeheartedly disagree.

The best editor I ever had once trimmed 2000 words off a 6000 word story of mine and when I read through, I barely noticed. I was I wordy? In places; not overly so. The point is that 99% of writers could do with realising that they can say what they want to say in 30% fewer words. An example from a story I just finished editing (of my own):

From:

“I seem to remember making a mess of it, last time,” she murmured, throwing me a coy, knowing little smile.

To:

“I seem to remember making a mess of it, last time.“ She threw me a coy little smile.

I see a lot of writers do this - I do it, especially in my drafts - they combine a dialogue tag with an action. Most of the time, this just isn't neccessary. Tidy them up and you'll shave a surprising amount off your word count. (I could probably have got rid of the little too, but it didn't quite feel right). What you also see is the character's thoughts being clarified after speech and that's not needed, either; or "xxx asked" after dialogue with a question mark - evidently a question. Driphoney, if somebody is telling you that your dialogue should be carrying your story - maybe you're making a few of these errors? They're easy enough to do.

There's a big difference between a very sparse style and clean, tidy prose that does what it needs to do. You can still be poetic and evocative without being "wordy" - wordy is a bad thing in my opinion because it's implying that your sentence has a syntax that is difficult to read.

I'm not saying, don't describe things. Absolutely set your scene. However, one can ream off a whole paragraph telling us exactly what is in a room, and one can have a character notice three distinct details; which is more evocative, really? In other words: describe what you need to and avoid great big chunks of text that look dense and intimidating on the page. Vary your content; you're writing a story, not an essay.

My own writing style is very dialogue-driven. This, by nature, makes it a little more sparse. I have my flowery moments too though. The point is, I've learned to be brutal and my writing has ten times more impact because of it.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

When I started working for the state we had space on the word processor for 1/3rd page of text, and within the space I had to pack everything worth knowing about a patient. A few years later the space increased to 85 lines. And by 2005 the computer space was unlimited. But I had learned to write telegraphy, and its difficult to break the habit down the road.

Earlier this week I read 3 books of war stories. The best of the three is a diary a kid wrote during World War 1; the others are stories by Ernie Pyle and A.J.Liebling. Pyle and Liebling are the best but the uneducated, inexperienced private kicked their asses in terms of stuffing lotsa material into a few words.

His secret is using verbal hooks that elicit the experiences of the reader. This trick naturally sux you into the story.

 

[favoritesgoddess]

Personally, I don't believe that less is more. Nor do I think more is more. Both assume less or more for less or more's own sake. Less isn't more if you leave out the details that enable the reader to feel part of the story. It isn't more if you leave parts of the story untold.

But then more isn't more if the story has so much stuffing that you can't find the meat.

I don't think either axiom is particularly accurate, I guess.

What I'm going for in my own long-winded, "more is more" kind of way is that it's good to have an editor or a beta-reader whose writing or reading style matches your own. If you choose an editor who likes terse prose, you're likely not going to get good feedback on your descriptive pieces. And vice versa.

My beta-readers like to read the same kinds of stories I do, and one writes in a similar style as well. They help me trim the fat without losing any of the flavor. And I also post with the full knowledge that my style is descriptive and that's going to turn some people away. I'm okay with that.

 

[Firebrain]

What I'm going for in my own long-winded, "more is more" kind of way is that it's good to have an editor or a beta-reader whose writing or reading style matches your own. If you choose an editor who likes terse prose, you're likely not going to get good feedback on your descriptive pieces. And vice versa.

My beta-readers like to read the same kinds of stories I do, and one writes in a similar style as well. They help me trim the fat without losing any of the flavor. And I also post with the full knowledge that my style is descriptive and that's going to turn some people away. I'm okay with that.

A good editor will do this nomatter what their personal preferences are. It's been said on here time and time again, but an editor is not there to re-write a story to fit their own ideas.

Of course readers have their own preferences, but writers should bear in mind that there's a difference between "this isn't my cup of tea," and "this is shite." If the majority of feedback is telling you that the work isn't so good (not suggesting this is you, favouritegoddess!) then it most likely isn't a matter of style - it's the substance that is the problem.

I have a much sparser style than many but I still get the description and imagery in. I honestly don't believe that any writer needs a paragraph to say what can be said in two lines. The difference is this: a good writer knows when something takes a whole paragraph to explain. Some writers move a story on without any dialogue for a while, for example; that's great if they can make it work. Some can because they know how to write punchy, eloquent description. Some people still think you need to pause and describe every damn thing in a room, or every last measurement on a new character.

Good writers don't waste words. That doesn't mean they can't have a long passage of description but it needs to be tidy, precise and above all: actually say something. If you can do that, then great.