How much do you assume (writerly)

[pop_54]

Last year some time TheEarl asked how much of making a cup of tea can you imply rather than describe.

Does going from warming the pot straight to pouring the tea assume too much knowledge of tea making from your reader? Does it matter?

Using this as an analogy I'd like to ask how much do you have to tell your reader about anything. How much can you imply? How much do you make them infer?

I've had it pointed out to me several times that I miss details in my stories which only serves to confuse and makes reading difficult. For instance, (in a simple way) I might say:

Her slavic cheekbones made her innocent eyes appear deep and menacing.

I'm assuming two things. That the reader knows what Slavic cheekbones look like (or indeed what Slavic means) and that her eyes have the appearance of a Manga drawn face.

So, do I need to add that she has Manga eyes and change Slavic to "Russian" or "Mongol", to give a clearer picture? or are my readers as conversant as me about non-western facial structure?

Gauche

Tend to be in the "make the buggers think a bit" camp myself lad... too much detail can fuck up a good challenging read... But then it all depends on the story line, and the target audience.

For a supposed intelligent readership, basic detail should do and let them use their imagination, after all that's what reading is all about, visualisation and interpretation, no visual reference to go on, so you have to imagine it all, a good balance of detail aids that process, too much could bugger it all up.

For 60% of Lit readers, "never mind her cheek bones, how big's her cunt"!!

pops

 

[cantdog]

Hombre, you didn't clarify but it seems you are asking about assumptions for Lit. readers. I'd say assume nothing here. Then it's your decision whether to care or not.

Otherwise, for me it isn't a matter of assuming anything about my reader(s). I use whatever words I want and/or judge that my ms. needs. Fuck if they're unrecognizable or confusing to anyone.

Perdita

I have a particular reader in mind as I write. For better or worse I use the knowledge base that reader has, so far as I know it.

Most of the time my readers don't need a lot of sophistication, but there are times when I don't want to sacrifice the pace of the storytelling to explain.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I have a particular reader in mind as I write. For better or worse I use the knowledge base that reader has, so far as I know it.

Most of the time my readers don't need a lot of sophistication, but there are times when I don't want to sacrifice the pace of the storytelling to explain.

cant,

I'm calling for you in a thread with your name

 

[cantdog]

Pity all the really fun high living destroys the brain cells, isn't it?



Anyway, I think some authors really do description a lot. Others shun it. I prefer to read people on the "shun it" end of the spectrum, I suppose. But none at all is disconcerting.

I find it attaches to an author-- that is, the author's usual style either uses it or not-- and the tolerance for it goes reader by reader. That's in general, only. There are still times when you can't slow down the pace for a description, no matter who you are. Lovecraft did that, Rice, Bradbury. I can deal, usually, but I do wish a description-junkie author would use a little restraint when there is action occurring and I want to watch things happen now.

 

[impressive]

I write to stir the imagination, not to feed every detail to the reader. Thus I tend to leave out more than I put in -- even if I have a very clear mental picture of the character.

One of the most off-putting things I encounter when reading is to be in the throes of a hot story -- gettin' worked up -- and have the author all of a sudden mention a physical characteristic that is totally opposite of what I'd envisioned. It's the proverbial "cold shower" for me.

EDITED: I don't have a clue what Manga looks like -- but I know Slavic

 

[Mark James]

Don't over do it

Originally posted by vella_ms
one thing i detest is an author that leaves nothing to the reader's imagination. Ann Rice is one that goes into a detailed description of nearly everything. somethings need it, while others do not.
i say its better not to bog down the story with too much over-decription. this is from my own perspective as a reader.

I love the Vampire chronicles, and I think Ann Rice is a great story teller, but when I read her stuff (Interview is the worst offender I've read so far), I always wish I could grab the writer by the throat and say "For heaven's sake woman, get on with the damn story!"

Despite that however, I read her stuff because the stories are great. I love the world of vampires that she creates, but the descripiton, after description, after description is maddening.

When I write my own stuff, I tend to use very spare descriptions that draw on the familiar, so half my work is done for me most of the time. That way, when I want something to really impact my reader, I lavish detail on it. But only ONCE or TWICE throughout a short story. At novel length, I may allow myself that luxury up to four times. But when I'm reading over my rough draft, and I find myself forgetting the action because I got lost in the middle of a description (Ann Rice comes to mind), I reach for the delete key immediately and start hacking away at it.