A place to discuss the craft of writing: tricks, philosophies, styles

[StillStunned]

Ok, fair enough. But I still think the practise of using one intensely described detail in the opening of the scene, to get the reader in the intense focusing mood, is a tool that can be used to great advantage.

What always strikes me about the best sword & sorcery stories is when the opening paragraphs paint such a vivid picture of the local colour and the mood that for the rest of the story the author only needs to provide the sparsest of detail. This means that when the action begins you're not getting bogged down in describing the background.

I make no claims to be anywhere near as good as RE Howard - the opening of "The Tower of the Elephant" is a perfect example of how this works - but I'm quite proud of these efforts:

From Orgy of Death:

South and east of Arnhol, beyond the carefully cultivated estates, a vast empty countryside separated the city from its larger cousin, the Imperial capital of Taridhol. Farmland gave way to scrubby woodland, which in turn became a featureless plain before rising to meet the foothills of the Trada mountains.

It was a lawless country, despite being so close to the centre of power. Successive rulers had sent soldiers into the wasteland to keep the road clear, with only limited success, and no lasting effect. The patrols returned to their barracks, leaving behind them corpses impaled on stakes and swinging from makeshift gibbets, and immediately the vacuum was filled with new robbers, rapists and murderers.

Travel across the plain was rare, as a result, and limited to the old Third Empire road that ran as straight as possible between the hills and crags. It was a venture usually reserved for units of soldiers and heavily-guarded caravans. A pair of travellers astride an eight-legged riding lizard for instance would raise eyebrows, although the words being muttered seemed to fit right in.

"Fuck you, Sligh." The woman was slim, with short, spiky hair and an angry look on her face. Her hands were staying conspicuously away from the short spear strapped to the saddle by her leg, and from the bow-shaped sheath slung on her other side. "Fuck you for dragging me into this mess. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you."

And from The Sightless Watcher:

Night lay on the temple complex like a silk blanket. Beyond the tall walls, the desert wind whispered the secrets of the sands to the small settlement, but here silence reigned.

It crept through halls and passages and echoed around courtyards. It lurked in black corners like a predator lying in wait for its prey. It swallowed the tiniest sound alive.

Orra preferred the place at night. It was stifling during the day, both from the heat and from the press of bodies. Priests, servants and supplicants rubbed shoulders -- literally, on the days of the High Sun. Even hushed, their voices battered against the walls and ceilings until Orra sometimes felt she might suffocate.

But at night it was empty. Orra could roam the halls, losing herself inside her mind, letting her fingers trail along the cool stones. Her only companions as she made her way through the dark were the soft sounds of feet padding on the bare flags.

The idea being to start big and wide, and narrow the focus down to the POV character. Show your reader what world to imagine, and then the character in that world.

 

[HordHolm]

The idea being to start big and wide, and narrow the focus down to the POV character. Show your reader what world to imagine, and then the character in that world.

It's rather like the establishing shot in a film's opening.

 

[StillStunned]

It's rather like the establishing shot in a film's opening.

Yes, precisely! I'm actually surprised that more writers don't do it. There seems to be a tendency to start with the main character and then portray the world around them, which requires the story to go from small to big and back to small.

Take Star Wars, for example. Ep. IV begins with a shot of space, and two enormous spaceships engaged in a battle. So we know exactly what the backdrop is going to be. If the movie began with the shot of Luke looking out over the desert, we'd need to have the the setting described as exposition, or else we'd have to take a break from Luke's story to say, "Oh, and by the way, this is the background to his story, sorry, didn't we mention that before?"

And I'm pretty sure it works for other genres too, besides just fantasy and sci-fi. I haven't read any of the Literotica Convention stories, but I can imagine that a story that begins with a description of the outside of the hotel before moving into the lobby with half a dozen people and some signs about the convention would be very effective for setting the mood before the main character is even introduced.

 

[TheLobster]

Yes, precisely! I'm actually surprised that more writers don't do it. There seems to be a tendency to start with the main character and then portray the world around them, which requires the story to go from small to big and back to small.

It does make sense if the world is to be perceived by the character's eyes, in a close PoV. Panning your camera over the scene could then be done in a way the character sees it.

But what I like to do the most is not exactly an establishing shot, but an opening sequence with light and mundane "action" that shouldn't really need to be described, but provides a framework to insert bits and pieces of whatever exposition you want. It can be the MC going through the arrival procedure on an airport, like in my last year's Nude Day story; or driving to work; or -- since it's erotica after all -- masturbating or having an unimportant sexual encounter.

It's basically the equivalent of opening credits that follow the title screen in some (older?) movies. The character is technically doing something, but it's a trivial everyday activity that would normally be dispensed with in a single sentence.

 

[yowser]

having an unimportant sexual encounter.

What?

 

[TheLobster]

What?

Encounter that's, by itself, not super important to the plot, like one that merely serves as an illustration of MCs ongoing happy marriage.

But yes, I do concede and pour ash on my forehead in penance, for suggesting that sex could not be important in an erotic story

 

[Dearelliot]

Not that I feel that I could offer advice to anyone.

I try to start my stories with a scene that I hope will get the reader's attention, put him right in the shoes of my favorite character, the obedient submissive male who kneels, before his dominant Mistress. My stories are not for everyone.

I write stories because I like to...It gives me pleasure to put a story together, develop my characters, and present a description of their lifestyle to readers who enjoy stories about sadistic women and the submissive male.

I have never attended a class on writing, and I slept through my English/Grammar classes, and commas are one of the great mysteries of life for me...Thank god for Grammarly.

and I'm very old.

 

[Baztrachian]

I'm a pantser. Always have been.

I get an idea about a setting or a situation and then the characters come to me. I start writing and they come to life, they tell me who they are and I write down their experiences and their words.

Sometimes a decent twist ending comes along.

Like with this one:

https://www.literotica.com/s/vignette-tammy-the-tease

And this one:

https://www.literotica.com/s/skilled-nursing-services

But with this one the twist ending came to me before the original setting. The setting took time to figure out.

https://www.literotica.com/s/taking-a-walk-2

 

[RetroFan]

My main advise would be this - twist endings can be good, but think it through and beware of twists that will be seen as betrayals by readers.

For example, say somebody wrote a story about a fictional British pop group consisting of very good looking young guys and girls (aged approximately 18-21) in the late 1990s or early 2000s (think S Club 7 or Steps), who while on a concert tour in Australia, have an orgy in their hotel room. The characters are well written, likeable and believable, the setting and premise are good and the sex scenes are really hot.

People like the story, and are going to give it a 5/5 rating, favourite it and leave a glowing comment praising the author and his/her work - until they get to the ending. It is then revealed in a last act twist that in fact the sex scene is all in the imagination of a creepy, unemployed 40-something loser who lives in his parents' basement in the present day, and who acts it out using dolls of the young UK pop-stars that were popular merchandise when the group (long since split up and gone their separate ways) were in their hey-day over 20 years ago.

While not an outright 'it was all a dream' ending, it is still a slap in the face to readers. You never got to meet the fictional UK pop group, you didn't get to go on their tour to Australia, you didn't get to go back in time to the late 90s or early 00s and the great sex scenes never happened. Would it still get the high praise and scores most readers were going to give it? Maybe in some cases, but not in most cases, in fact the opposite would now probably be true.

 

[StillStunned]

Last week I wrote a story, Tammy, Jessica, Yuliya (4.7k words, rated 4.72 in Lesbian). It took less than twelve hours, from getting the idea to submitting the story for publication. I enjoyed writing it, and it's getting plenty of votes and views. Several very positive comments as well.

But for the first time I've lost pretty much all interest in it. Normally, I love all my stories. I love to reread them, for the sex and the emotion and the clever banter. I'm probably my own biggest fan.

This one? It might as well be someone else's story. I don't feel any connection to the narrator, even though I channelled quite a bit of my own past into her feelings. The sex? I reread the story this afternoon, and nothing.

After two years of writing, and dozens of stories - and Writing Exercise snippets as well - it's an odd feeling.

 

[HordHolm]

Last week I wrote a story, Tammy, Jessica, Yuliya (4.7k words, rated 4.72 in Lesbian). It took less than twelve hours, from getting the idea to submitting the story for publication. I enjoyed writing it, and it's getting plenty of votes and views. Several very positive comments as well.

But for the first time I've lost pretty much all interest in it. Normally, I love all my stories. I love to reread them, for the sex and the emotion and the clever banter. I'm probably my own biggest fan.

This one? It might as well be someone else's story. I don't feel any connection to the narrator, even though I channelled quite a bit of my own past into her feelings. The sex? I reread the story this afternoon, and nothing.

After two years of writing, and dozens of stories - and Writing Exercise snippets as well - it's an odd feeling.

Do something else for a while. Smell the fresh air. Look up old friends (literally, if that's you thing ). Burn out is a real thing and you might be getting the first warning sign.

 

[AG31]

Then there's using word clouds to spot over use. Thanks to @ElectricBlue for pointing this out a couple of times. I don't want to post a URL because I'm not sure which ones don't drag along malware.

 

[Bramblethorn]

My main advise would be this - twist endings can be good, but think it through and beware of twists that will be seen as betrayals by readers.

I think a lot of authors get caught up in the cleverness of putting a twist in their story, without considering whether the twist actually makes it a better story. It needs to have some better reason than being able to go "ha ha I TRICKED you!"

I recall one story about a woman who has an adventurous sex life, and the big twist is that she has a partner and child back home. Writing it that way means that for 90% of the story, the partner and child have to be concealed, which means there's no opportunity to explore how those two sides of her fit together in one person. IMHO that story would've been better without the twist.

 

[Djmac1031]

Details matter, but you don't need many of them. A few good details are all you need.

This is a solid point. I've had my work described as both "sparse" and "simplistic," and I've taken that as a compliment.

Details are, as Simon points out, important. But I've seen far too many authors front load details early in a story that would would be better served waiting for the right moment to reveal.

Its that thing most of have picked up on at some point, the difference between the description / info dump paragraph...

The woman walked into the office. Her name was Becky. She had red hair and wore a yellow dress. She carried an iced coffee. She was a secretary for a law firm. She was late for work.

... and incorporating the details into the story:

As Becky walked into the office, she glanced at the clock nervously. She was late as usual, but hopefully her bosses hadn't noticed. Nor notice the stain on her yellow dress from the iced coffee she'd spilled on the train ride in.

Brushing her red hair back from her face with frustration, she took a seat at her desk and answered the phone which had been ringing endlessly. "Barlow And Sons Lawfirm, how may I direct your call?"

 

[MelissaBaby]

Then there's using word clouds to spot over use. Thanks to @ElectricBlue for pointing this out a couple of times. I don't want to post a URL because I'm not sure which ones don't drag along malware.

When I finish my second draft, I always use the word search function and look for "Then", "Began", "Started" and other common words that are more often than not unnecessary.

I also search "Said", "The", "She" and "He" in order to find out if I have used them too repetitiously.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

This is a solid point. I've had my work described as both "sparse" and "simplistic," and I've taken that as a compliment.

Details are, as Simon points out, important. But I've seen far too many authors front load details early in a story that would would be better served waiting for the right moment to reveal.

I saw Simon's advice, and I saw what you did here, and while I liked your way of avoiding data dumps - I agree too many in the beginning is tedious - I have to say that I am decidedly in the 'more detail is more gooder' camp when it comes to writing.

Now, far be it from me to argue with two writers who dwarf me in output, followers and views, but I go with a different philosophy.

A story is a meal, and for me, detail is the spice that makes the meal interesting. Anybody can make mac and cheese, but throw in a little truffle oil and suddenly you've got something that both everybody wants, and you can charge double for and people won't get that upset about it. "Twenty bucks for mac and cheese?" "Yeah, but it's TRUFFLE mac and cheese!"

For instance, here's an example of what I mean:

Sparse, nothing but the facts version:

There was a knock on the door to my office. I gave a noncommittal grunt. The door opened, and my assistant let a woman, my next case I assumed, into my office. She was completely average looking. She stepped over to my desk, put out her hand and introduced herself.

"My name is Karen," she said.

"Of course it is," I replied.

-------------------

The Sinclair over-detailed but I think more fun version:

There was a knock on the door to my office. "Wargarblle," I growled, my voice a bit husky from another late night of too much booze, too little sleep and way too much stale tobacco smoke. My assistant, a young gal who had been with me far longer than she deserved to be and who had put up with far more than she needed to, opened it. I studied my potential next client carefully.

She was of middling height, with shoulder length dark brown hair that she wore pulled back into a pony tail. Her eyes were brown. Her face looked like it was taken directly from the cover of a Reader's Digest. There was nothing at all memorable about it. Nose wasn't too big or too small. Eyebrows looked like eyebrows. Her lips were slightly moistened, like she'd just applied chapstick. She had two small gold hoop earrings in her ears. It was a face I wouldn't have looked at twice if I'd seen it in passing.

Her body? Well, let me tell you about her body. It was the mirror image of her face. She had on a light grey hoodie-style sweatshirt, no logos or designs on the front. The material was thick enough that it hid whatever curves may have been lurking underneath. She looked skinny, but that hoodie could have easily hid a spare tire or more. She had on a pair of blue jeans my teenage daughter would have called "Mom jeans," that flowed down into a pair of comfortable sneakers - white and as generic as you could get.

I sat dumbstruck for a few seconds. This was the most average looking woman I have ever seen. Literally. The only thing that stood out about her was how average she was. All she needed was a Pumpkin Spice latte and I would have said this was a fucking prank. No one could be this average.

She crossed the room boldly and shoved her hand at me.

"My name is Karen," she told me. It took every bit of self-control I had not to roll my eyes.

"Of course it is," I replied.

---------------------

Now, I think either one of these works. The first one is more of a "Dude" style explanation, while the second is an "El Duderino" style, if you're not into the whole brevity thing. But personally, I like reading the second one more than the first, because it not only conveys the facts - "Karen is average" it also conveys insights into the MC, what he looks for and what he sees when he sees it. I think that adds some value.

So, to make a long story short, detail is good! Don't be afraid to go heavy on the details. Some people like it.

 

[Djmac1031]

So, to make a long story short, detail is good! Don't be afraid to go heavy on the details. Some people like it.

There's also always a balance between the two.

Not that I saw anything wrong with your more detailed version. At all. It's very well written.

 

[SimonDoom]

I saw Simon's advice, and I saw what you did here, and while I liked your way of avoiding data dumps - I agree too many in the beginning is tedious - I have to say that I am decidedly in the 'more detail is more gooder' camp when it comes to writing.

Now, far be it from me to argue with two writers who dwarf me in output, followers and views, but I go with a different philosophy.

A story is a meal, and for me, detail is the spice that makes the meal interesting. Anybody can make mac and cheese, but throw in a little truffle oil and suddenly you've got something that both everybody wants, and you can charge double for and people won't get that upset about it. "Twenty bucks for mac and cheese?" "Yeah, but it's TRUFFLE mac and cheese!"

For instance, here's an example of what I mean:

Sparse, nothing but the facts version:

There was a knock on the door to my office. I gave a noncommittal grunt. The door opened, and my assistant let a woman, my next case I assumed, into my office. She was completely average looking. She stepped over to my desk, put out her hand and introduced herself.

"My name is Karen," she said.

"Of course it is," I replied.

-------------------

The Sinclair over-detailed but I think more fun version:

There was a knock on the door to my office. "Wargarblle," I growled, my voice a bit husky from another late night of too much booze, too little sleep and way too much stale tobacco smoke. My assistant, a young gal who had been with me far longer than she deserved to be and who had put up with far more than she needed to, opened it. I studied my potential next client carefully.

She was of middling height, with shoulder length dark brown hair that she wore pulled back into a pony tail. Her eyes were brown. Her face looked like it was taken directly from the cover of a Reader's Digest. There was nothing at all memorable about it. Nose wasn't too big or too small. Eyebrows looked like eyebrows. Her lips were slightly moistened, like she'd just applied chapstick. She had two small gold hoop earrings in her ears. It was a face I wouldn't have looked at twice if I'd seen it in passing.

Her body? Well, let me tell you about her body. It was the mirror image of her face. She had on a light grey hoodie-style sweatshirt, no logos or designs on the front. The material was thick enough that it hid whatever curves may have been lurking underneath. She looked skinny, but that hoodie could have easily hid a spare tire or more. She had on a pair of blue jeans my teenage daughter would have called "Mom jeans," that flowed down into a pair of comfortable sneakers - white and as generic as you could get.

I sat dumbstruck for a few seconds. This was the most average looking woman I have ever seen. Literally. The only thing that stood out about her was how average she was. All she needed was a Pumpkin Spice latte and I would have said this was a fucking prank. No one could be this average.

She crossed the room boldly and shoved her hand at me.

"My name is Karen," she told me. It took every bit of self-control I had not to roll my eyes.

"Of course it is," I replied.

---------------------

Now, I think either one of these works. The first one is more of a "Dude" style explanation, while the second is an "El Duderino" style, if you're not into the whole brevity thing. But personally, I like reading the second one more than the first, because it not only conveys the facts - "Karen is average" it also conveys insights into the MC, what he looks for and what he sees when he sees it. I think that adds some value.

So, to make a long story short, detail is good! Don't be afraid to go heavy on the details. Some people like it.

I read both examples, and I found myself wanting something in-between. I, too, like enough detail to give me a picture in mind of what's happening.

"She was completely average looking" is telling, not showing, so I agree one can do a lot better than to get across HOW this woman is average, and the amusing extent of her averageness, which is a point you want to make. I personally think the second passage gilds the lily a bit, but it's much more evocative and "fun" than the first one.

But, for example, the line about your assistant -- it seems a bit unnecessary, and it's also telling. If you want to make a point about your relationship with the assistant, I'd do it through an interaction between the two of them.

An analogy to what you're doing would be Joseph Heller's description of the hopelessly mediocre character Major Major Major Major in Catch -22. Here are some lines about him:

He had "three strikes against him from the beginning – his mother, his father, and Henry Fonda, to whom he bore a sickly resemblance almost from the moment of his birth. Long before he even suspected who Henry Fonda was, he found himself the subject of unflattering comparisons everywhere he went. Total strangers saw fit to deprecate him, with the result that he was stricken early with a guilty fear of people and an obsequious impulse to apologize to society for the fact that he was not Henry Fonda."

"People who had hardly noticed his resemblance to Henry Fonda before now never ceased discussing it, and there were even those who hinted sinisterly that Major Major had been elevated to squadron commander because he resembled Henry Fonda. Captain Black, who had aspired to the position himself, maintained that Major Major really was Henry Fonda "but was too chickenshit to admit it."

"Some people are born mediocre, some achieve mediocrity, and others have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it was all three."


So, I think there ARE times when it's good to go into more detail, but you should have a purpose for doing so, and if you're going to use more words then it's important to pick good words and know their effect. In Heller's case he was obviously striving for a comic effect. I assume you are doing something of the same, and your second passage does that better than the first, because without the details we can't see the comic nature of the encounter.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

Agree completely.

Although, I think it's pretty funny if somebody says "My name is Karen," and the response is "Of course it is."

Reminds me of that James Bond movie:

"Hi, I'm Plenty!"

"But of course you are."

I may have a weird sense of humor.

 

[SimonDoom]

Agree completely.

Although, I think it's pretty funny if somebody says "My name is Karen," and the response is "Of course it is."

Reminds me of that James Bond movie:

"Hi, I'm Plenty!"

"But of course you are."

I may have a weird sense of humor.

Weird's fine with me.

I wrote a story about killer penises from outer space.

 

[StillStunned]

Do something else for a while. Smell the fresh air. Look up old friends (literally, if that's you thing ). Burn out is a real thing and you might be getting the first warning sign.

You know what, you could be right. Thanks for that.

 

[TheLobster]

It took less than twelve hours, from getting the idea to submitting the story for publication. (...)

But for the first time I've lost pretty much all interest in it.

Take it easy for a little while. You delivered a very rapid, very potent spurt, and it's a sad fact of life that refractory periods get longer with age.

 

[MisterWindDong]

This is a solid point. I've had my work described as both "sparse" and "simplistic," and I've taken that as a compliment.

Details are, as Simon points out, important. But I've seen far too many authors front load details early in a story that would would be better served waiting for the right moment to reveal.

Its that thing most of have picked up on at some point, the difference between the description / info dump paragraph...

The woman walked into the office. Her name was Becky. She had red hair and wore a yellow dress. She carried an iced coffee. She was a secretary for a law firm. She was late for work.

... and incorporating the details into the story:

As Becky walked into the office, she glanced at the clock nervously. She was late as usual, but hopefully her bosses hadn't noticed. Nor notice the stain on her yellow dress from the iced coffee she'd spilled on the train ride in.

Brushing her red hair back from her face with frustration, she took a seat at her desk and answered the phone which had been ringing endlessly. "Barlow And Sons Lawfirm, how may I direct your call?"

Agree with the points you made here Djmac. All too often I see writers overly 'flourish' their prose to make it more exciting, and muddy their actual story.
For my own advice: as writers, our goal is to tell stories, not use the best words in the most clever way. The smallest viable form of story is the humble sentance, which builds into paragraph, into chapter. Detail breathes life into story, too much snuff it out. Simplicity is your tool to protect your story.

It's easier to illustrate, so I'll faux-critique DJMacs and Sinclair's posts, starting with Mac's first sentance in his 'lacking details' paragraph. (also please don't think I'm criticizing DJ or Sinclair directly, they gave these examples SPECIFICALLY to show too much detail, the examples themselves just work well for illustration)

The woman walked into the office.
Welp, you can't infer any story at all. No details, no story.

Compared to his 'details' example:
As Becky walked into the office, she glanced at the clock nervously.
There's story in this sentance. We know a woman's name, her emotional state, what she's doing, and what she might be emotional about (the time). In this case, sentance details (names / adjectives / adverbs), gave life to the story.

-----

At the paragraph level:
The woman walked into the office. Her name was Becky. She had red hair and wore a yellow dress. She carried an iced coffee. She was a secretary for a law firm. She was late for work.
Despite the fact that ZERO of the sentances contain a single detail (and thus tell no story) alone, this paragraph does tell a story.

The issue is: it's telling 5 stories at once. The detail-less sentanaces function as too many details for the paragraph, and they don't connect together.

If we pick a single story, and remove all the other sentances, it actually becomes workable:
The woman walked into the office. Her name was Becky. She was late for work.
That's a coherent story. Its a pretty boring one, but it has merit. This could be expounded on.

This is where many writers make the mistake of adding details to sentances in order to make them more exciting. Lets take DJmacs 'added detail' example paragraph:
As Becky walked into the office, she glanced at the clock nervously. She was late as usual, but hopefully her bosses hadn't noticed. Nor notice the stain on her yellow dress from the iced coffee she'd spilled on the train ride in.

I talked about the story of the first sentance, so I'll go to the second:
She was late as usual, but hopefully her bosses hadn't noticed.
We've got a story here too: She is late often. Not only that, her bosses are not ok with her being late, or else she wouldn't be worried if they noticed. Maybe her job is already on the line, or she has a mean boss. It definitely could explain why she was glancing at the clock nervously in the sentance before. Alright, so... what happens next??

Nor notice the stain on her yellow dress from the iced coffee she'd spilled on the train ride in.
Huh. Ok. Well, this tells us a story that she spilled some coffee on her dress on the train, and she doesn't want them to notice it. So she's messy, or maybe it was a bumpy train ride. And she's on the train, so maybe she can't afford a car? She likes the color yellow? Is the dress relevant? Not sure. Uh... what were we talking about?

Do you see what happened?

All three sentances told beautiful stories. The first two sentances connected naturally, and told us the story of a late office lady nervous about her boss. The final sentance told a separate story of the woman in the stained yellow dress on the train. Instead of continuing to build interest or suspense, the story of the paragraph is snuffed out. Too many details.

Pivoting to Sinclair, his exerpt did the same thing at the chapter level:
There was a knock on the door to my office. "Wargarblle," I growled, my voice a bit husky from another late night of too much booze, too little sleep and way too much stale tobacco smoke. My assistant, a young gal who had been with me far longer than she deserved to be and who had put up with far more than she needed to, opened it. I studied my potential next client carefully.

Our chapter introduction.
Each sentance tells a wonderful story, gracefully building on upon the other, and the paragraph's story comes to life:
An early morning between a rough n tumble detective (with a handful of vices) and his young assistant, whose stuck with him through thick and thin.

Some tasty classic noir backdrop. I want to grab a cigar just reading it.

Here's the problem: The story Sinclair wanted to tell with this chapter... had nothing to do with this. This chapter's story was about how absolutely unremarkable of a woman Karen is, his next client. So this paragraph's lovely story doesn't fit, and the chapter's story is somewhat muddled as you figure out what to do with the unresolved story between Mr Detective and Young Assistant (eventually throwing it out, as Simon inferred).

----

That's it for the illustration, also sorry DJ and Sinclair for randomly picking on you guys hasty examples

To close my advice out, you can be an excellent writer but poor storyteller, as they are separate skills. To have your work resonate, you need both.

If you struggle with story telling, start with simplicity. Simple sentances tell one story. Fitting a simple sentance into your paragraph's story is much more binary. Simple paragraphs work the same way on the Chapter level, etc. etc.

Once you are able to 'maintain your story' chapter by chapter, let your work grow complex in the opposite direction; build your complexity first in the chapter's story, then the paragraph's, and finally the sentances'.

 

[Djmac1031]

That's it for the illustration, also sorry DJ and Sinclair for randomly picking on you guys hasty examples

no offense taken here. My example was an extreme (and yes, hastily written) one to contrast the difference between info dump and incorporating details as a story unfolds.

I'd say my first paragraph was highly exaggerated except I've read stories very close to the way I wrote that.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Here's the problem: The story Sinclair wanted to tell with this chapter... had nothing to do with this. This chapter's story was about how absolutely unremarkable of a woman Karen is, his next client. So this paragraph's lovely story doesn't fit, and the chapter's story is somewhat muddled as you figure out what to do with the unresolved story between Mr Detective and Young Assistant (eventually throwing it out, as Simon inferred).

What chapter? You can't assume the rest of a chapter from an isolated scene. And even if you did, there's nothing wrong with an immersive sub scene in a broader chapter. Disagree 100%, even more than 100 if I could.