
when thoughts attack and inspiration fuels my artistic stumbling, i write.
-
sometimes the events and actions are so alive and intense that i feel a need to guide the reader through it all - but i don't think it works all the time at all. neither is a desireable thing in writing. there has to be something left out for the reader to imagine.
this technique can easily result in an over-explained text that is too dull and complex to follow.
-
some other times however, i feel that since i, the writer do not know all the things about what's going on, plus some things are more than obvious, i have this tendency to omit some details - but this may risk continuity. i, the writer know about the surrounding and background story that explains/supports the events/actions, but what is obvious for me may not be clear for the reader.
-
there must be a fine balance...
i think revision is one solution to this dilemma.
hm, i wish i wrote more to see which type of mistake is more frequent in my writing... ;)
and you? how about your tendencies?
do you think there is an antidote to either of these mistakes besides revision and lots of reading of good literature?
-
in the meantime i'm off to write...
no, this time it's for money and the subject is table grapes, and their home-scale production.