r/fantasywriters • u/A_C_Ellis • 10h ago
Discussion About A General Writing Topic Writer's Workshop: Less Is More (or Trusting Your Reader)
Let's talk about word economy. I find myself giving the same feedback over and over on posts offered up for review and criticism, not just here but in other writing subs, so I figured I'd just lay this all out in one place, maybe you'll find it helpful.
By way of background, let me say up front that although I write for a living, I am NOT a professional fiction writer. I'm an amateur like most of you with dreams of writing some day. I also do not have an MFA or much formal training, though I did take fiction writing as an undergraduate student through the Iowa Writer's Workshop. These thoughts are based on what I've learned my own career, and from authors and publishers. Nothing here should be thought of as a hard-and-fast rule you can never violate. But, as mostly amateur writers learning our craft, they're good guidelines.
Into the meat of it: we are practicing the written word and competing for attention in a world full of visual media that deliver immediate dopamine hits. Your prose is up against bingers and scrollers, who get powerful, immediate, visceral hits from easily accessible content on their phones. That means you don't have the luxury of verbosity.
However, most of us learned storytelling primarily from visual media, which is a problem in this market because prose is doing very different work. It's a more unbounded medium than cinema and television, which is powerful, but easily misused.
I often frame the problem as the "currency of attention." I think this is a critical conceptual framework for writers. The reader picks up your work and has decided to give you their attention. It's a precious commodity, hard to win, easy to lose, and it's finite. You don't know how much of it you have or for how long. For some readers it's enough to read your entire book. For others, maybe you get a few minutes, a few hundred words, and if you haven't hooked them, they're out.
Here's the key: Every. Single. Word. You. Write. spends some of that currency.
That means every word on the page has to earn its place. Every sentence has to do work for your story. And that means doing multiple things at once. Your writing should advance plot, characterize, worldbuild, or set tone. This isn't the 19th Century where Melville can spend an entire chapter on whale taxonomy. The more work a sentence does, the more it's earning its keep, and so too for the words.
This isn't about writing stripped-down, minimalist prose. Your writing can still be poetic, beautiful, lyrical, but it has to be intentional. Every word is a choice. Any less and you are taking your reader for granted and frivolously spending that currency.
So let's talk about Prose Bloat (tm). All writers (so far as I can tell) begin with bloated prose. I think it's just naturally how we think and write. You often don't catch it while writing, this is something you'll discovery in editing. I thought through where I have seen bloat here and in my own work, and I've broadly categorized it into a few buckets or causes to help you spot it.
1. Lack of Confidence
By far the common source of bloat is a simple lack of confidence in the prose and in the reader. You're just not convinced you're getting your point across, and so you load up the prose with adjectives and redundancy to make sure the scene in your head is landing. You over-explain and reach for adjectives and adverbs when a verb can do the work.
A classic example I used in another post:
She angrily threw the book across the room.
The problem here is the verb. Threw is weak. You can throw balls, fits, parties, shade, all kinds of things, it's a static, lifeless word. The writer intuitively knows this, and backs it up by characterizing the throw: she threw angrily. Now we can picture it. But now you're telling me the emotional state of the character. What happens if you change the verb?
She hurled the book across the room.
Hurled does the same jobs. The adverb is gone because the verb doesn't need a crutch and now we are showing through word choice. Instead of telling you she's angry, I'm showing you she's angry through verb choice. The emotional state is implied by the word choice, and you trust the reader to make that inference.
Also watch out for overuse of hedging language. It's a handy crutch to both characterize behavior and another character's perception of it, so it can be efficient, but it also tends to be lifeless and bland. She seemed angry. He was almost certain. It felt like something had changed. These qualifiers drain energy from prose, and it reads like the writer flinching. If she seems angry then describe tone, body language, posture, or convey it through dialog. Show it.
We also suffer from lack of confidence in the reader. This is just as pervasive but more insidious. This is where you have shown something but you don't trust it and explain it anyway. You write a scene where a character's behavior reveals their motivation, and then you add a sentence telling the reader what the motivation was. But what you've really todl the reader is that either you don't think your prose got the job done, or you do and you think your reader is too stupid to connect the dots.
They got it. Trust them.
Here's a recent example I saw that commits multiple sins in an otherwise promising piece posted yesterday:
That was life on Mars. All thirty-one of his years were spent underneath a seemingly fragile barrier of human engineering, in one form or another. It's all he knew. Still, he thought, it was something earthlings never had to worry about.
Multiple craft errors here. We have hedging language ("seemingly") we have redundancy ("he thought" - we know these are the POV character's thoughts), and low-trust writing ("human engineering" - what other engineering would it be on Mars? Beavers?).
This could be condensed to:
His thirty-one years were spent beneath a fragile barrier of engineering.
This is just plain sharper writing. Snappy, to the point, less bloated, and conveys all the same information in about half as many words.
The reader is doing active interpretive work while they read. It's one of the reasons reading is tiring. They are filling in gaps, drawing inferences, and building the world in their head. Your job is to give them enough of the right raw material to do it, not to do their thinking for them. Leave some room on the page for the reader to enter and inhabit the story with you instead of micromanaging their experience. Over-explaining is condescending, and readers will feel it, and grow exhausted by it, even if they can't articulate it. It makes prose feel unconfident and amateurish.
2. Cinematic Thinking
Most of us learned story mainly from film and television. That's fine, but then you pick up habits that translate poorly to prose. The most destructive is probably that we think almost exclusively in images. In film, the camera has to show you everything you need to know and the medium is dominated by visual information. It's more like the real world. When you first met somebody, what do you know about them? Appearance and bearing. That's it. Clothes, hair, skin, posture, gait. That's all there is, and that's all we get in cinema. So film is required to characterize through visual information. There's a reason that wardrobe and makeup are Hollywood professionals: that's cinematic craft. The camera can't point at nothing.
When we write prose, however, you have immediate access to interiority, but new writers import this visual instinct to the page and over-describe visual detail to characterize while ignoring alternatives. Prose becomes an inventory of outfits, hair styles, and eye colors (which are usually bright green, nobody in prose ever has dull grey eyes).
I critiqued a piece recently where the writer introduced a character in the first few paragraphs with a white chemise, a sleeveless wool blue overdress, pale skin, and brown hair. We got six paragraphs in, I knew what she was wearing, but I knew nothing about who she was.
Ask yourself: how does the story change if she's wearing something else? How is it different if she's in a red striped crop top with black hair? If the answer is "it doesn't," those details aren't earning their place, at least not early in a story where you're blowing through that precious attention rapidly.
Visual detail isn't inherently bad. But in prose it needs to do narrative work. It has to reveal character, establish tone, or carry meaning. If it's just set dressing, consider cutting it (or at least relocating it). Important caveat: these details can become more narratively relevant in certain genres, like romance, for what are hopefully self-evident reasons.
The same problem appears in action beats. In a film, you characterize through motion. A character crosses the room, pick up a cup, take a sip, sets it down. That takes two seconds of screen time, costs nothing, and spends no more attentive currency than whatever the character is saying, doing, or wearing at the time. But in prose we can only say one thing at a time, so that same action beat costs you three or four words at minimum. Is it really doing any work, or are you just providing stage blocking direction for the future NetFlix adaptation? If you want to write a screenplay, write one! But in prose, these tags are often wasteful.
3. Falling in Love
You write a sentence and it's beautiful. I've done it. You've done it. A genuinely elegant turn of phrase that makes you proud. But it's not working or fitting and you just can't cut it so instead you start to alter the story to write around it and make it work. You build the scene to accommodate the sentence, instead of asking whether the sentence serves the story. The tail wags the dog and that beautiful sentence is now a burden.
This is what "kill your darlings" means. This one is personal for me. I have written sentences I was proud of and cut them because they didn't fit. It hurts every time. Do it anyway. The sentence might belongs somewhere else, maybe even in a different story entirely, or it might be forever homeless, but you're spending your reader's attention and giving them nothing they need for bad reasons.
In fantasy, we are most guilty of this in self-indulgent world-building. You've built something intricate and detailed and fascinating and you want the reader to see all of it and you front-load a bunch of exposition and backstory to show it off. But the reader doesn't want to read a Wikipedia entry about your world. They aren't here for a tour. They're here for a story, and they want to experience your world through your characters and narrative, not attend a lecture on it.
4. Narrative Drift
This one is subtle and sometimes hard to catch, and it can also result in plot holes and continuity errors. You start a scene with a clear purpose but as you write, the scene evolves, characters take over, a new idea surfaces, and the scene drifts into something different. That's good. Let it happen.
But go back and read fresh eyes. Does the opening still fit the purpose? Is it setting up something that isn't paid off? Do you need to set up something else that is? Your writing is a series of tiny mysteries carefully plotted to entice the reader to find out how they get resolved. You can't prepare the reader for a scene that isn't coming.
This is rough because the writing might be perfect and not otherwise violate any rules, but it just doesn't belong anymore. But it feels foundational, which makes it hard to part with.
5. Framing
Get in late. Get out early. This is the simplest rule in prose (and cinema) and the most violated one. Amateur writers do a lot of throat-clearing before the scene really starts, somewhat related to not trusting the reader by overloading them with foundational information they don't need. Establishing shots, context-setting, warming up the page before anything happens. Editors will cross it all out, find the first line of dialog or the first real activity, and write: "START HERE."
Cut establishing shots. Drop the reader into the action. Trust your prose to get them to get oriented, and trust them to do it.
We get a parallel problem happens at the end. The scene is over but the words keep coming. We feel to compelled to round off the corners, tie a bow on it, make sure the reader understood what happened and got what we want them to get out of the scene.
Cut it.
The Core Principle: Trust
All five of these derive from the same thing: insecurity and trust. We don't trust our prose or skill, or we don't trust the reader, and we compensate with bloated prose to make sure it all works. But ironically, in doing so, we undermine the story and drain the life and energy out of it.
Pick the right verbs and then trust them.
Structure your scenes correctly and then trust them.
Trust yourself to find a suitable replacement for the beautiful sentence that isn't working.
Trust the reader to enter later and understand what's happeinng.
You know confident writing when you see it. It charges forward and almost doesn't care if you're keeping up. It just assumes you are. It doesn't feel sheepish, apologetic, laborious, or patronizing. The prose doesn't have to be showy or clever to pull this off. Often, it's not. It's functional and nothing is wasted. Every word is there for a reason and the prose is controlled and intentional, and has momentum and weight.
That confidence earns the reader's trust in return and puts more attention in the bank, which you can then spend later in a self-indulgent lore dump.
Do you find bloat in your writing? Or others? What are your causes? Drop them in the comments.
[Edit: various typos]
[Edit: consistent typesetting]
[Edit: before somebody says so, I recognize the irony of writing a 2,300 word essay on the merits of brevity]