One of the biggest challenges for me and my students is how much detail to include in our work. Always we hear the phrase, “show, don’t tell.” Writing texts stress specifics—details, details, details. But finding the balance between “show, don’t tell,” and “less is more,” another oft-repeated phrase is tricky.
In the memoir I’m finishing about the guide dog/human partnership, I wrote about the research into dogs’ five, often astounding, senses and talk about my own. Though totally blind and substantially deaf, I’ve learned that the brain’s plasticity and my training have enhanced my other senses. But the details, though pretty delicious, overloaded the members of my writing group, hearing the chapter.
I hypocritically comment, “cut, cut, cut,” in the margins of my students’ papers so it was good to have the same reaction from my peer group.
Orson Scott card and probably a host of other writers talk about every aspect of our writing being autobiographical, the settings, topics, characters, metaphors, and every word we choose. In this way our writing with its specifics out of our cores becomes fresh and important. But how to judge if we have too many “spare parts,” as Ted Kooser calls them? I suggest reading aloud, but also reading aloud to others, or having them read aloud to you. This last especially works. I wrote an article for a writing journal about it, actually. Hearing your work in the voice of someone representing your target audience really lets you know, not just the overloaded details, but when the reader is absorbed and engaged, or when she’s just reading words, but has lost interest. Note: preferably the reader should not be a relative, close friend, or someone biased toward you.
There are probably other ways to check for excessive details. Some suggest using differently-colored markers on your printed pages for action, dialogue, narration. Then check the balance.
Simply knowing that too much detail is just as bad as too little may be a help. Ah. The quest for the Goldilocks measure continues.