How to Write a Detailed Story

Writing a detailed story

You did everything with almost complete dedication when you were a child. You think about every little detail to make a new book fascinating. However, when I wrote, I really felt like a muse was mystically writing the story for me. Resolve a problem with Sandrine Bitton. Who' s the story from?

Write mighty description

To write is a report on how folks think. It is empathetic as a media in itself, it obviously conveys feelings of humanity. To make a storyline work, it has to look like reality, even if it is something completely different. As your description becomes more descriptive and richer, your letter will correspond to your own personal experiences and connect with others.

These are the best describes that are totally inventive, easy to understand and often remembered. Think of this as a prime to write good descriptive text (here is your first lesson: "good" is not a good or adequate way to describe something). In order to make things interesting - and very awkward for me - I've unearthed some of my own tales from the past years to highlight some really horrible mistakes in the way they were described, each of which was poisoning at different points in the early half of the last ten years.

A word with pronounced sensorial connotations always increases your chance of giving a sensitive answer. To maximise this sensitive reaction, try to address all your sentiments as often as possible. More recent studies show that words with sensorial description are so potent that they even encourage areas of the mind that are not used for speech processing.

For example, if we study a detailled report about how something reeks, our sensorial organism gets a beep. Whenever you can, if you really want your readers to be part of the storyline, you should take full benefit of our collectively erroneous cabling. In other words, to increase the stress, reduce the movement.

To maximise this sensitive reaction, try to address all your sentiments as often as possible. Do not include a synopsis in your description. Provide specific information, get involved with instant to instant detail, tell us about every detail and how it affects the mind. Imagining each and every sequence before writing is one of the most convenient - and simplest - ways to create a description base.

Quietly shut your literal eye, see the sequence and record it. Now, to build the authoritative nature of narrative, make sure that the narrative is narrated from the right perspective: Tell us how the person or storyteller would see the things from the POV that you have made. Here is a particularly poor excerpt from a history I made eight years ago:

"It' hot" would be good if I filled out a cop paper or even wrote a bit of reportage. A few things you should always keep in mind when you write a scene: Do your choice of words draw pictures, do they bring us into the present time? Are they making us history's own spectators rather than just people?

This new phrase is not only more peculiar, it also entails some shared experience with hotness (sticky skins, glowing car parks), which involves the reader in the process and increases the chance of a sensitive reaction. Unfortunately, this tale was released before I had the means to work on such blunt overwrites.

Five years later the phrase would have been okay if I just shortened the modifier and let the operation inhale. Note that this release focuses on verb usage. With the first release the movement ends with a definition of the colours of the blaze, hardly any important information.

Now, the focus is on the most important information in the movement (and in this case on the whole story): the branding building. When you want to highlight something, put it at the end of the phrase. The author has the opportunity to declare a certain personal experience and transform it into something intimate.

However, some creativity is needed to make figural speech work, and metaphor that is confusing, absurd or clich├ęd can destroy an otherwise outstanding part of type. Sheltered September skies staring back under an ash-grey canopy. At first I could spend the rest of my life living happy without ever again listening to a cloud as a "blanket" (ditto for "cotton").

I was not particularly impressed by this depiction when I was writing it in 2005. "Ash grey ceiling? "Why not just type "ashen blanket" or even better "grey blanket"? Speak something that will reconstruct the theme and allow the readers to see the universe in a new but recognisable way.

To describe a farm house as "picturesque" or to use expressions such as "before he knew it" is so well known that the user usually leaps over them completely and handles them as boiler plates. When you want to highlight something, put it at the end of the phrase. When there is a take-away that I want to get the readership from a particular article that concentrates on the descriptions, it's like this: Prevent cover-ups and useless overwriting.

It is not the author's task to lay siege to the readers, neither with a whisper of insignificant detail nor with a lengthy, fake mental effort of the chair-discussion. Unfortunately, it seems that almost every author (myself included) is going through this creeping period in which we plunder the lexicon or use our keyboard as a calculator.

The works that result from this way of thinking provide little help to the readers, and many later embarrassments for authors who are responsible for this narrative disorder. Concentrate on the most revealing detail when it comes to describing the work, rather than on your literary tendencies to rely on the crayon.

For example (bad): He asked himself whether there was a deep purpose, whether the warmth was talking about the real functioning of this town, the only place he really knew, and if he made enough effort to find an answer that pleased him, an explanatory statement that went beyond what the lucky ones had to have and the accursed were compelled to respect nothing, when the cruelty of Mother Earth manifested a definitive power, and man's need to find sanity was hardly more than a preposterous illusion that he was made out of

Phrases like this show a tradition that is very widespread today, where authors shoot these syntactic triple lindies in the hope that they can somehow make folks like their work. At the end of the day, it is the author who is suffering most from this kind of over-satiating pedanticism, because he has consciously surrounded the possible strength of the propositions with thoughtless confusion.

For example (better): He asked himself whether the warmth manifested the last sovereignty of the natural world, and man's need to find common ground was little more than a preposterous illusion that he could make meaning out of nothing. It' still not a very good phrase, but it is far less irritating than what was on the page before.

Mehr zum Thema