Would you care to take a crack at how much and what sort of redundancy is useful, and how to supply it? I think I err too much on the side of only saying things once.
The Hot Zone struck me as a perfect example of how non-fiction is written for a popular audience, especially the way it alternated between stories and abstraction. I don’t know that’s still current, or if fashions have changed.
Consensus from writers: your beta readers are much better at identifying problems than solving them. A beta reader who can report accurately on their own specific reactions is a treasure.
Tentative: think about what cognitive resources you’re invoking. I realized that one of the reasons I don’t like most milsf is that my ability at visualization for tactics is limited. I’ll take the trouble for Tolkien, but not much of anyone else.
Discussion of skimming and fiction—short version: there are people who skim sex scenes, action scenes, and/or description. No one skims dialogue.
Thanks for this.
Both your links on point 21 are to the same page.
Would you care to take a crack at how much and what sort of redundancy is useful, and how to supply it? I think I err too much on the side of only saying things once.
The Hot Zone struck me as a perfect example of how non-fiction is written for a popular audience, especially the way it alternated between stories and abstraction. I don’t know that’s still current, or if fashions have changed.
Consensus from writers: your beta readers are much better at identifying problems than solving them. A beta reader who can report accurately on their own specific reactions is a treasure.
Tentative: think about what cognitive resources you’re invoking. I realized that one of the reasons I don’t like most milsf is that my ability at visualization for tactics is limited. I’ll take the trouble for Tolkien, but not much of anyone else.
Discussion of skimming and fiction—short version: there are people who skim sex scenes, action scenes, and/or description. No one skims dialogue.
Fixed, thanks.