Many times when writing, I get a very specific image in my head of the way I want something to look, or the way I want something to move. Particularly with actions where objects are moving in a very specific way, I want to describe them accurately so that most readers would see the same thing that I’m seeing in my head. The problem is, I don’t want to come off as sounding too technical (the object slid along its Z axis and suddenly stopped and rotated 45 degrees on its Y axis), and I also don’t want to be so vague that a later sentence contradicts what they were seeing in their head.
Is this just a psychological thing that I need to get over and stop worrying about, and just write to the best of my ability and edit when I hear critiques/comments from readers, or is it a skill that I need to improve?
I just generally describe it as well as I can then accept that every reader will envision it completely differently.
That’s the best thing about reading, in my opinion.
True. I have to remind myself that that’s what’s so great about any art form; the audience’s unique interpretation of it. Everyone is going to see something differently, and each perspective is (in most cases) valid.
It’s hard to say. You definitely don’t want to be too specific, but you do want to hit the high notes. What parts of the movement are important later, even if “later” is only a sentence or two away?
Could you describe the movements relative to the rest of the scene you’re setting?
“Part of the mechanism moved along the west wall, as though guided by (mechanical/spooky action related to plot). It stopped, then rotated towards (character) but came to rest on its corner before completing even a quarter rotation to the east.”
Just write to the best of your ability. Writing is a written medium, not a visual one, so unlike a film, TV series, or game, you can’t guarantee that a reader will always see exactly the same thing as you. The imagination is a funny thing, which runs a full spectrum from aphantasia (an inability to imagine at all) to fully photorealistic “movie in their head” mental images. Nothing you write will ever allow those on one end of that spectrum to see what you’re seeing, and writing all the details to make the other’s mental images 100% accurate will bog down your writing with a lot of detail that just isn’t relevant to the story. Also, the more specific you make your descriptions in an attempt to beam what you’re seeing into the readers’ heads, the denser your prose becomes, which risks losing readers with average reading comprehension skills.
If there’s a specific aspect of the movement that’s very important, then describe it as best as you can. Readers don’t need, and won’t remember, irrelevant details. If they do picture something incorrectly and something you write later contradicts it, then they’ll edit their mental image and/or go back to check what you wrote earlier. I do this all the time when reading if it turns out I’ve pictured something incorrectly, and I’d say I have a pretty average visual imagination: I can picture things fine, but I don’t have a “mental movie” that creates photorealistic detail. You could describe something in massive detail, and my mind will generate an Impressionist painting, not modern CGI.
Hobbyist/wannabe writer, but here are my two cents. I actively try not to convey my mental picture exactly the way I picture it. The only exception is for first impressions of people, like a specific fashion style or characteristic that says something about the person. If I find that something else depends on a very specific mental picture, then I’ll try to rewrite it so that it doesn’t.
