I've been discussing prose style with a friend who's a science fiction writer. We both agree that simplicity in story-telling trumps gratuitous scene-setting. The problem is that I tend to write stories in a highly visual manner, with lots of metaphor and allusion that -- technically -- doesn't need to be there. Sure, I like it . . . but will readers?
For instance, I've got a line in a project I'm working on that briefly describes a futuristic motorcycle with trackballs "sprouting from the handlebars like mechanized fruit." Again,
I like it. But it's likely a prospective editor would roll his or her eyes and urge me to cut to the chase, and not without some justification.
William Gibson is a wildly talented writer who knows how to create super visuals without overdoing it on word-count. There's a scene in "Pattern Recognition" where he describes a decoration made out of dried gourds that look "worryingly like human skulls." Lethal!
To date, two respected genre authors have compared my literary style to
J.G. Ballard. On first take, this is seriously flattering. But the subtext of the comparison is that I'm overdoing it (if inadvertently) or trying too hard. In truth, I think I'm simply having fun . . . but possibly at the reader's expense.