When I read, sometimes I have some internal dialogues for various reasons. Today the internal dialogue I had was about how much information is too much information (no, I am not talking about my daily ritual, thank you very much). At which point should I, as a writer, get my hand off.

Whether it was when I was in my business training or when I was writing some programs (yes, Ashi was some sort of a computer nerd long times ago), one of the things I learned in those disciplines was trying to be as thoughtful as possible so the people under your management, or end-users of your program can finish the job they want to do without put too much thought on technicalities. That's what makes the business process or a computer program running as smooth as possible.

The same thing can be applied to a piece of creative writing..., or can we? A grand assumption.

I am sure most of us writers have come across the statement "show, don't tell" some time during our creation process (usually during editing stage). I admit I violate that rule myself sometimes, and hopefully I edited them out before presenting it to the world. On the other hand, as a writer, I can get over anxious whether my story is coherent or not to my readers, and I believe that's when I start to violate that aforementioned rule. But then I realize this isn't a technical writing or running a business. The point isn't about efficiency, but effectiveness. I am not trying to make readers get by; I want them to get it.

A main character can be overly critical and too self-introspective; a side-effect of an excessive descriptive passage.

Such implementation of detail is well-intended. I certainly was taught to make good use of adjectives to create vivid imagery. But I also believe in "show, don't tell" and that ought to be applied to both the action, as well as the mental process of my main character. And there should be some sort of balance issue when a writer is doing his/her first read-through, and decide how much information must be cut. We wouldn't want to run into the risk of making the reading process too thoughtless.

Unlike running a business operation or a well-written app that should breeze through business as usual, an important concept in a story ought to be like a drama queen who draws attention to himself. Jar readers' mental comfort. Make them stop and think about why (why main character did that, and/or why author decided to write it that way). Make them confused (for now). Confused reader will have a heightened sense, an awareness of the issue, and it's exactly what we want (and therefore, such tactic must not be abused, or you'd fatigue the reader) to build a solid foundation of understanding important concepts in our writings without resorting to spell out the detail.

If successfully applied, the process will make the reading more engaging, and hopefully make the story more gripping and less flat in structure.

And now after I introduced those fuzzy general statements, now I am going to explain what leads me to think this way. Besides the "show, not tell" and "don't undermine the intelligence of the reader" rules mentioned, I believe in realism as a writing convention. The last time I checked, I wasn't exactly a stellar mind reader. As much as I want my readers to get inside the mindset of my main character, and put themselves into his shoes, I want my readers to... explore.

What I mean by that is, through my friend making process (which I admit I am awkward at it), I've come to the realization I don't actually know them overnight. Sometimes it's easy to be self-righteous and hasty to judge because I feel I know someone so much, but in fact I don't. So I keep doing the exploration until I see people's character unfold. Some info is given under strange circumstance where the informant is in fact an unreliable narrator (e.g., when was the last time you were told someone was straight only to find out it's more complex than that? How does that change your perception of that person? How does that change the story? Does that make the person deceitful or is he only trying to protect someone or himself? Is it fair to judge someone using limited knowledge of them?).

Unreliable narration and dramatic irony are proven techniques for drama, both literary-speaking and in real life. It's human nature, it's a human flaw, it's a way conflicts are derived, so let's embed that human flaw into a story. People are not always considerate or introspective in a face-to-face setting, unlike a character in a story which is a result of a writer's grand design, his channel for ideology. Real human beings are far from consistent and reliable in that regard and far more complex. Some people are more considerate than others alright, but I've yet to meet someone who takes his time and make me wait for his perfectly delivered cognitive idea in a conversation (if he did, is that what he really believes?). We grow somehow at the end of our conversation, and that growth comes from exploration and understanding. And we're going to write some fictions that allow our readers to explore human nature, and make them wade through human flaws to find out the real story, on their own. Our writing is merely a sandbox that a reader can use for creating their own story.