I’m aware it’s often considered a sin to consider the potential audience when you’re writing something, but I have a question that pertains to that.
As a touch of background, I’ve spent some good chunk of time experimenting with leaving things out. I like how in movies, for example, a director can shoot whole scenes without dialogue, and you can get the whole story just from facial expressions and body language. I’m also interested in things like the Kuleshov Effect, which as I understand it is how when two shots in a film are viewed back to back, the visual connection automatically implies a thematic connection in the audience’s brain.
I feel like, even though they’re different kinds of media, we might be able to exploit a lot of the same techniques in our fiction writing in some way, and I find it amusing to play around with that by cutting all of the asides and explanations and leaving in only concrete actions and dialogue. And then going even further and cutting ANYTHING that might seem moderately superfluous, up to the point where half of the plot is driven by implications alone.
But I’ve also found that the latter level is overreaching. At that stage my writing just becomes very vague and sketchy and hard to interpret. (Which is another way of saying it becomes bad.) I’m working out finding a middle ground that I’m comfortable with.
So my question is, how much do you guys typically trust your readers to pick up on implications? And if the answer is ‘a lot’, how do you do it?