"Cavalry is charging" is not as powerful as "cavalry is charging into battle".

You can also use the passive voice, like "The position came under heavy attack by cavalry" - great.

The worst thing is to use the past perfect tense. You can recognize it by the words "have" and "been," which act like a flag signaling danger every time they appear in the story. For they describe not just a state of inactivity but a state of inactivity in the past: "He had come a long way that day", "I never realized how much I loved her"

Every "has" and "past" throws your story into a bumpy ride because it pulls the reader out of the action of the present and throws it into the past. , maybe this situation is only temporary. For example: "Xiaomi stared at her. In the past, he never understood why she had this attitude. Now she gives him no choice but to force him to make a decision."

The word rhinoceros gives people a more vivid and meaningful impression than that of an animal.

The word animal is more distinct and meaningful than the word creature.

In the same way, "bungalow", "house" vs building; "Little star", "girl" and vs "female" "Revolver" vs "Firearm"; "Steak", "meat" vs "food"

The more specific you write, the more vivid it will be.

Lu Han is more distinct than a star; Master Steak is more distinct than a steak!

Of course, the premise is that the audience knows the meaning of "Master Steak". This is the same as rare words

How to determine the reader’s understanding: (1) Guess, (2) Hope

There is actually a huge difference between a word that is nearly accurate and a word that is completely accurate.

What you need to do is go for the specific and avoid generalizations (reptile-generated images, Not as vivid as "Rattlesnake". )

Aim for clarity and avoid ambiguity (“those guys” might as well be “hanging out outside Sam’s pool hall”) "Three young men in hoodies" makes sense.

Pursue concreteness and avoid abstraction (saying something is “red” is worse than saying it “has something to do with local The color of the fire truck is as "clear").

Obviously, all of these questions are questions of degree. In summarizing the universal laws, abstract are particularly dangerous because they separate the properties of things from the things themselves.

Singular plain words usually have more power than plural nouns. "Domestic animals" can produce a picture of a certain race that continues to thrive. But to form a vivid impression, focus on a single animal, or at least a part of it—an old cow with moss on its horns roaring loudly, a bull angrily pawing the ground with its hooves, a bull The cow rolled her eyes and bolted in terror.

The reason is that every group is made up of individuals, and when we say 'the herd roared' or 'the mob swarmed forward', or even 'two women chattering', we actually distort the true picture. Such generalizations may constitute valid and useful verbal shorthand, but they cannot paint a truly accurate portrait.

Through description, the reader is allowed to experience the life in the story as vividly as his life, and the reader must use his senses to feel him.

The order has an important impact. The display is a gun, then a coffin, then tears, your focus is heartbreak. If now it's a coffin, then tears, then a gun, your focus may be revenge. ————That’s it, you made the arrangements. Then, give the material life.

At the same time, you want to arrange the stories for the reader in an order that has proven to be effective whenever possible. Do you proceed from cause to effect, or from effect to cause? Does your story unfold one by one in strict chronological order? Is there some sort of flashback, flashback framework used?

Is his perspective subjective or objective? Is it from the perspective of being a writer, or better yet, the perspective of being the host of an artificial island? Through the villain’s perspective? Or through the eyes of an innocent bystander who was waiting for disaster to befall him?