I'm struggling in terms of too much expository versus too vague/not enough info for the reader. The advice I'm given mostly is "trust the reader," but when I do trust the reader, they have no idea what's going on. How do you balance information with prose that move the story forward? What information do you give to the reader to encourage them to read more?
To get your reader to want to read more, you have to provide them with a reason to turn the page. Now, that means they want to learn what happens next to the character - how is their journey going to move forwards, how are they going to resolve the obstacle they're currently facing, how does their romance progress, and so on. It's not about how much information you give the reader. It's about making the story compelling. If you write about your character going to the shops, it's mostly not interesting (although it can be!). If your character is running away from a hitman, then they want to know more (if you've done it right). As to trusting your reader, you show, you don't tell. Don't tell them Jane is angry at Tarzan, show it in how she reacts to him, how she speaks to him. Remember that the reader can't see into your head. YOU know pressing the button sets off a bomb. Your reader doesn't, unless you explain it. You reveal the information if it is something the reader can't work out from your story, and it's something they need to understand to understand the story, and you reveal that when it become necessary to know it. Give us an example, and we can look at it in some detail.
This is a microfic I wrote, called "Undervalued." I used the beginning allusion to Pride & Prejudice on purpose because Cheron's clan was too prideful and had prejudice against Cheron's choice of treasure. To the clan, treasure must be valuable.
People were confused on a few things. They didn't know what a wyvern was, and they weren't sure that he was a dragon because of how I worded it. They weren't familiar with what a hoard was or what a glamour was. How do I expose that without telling? And I have to practice brevity since they're microfics. I can only use 350 words.
To be honest, I don't think you need to do anything. All of those things are basic genre and language bits of knowledge that you are perfectly within your rights to expect a reader to have. Any fantasy-savvy reader would know what a wyvern is, and a hoard... well, it's a word on a level where, if you don't know what it means, you've probably got other issues. A glamour, just maybe, but I would again suggest that the majority of readers would know what that is. It sounds like you've unfortunately encountered some very low level readers, or perhaps ones whose first language isn't English. Don't let that worry you. I regularly deliberately use uncommon words that even fluent English speakers may be unfamiliar with, but I give them enough context to let them pick it up. An example - if I say "In her hand was a sparkling green nacre", what image does that conjure up for you? If you're unfamiliar with the word "nacre" meaning jewel, you should be able to guess at the meaning from the context. But in this case, the words are common enough that you are fine to assume to reader knows what they mean, IMO.
At the very least I would have guessed something that is smooth, habd-sized, green and reflective of light (to some degree) so I would have deducted a type of glass or eventually gotten to gem. Thanks for your input. I get really discouraged when I see in a review that someone didn't really know what was going on. They would tell me I left important information out, despite using words like "kin," "soot" and "clan" to further away from the idea of "human." I learned to read the context around the words and I'm often thrown when I'm told that's not how people typically read.
Fuck 'em. Write how YOU want to write. Don't try to please everybody, because you'll end up pleasing nobody. Your writing is fine as it is.
Do them in parallel. Reveal information while you are moving the story forward, rather than dump out all your info in a single go.
I think with this case however, those readers were probably being overpicky. While your example isn't perfect, I don't see that exposition is the issue.
You shouldn't have to explain what a wyvern is anymore than George R. R. Martin should have had to explain what a warg or imp was to his readers. Just my 0.02$ worth.
To be honest, the difference between a wyvern and a dragon (the former has two legs, the latter four) is so small that if any reader complains (e.g. "You got it wrong!"), they have issues. A reader who complains that they don't know what a wyvern is? That's what Google is for, my friend. Maybe -- just maybe -- you might like to describe your wyvern, rather than call it one. Only, as always -- show, don't tell. Instead of saying "It was five metres long, and its body was covered in orange polka dots" etc. (which spells instant boredom), try: The wyvern pulled itself upright on its twin legs, opened its immense mouth, filled with dagger-length fangs, and yawned luxuriantly. Its elongated, snake-like body shimmered in the sunlight. (Said body was covered in orange polka dots, but you can't have everything). What, too much? All right, lose the polka dots ...
