Credit where credit is due:

"Thorn-shaped teeth snapped an inch away from his cheek."

Teeth aren't normally shaped like thorns. This sentence informs the situation.

It's a far cry better than this typical "Lisa picked up the key with the fingers on her hand and tightly clutched the metal object to the breasts she kept on the front of her chest" bullshit.

My point is that you should know your strengths. If you have a talent for writing fighting scenes, or love scenes, or whatever, lean into that.

Have people read and critique the stuff you're not so great at doing. And tell them emphatically to not hold back on their reactions.

Don't expect honest feedback from family and loved ones.

Odds are good that you suck at something, and people telling you the story's good actively harms you when you're trying to spell out something subtle and esoteric. Solving the riddle of the mummy's curse is important, sure, but if you screw up every description of ancient keys turning ancient locks, you may as well not have ever bothered.

And I don't want to commit here and now to swearing that minimal text always wins.

Good writing is good writing, whether it's fifty words or five.

Know your subject. Don't get flowery if flowery isn't your skillset. Two lovers can passionately embrace and lock lips, unleashing at once a year of pent-up affection if the mood calls for it.

Or you can just say "they kissed."

Don't fall into the trap of thinking only one of the options is prose.

This could be an interesting experiment. I imagine a wrestler would write about knocking an opponent off-balance. I imagine a boxer would write about hitting an opponent in a soft spot.

I imagine a martial artist would write about a specific form of punch or kick that's optimal as an attack of opportunity.

Any of these could be good. Any of these could be terrible.

You know what never fails?

"They fought."

I read some advice from a writer once. She had years of martial arts training and she said something close to this: "people who don't know close-quarters physical combat can't write close-quarters physical combat."

Should you take a lot of karate classes in order to write fight sequences? Not necessarily.

But if you write bad fight sequences, everyone knows you don't know how to fight.

Case in point:

(For context, "wheezers" are monsters, Andy is female, and they have a dog.)

"By the light of which Andy saw fit to jump downstairs, shoot a second wheezer charging for her, spot Nate's rifle on the floor, bat the skull halfway off a third wheezer, let the charging Weimaraner finish him off, and run for Nate as he was being dragged to the dark end of the room, the creature that had seized him preferring to secure a meal before the fight."

Huh? This book sucks.

I happen to know a few authors, published authors, and one of them at least follows me here.

This person may or may not have recently read an old review of a book I disliked. To that person I present an even worse review of an even worse book I DNF'd:

https://xenotrope.blogspot.com/2011/11/review-of-big-thirst.html

The standout here being I had a direct e-mail exchange with the fuckwit author and he admitted he was a bad writer, inasmuch as one can without coming out and saying it.

Few authors offer direct refunds to individual people, but this guy did.

Writers, please. Take pride in your work.

I'm currently slogging through a book recc by a friend who has terrible taste in books.

The author is trying and failing to be cool and meta with his exposition, but it just comes across as a clunky old uncle using slang beyond his years.

Descriptions jump from "Bob walked through the door" to literal stage direction: "CUT TO: Bob and friends turn at once to face the window."

Characters do not open front doors. They "crash into" the building.

It's excruciating.