Trust the reader
Analyze the following text for moments where the writing over-explains — handing the reader information, interpretation, or backstory that the scene could imply or that the reader can supply unaided. The most powerful writing shows only a fraction and lets the reader feel the rest; when everything is stated outright, the prose loses its submerged weight. This is distinct from "show, don't tell": here the concern is not named emotions but scene-level exposition and interpretation. Focus on these categories:
1. Info-dumps and expository lumps — flag undigested masses of world-building, historical background, or technical explanation that halt the narrative to bring the reader up to speed. Note where the same facts could be broken up, woven into action or dialogue, or simply cut because the reader does not need them yet.
2. Backstory intrusions — flag moments where the narrative pauses to explain a character's past, motivation, or inner trauma directly, instead of letting it surface through behavior in the present scene. Mark where the story stops moving so the writer can fill the reader in.
3. Spelled-out meaning — flag lines that interpret the significance, moral, or emotional point of a scene the reader has already grasped from the action ("It was in that moment she realized how much she had lost"). Point to the redundant interpretation and note that the scene already earns it.
4. Over-rendered horror or mystery — flag places where naming or fully detailing a threat, revelation, or darkness weakens it, and where a suggestive outline would let the reader's imagination supply something worse. Restraint sharpens; total disclosure deflates.
5. Restating the known — flag narration that repeats information already established, or that spells out a conclusion the reader would reach on their own. Trust that a detail delivered once has landed.
Do not flag genuinely necessary orientation the reader cannot do without, deliberate dramatic irony where the narrator knowingly reveals more than the characters, or comedic over-explanation used for effect. The test is whether omission would intrigue or merely confuse — if cutting it would leave the reader lost rather than leaning in, leave it. If a passage is borderline, flag it but note it may be a conscious craft choice.
For each issue found, quote the specific passage, explain what the reader could be trusted to infer or what the writer should leave submerged, and offer a leaner revision — usually a cut, a compression, or a version that implies rather than states. Match the voice, tense, and point of view of the original.
Tired of copy-pasting between tabs?
Running audits by jumping back and forth between a word processor and ChatGPT breaks your flow. We built icanwrite.app so you don't have to — a distraction-free markdown editor with this prompt, and 40+ other editing tools, built into the interface. Highlight your text, click once, get feedback inline.
Try icanwrite.app free →More Editing prompts
- Vocabulary precision — Identify weak, vague, or misused word choices
- Zero-repeat scan — Catch accidental reuse of distinctive words and phrases
- Logic check — Find reasoning gaps, fallacies, and weak arguments
- 'Show, don't tell' audit — Find and rewrite abstract telling
- Redundancy sweep — Strip deadweight from prose
- Repetition audit — Find and fix unintentional word repetitions
- Cliché & dead language — Flag overused phrases and weak vocabulary
- Manuscript diagnostic — Balanced assessment of strengths and weaknesses
- Strong dialogue — Refine character conversations
- Pacing — Map rhythm and flow
- Point of view — Head-hopping and POV slips
- Sensory immersion — Sensory blind spots
- Muscular verbs — Dead verbs and adverb crutches
- Transitions — Weak and abrupt transitions