How critical are you about minor details (such as exact passage of time in a conversation, sun position during the year, what stars would be visible, travel time) that are general things
I'd keep it simple. A setting with basic elements, a bit of feeling, just enough to give the reader a general idea of the tone, maybe a touch more. As
Cobb said, "You are the dreamer: you build this world. I am the subject: my mind populates it." "Only use details: a streetlamp or a phone booth - never entire areas." "The more you change things, the quicker the projections start to converge on you." Let the reader fill it with their own thoughts. Give a vibrant premise, but don't overdo it or it becomes too shaped by the writer. People tend to hate that when it feels like too much, which is why the settings of children's books tend to be very loose. Openness forces the reader to add their own details and interpretations, but do consider the comprehension of your audience, as most enjoy a bit of detail/direction (ex: "In a jungle, an ape slept." vs "The dense canopy of leaves overhead blotted out the sun's rays, while creatures below its lush tapestry scurried about. Overhead, a kookaburra bellowed, yet even this was not enough to disturb the deep slumber of Kulu, the mightiest silverback of his troop."
. Don't add too many extra things unless they're symbolic, forshadowing, or later relevant to the plot.
Level of detail. Another thing I'm split on. I personally enjoy a lot of detail as to what the characters actions are while talking, their surroundings and what not.
I like a decent amount of detail. I suppose it depends on your intended audience and what type of event is happening. Base it on how much detail is essential to the plot and go from there, because anything else is filler (ex: an 'implied intimacy' vs '50 shades of grey'
, but filler can be good.
Not necessarily, if you switch between character perspectives at clear intervals. Like each chapter, or a divided within the chapter.
I'd rather have that in the 3rd person. There tend to be far too many 'I's in 1st. It gets annoying.
In my experience, all of the best books I have read do not look at the story from only one person's view. It stagnates fast.
A 1st person from the perspective of one who isn't really a main character is often the best way around this without going to 3rd person. In The Great Gatsby, for example, the narration often feels like 3rd because the character usually has that sort of 'fly on the wall' position.
(for example, if someone had a laser gun, would you need to be told exactly what is being shot and where the heat resulting from that goes or would you not care)?
It depends. Perhaps if it were an important plot scene, such as a sniper assassinating an official, or the first shot in a standoff, but if it's a broader perspective of an ongoing battle, then it could be ignored.
Do cliched sayings bother you, or do you find them humorous?
They tend to only work well when said by wise old guys who understand deeper meanings behind them. And tailor it to the era/location.
Having periods of intense action and then downtime keeps my interest better than constantly having things happen or a long buildup.
That's good, but sometimes it's nice to break it up a bit. I'd add some suspense, keeping the reader uncertain of when/if something will happen next, and i'd make each side event have a decent role in the plot instead of "Look, we've got 4 or 5 of the main characters on this ship. I think we'll be fine." Although making the audience jump is nearly impossible in text form, you can get close. Perhaps in a fantasy setting, the adventurers unknowingly became surrounded while taking a path in the woods. Midsentence, one is shot in the shoulder by a crossbow bolt and a raspy voice from an unseen source rings out, "Another step, and the next one goes through your skull!" The intensity of the situation is immediate and the reader never saw it coming.
