My last blog garnered a fair bit of recognition, and the chances of this one following are as high as the chances of Lindsey Lohan winning a game of chess.

Anyway, I have been re-reading 'On Writing' by Stephen King recently(if you haven't read it, I don't think you have the right to write any more stories before you get it.) And in his section about description he says it's not only a question of how to, but how much to. I agree with that, but it sparked a question in my mind. If God came into your room and told you that he could either give you the gift of being the best at description or the gift of knowing the perfect balance of details here and there, what would you choose?

I would choose being at describing stuff rather than balancing the description. Why? Because I feel like good detail would exuse the paragraphs of long, winding details and make it fun to read. Because on the other hand, you may be able to spread the detail out through your story like Gordan Ramsey spreads butter on your fucking sandwich. But what good would that be if he jizzed in that butter.

I know the question is stupid, but I'm not exactly in the right state of mind to function as a sane human being.