How far apart can the dots be?
I've written enough to know the kind of writer I am, my voice, my style. I am often accused of making the reader work too hard to put the plot points together.
In my latest story: a man experiencing a mid-life crisis expresses to a dubious bartender named Nick that he regrets marrying Amanda Jackson. He believes his wife and children have held him back and wishes he'd shared his life with his high-school sweetheart, Abigail Watson. After getting blind drunk he wakes up the next day in a jail cell. Initially he believes he's on a drunk and disorderly charge but soon learns he's on death-row after being convicted murdering his wife, Abigail, and their two children. He has lost his appeals and his only chance for clemency is an appeal to the new elected state Governor, Amanda Rodriguez.
- I think the story is told. I would like to leave it there . . . but would it add to the story if I went on to explain for those who couldn't join the dots?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/38818. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
When you're writing a story, you know all the clues and all the connections. Since you know them already, they might well seem obvious to you.
Are they as obvious to the reader? A good way to find out is to offer the story to beta readers, and hear what they say. If most beta readers get it, but one doesn't, you're probably safe. If most do not get it, they can't all be stupid and inattentive, right? So the fault might lie with you.
In particular, I would pay attention to beta readers from different demographics. It might be that a hint that seems obvious to you, is only familiar to people of your age, or your background. Remember also that some of your readers might only speak English as a second language, in which case knowing that "old Nick" is Satan might be more of a challenge. Especially if a person is also not a Westerner.
Now, explaining the story can feel detrimental to the story, like explaining a joke. It would also not be particularly interesting to those readers who got it without need for further explanation. The solution I would suggest is adding more hints throughout the story. Then, a reader can still figure it out, even if they've missed some of the hints.
Of course, giving the solution to the mystery, so to speak, isn't always a bad thing. In more than one story, understanding how a negative effect came to pass is necessary to negate it. In such stories, the act of restoring a "good" situation is cathartic, and built around the characters finally understanding what's going on. The readers who got it can pet themselves on the back, and enjoy the way the plot progresses from the realisation onwards. The readers who didn't, now finally get an explanation and can backtrack to find the hints at their leisure.
0 comment threads
If the majority of readers don't get it, the dots are too far apart.
Writing is like humor, in this respect. If the majority of your audience doesn't laugh at your jokes, then you aren't funny.
Fiction is like humor in another respect: It is entertainment, and for entertainment to be "good" it cannot leave people confused and not understanding what was supposed to have just happened. They will go along with you for about 15% of the story, all (adult) readers know this is part of the deal and part of the fun: You get dropped into strange environment with unknown characters and have to get to know them. But the unknowns need to be clearing away, they expect that too. Nobody is going to read 50 pages if understanding is not trickling in as they go.
I think you need to be more explicit; your clues are too obscure. Your objective is to entertain, not confuse.
Another way to accomplish what you want is a twist. Readers can be satisfied (not confused) by being tricked into believing the wrong thing, as long as when the big reveal comes around (Nick is really Satan!) this reveal is consistent with everything that went before; and they can see that Nick being Satan was just as viable an explanation all along.
To me, the best twist ever is in The Sixth Sense, the clues of what is really going on are scattered throughout, from the beginning. They are on display, but the writing expertly distracts us from them by always making something else more important to focus on, when they are shown. So they slip by, on the first viewing, but are clearly all there on the second viewing.
You can do something similar, prove Nick has magical powers, but he blows them off as a magic trick; a little hobby he has, messing with people's minds. Same thing with mind-reading, guessing the names of the guy's wife and kids, a mentalist stage trick. And of course, a magician never reveals his secrets.
You need more clues. It is a narrow path you have to walk. On the right side of the path, with lots of clues, there are no surprises or unexpected developments, so the reader gets bored. The story is too predictable.
On the left side, there are not enough clues or resolutions. Too many surprises, too many unexpected developments. You are demanding too much attention and memorization from the reader, forcing them to mentally work at understanding, and that is not entertaining. So the reader gets frustrated, the story is too difficult -- Too unpredictable.
I think you are off on this left side, you need to add enough clues as to what is going on to keep the reader engaged, but still not knowing quite enough so they are still wondering how it will turn out.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads