Post History
I'm reading Wired for Story, by Lisa Cron, where she writes the following about being vague or omitting information that the reader does not know: ...being vague is never a good idea... .....
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T11:37:43Z (almost 5 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/44336 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
by
iamtowrite
·
2019-12-08T11:37:43Z (almost 5 years ago)
I'm reading [Wired for Story](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/13126099-wired-for-story), by Lisa Cron, where she writes the following about being vague or omitting information that the reader does not know: > ...being vague is never a good idea... > > ...Like most things, it can start off so promisingly: “Holly ducked into the alley, glad to have avoided Sam for the millionth time.” Sounds great, right? Trouble is, unless we know at that moment in the story why Holly has been avoiding Sam, it will fall flat. > > _Cron, Lisa. Wired for Story (p. 112). Potter/Ten Speed/Harmony/Rodale. Kindle Edition._ Is her thesis about _vague vs. specific_ valid at all times? Based on her example above, what if the author intends to reveal why Holly is avoiding Sam later on? For instance, later on, we find that Holly has stolen Sam's collectible lunch box.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2019-04-03T19:04:47Z (over 5 years ago)
Original score: 2