Not telling enough

Trying too hard may have nothing to do with it. Aim for clarity through simplicity.

One tells (or summarises) what needs to be told or summarised, and shows (through detailed actions and words) what needs to be shown.

If folk 'don't get the story' then on the assumption that there is indeed a story there, it seems to be clarity you lack plus perhaps a failure to get to the point and stick to the point.

Impossible to say from afar.

jinkang said:

This seems to be my recurring problem, besides grammar mistakes.

I would write a piece, revise it, edit it, rewrite it, revise it, and think it's all good.

But when betas read it, they don't quite get the story.

After talking with them, I realize I didn't explain some of the plots/character motivations enough...or somehow I've lead them astray.

I thought adding a sentence here or there was a clear indication, but they never picked up the clues.

I'm not sure how related this is to 'you're trying too hard'--which I hear often as well--but anyone else had this issue?

Thanks

Click to expand...

This is something every writer struggles with - how to convey enough information so the reader understands what's happening without boring the reader by dumping too much information on them. IMHO, one of the best skills a writer can pick up is to be able to read something without preconceptions. When you're writing, there's so much more going on in your head than what ends up on paper, so sometimes when a writer rereads their own work, they tend to include what they've got in their head instead of just what's on the page.

After you write something, set it aside for a while then go back and try to read it as if you had never seen those words before. At that point, ask yourself if there's enough on the page.

Go through the beta readers' comments and be objective about it. If they don't get something, find out what they are missing -- and if you included something that should've pointed them in the right direction -- ask them why they missed it. Either you are missing the simplicity or you've got more in your head than is really down on the page.

It also could be one of two things:

1. Too subtle. A sentence here and there sounds awfully subtle to me. I'm reasonably sure that, as a reader, I would likely miss it. If it's a major element of the story that is required to understand the story, it needs to be more obvious. As a writer, if I had to work something with, say, a character's motivation, I would spend many, many pages, bringing it in again and again, all in different ways, trying to further development of it while reinforcing that this is important to the story.

2. Too complicated. Several years back I did a Civil War thriller with a cowriter. He wanted the villain to threaten the heroine because he was buying up all the land in the area--and it was a complicated process of how he was doing it (factual, though, according to the cowriter). Plus there was an added motive involving state's rights that was very much of the time. I had trouble with both because we were having to do lengthy explanations just for the reader to grasp what he was doing. We ended up changing it entirely and finding an element where the reader heard what the guy was up and instantly got the danger.

I have the same problem! Mine has an interesting divide between genre interests of the betas. One likes things spelled out too early or too much, imho. So it's tough!

I'm definitely unclear at times in a way that nearly everyone would agree with, so I have to sift through and decide which it is. So hard!

I do that loads as well; taking it for granted that because you know X is a nice guy, then the reader will know too.

And don't forget every reader will interpret what they're reading differently too.

ee cummings wrote a peom she being brand. Two of us were asked to read it in class and write down our interprtations. My friend interpreted it as 'a guy's ride in his new car'. With how the poem was set out, I said I liked the sexual connotations to a guy's first stumble at getting laid.

Both were right, it just depended on how the reader took in the line breaks, the typography, the words themselves.

Just remember sometimes it isn't the odd line you sneak in, but how those lines come together as a whole that make the difference.

Reader inference, it's a tricky thing to master...

A common problem with obscure plot and motivation is lack of reaction. Reaction is key to understanding motive, and motive is key to understanding plot. Between something happening and a character responding, see if you can insert a credible reaction. If we can see how characters feel moment by moment we can guess what they want, and that helps us work out what they're doing about it. It's very easy to make reaction melodramatic. The trick is to keep it simple, credible and interesting.

Linda Adams may have illuminated a problem I've been having. One beta in particular, and occasionally another will tell me they didn't understand how my detective knew something, or why he did something.
I placed the clue earlier in the book, but apparently I was much to subtle. I pointed out the clue, or whatever the fact was, but either they didn't connect the two points, or missed it altogether.
Up till now, I attributed it to the speed in which the betas read, but now, I see it's my problem.

The only advice I can think of is, be more clever. Show is always better than tell. But telling the story through show requires a hell of a lot more cleverness.

• This seems to be my recurring problem, besides grammar mistakes.

Without seeing a sample of your work it’s really hard to answer your question. I often wish there was room on the profile page for a sample of the writer’s latest work, to make things easier. But without that, some things to look at—though I’m probably telling you what you already know:

1. In looking at your work, are you seeing the events through the eyes of the character as s/he reacts to their real-world, or are we reading what amounts to a script for a storyteller, minus the stage directions. In other words, are we in the character’s “now,” or the storyteller’s? In my experience this is the single biggest problem new writers face.

2. Do we always know the context and motivation for what the character does, from their point of view? Or are you simply reporting, “This happened… and then he did that… and after that…” as an external observer?

3. One problem new writers face is that often, they will visualize a scene, and then describe what happens within it. That works when they edit because they have the images that generated the words, and they’re called up as the words are read. But that doesn’t work the other way, and the words don’t generate the images in the reader’s mind, unless you include the necessary words dedicated to accomplishing that (and hopefully, without the reader’s noticing).

4. Think about intent. It doesn’t travel well, and evaporates on the trip through the printer and modem. That means that in your editing you need to think like a reader who knows only what the words to that point have provided. If what you intended isn’t either implied or stated it’s just not there. One of the hardest things a new writer has to master is selective memory that will allow you to make the same misunderstandings as your reader.

Sorry if I'm stating the obvious. I tend to do that.

Excellent points, imho

The Sturgeon opening posted in another thread gives me confidence about that beta opinion quandry I'm having. How much you come out and explain things as they happen is a matter of taste, for sure. Yes? I think I'll keep the 'mystery' in mine. I still need to ax the parts that are truly unclear.

It's still hard to balance, but I'm glad to see that we don't have to strip down in 2 seconds every time we're getting naked

I've had to train myself out of concealing character reactions, and I suppose that I still am. I used to tell myself that it was to 'preserve mystery', but I think that the real truth is that I conceal my character reactions because I habitually conceal or suppress my own. Other writers who think through plot rather than feel their way through it may suffer the same.

In practice, reaction doesn't deflate mystery, but rather enhances our appreciation of it. All it takes to create mystery is to surprise the reader with what happens next and why; but at some point the reader must understand motive to appreciate mystery. Reaction is the key 'show don't tell' way to reveal motive. It's the ultimate reveal, the cream in the payoff. We can use it to foreshadow events, strip off character masks and heighten conflict.

Writing reaction well is a craft in itself though. It takes time and effort to develop, but the drama won't really stand up without it.

I've had this happen when I was being careful not to insult the reader's intelligence. But what was obvious to me wasn't obvious to the readers, and they weren't offended if I made it a little clearer.

It's not about "telling" vs. showing. It's about how much pertinent information or character development you do to help the readers "get it." This can be done by showing.

And I would HATE for the writer to think they have to explicitly explain things to us. A) we are not STUPID, and B) it means the writer is not skillful enough to show us what we need to know, instead of TELLING us.

jinkang said:

Right now, as I'm revising my fantasy novella, I'm trying to make each paragraph a simple motivation-reaction units. Hopefully I won't dangle any reactions out.

Click to expand...

It's getting so that after each beat or observation I pause and decide whether a reaction needs to go there. The pause (in me, not the manuscript) is very important, because I'll otherwise just jump on to the next thinking or doing step and forget the feeling. If in doubt I'll put some rection in, because for me at least it's far easier to take out unneeded reactions than to find where to inject them.

Ruv Draba said:

A common problem with obscure plot and motivation is lack of reaction. Reaction is key to understanding motive, and motive is key to understanding plot. Between something happening and a character responding, see if you can insert a credible reaction. If we can see how characters feel moment by moment we can guess what they want, and that helps us work out what they're doing about it. It's very easy to make reaction melodramatic. The trick is to keep it simple, credible and interesting.

Click to expand...

This is what TS Eliot called 'objective correlative'. His main criticism of Hamlet was that Hamlet's reactions and emotions exceeded the facts of the play- i.e. they were overblown in their context.

Let's say Barry wants an ice cream. He can't have one and so he kills himself. That reaction is unbelievable because the reader hasn't been given any information that suggests Barry would do it. It might make perfect sense to the writer but they have to convey that to the reader.

Sometimes it feels it would be easier if you were the only reader. Readers either don't get it, misinterpret it, or accuse you of being too obvious. You can't control the reader; readers like to piece things together.The key is to give them enough pieces to do so.

Telling can be strong in some cases, when a previously poker-faced character says the unspeakable, but that's telling by the character, not the narrator insisting it.

Lady Ice said:

This is what TS Eliot called 'objective correlative'. His main criticism of Hamlet was that Hamlet's reactions and emotions exceeded the facts of the play- i.e. they were overblown in their context.

Click to expand...

Yep. As a thinky writer I'll often report the facts and then forget to have characters visibly react to them. The reverse problem is one that my feelier writer friends sometimes have -- they report the facts and then have characters over-react to them, or their character will react to something they've failed to report -- a Hamlet-like mood-swing for no apparent reason. For instance, one of my friends has trouble with her dialogue -- one moment her foot will be on the accelerator, the next it's on the brake, and the traffic hasn't changed at all.

As I must slow down to put the right reactions in between the facts, my feely friends sometimes have to slow down and slip the right facts between the emotions. We both know when we have it right because there are no confusing jumps between causes and effects objectively or emotionally.

You can't control the reader; readers like to piece things together.The key is to give them enough pieces to do so.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the pieces should be interesting and memorable: facts presented interestingly, interesting expressions of reaction. Then even if it's obvious it's pleasurable to read, and if it's inobvious then the expression should help highlight the significance.

• I think that IS my case. My stories, though I hope it's not plot driven, are generally plot heavy...

Oh-oh… I haven’t read the work you’re talking about, so this isn’t about you, personally, but that usually means that the author is there, center stage, ladling in dipperfuls of interesting facts and descriptions of the action, while the characters read a script, rather than reacting and planning.

Here’s the way to tell if that problem is yours. Have the friend with the least acting skill read a couple of pages to you, cold. If it sounds like an inept storyteller at the podium, because he hasn’t a clue as to the tone and body language to use, but is really the only one on stage, you need to look into fiction-writing technique more deeply.

Here’s the thing: plot is relatively unimportant. Take your favorite characters and transplant them into a different plot situation and you would enjoy it because you enjoy being with them. On the other hand, take uninteresting characters and transplant them to the greatest plot ever devised and you have a rejection before the end of page one.

If the editor closes the envelope without being hooked, all that great story information and all the twists and surprises are never read, so you wasted the time to write them.

It’s about the writing. It’s always about the writing.

It's very hard because one day I'll be writing something and think 'OMG, this is so romantic!' and then the next day I read it and there's just nothing. Same when I'm looking over my old stuff.

Pick a scenario- let's say, two guys in an elevator- and try to make it the saddest scene ever without one murdering the other or some such thing. It's about manipulation; what do you want your reader to feel and how will you make them feel it? Obviously the elevator scene will probably be very melodramatic, but it's good for helping to find a mid-way between the two extremes.

Work out what buttons you can push on your characters to make them feel how they ought to feel for the scene. What do they want; what do they fear?