Nothing annoys me more, in books or films, than the rabbit that suddenly jumps out of the hat. Typical of old style mysteries, the supposed sleight of hand where the author keeps a crucial clue behind the curtain and then "voila", case solved. I found it ridiculous when I was 12-years-old and I still do. Then there's what you're after: the author trying to be clever and muddying the waters, artificially. Red herrings can be fun, they're also hard to do well. Most of the time, that kind of story is just a silly game and the reader forgets it as soon as the book is closed. Now, I don't believe in putting everything flat under a hard light, especially when it comes to characters' motivations. People are complicated/confused in real life, why would they be different in fiction? Facts don't line up perfectly in reality either, when pieces fall neatly in place in fiction, I cry foul. And none of that is a valid excuse for convoluted/obscure/cryptic writing ...
I believe there’s a middle ground in which skilled authors carefully pay out enough line and provide just enough context to allow readers to infer meaning and motivation. Peter Abrahams is a master at this, and uses spare language to get there. I never feel disoriented in one of his stories, and his efforts to get me to engage more closely with the text make me feel connected to the story in a way “explaining everything” cannot. But it is definitely advanced technique, a serendipitous marriage of instincts and craft.
One of these days I will finally read Abrahams. You are exactly right about instincts and craft. It is an advanced technique, and it takes a lot of words written to get there. It’s why Saunders will work years on a story.
I think there's a BIG difference between "suspence" and "obsfucation." The first doesn't bother me. The latter can, too, in the hands of an unreliable narrator, but it's usually just sloppy writing. The one that gets my goat is when the MC needs to be really stupid in order for the plot to work. (PI novels, I'm looking at a lot of you.)
This was one of many bones I had to pick with Dan Brown - his symboligist guy, can't recall his name (TOM HANKS!) was so bloody stupid that he couldn't figure out the simplest of clues.
Ditto to some PI novels. That's why Fischer is not a PI :)
But like I said to Jody - more about clarity than anything.
Yes! It's hard as hell to make a dumb MC interesting. Even harder than making lowlifes interesting. (Sorry, that's off-topic. A pet peeve.)
Police novels are also afflicted with idiotic cops, particularly one set in small, dying towns. If newcomers are rare, and you've got a sudden string of murders, but you don't look at the people who moved there recently?
I would argue (for the fun of discussion) that suspense and simple writing are two very different things. Vonnegut uses other stylistic techniques to keep readers interested. Beyond that, I would say that any time you tell a story linearly, you are leaving things out...until you get to the end. That's still suspense, no? Anyway, I am not one to be fancy in my approach, but I also give some credit to my reader. I had an editor once approach me to write a short piece for her new lit mag and then she asked me to change the ending so it was very spoon-fed. I declined because it was not needed (all of my beta readers understood what was happening) and she decided not to print it. So, yeah. Maybe I'm still bitter. :)
I like to write with references and allusions to things that people may or may not pick up on (ie. Muttley, Carlos Santana etc etc) but I never want a reader to be CONFUSED about what is happening. Confusion leads to apathy.
I love this post so much and it is serving as a reminder to not hide the ball-something I tend to do. AS hard as it is to admit, the inclination may be a warning that there isn't story here. Maybe it's not a novel, but a short story. Maybe it's not a short story, but flash. Maybe it's a poem? Or maybe it needs to go in the trash.
Thanks for reading M.E. This was exactly what I was saying. It’s hard to be honest with ourselves. But I’ve written stuff where I took an honest look at it and went… nope. This is not worth telling.
Sometimes we (I) try to force or cram a story into life, where the best thing is to put it to rest. Hiding the ball (great metaphor) doesn’t work.
I might be one of the only people of my age/economic/education/social background who doesn't care for Vonnegut's books. I read most of them when I was in college and thought they were just okay at best (Player Piano and Slaughterhouse) and pretentious preachy dreck at worst (all of the others). But, hey, that's just me. Ice Nine, indeed. And so it goes.
I had a love hate. I read everything he published for a while. Bluebeard was my fave. But then I grew tired of his cynicism. Lately I’ve been finding my way back to his work.
I also rather enjoy flirting with violating at least half of Vonnegut’s other rules. I like making readers think I’m wasting their time (I’m not), and I occasionally, intentionally fail to make every sentence reveal character or advance the plot.
I’m trying to corner the market on being sadistic toward my readers. Rules are for fools who are purposefully trying to entertain.
One of the selling points of the comic is: “Are we here to entertain you?” I ask because I genuinely don’t know. And I’m not particularly interested in finding out, but I’m hoping that anyone foolish enough to answer is smart enough to realize that they are capable of entertaining themselves.
Sometimes, one must be subtle so as to not wind up hanging by their neck in the woods, but beyond that, I think it’s funner, as a reader… not as a writer swinging from a tree, to be given all of the details and still get blindsided by a curveball that slaps like a wet, rotten fish to the face.
Also, I feel like I've heard at least a version of "Love the idea, but it's not on the page" from you before a few times. Slow learner here, but plodding along. Cheers, good sir!
Craig, you made some very valid points. Vonnegut, one of my favorite authors, seems to write simply, but he goes far deeper and catches one off guard. And yes, there are brilliant writers who write simple or complex stories. However, and this is not a criticism of either style, is simple writing more popular now because of the dumbing down of America? That is a theory that is open for debate. I also must point out a small nitpick with your post. You are a talented writer, but as a former newspaper editor, I couldn't help noticing a couple of typos in your text. Keep on keepin' on.
Hey Joe - Yes, I do wonder this exact thing. Is there a dumbing down, not just of America (but in general)? I've talked to high school English teachers that lament how students are lacking more and more the skills and strategies to reading novels. So that is a valid theory.
On the typos - I don't pour over my substack posts like I do my stories and novels - otherwise, it would take me forever to post them.
But also, please share... I'm always open to fixing them. And with substack it's easy. Thanks for reading!
I agree. Even newer reporters sometimes lack grammar and spelling skills. I don't think it is all due to social media. Anyway, not to be a nag, but "pour" in the sense you used it should be spelled "pore". That is a common error, though. Have a good day, and keep writing.
Nothing annoys me more, in books or films, than the rabbit that suddenly jumps out of the hat. Typical of old style mysteries, the supposed sleight of hand where the author keeps a crucial clue behind the curtain and then "voila", case solved. I found it ridiculous when I was 12-years-old and I still do. Then there's what you're after: the author trying to be clever and muddying the waters, artificially. Red herrings can be fun, they're also hard to do well. Most of the time, that kind of story is just a silly game and the reader forgets it as soon as the book is closed. Now, I don't believe in putting everything flat under a hard light, especially when it comes to characters' motivations. People are complicated/confused in real life, why would they be different in fiction? Facts don't line up perfectly in reality either, when pieces fall neatly in place in fiction, I cry foul. And none of that is a valid excuse for convoluted/obscure/cryptic writing ...
Excellent. Really well said and insightful Martine.
I believe there’s a middle ground in which skilled authors carefully pay out enough line and provide just enough context to allow readers to infer meaning and motivation. Peter Abrahams is a master at this, and uses spare language to get there. I never feel disoriented in one of his stories, and his efforts to get me to engage more closely with the text make me feel connected to the story in a way “explaining everything” cannot. But it is definitely advanced technique, a serendipitous marriage of instincts and craft.
One of these days I will finally read Abrahams. You are exactly right about instincts and craft. It is an advanced technique, and it takes a lot of words written to get there. It’s why Saunders will work years on a story.
I'm usually writing for my own enjoyment, then I think, "Hey, Somebody else might read this and not know what I know."
We're not in your head buddy :)
I sometimes wonder
Put that thing down.
But it's a copy of Samurai Bluegrass. Very hard to find these days...
Worth big bucks!!
I'll never sell them or my poster!
I think there's a BIG difference between "suspence" and "obsfucation." The first doesn't bother me. The latter can, too, in the hands of an unreliable narrator, but it's usually just sloppy writing. The one that gets my goat is when the MC needs to be really stupid in order for the plot to work. (PI novels, I'm looking at a lot of you.)
This was one of many bones I had to pick with Dan Brown - his symboligist guy, can't recall his name (TOM HANKS!) was so bloody stupid that he couldn't figure out the simplest of clues.
Ditto to some PI novels. That's why Fischer is not a PI :)
But like I said to Jody - more about clarity than anything.
Yes! It's hard as hell to make a dumb MC interesting. Even harder than making lowlifes interesting. (Sorry, that's off-topic. A pet peeve.)
Police novels are also afflicted with idiotic cops, particularly one set in small, dying towns. If newcomers are rare, and you've got a sudden string of murders, but you don't look at the people who moved there recently?
I’ve been known to include a dumb cop or two in my stories.
Plenty of dumb cops to go around. Dumb cop as MC is a problem!
I would argue (for the fun of discussion) that suspense and simple writing are two very different things. Vonnegut uses other stylistic techniques to keep readers interested. Beyond that, I would say that any time you tell a story linearly, you are leaving things out...until you get to the end. That's still suspense, no? Anyway, I am not one to be fancy in my approach, but I also give some credit to my reader. I had an editor once approach me to write a short piece for her new lit mag and then she asked me to change the ending so it was very spoon-fed. I declined because it was not needed (all of my beta readers understood what was happening) and she decided not to print it. So, yeah. Maybe I'm still bitter. :)
Agreed. I think Vonnegut was being a bit tongue-in-cheek with the use of the word suspense. For me, a better word would be clarity.
It's a balancing act, no doubt. Because spoon-fed is bad. But same goes for vagueness.
Did I (we) mention how hard writing is?
I like to write with references and allusions to things that people may or may not pick up on (ie. Muttley, Carlos Santana etc etc) but I never want a reader to be CONFUSED about what is happening. Confusion leads to apathy.
How can people not know MUTTLEY? What has our civilization wrought?
And yes about apathy. If I don’t understand it, I just don’t care.
I love this post so much and it is serving as a reminder to not hide the ball-something I tend to do. AS hard as it is to admit, the inclination may be a warning that there isn't story here. Maybe it's not a novel, but a short story. Maybe it's not a short story, but flash. Maybe it's a poem? Or maybe it needs to go in the trash.
Thanks for reading M.E. This was exactly what I was saying. It’s hard to be honest with ourselves. But I’ve written stuff where I took an honest look at it and went… nope. This is not worth telling.
Sometimes we (I) try to force or cram a story into life, where the best thing is to put it to rest. Hiding the ball (great metaphor) doesn’t work.
Great comment.
I might be one of the only people of my age/economic/education/social background who doesn't care for Vonnegut's books. I read most of them when I was in college and thought they were just okay at best (Player Piano and Slaughterhouse) and pretentious preachy dreck at worst (all of the others). But, hey, that's just me. Ice Nine, indeed. And so it goes.
Ha! So it goes.
I had a love hate. I read everything he published for a while. Bluebeard was my fave. But then I grew tired of his cynicism. Lately I’ve been finding my way back to his work.
I also rather enjoy flirting with violating at least half of Vonnegut’s other rules. I like making readers think I’m wasting their time (I’m not), and I occasionally, intentionally fail to make every sentence reveal character or advance the plot.
I’m trying to corner the market on being sadistic toward my readers. Rules are for fools who are purposefully trying to entertain.
One of the selling points of the comic is: “Are we here to entertain you?” I ask because I genuinely don’t know. And I’m not particularly interested in finding out, but I’m hoping that anyone foolish enough to answer is smart enough to realize that they are capable of entertaining themselves.
I’m gonna sell like four books tops, right? 😬😃
I kinda like the sadistic attitude toward the reader.
And if you write it… they will come.
I already got a tree picked out. 😃
Sometimes, one must be subtle so as to not wind up hanging by their neck in the woods, but beyond that, I think it’s funner, as a reader… not as a writer swinging from a tree, to be given all of the details and still get blindsided by a curveball that slaps like a wet, rotten fish to the face.
I also like that. Especially the fish slap.
Love this, Craig! Always a good reminder.
Also, I feel like I've heard at least a version of "Love the idea, but it's not on the page" from you before a few times. Slow learner here, but plodding along. Cheers, good sir!
Thanks pal - we are all learning!
But yeah, I say that a lot :)
Craig, you made some very valid points. Vonnegut, one of my favorite authors, seems to write simply, but he goes far deeper and catches one off guard. And yes, there are brilliant writers who write simple or complex stories. However, and this is not a criticism of either style, is simple writing more popular now because of the dumbing down of America? That is a theory that is open for debate. I also must point out a small nitpick with your post. You are a talented writer, but as a former newspaper editor, I couldn't help noticing a couple of typos in your text. Keep on keepin' on.
Hey Joe - Yes, I do wonder this exact thing. Is there a dumbing down, not just of America (but in general)? I've talked to high school English teachers that lament how students are lacking more and more the skills and strategies to reading novels. So that is a valid theory.
On the typos - I don't pour over my substack posts like I do my stories and novels - otherwise, it would take me forever to post them.
But also, please share... I'm always open to fixing them. And with substack it's easy. Thanks for reading!
I agree. Even newer reporters sometimes lack grammar and spelling skills. I don't think it is all due to social media. Anyway, not to be a nag, but "pour" in the sense you used it should be spelled "pore". That is a common error, though. Have a good day, and keep writing.