Most here probably know this already but some of us may need a reminder.
"Don't Be That Story! part 1
For the next few newsletters, we'll be sharing thoughts on the kinds of stories that we, as editors, are tired of. And we're not going to trot out the usual lists that you can find in other writing sites and newsletters, like "no vampires" or "no stories that start with someone answering a phone" or Donald Barthelme's famous old standby, "no stories in which characters discuss the weather." We don't care about the content of stories (as long as they use our issue's premise). But what DOES drive us nuts are stories like this:
The "I've Got A Secret!" Story
This kind of story would work just fine if we readers knew the big secret, which is usually that the main character is an elephant or the story takes place on some parallel Earth or something. But no, the story's going to dance around and act coy, and wink at us, and drop hints that something mysterious and important is going on, but it won't say what it is. Until the end, of course, when the big secret is finally revealed! Then, and only then, does the story make sense. ("So that's why everyone reacted so strangely to the narrator! The narrator is a giraffe! Now I understand all those comments about low ceilings!")
I can't say strongly enough just how amateurish this approach to storytelling is. If you want to write about a giraffe, tell us we're reading about a giraffe and quit hiding the story's most important fact. Don't be that story!
Here are two rules I've yet to see fail for deciding when to tell the readers some key piece of information:
Rule one: The only time it's okay to withhold critical information from a reader is when the central characters in the story don't know it either. Withholding information from characters and readers is a fundamental technique for generating tension. However...
Rule two: If the central characters know critical information about some element of the story that would improve readers' understanding of the story, then readers need to know. You can show us, tell us, or come up with some other way, but get the information across somehow."
Anyone?
One to a mini contest and the one or two to the regular one. Of course I didn't get very far with either.
I may try this current one.
[This message has been edited by LDWriter2 (edited November 07, 2010).]
quote:
Rule two: If the central characters know critical information about some element of the story that would improve readers' understanding of the story, then readers need to know. You can show us, tell us, or come up with some other way, but get the information across somehow."
For the most part, this is sound advice. However, like most writing rules, there are times to break the rule.
One of the traditional situations where this rule is broken is in mystery stories, once the detective realizes who the murderer is. It is perfectly acceptable to withhold that information from the reader during the gathering of all the suspects for the dramatic reveal.
A similar situation is when a major character comes up with a plan to resolve some situation. You do not need to explain what the plan is before it is put into execution, because that would sap the tension out of the execution of the plan (unless the plan is going to go spectacularly wrong, in which case it's best to explain the plan first. But not every plan should go wrong.)
quote:One of the traditional situations where this rule is broken is in mystery stories, once the detective realizes who the murderer is. It is perfectly acceptable to withhold that information from the reader during the gathering of all the suspects for the dramatic reveal.
A similar situation is when a major character comes up with a plan to resolve some situation. You do not need to explain what the plan is before it is put into execution, because that would sap the tension out of the execution of the plan (unless the plan is going to go spectacularly wrong, in which case it's best to explain the plan first. But not every plan should go wrong.)
Yeah, I've read both situations. Not so many mysteries these days but there are plenty of books and stories were the main characters with hold a plain or part of one. It seems to done so many times that with many endings I start expecting it.
The mere fact that something is published does not mean the writer did everything the best way it could be done.
It also means that you can break "rules" and still get published. The important thing is to learn what the rules are, and the reasons for them, so you can decide whether breaking them is worth the price you'll pay.
quote:
The mere fact that something is published does not mean the writer did everything the best way it could be done.
quote:
I've read countless PUBLISHED stories that have those exact properties. What am I to make of this?
I think it depends on the story and/or book.
Sometimes a published writer can get away with things a newbie can't. Sometimes, as someone said already, you can break the rules but only after you learn them. Having your MC wake up in the opening is another rule that gets broken. You're not suppose to do that but I know one certain writer who has two books out where her MC wakes up in the first sentence. The writer seems to like to start a new series that way. I don't know if her openings are good enough where she can break that rule or if since she is an established pro no one makes a big deal about it. I know another beginning writer who after being told not to start a story that way decided to stretch himself and write one. It sold.
Sometimes it depends on what type of story as already discussed mysteries are made to hide things from readers. Usually that is.
In this case I think it's usually best to go with what editors want until you know you can break a rule right.
But I get your point, too. Variety in writing styles will cover a wider audience and sell more copies of a magazine. Makes perfect sense.
Unfortunately, the bulk of the writers I really liked to see and read are either (a) dead, (b) no longer active in the field, or (c) not writing anything interesting. It's not the only factor by any means, but a dearth of "old friends" in the magazines is part of why I stopped reading them regularly. (Some were dead when I first read them.)
There was a writeup in Locus a month or so back, an interview with Barry Malzberg, where, among other compelling points, he names 1992 and the death of Asimov as a dividing line in the field of science fiction...my skipping the occasional magazine had already started by then, but that does seem like the point where the field seemed less interesting for me to read...
Come to think of it Asimov's death may have been a dividing line, since I have noticed some different books out. Especially in the last couple of years think some of the newer writers are writing differently. I'm not sure if that is what you meant but they seem to be ignoring or don't know about certain rules or ways of writing the older masters had. But at the same time I have found some writers still enjoyable, even with short stories.
With magazines I have always found that some stories I like while others I wouldn't give a second look at. That's why I have never liked magazines. I have read some to get an idea of what the editors like and how published writers write but not so much for my own enjoyment.