Too straightforward and clear

This may be a bit early, given it's a first draft and I'm only about 2,000 words in, but for many years now I've been trying to analyse what it is that makes me think my writing is too, what's the word? Too formal? simple? basic?

This may seem like an odd thing to envy in others' writing, but when I'm reading a novel I often find I'm not altogether sure what's going on - not because the writing is unclear, but because... well, I don't know why. What I do know is that it's this unknown element my writing lacks.

It's almost like there's too much for my brain to take on board initially, and that it's only by persevering with the story that things will start to gel and make sense.

But with mine, when I read back what I've written (which I know you shouldn't) it's all very straightforward. This is the MC, he does this. This is the baddie and he's involved with my MC because. This follows that until this happens resulting in that.

Everything is very clear, but there's no mystery or question marks. There's no obscurity. The pacing feels off, as though I'm simply hopping straight from one plot point to another.

Am I making any sense here?

 

Hmm. What's missing? Emotional involvement, perhaps? Are you trying to tell the story too quickly, without allowing the reader a chance to get immersed in the setting, and get to know the characters and the situation as if the reader were experiencing them in person? I don't know. It's hard to tell without seeing a sample of your work.

I am NOT a fan of reading a novel and not knowing what's going on, by the way. Clarity matters to me a great deal. But there's a difference between clarity and brevity. Or clarity and efficiency. Or being clear and being clinical.

Maybe you're too efficient? Some people claim to value that. These are the people who want to cut out nearly all adjectives and adverbs, want to use 'said' as the only dialogue tag, never want to describe anything, etc. However, one of the reasons I don't do that as a writer is because I don't enjoy reading stories that are written too efficiently. (Maybe that's why I have never enjoyed Hemingway.)

Also, if you are telling the reader everything they should think about the story and not leaving them any room to interpret things their own way, that might also be a problem. This is the baddie and he's involved with the MC because. Well, how do we know he's the baddie? Have you told us this? Not in so many words, of course, but have you left it to the reader to discover that he's not a good guy, or have you told the reader that what the guy does is bad? Have you given us scenes that show him with the MC, and let US decide why the two of them are involved?

This kind of storytelling takes longer to pull off (a higher word count, usually) but it makes the story more personal and more memorable for the reader. Creating a balance between telling the reader minor things they need to know, and allowing the readers to figure out the big stuff for themselves is one of the tricks of the trade that can be learned, once you recognise the difference.

 

I hesitate to use the phrase, but it could be that show/tell thing.

Show:

Mrs. Smith studied Jennifer for a long moment. She took a sip of her iced tea (unsugared, and she always logged the calories in the squeeze of lemon). Finally, she said, "Darling, is that really what you're wearing?"

Tell:

Jennifer's mother was obsessed with diet and appearance, and she always managed to make Jennifer feel that she wasn't measuring up.

 

Alternatively, it could also be a case where you know your work inside and out, and so it's all very clear to you because you have all the details in your head. Has anyone else read it? Do they agree that everything seems cut and dry? I sometimes think I'm being clear when I'm really not, simply because I already know the reason/outcome/background/etc, while the reader is confused because some part of that reason/outcome/background/etc is needed and I left it out. Maybe you similarly feel you're being overly clear while a reader might have a different opinion.

Barring that, of course, I agree with the above posts.

 

“Poor Faulkner. Does he really think big emotions come from big words? He thinks I don’t know the ten-dollar words. I know them all right. But there are older and simpler and better words, and those are the ones I use.” - Hemmingway

There are ways to do this right

My dad has been a fan of the novel The Maltese Falcon for years, but he recently told me that he never noticed – until we were listening to a Great Course lecture that said this directly – that we never see any of Sam Spade's inner thoughts in the narrative, only the actions that he takes.

Is it possible that this is the style of writing that you should study how to emulate?

 

Wow, a lot of info, opinions and suggestions to take on board there. Thanks to all who've replied so far.

I can't possibly address each individually, but for now will single out a couple.

First, @xanadu. Your post is something I have wondered on many an occasion. I hope my problem is precisely this, but also fear it may be wishful thinking.

This is something I worry about every time I write.

Rest assured I've carefully read each post and will mull them over at length.

 

I have the exact opposite writing style. My writing is obscure, vague and unorthodox.

But see, even when I do simplify things in my writing it'll be like "that's too simple. Make readers think! Don't spoon feed them!" But if I go my own way and write the way I feel is more close to my own style, people will say "I have no idea what's going on, what did we accomplish here?!"

Personally, I love reading books where I'm just somewhat baffled by all the strange dialect and slang, the cryptic imagery I get from narrative, the mood, the style. I hate the books that read like a YA Divergent, Twighlight hokey pokey.

I think it's all in preference at the end of the day.

 

@Seven Crowns - I understand misdirection, but admit I'm often so caught up in simply getting stuff down that I overlook using clever devices like this. Because I understand it, I know that while its use will certainly help my writing, it's not the mysterious element I feel is missing.

Hopefully I'm a long way from this (I'm not suggesting this is what you were inferring my writing may be like).

It's not that I want people to read my stuff with brows furrowed, uttering, "What the fook is this crap? I can't make head nor tail of it!" under their breath. It's more that I want them to be intrigued and, to a certain extent, left in the dark.

 

There's a ton of good advice in this thread, but for me @jannert and @Homer Potvin hit it on the head.

Adding background color via details that might not be central or even important to the plot can help immerse the reader in your characters and story, because as humans most of us notice a bunch of seemingly insignificant things every day. My co-workers pants are wrinkled when she's usually put together? Gets me wondering if she had a late night and overslept. Acquaintance who never wears makeup shows up with a full face of cosmetics? It'll make me think that maybe she's got a hot date later.

I think it's also good to drop some small details here and their about your character's backgrounds that are immaterial to the plot as well. In my first book, it really has no bearing on the rest of the story to know that my stand-up honest MC was never a Boy Scout because he was to busy working to help support his mom, but it gives a reader some insight into him that they might carry with them throughout the story in the back of their mind.

 

My WiP is a thriller, where not cluing the reader in is important -- they have to be surprised when it comes together in the end. To that end, it's important to have your plot pretty well-defined, and even more important to hold back on some information.

 

Keep writing. Put it in the workshop. Check your critiques.

 

Maybe you need a few more layers. I like to do this by adding in details that prolong reasons or fork motivation. For instance in my WIP my mc is a burnt out director who is targeted by the child star he hired. He is using the boy for his writing skills (he's more creative than the man) but the boy is taking their relationship to the level of father and son. He doesn't have a dad.

Now the director likes the kid but he doesn't want to be the kid's stand in dad – yet his actions say otherwise, his background info (another layer) shows that he has a string of failed marriages and abandoned kids – so is that the reason for not making a clear bond with the boy ... he doesn't want another failure? or does he only want to concentrate on his work? or does it go back further to his guardian locking him in a closet all day and he doesn't know how to connect? or has it got to do with his last run in with his absent father or has it got to do with the kid himself?

What I like to do is continue to maintain suspense and doubt in the reader. Make them think they have the answer but maybe it's not the right one. Meanwhile I'm using the same layered technique with the kid.

It's about not giving easy answers and explanations. It's about putting up roadblocks not just to the overall goal but especially inner goals. People, especially in pursuit of something risky, are usually trying to hide their actions – afraid of being caught failing, afraid of getting rejected, afraid of being caught underhanded etc. It makes them sneaky and emotionally guarded. They don't want people to see all of them -- just what they're willing to show.

 

Yes, layers!

I'm not saying this is the be-all and end-all of the problem, but as soon as I read this it struck a chord somewhere.

Thanks again to all.