16 August 2022

Finding the Sweet Spot Between Overexplaining and Underexplaining


I read two mysteries in the past week that I enjoyed very much. One was a cozy, the other sort of a historical (it involved time travel). The juxtaposition of reading them back-to-back brought a writing question to the fore: How do you find the balance between not wanting to spoon-feed the reader key facts and not wanting to leave them confused?

In one of these books, as the sleuth put the clues together and figured out whodunit, she laid out her thought process. Fact A led to fact B, which led to fact C. Consequently, the sleuth knew, Character X was the killer. I reread the section multiple times. I agreed about facts A, B, and C, but how--I wondered--had the sleuth jumped from fact C to knowing whodunit? While I had correctly guessed the killer, I hadn't been sure of why this character had committed murder, and reading this part of the book didn't enlighten me. Ultimately, I realized there was a key fact, D, which hadn't been mentioned while the sleuth was figuring things out. The author had left room for the reader to guess about fact D so the reader could draw her own connections between the facts and the killer's identity.

In the other book, the sleuth not only talked about facts A, B, and C. She talked about facts D, E, F, and G, drilling down, showcasing her thought process. By the time she realized who the killer was, there was no way the reader would have any question how she came to that conclusion. The author had left a roadmap that would have made Rand McNally proud.

Image by rawpixel.com

Which author's approach was the right one? Trick question! They both were right. Some authors simply like to give readers more room to draw their own conclusions than others do. There's nothing wrong with either way of doing things.

Of course, not all readers would agree, and that's the rub.

I've read reviews where readers complained about plot holes because the author, like in my first example above, didn't explain how the sleuth came to a certain conclusion. I've also read reviews where readers complained because they didn't like how the author spelled all the details out, as if the author didn't trust the readers to be smart enough to draw their own conclusions.

What's a poor author to do? Seems you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

The problem is that some readers are more literal than others. They need or want the facts to be spelled out because, without them, these readers won't see how the sleuth reached her conclusions and might think you have a plot hole. These readers don't want to have to work so hard while relaxing with a book.

Other readers are more intuitive and feel patronized if an author explains or (from these readers' perspective) overexplains things. For these readers, part of the fun of a puzzle mystery is being given the room to figure things out for themselves, and when that fun is denied them, they become aggravated.

This isn't to put readers in either group down. I can be pretty literal myself and often encourage clients to explain things a bit more, helping the reader to connect the dots. Yet there certainly are times when I read a book and think, we know, we know, get on with it. Every reader has their own tolerance for how much explanation they like and need. The challenge for authors is to satisfy readers who are more literal-minded while at the same time satisfying readers who enjoy making connections. Satisfy everyone, no matter where they fall on the reading spectrum!

Image by rawpixel.com
No problem, right? Just give readers enough breadcrumbs to lead them to the solution, but not so many that the pacing is negatively affected.

You're cursing at me under your breath, aren't you? I get it. It's easy to say, not so easy to do. But here's my suggestion for finding that sweet spot: First, figure out what your natural inclination is. Are you more literal-minded or more intuitive? Do you tend to overexplain or underexplain? Then, once you know which way you tend to lean, make sure you have a beta reader or critique partner or editor who leans the other way. 

An author whose natural inclination is to assume the reader will make logical jumps would be well served by a more literal-minded editor who can point out where there are gaps in the sleuth's thought process. In contrast, an author whose natural inclination is to spell out every little detail would probably benefit from a reader who is good at making connections and who can highlight where the author explained so much that the writing began to drag. Between the two of you, you hopefully will find a good middle ground so your literal-minded readers won't feel lost, yet your intuitive readers will still feel challenged.

Good luck!

19 comments:

  1. Good post, Barb, and I agree with your suggestions. My daughter, Bridgid, helps me out by being my more literal beta reader. The longer I write the less 'splainin' I want to do, sometimes to a fault.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have been guilty of overexplaining AND assuming the reader will see the light. The best advice I ever heard is to make your story so compelling, the reader will be invested enough to want to figure out what's going on.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good post, and one I needed. I regularly struggle with wondering am I saying too much or. not enough. Susan Oleksiw

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting. As a reader, I'm literal minded and get upset when the writer doesn't make things clear; but as a writer I think I'm more intuitive and subtle. So I guess I go both ways.
    Bob

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Probably, for this purpose, your intuitive leanings are more important since that's what's in play when you are writing.

      Delete
  5. I'm like M.C. - been guilty of both. Sometimes it seems so obvious to me. And then someone points out that they couldn't figure it out, so... Rewrite.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank goodness computers make revision easy (ish).

      Delete
  6. My own preference as a reader is to have all the needed information, but not to have it repeated over and over, which I find a tedious waste of time. I like the idea of choosing a beta reader whose approach will balance the author's.
    Also, I want a REAL ending, no cliff-hangers. What a cheat, to get to the end with no ending.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I appreciate having all the info too without repetition. Thanks for stopping by.

      Delete
  7. When reading. I like to work once I have all the clues and hints, work things out. That’s led to an awkward moment or two in movies. While watching Se7en, I audibly gasped in a peculiar place because I realized a few minutes ahead of time what the dénouement had to be.

    I often over-explain, but in the MWA story Mercy, I omitted virtually all information about the crime, which not only led to a surprise about the victim, but opened a bag of snakes about what happened. It looked like a case of an unreliable narrator, but it wasn’t… or was it? The ‘confusion’ was deliberate and fortunately led to acceptance in the anthology and kind words afterwards.

    On the other hand, I plotted a story with carefully planted clues. I didn’t explain the chain of events, which led to odd results with beta readers. My romance writer friends grasped what happened but my professional mystery writer (and now reader) was baffled.

    I couldn’t have that, so I kept revealing more and more, and drawing attention to pertinent clues until I’m almost uncomfortable. I’ve been struggling to find a balance, but I realize you are right– I can’t please every reader.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope, you can't. My natural inclination is toward explanation. I've bent that way even more since I had a story published about ten years ago in which the editor encouraged me to delete some explanation so the reader could draw the conclusion themselves. Don't spoon-feed them, I was told. So, I deleted the info, only to have a review of the anthology mention my story and say it had a gap--the very info I had deleted--because the reviewer hadn't connected the dots. As you may be able to tell, I'm still aggravated to this day.

      Delete
  8. What an interesting post! Yet another balancing act for authors! Another strategy is to l let a story sit a while. If you come back to it and find your asking yourself. "What? Why'd he think that?" then you know you need to explain more. This works for me because I have the attention span of a goldfish. It also can be helpful to have a "round-up" chapter somewhere in the last third of a novel, where all the clues/events so far are reviewed (reminding readers who may have forgotten) and laying the groundwork for the denouement. The reader may not understand exactly where the story's going at this point, but at least they will be heading in the right direction!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Sorry about the "anonymous." comment. It is mine!

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is a balancing act! I'm like Vicki - I like to do a "round up" chapter (didn't know it had a name - thanks, Vicki) that lays things out for the reader. It also helps me see if I missed connecting any dots. As a mystery reader, I like these denouements, too. (it says anonymous, but it's Shari, hello Barb!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. For someone who writes as detailed plots as you do, Shari, a roundup chapter is a good idea so the reader can connect ALL the dots. Thanks for stopping by.

      Delete

Welcome. Please feel free to comment.

Our corporate secretary is notoriously lax when it comes to comments trapped in the spam folder. It may take Velma a few days to notice, usually after digging in a bottom drawer for a packet of seamed hose, a .38, her flask, or a cigarette.

She’s also sarcastically flip-lipped, but where else can a P.I. find a gal who can wield a candlestick phone, a typewriter, and a gat all at the same time? So bear with us, we value your comment. Once she finishes her Fatima Long Gold.

You can format HTML codes of <b>bold</b>, <i>italics</i>, and links: <a href="https://about.me/SleuthSayers">SleuthSayers</a>