Thread: Are readers smart?

Quite a few times I’ve heard that a story doesn’t need a character's every thought or deed written down, for the reader to follow the plot easily. Bits can be left out and the reader will fill them in.

Okay, so how about the following example?

Why did Veronique look alarmed?

Originally I wrote it all in, then remembered what I'd heard about a reader being capable of doing it on their own.

(Oh, and it’s the opening words of the story. This is what the reader sees on Page 1. There is no “before this, something else happened.”)

#

‘So what happened next?’ asked Veronique as she stretched luxuriously.

‘Oh, I died, and went to Heaven.’

For the briefest of moments I could see a flash of alarm behind her hazel eyes. And then, as quickly, they lit up with humour. She made a ladylike snorting sound.

‘You fool.’

‘It wasn’t foolish back then,’ I retorted. ‘When I tumbled down that ladder, I had just one thought in my mind; I’m dead and I hope there’re no Mexicans in Heaven.’

‘That’s two thoughts.’

‘You weren’t there, inside my head. I’m telling you, young lady, at times like that everything speeds up and becomes a blur.’

#

Over to you, gentle reader.

My belief is you've got to lead them along a little bit, because if you force them to work their brain too much, and if they're just a cazj reader (casual), then they won't be having fun. There's a quote by an editor I read once, "You have to show AND tell," which simply means that you make extra clear what's happening. I've read Ernest Hemmingway stuff where he doesn't show who's talking, just assumes we'd know, and it pissed me off. It was like he was saying, "If you're not smart enough to know who's talking, then FU." I think we shouldn't make our stories indecipherable and impossible to follow, or something that only we can appreciate. We've got to look at our motives, too, because with some people it's like they write to flaunt their vocab and impress people, rather than give them a story.

i think it reads just fine, personally. if you gave me everything on page one i probably wouldnt be as interested in reading.

I think Ox is actually challenging us to figure out why Veronique was alarmed. . .right?

‘You fool.’

‘It wasn’t foolish back then,’

That sounds like a big clue but I just can't figure out what is being discussed. I guess sometimes we do need to have our hands held just a little, but I prefer doing it as infrequently as possible.

When it comes to the idea of "Show dont tell" I find it rather difficult to know which bits to leave out. Although when I read others work (on this site I think I've said it a few times) I often highlight phrases and put the critique "You don't need this..." and then a nice comment about how well the'd already shown the reader what was going on.

I can't do this with my own work.

As for your little extract it shows that you dont always need to 'tag' lines of speech, readers are often smart enough to figure that out. Emotions show through really well, I think this works. =]

I see two possibilities
1. That she suddenly wonders if they are both dead
2. That she suddenly wonders if he has lost it and is insane

Then she decides he is joking, I would take it as a tease to the reader to keep him there to find out which rather than a lack of information, The following dialogue would make me think the number one possibility was not on, then I would be curious to know if the second is right, or if there is some other explanation, like it is true but he is not supposed to have guessed that yet.

But I have a devious and twisted mind. Go on, what was it?

When do you want the reader to know why Veronique is alarmed? Just from reading that excerpt it is difficult to tell if the reason for her alarm is something that we should know now or whether it's something that will keep us reading farther, looking for the answer to be revealed. Right now it seems like something that we should keep reading to find out - I wouldn't expect the reader to be able to guess. It also seems like by deferring the answer until later it should turn out to be significant to the plot.

I assumed Veronique was alarmed because, at first, she thought the narrator was being serious. Then Veronique thinks she's just dumb or joking. I didn't read too much into it. If someone tells you they went to Heaven with a straight face, it doesn't seem that odd to be briefly alarmed.

Should I comment on your guesses yet? If I do, it may deter future posters from digging into it. I'd be really interested to learn what percentage get it right.


Foxee ~ as they are reading the extract.

Well at first I assumed they said "Oh, I died, and went to Heaven" really seriously, and so Veronique was a little alarmed, and then realized he was kidding, but I didn't think it would be that simple. I thought you were playing mind games and left out a vital piece of info.

When I know something is hidden I tend to over-analyze. . .damn.

I've been mulling it over all night, just spill the beans

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

Why did Veronique look alarmed?




She made a ladylike snorting sound.

Because she's been mistaken for the star of "Babe"? They obviously have strange ladies in the outback... but then again, the Welsh have their sheep.

Originally Posted by The Backward OX

Foxee ~ as they are reading the extract.

Then just tell 'em why if it's important.

Originally Posted by Foxee

Then just tell 'em why if it's important.

You may have missed the point of the OP. It was, is the reader capable of figuring out something for herself, if stuff is left out?

*sigh* Okay, Ox, I didn't miss the point but I was trying to answer this in a way that might actually help the writing.

The question as you have it is too open to variables. I'll bow out.

Because she's Mexican.

(ps, ladylike snorting sounds are an Aussie thing, I guess.)