Too Much Detail?

The mystery writer Allen Eskins spoke to the Minnesota Mystery Night* gathering a couple of days ago. In the question session, Eskins was asked:  When you write, do you think about the reader? Eskins said no, and his answer got me thinking.

I had never really analyzed my own process this way. On introspection, I realized I do not think much about the reader when I draft. I have the story in a rough outline; mainly, I live in the characters’ minds. Since my novels are to some degree techno-thrillers, though, I do think about the reader during rewrite. I need to put in just enough technical detail to convince readers that they can trust that the technology part is believable. After several years of help from fine critique groups, I know not to fulfill my inner temptation to show how astoundingly clever/knowledgeable I am and bore readers to death with detail. Then, of course, I run headlong into the question of how much is enough. Techies will want more detail; readers more interested in character arc will want less.

Two books I’ve read recently crystallized the issue for me. The first, The Rose Code, by Kate Quinn, is literary fiction traveling as a mystery. Marvelous writing, three strong female protagonists who work in various capacities at Bletchley Park, the WWII English code-breaking facility. You’ll want to read it. Quinn has every reason not to tell the reader how the people at Bletchley broke the Enigma cyphers because Bletchley was famously compartmentalized. The three protagonists each knew only part of the process. Yet the brief description Quinn gives of the actual code breaking was too little for me. (Here’s my Goodreads review.)

The second book will remain unnamed. It’s one I reviewed prior to publication. The central idea dealt with biotechnology. At one point, the text discussed “recumbent” DNA technology. (One hopes the author meant “recombinant.”) Of course, “recumbent” is a dictionary word; a dumb spell checker would find it perfectly acceptable. There were other hints that the writer hadn’t had the book copy edited, but even given that it might just be a typo, “recumbent” destroyed the author’s credibility with respect to the mostly unstated biological/pharmacological processes that were central to the plot. For me, at least.

My takeaways: 1) write to abandon in the first draft; consider what’s necessary in the second. 2) Get your work copy edited.

* Minnesota Mystery Night is produced by Midwest Mystery Works, a group of five of us who write mysteries and thrillers. If you’re in the Twin Cities, it’s on the third Monday of each month. You can get advance notice through my newsletter or on the MMW Facebook page.

Oops

I have learned some editing lessons in the last week.  Three, in fact:

  • When they say ‘Don’t edit your own work’ … they’re right. I have read over Fatal Score at least ten times. During those readings,I ignored at least two dozen obvious mistakes.  My copy editor missed them, as well (though at least some were probably caused by just-have-to-do-it tweaks post copyedit).  These are not grammatical shadings, but duplicated words, mixed tenses and the like.  The main problem is that first draft was first person/present tense.  I changed to third person/past tense several rewrites ago.  I didn’t execute all the tense changes correctly.
  • Grammar checkers check only grammar, not the abovementioned stupidities. I know that’s a tautology, but (for me) a painful one.
  • If you employ a copy editor, make sure you mention that you expect a serious reading of the material, not a cruise-through by Word or Grammerly.

I am indebted to early readers of the book, who have pointed out obvious problems. (Ned Froelich, your careful reading is far beyond the call of ARC reader duty.) The good news is Print on Demand allows for changes.

POD does not assuage authorial mortification.