He Did It
I was watching NUMB3RS last night on my Tivo-thingie. I like the show because it's a really good character study, and I was feeling ill last night, so TV was a better choice than reading. And I like the math genius on the show--both his genius factor and his cuteness factor. Anyway, show opens with murder. Next scene . . . character introduced. I say to Significant Other: "He did it."
"Well, how can you know? Doesn't seem like he did it."
"BECAUSE I'm a writer."
"Yeah, and?"
"You have to think like a writer on a tightly written show with 43 minutes (hour, less commercials) to solve a case. You don't introduce anyone extra."
And of course, the character did it.
In a tightly written TV show, the guest star is either the victim OR the killer. In a tightly written show, there's ONE red herring and maybe a twist or two, but they don't clutter it up with a hundred extra possibilities. It's more linear than that.
A lot of novelists could take a clue from that.
Every single person you introduce should add something to your book. You can have a funny, eccentric cast of secondaries, or an appropriate amount of suspects, but each one should bring out something regarding your main character. Each suspect eliminated should tell us something about the case. In the new book I am working on, eliminating Suspect #1 leads to a big reveal about the victim. It's not RANDOM SUSPECT #1, but Suspect that tells us something new. Something we didn't know before.
When I am asked to critique someone's manuscript, and there's some unusual element, something cool about the suspect or about the main character . . . as a trained editor, I NEVER say "Wow . . . cool." I may think that for a moment, but my very next question is "Do you need it?"
I read a manuscript from a writer I really respected. He had an FBI profiler in a really crazy case and it was an awesome bit of writing. But he made the profiler a little psychic. I said, "Do you need it?" (In my opinion, NO.) REAL profilers operate in a world of fast, precise decisions. I know. I met one and took a class from him. So the psychic thing could go. Not needed by a profiler--they're an interesting enough bunch of guys without adding something else into the mix.
So . . . how about you? How do you decide what can stay and what can go? And do you always figure it out in a Whodunnit?
"Well, how can you know? Doesn't seem like he did it."
"BECAUSE I'm a writer."
"Yeah, and?"
"You have to think like a writer on a tightly written show with 43 minutes (hour, less commercials) to solve a case. You don't introduce anyone extra."
And of course, the character did it.
In a tightly written TV show, the guest star is either the victim OR the killer. In a tightly written show, there's ONE red herring and maybe a twist or two, but they don't clutter it up with a hundred extra possibilities. It's more linear than that.
A lot of novelists could take a clue from that.
Every single person you introduce should add something to your book. You can have a funny, eccentric cast of secondaries, or an appropriate amount of suspects, but each one should bring out something regarding your main character. Each suspect eliminated should tell us something about the case. In the new book I am working on, eliminating Suspect #1 leads to a big reveal about the victim. It's not RANDOM SUSPECT #1, but Suspect that tells us something new. Something we didn't know before.
When I am asked to critique someone's manuscript, and there's some unusual element, something cool about the suspect or about the main character . . . as a trained editor, I NEVER say "Wow . . . cool." I may think that for a moment, but my very next question is "Do you need it?"
I read a manuscript from a writer I really respected. He had an FBI profiler in a really crazy case and it was an awesome bit of writing. But he made the profiler a little psychic. I said, "Do you need it?" (In my opinion, NO.) REAL profilers operate in a world of fast, precise decisions. I know. I met one and took a class from him. So the psychic thing could go. Not needed by a profiler--they're an interesting enough bunch of guys without adding something else into the mix.
So . . . how about you? How do you decide what can stay and what can go? And do you always figure it out in a Whodunnit?
posted by Erica Orloff at 5:33 PM
7 Comments:
What can go: Everything that isn't Story.
Ditch the gimmicks, the coincidences, contrivances. The long descriptive passages padding up the word count.
I want my prose lean and clean, like a three-piece blues band or a string quartet. No frills, just The Shit.
That's my goal, anyway.
Not a clue.
So far, my barometer is, "Does it survive draft after draft?" Not very efficient, but I'm not a very efficient writer anyway. I write lots of words for a few good ones. It's terrible.
The whodunnit...I find that more and more, it's a case of how/whydunnit than a whodunnit, IMHO.
I like what you said, Jude, because I want to write that way too.
Jude:
Great advice to constantly keep in mind.
Love the idea of ditching coincidences and contrivances. All great advice, really. I am going to tape it to my computer.
E
May:
Over at Dana Diamond's blog, I think it was Emily Brightwell who said she essentially wrote comics. She was making a joke/point that she writes so lean she nearly always has to add. I do, too. But I do have friends who write reams and keep very little--just the tightest/best stuff.
Writing short does come naturally to me, Erica. Stuff like description etc? Nah. Have to be reminded to add.
ROFL. I just finished a short story, which I guessed to be around 10k. It's actually around half that--about 5k at first draft.
It's just that to keep one short bit, I write at least 2 short bits, if that makes sense?
I'm with May on the "how'd they do it" rather than who. WIth books I don't try too hard to figure out who, but movies I can usually peg it pretty early and I've noticed I watch TV and movies with a more critical eye--not as critical as the eye I read with but you know.
May I'm with you on the description. Luckily my CP is the oposite!
Amie:
I actually think that's a general shift in crime fiction over the last twenty years or so as technology takes a more powerful role vs. detective work in the old-fashioned sense--not that there's not a lot of that involved. But I think it's a shift.
E
Post a Comment
<< Home