"You lost me" - ways to confuse your reader

[RAVENEYE]

I came across a helpful Substack post (You may need to subscribe to access it, not sure. I did the free subscription.) that describes some ways that writers manage to confuse the heck out of readers. If your reader is an editor, these things will likely lead to a quick rejection. How to recognize these issues and how to correct them?

rebeccamakkai.substack.com/p/you-lost-me?

The problems the Substacker describes are:

1. "I can picture it, so I assume you can too." Diagnosis = writer assumes "reader" means "mind reader." 

2. "I’m intentionally going to disorient you, because it works well in film."  Diagnosis = writer thinks paper pages behave like television screens.

3. "I’ll fill you in, but really really slowly." Diagnosis = writer assumes readers have loooong attention spans.

4. "I’m going to be mysterious and cryptic and vague, and this will make you mad with desire to read more." Diagnosis = writer assumes readers like to be toyed with.

[ScintillaMyntan]

Thanks. I didn't need to subscribe to see it, just clicked "continue reading" or whatever it said. I'm relieved she doesn't sound so snarky or bitterly laughing at writers like a lot of these editor's advice articles seem to do. I know I've had problems with assuming the reader understands what I have in my head. I'll check for this tonight in my Legends story.

[saintofm]

Aug 17, 2023 11:04:03 GMT -6 RAVENEYE said:

I came across a helpful Substack post (You may need to subscribe to access it, not sure. I did the free subscription.) that describes some ways that writers manage to confuse the heck out of readers. If your reader is an editor, these things will likely lead to a quick rejection. How to recognize these issues and how to correct them?

rebeccamakkai.substack.com/p/you-lost-me?

The problems the Substacker describes are:

1. "I can picture it, so I assume you can too." Diagnosis = writer assumes "reader" means "mind reader." 

2. "I’m intentionally going to disorient you, because it works well in film."  Diagnosis = writer thinks paper pages behave like television screens.

3. "I’ll fill you in, but really really slowly." Diagnosis = writer assumes readers have loooong attention spans.

4. "I’m going to be mysterious and cryptic and vague, and this will make you mad with desire to read more." Diagnosis = writer assumes readers like to be toyed with.

The fist one sounds like a problem with communication. As an author you have to convey enough of a situation to the reader they can build a picture. You don't have to describe every detail (I think its three details for the most part is enough). Its one thing if the POV is also in the dark like the reader, of they are trying to convey a difficult concept that has few ways to desscribe it (say an eldritch abomination). That said, even HP Lovecraft gave some details, which i why the ctupuse head, body of a man, wings of a dragon look of Cth'ulu is around.



The second can work in some very specific parts. Going in a tailspin, or a character with a fear of heights looks down while on a rickety bridge and has a sense of virtigo. Again, needs to be very specific tool for a very specific job.

The third is pacing. Older works have this problem. And while its an over exaggerating that people now have the attention spans of a gerbil on meth, there is some truth to it. In that we don't have alot of time. I think things like Vines and TicTok got popular because when do we have the time? Alot of this you can watch on the toilet, where as a longer video you may not have much time for. The same can be said about reading. There needs to be plenty of places a reader can comfortably say I can take a break from reading and come back. Maybe if one is commuting via public transit, but even then there are limits. Depending on where you are going this might be as little as five minutes, or have to change trains every now and then (say like I had to for college sometimes). Some bus rides could definitely use the long, but getting a big book out for frequent stops or when you don't have a chance to sit down makes this difficult at best. Granted when BART went on strike my bus rout was so long to my internship I Picked up the Hobbit at the library on Monday and finished it Friday, but that is rare. 

The final One is why people hate purple prose and a bad twist can take people out of the loop. Not everyone likes this, and even in a mystery there has to be enough clues to give the audience paying close attention who the killer is, or at the very least WHY they did it.

[RAVENEYE]

Aug 17, 2023 19:29:56 GMT -6 saintofm said:

Aug 17, 2023 11:04:03 GMT -6 RAVENEYE said:

I came across a helpful Substack post (You may need to subscribe to access it, not sure. I did the free subscription.) that describes some ways that writers manage to confuse the heck out of readers. If your reader is an editor, these things will likely lead to a quick rejection. How to recognize these issues and how to correct them?

rebeccamakkai.substack.com/p/you-lost-me?

The problems the Substacker describes are:

1. "I can picture it, so I assume you can too." Diagnosis = writer assumes "reader" means "mind reader." 

2. "I’m intentionally going to disorient you, because it works well in film."  Diagnosis = writer thinks paper pages behave like television screens.

3. "I’ll fill you in, but really really slowly." Diagnosis = writer assumes readers have loooong attention spans.

4. "I’m going to be mysterious and cryptic and vague, and this will make you mad with desire to read more." Diagnosis = writer assumes readers like to be toyed with.

The fist one sounds like a problem with communication. As an author you have to convey enough of a situation to the reader they can build a picture. You don't have to describe every detail (I think its three details for the most part is enough). Its one thing if the POV is also in the dark like the reader, of they are trying to convey a difficult concept that has few ways to desscribe it (say an eldritch abomination). That said, even HP Lovecraft gave some details, which i why the ctupuse head, body of a man, wings of a dragon look of Cth'ulu is around.



The second can work in some very specific parts. Going in a tailspin, or a character with a fear of heights looks down while on a rickety bridge and has a sense of virtigo. Again, needs to be very specific tool for a very specific job.

The third is pacing. Older works have this problem. And while its an over exaggerating that people now have the attention spans of a gerbil on meth, there is some truth to it. In that we don't have alot of time. I think things like Vines and TicTok got popular because when do we have the time? Alot of this you can watch on the toilet, where as a longer video you may not have much time for. The same can be said about reading. There needs to be plenty of places a reader can comfortably say I can take a break from reading and come back. Maybe if one is commuting via public transit, but even then there are limits. Depending on where you are going this might be as little as five minutes, or have to change trains every now and then (say like I had to for college sometimes). Some bus rides could definitely use the long, but getting a big book out for frequent stops or when you don't have a chance to sit down makes this difficult at best. Granted when BART went on strike my bus rout was so long to my internship I Picked up the Hobbit at the library on Monday and finished it Friday, but that is rare. 

The final One is why people hate purple prose and a bad twist can take people out of the loop. Not everyone likes this, and even in a mystery there has to be enough clues to give the audience paying close attention who the killer is, or at the very least WHY they did it.

For sure. There's definitely a difference between an author skillfully creating a scene in which the POV is disoriented or unaware of the details and an author who is withholding info for the purpose of shock value or some other gimmick (or being completely unaware that they're doing so). Beta readers are great for catching the latter.

I would like to have quoted the entire Substack b/c its author provides examples of when these things do NOT work, but that woulda been theft. Therefore the nudge to click the link for the full post. After having been on crit sights since 2007 and being a slush reader for a spell, these are very common problems I encounter(ed) frequently. 

The example for #3 cracked me up. It went something like this:

Page 1: We meet a character named Maggie who is looking forward to walking in the park.
Page 4: Maggie is described as having black hair. You had pictured a red-head, so now you have to go through mental hoops to reimagine her as a brunette.
Page 6: You learn that Maggie is 8 years old, when you had imagined an adult. More mental hoops.
Page 8: You read that Maggie wags her tail. Shit, seriously?

An exaggeration of the scenario, but anyway... This is not only a pacing problem but the author not seeming to understand which details are actually important, nor when/how to reveal them in a useful timely manner. That, or it's a play at humor that instead results in cruelly tricking your audience. It may depend on the genre and the whole tone of the story, but this probably won't be appreciated.

I think it's committing #1 that scares me the most, so I'm pretty sure I over-describe things. On the other hand, I'm pretty sure it's #4 I've been struggling with in my long fiction recently. Ugh. How much is too much? How little is too little? When ought the character reveal their deepest, darkest secret? Difficult judgments to call sometimes.