Writer's Toolkit: dropping a hint

[shalanna]

I think there's definitely a place for building character through dropped hints.

For example, let's say you're reading along and here comes a HINT wham wham wham:

"Jane followed him into the room. It was a typical grad assistant cubbyhole, with ungraded exams scattered on the tabletops. A battered copy of _The Fountainhead_ lay splayed across the seat of the easy chair."

Okay. Now, what is the author telling us about this student? Assume that we have implied no one else uses this cubbyhole. SO . . . this guy is the one reading Ayn Rand. Either he's reading it for a college course (yeah, I'm cynical) or he's got a tin ear for prose and yet is caught up in the ideas of Libertarianism, which Rand develops and virtually explains in her novels. Maybe the kid is an architect or just likes to read about theoretical people with integrity. In this novel, architect Howard Roark is blackballed because he won't compromise his work, his artistic standards, or himself. Yet he survives and thrives despite it all (though he never reaches the heights he should have until the end of the novel). Rand is not an easy read. But it tells the reader something about this character that may help the reader understand more.

You're gonna tell me that modern readers have no idea who Ayn Rand is or what her ideas are, let alone what they may mean. (sigh) You're gonna tell me that there's little use in putting any kind of literary allusion into works intended for the commercial audience. Okay, point taken. But if one out of a hundred readers "gets it," then it's worthy of staying. Even if many readers just shrug and skip over it, that doesn't mean I should take it out. It's a telling detail. It won't bother people who read it, because most of them have at least HEARD of the book or will assume it's "some classic or another" and means the guy is in school. I realize that some authors don't put in any details and just write in a bare-bones, no-style style. But not ALL authors do that.

So I'm not going to take out the description that I think I need, nor the clues that are needed for you to understand the events later. Tightening is one thing, but sometimes we tighten out things that have to go back in later. This is especially important when you're talking about a PLOT DEVELOPMENT and not character development.

In one of my books, my heroine's eyes are light-sensitive (this comes into play as an important strength of hers later.) She develops headaches and pain in the sun without protection, and wears wrap-around sunglasses outside on her ranch because of this. The eye doctor and GP think it's just sensitivity because of the blood pressure meds she's on. They have no way of knowing that her blood pressure pill is being taken out of her bottle and an antipsychotic med (a pill similar in size, shape, and color) is being subbed for it by The Bad Guy. Anyhow, she can also see substantially better in the dark than normal, which helps us later in the book when she's in a dark barn with the killer. (There is a real-life disorder called ocular albinism related to under-pigmented retinas that actually causes these types of effects, so readers can be guessing.) However, you can't tell readers all this up front. So I don't.

But I want them to know she needs those sunshades for physical reasons, and I want them to remember she wears them and blinks in the sun. I need to sneak in these things before the pertinent scene so it doesn't feel like cheating when she can see the perp in the dark/moonlit barn, though he can't see her. Here's what I did.

"Kevvie didn't always give me the exact truth, or all of it. I shaded my
eyes from the suddenly-bright sun streaming through the kitchen skylight
and tried to read her expression." And, a little later, "I slipped on the
wraparound shades my eye doctor's office had warned me always to wear in
the sun and slammed out the door."

Without these early hints, readers could say I wasn't playing fair when I later on have the heroine mis-identify a person she sees across the field in the glare (when they have taken her sunglasses), and when she can see better in the dark barn than the perp. I don't explain this right away, but since these references are in the opening, readers have a chance to wonder what exactly is wrong, if anything.

Oh, and it's important to know early on that there is reason to distrust something Kevvie may say to her big sister because lies have happened in the past, so I feel I need that first sentence, as well. Otherwise people won't realize that Kevvie may be lying and may just think my heroine is a jackass. (Which was mentioned already.)

There are a number of situations in which you'll need to set up an upcoming event. You have to mention that shotgun over the mantel if you expect the heroine to be able to shoot it in act three. (Chekhov warned against showing the shotgun if you didn't intend to use it, but it cuts both ways, even though a shotgun is rather dull when used like a knife.) It's better if you drop that telling detail into what looks like a skippable, boring list that's there only to imply or show character traits, too, because then the reader will say, "Oh, now I see!"

"Leslie paused to take inventory. In her backpack, she had her makeup kit, a paperback of Ayn Rand's _Atlas Shrugged_, and a two-by-four. Also some other junk that was a lot heavier, including a Beretta just like James Bond used to carry. Loaded." (This is just an off-the-cuff example. You get the idea.)

If I don't mention that my heroine has a backpack in addition to her handbag, then it's going to seem too convenient later when she pulls a gun out of the backpack. I also need to mention things like this early in the scene where it's going to be needed. You can't just say (when the bad guy looms at the other end of the dead-end road), "She reached under the seat of her Toyota, where she always kept her loaded Glock 9mm," because then readers will go, "Yeah, RIGHT!" But if you say the first time she gets into that car something like, "She pulled down the sunshade, then reflexively felt for her Glock behind her heels, under the driver's seat," then we know that later on it's there if she is threatened.

We'll be even MORE upset when we find out the perp also already knows this, found the gun, and took out all the bullets. So when she grabs for the gun, it does nothing but *click* in a sad little hollow tone. But hey, we set that up when we mentioned she forgot to lock the car because she was jumping out to help somebody who'd just been in a fenderbender on the road and she was the only witness, or something.

I'm simply saying that sometimes you will need to plant these little hints. Your prose must read smoothly around them. It may take a little more craft to make them fit in without a problem. But they're there for a good reason.

Usually.

Comments

[mummm.livejournal.com]

Are you preparing to write a book? I've been wondering.

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

Busy writing yet another new book. I'm a novelist. You can't call me an "author," as my books are unpublished, but you can call me a novelist or just a fiction writer.

It gets tough just writing them and believing in them, and marketing is certainly a pain, but it's something I believe I am good at. I sure wasn't any good at being a corporate weenie. And I'm no housekeeper. So that's my lot in life.

My mystery novel, _Nice Work (If You Can Get It)_, is in the St. Martin's Press/Malice Domestic cozy mystery contest this year. Won't hear back on that one for a while, but I'm hoping nobody sent in a good one except me. (grin) I also have another mystery novel that's a bit less cozy. Then there are the paranormal ones with romantic elements. One is a chick lit (actually it's not, but it has the chicklitty voice), _Little Rituals_. One is about a woman who discovers that there is no power greater than love, unless maybe it's believing in yourself--_Miranda's Rights_. _Camille's Travels_ is about a runaway who finds a true home out on the road. Actually, they're not really "about" those topics, but it's a simple way to describe them. Those are the ones I'm currently trying to get representation for.

My Southern Gothic is going to be a tougher sell. It's more of a literary novel. I still like it, but that doesn't mean a thing in today's market. I wrote some YA stuff and some fantasy, but that's not what I'm currently concentrating on marketing.

The "new" one that I'll work on for NaNoWriMo (Nat'l November Writing Month) is a sequel to the chick lit. It's got a mystery in it, but it's not a chick lit mystery. It's set around Halloween and fall, and opens during a Halloween party. It's going to be fun to write. I always enjoy Daphne's voice (she's the main character and the POV character.) She surprises me often with her views on life and the events going on in the story. Her ex is going to be the major suspect in the mystery, but she knows he didn't do it . . . that's going to be interesting.

Now, the truth is that not everyone is going to like my voice or my style. However, I still believe there's a readership out there. There'll be readers like my beta readers who like my way of putting things and think my characters are fun to be with. It's a matter of lucking upon an editor with buying authority who likes it and who needs to fill a slot in the schedule. After that, it's up to the whims of the universe.

Thanks for asking!

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

"Jane followed him into the room. It was a typical grad assistant cubbyhole, with ungraded exams scattered on the tabletops. A battered copy of _The Fountainhead_ lay splayed across the seat of the easy chair."

I'd be thinking: smug but unreliable narrator, as 'typical' grad assistant cubbyholes (in my experience during grad school, which is what we bring to each new read) were neat. Nothing scattered, but stacked in piles--class by class, graded and ungraded.

The Rand would signal an arrogant gasbag to me, as the Randites of my experience were both (and I found Rand to be an even worse gasbag when I ploughed grimly through her stuff in ninth grade.) But 'splayed' would hint that the owner of the cubby didn't respect the book, so either had dropped it in disgust, or it belonged to the cubbymate, and was in the character's space. Either way, I'd keep reading, but my expectations are 180 from the assumptions you list.

This is not by way of argument about detail--it's just that we don't always completely control the reader's experience as much as we think, a good thing to keep in mind.

[shalanna.livejournal.com]

. . . and that's why showing is tougher than telling. (grin)

We can't hope to control the reader's experience. But if we can create a vivid picture, which apparently this tossed-off example can do, that's a huge step in the right direction. This one needs to be fine-tuned, like anything.

I suppose the graduate assistant I dated was pretty atypical. He was disorganized, kind of the way I am, but also like me, he could put his hands on just about anything. He knew where it was. So our random-looking stacks are a type of filing system. We just don't waste all those file folders and tabs and stuff. (grin) It does get a mite dusty. I didn't think less of him for it, although "organized people" might, you're right. Some academics are neater than others.

You could choose another detail. Cubbyholes are typically small, so you should have gotten at least that part out of it . . . small and darkish. *wink*

But what made you think she's smug? It's just that in her experience, cubbyholes are like Ray's, because . . . that's what she thinks of when she thinks of a cubbyhole. It's almost like me saying, "It's a typical compact car," and thinking you'll get the gist, that it's not a Jag. I wonder if compact car owners would get bent out of shape because of that--we are what we are, and I'm not a Jessica Simpson model, but more of a Roseanne Barr/Phyllis Diller model, serviceable and tough. My house certainly looks like a typical writer's garret. *unfortunately* It could look a lot better. . . .

The splaying of the book was supposed to make you mad at him, so that part worked. (grin) There are two kinds of people (the ones who divide people into two kinds, and the ones who don't) . . . one faction doesn't tear up their books, but the other faction thinks nothing of it, as they don't see books as hard-won intellectual property, but a consumer commodity they've "paid for" and are entitled to tear up or use up and toss. (Seriously--I know a couple of readers who do that. MOST readers I know take care of books, keep them, and won't write notes in them even for a class.)

On the other hand, you knew who Ayn Rand was and have actually read her, so you are already in the upper 99% percentile of my readership! So many people would just have said they have no idea who that is. In retaliation, I insist on not knowing who most of the rap and pop music stars of today are (*GRIN*). [I actually DID know some of the ones in last night's "Mississippi Rising" benefit concert, though. Yay Jason Alexander, who can sing anything! Yay Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr., who are what remains of the Fifth Dimension! The rest of 'em I really didn't know very much about, though they were pretty good. TiVoed that.]

Rand is VERY tough to read. She doesn't construct her fiction as a story-reading experience exactly, but as a platform for her political and social views (IMHO). So you wouldn't want to write characters her way. The movie with Gary Cooper (as far as _The Fountainhead_ goes) is a lot better as far as character and even makes some of her story seem cool. But she didn't manage to make me into a Libertarian. Still, who do you see reading her . . . people reading her for a class, and people who are interested in the political views. Mostly. I suppose some of 'em are just starting at "A" in the library and plowing through to "Z."

My poor little narrator. She didn't mean to sound smug. Perhaps it's because she threw in "typical"? Maybe it's more like an atypical cubbyhole. Except for the crappy choice of reading material. The exams have to be more appealing than the fiction!

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

This is a good exercise.

Yep, the 'arrogant' assumption that a single cubby represents the whole. (Sidenote--ours at OCSB were brilliantly lit from above, and the cubbys had walls only five feet high, so there was light and air, but utterly no privacy from sound. At USC there were the dark, crowded older ones. The Universtat Vienna had both, depending on whether you were in the five hundred year old building or the one built in the fifties. Friends who showed me there grad student space back East--range. Harvard, seen two summers ago: range, depending on building. Yale, ditto.)

I didn't react with madness at the fellow mistreating the book, since I don't respect the book or the writer. I was interested in the fact that it was tossed down, which (to me) suggests he might actually be interesting. (The Randites I knew weren't.)

[coneycat.livejournal.com]

You're gonna tell me that modern readers have no idea who Ayn Rand is or what her ideas are, let alone what they may mean. (sigh) You're gonna tell me that there's little use in putting any kind of literary allusion into works intended for the commercial audience.

I'd never dream of suggesting such a thing, since I don't believe it. The last Trews album includes a song with a reference to the opening line of Moby-Dick, and it's my opinion that if a band of drunken twenty-five-year-old rock musicians from Antigonish assume their audience knows the opening line of Moby-Dick, it's probably safe to assume that readers read.

I've had a bit of a hate on for Ayn Rand since my sister read her in high school--that was the only period in her life when my sister wasn't likable, and I totally blamed Rand's influence. Thank God she got over that! Anyway--I'd be hoping the kid here was either forced to read the book or was writing "WTF??" all over the margins. Ahem.

If I ever finish my own current LJ entry on the personas of songwriters (how I wish I was musical) I'll check back in and continue this discussion!

[coneycat.livejournal.com]

Discussion point (which I may talk about in my own LJ, though not with this quote attached):

I realize that some authors don't put in any details and just write in a bare-bones, no-style style. But not ALL authors do that.

I had to comment on this, because it came up a little while ago and we never really carried on the discussion: when you are a writer (one like me, in fact) who does not use a bare-bones, no-style style, it's still really important to make sure all your words pull their weight. In fact, it's even more important, in my opinion, to keep an eye out for wasted words because when you're not writing that bare-bones style, it's so much easier to allow weasel words and unnecessary modifiers and over-explanations to sneak in.

I'm using the careless general "you" here, not just meaning Shalanna, when I say that every word you (or I) write has a purpose in the story. It's far too easy to let myself get lazy and wordy and comfort myself with thoughts that "Oh, that's my style and this reader or that agent just doesn't get it." They may very well get it--maybe it's not the fact that I write in a particular style that's offputting, but that I'm not doing my best to write really well in that particular style.

My goal is to be leisurely, digressive, and tight. If I pull it off my readers will feel they're enjoying a relaxed visit with a complex character. If I blow it, they'll feel like they're trapped with a rampaging gasbag. I have had both reactions--luckily, the gasbag reaction hasn't happened in a while, since I learned the difference between having a style and writing well in that style. It's not just a matter of more words!