# Attention to Detail



## M. LeRenard (Apr 22, 2009)

So, in my recent experiences on CritiqueCircle, I've come to notice that all the advanced critiquers (the ones who have been writing a lot longer than I have) have this incredible skill to pick out pretty much every odd bit of logic and/or inconsistency in a piece of writing.  And they ask all sorts of questions about things I never really even thought merited an explanation.  Like if I happen to describe a room as having a bare metal floor, they'll ask, "Why metal?  Wouldn't that be uncomfortable?  Could they not afford carpeting?"  Etc.
So I have a question.  What does one do in situations like this?  I'm from the school of thought that a lot of details should be left to the reader's imagination.  If I write that the floor's metal and don't provide an explanation, I want the reader to think up his own.  It's supposed to spark interest, you know?  Because you wonder, why the hell is the floor metal?  And then you start to think, and you form your own picture of this place in your head.  And I don't always want to help with that.
But still, I constantly get these kinds of comments from people, and it continues to bug me.  Is it convention to hold the reader's hand for things like these?  Must you explain everything that's odd or out of place?  Or is a little bit of guesswork on their part okay?
It's not like I'm trying to be lazy by just not thinking about the details.  Even when I'm reading a piece of writing, I really prefer a little mystery every now and then.  I just read a story by Jack Vance in which a bunch of the words he used were words I wasn't even sure were real English (and when I later looked them up, found out most of them weren't), but he just kind of threw them into the story and left it at that.  And you know what?  I thought that was just fine.  It felt like this was a story written by the actors in it, and not an outside author, and that really drew me in, even though I had no clue what all the magic technology jargon meant.
So what's the convention here, and should I follow it? I guess is what I'm asking.  
Hopefully this provokes a good discussion.  This forum's been boring lately.


----------



## Jwargod (Apr 22, 2009)

Just means they have a crazy attention to detail. See this alot when people "theory craft" for storylines in video games and books. One example is the idea of why Jet, a drug in the Fallout universe, is as common as any other drug in the Capitol Wasteland/Washington D.C. ruins (Fallout 3). Jet's basically gives ya better reflexes for a short while with a chance of addiction (apparently very high in fallout 2).

Their issue with it is that Jet only existed, and in small amounts, on the west coast (Fallout 2) and they're raging at why Jet is even on the east coast, much less produced. Here's my thoughts on it: they make good selling fodder .


----------



## Scienda (Apr 22, 2009)

With the understanding that I'm a world-builder:
There should be a reason for anything actually mentioned, even in passing. There is no reason that the reader needs to be handed the reason for every detail, and a few (e.g. information overload) not to do so. However, if there's a reason why the narrator would know or be able to deduce the reason for some detail, by all means include it.

Take the aforementioned metal floor. For the sake of arguement it's used because it's easy to hose clean and resistant to damage. If the narrator is a young boy, he's likely to notice the floor is metal (unusual, floors are usually wood, carpet, linoleum) but not understand that the metal is easy to clean. As contrast, if the narrator is a captured Biomedical Surgeon, not only will she notice the floor is metal, she's likely to understand the metal will be easy to clean or sterilize and resistant to scarring, scratching, et cetera. Indeed, she might well have such floors in her laboratory for the same reasons.

Lastly, it's a matter of choice. Some details I like so much I work in a way to explain why something is the way it is. Most of the time, however, while I've worked out the reasons behind the details, I don't feel any need to explicitly bring it to the reader's attention.


----------



## TakeWalker (Apr 22, 2009)

Three things come to mind.

First, take all critique with a grain of salt. You can't please everyone.

Second, there's nothing wrong with leaving things up to the reader. I've just found that some people can't stand that, and will nitpick every little thing regardless.

Third, maybe sometimes it's not worth including a detail like this. I tend to idolize writing in which every minor, seemingly odd detail is in some way important to the plot. If something is mentioned, it's for a reason, and if it's not mentioned, it's not important. Of course, this can become predictable, but like everything, there are ups and downs.

Uhh, that's a platitude, an unfinished point, and, well, at least one agreement. So, there you go. :V


----------



## duroc (Apr 23, 2009)

This forum has been a little dull as of late.

Personally, I don't understand that form of critiquing.  I mean, I could see questioning a metal floor if it effected the story in some way, but if it doesn't...then--it's just a metal floor.  I've seen one before, and I'll see one again.  Not a big deal.

If I want more details in a story, I want them to be about the characters, or their relationships, or the plot, something like that.  I don't think everything little piece of information should have to be laid out.

But maybe I'm in the minority here.  It'd be interesting to hear more thoughts.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 23, 2009)

> However, if there's a reason why the narrator would know or be able to deduce the reason for some detail, by all means include it.


But usually my narrators are limited omniscient, so I always think the reason the narrator knows the reason for some detail is because, well, he's the bloody narrator.  But supposing I did what you recommend, I'd have to expand on nearly everything, and that just feels clunky to me.
I do agree with the preceding statement, though.  But see below.



> First, take all critique with a grain of salt. You can't please everyone.


Of course, and I do, but when a large number of experienced writers follow the same general trend, I start to become suspicious, you see.  Since I'm in the market for publication with whatever I post on there, I'd like to know what editors want to see, right?  And experienced writers know that.  So I question my judgment on the matter.



> I tend to idolize writing in which every minor, seemingly odd detail is in some way important to the plot.


If I was that clever, my problem would be solved.



> But maybe I'm in the minority here.


Well, at least you and I are on the same wavelength.  I'm just wondering if that's the norm.  Maybe I'll wait for Scotty or PT to post here and see what they think.  They're familiar with the biz.


----------



## foozzzball (Apr 23, 2009)

There are genres in which it matters more than others.

Internal consistency, which these people seem to be questioning, is one of the pillars that's going to hold your story steady. 'The floor's metal' with no possible corraborating reason is fine in something you're working for atmosphere and feel, less fine in something ostentatiously realistic where you do not expect metal flooring - the interior of someone's home. 

The only person whose feedback is truly valid is the person you're selling a work to: this is called 'rewriting to editorial order'. 

Remember Heinlein's rules: 

1. You must write. 
2. You must finish what you write. 
3. You must refrain from rewriting, except to editorial order. 
4. You must put the work on the market. 
5. You must keep the work on the market until it is sold.

Now, as a side note, you may have to 'sell' a work to yourself, or choose to 'sell' a work to a friend or to an appreciative audience. 

I'd hold off on critique-circle until you've actually tried selling the thing. If you get it back from a couple of editors with _no_ feedback, then stick it up there, maybe.


----------



## Poetigress (Apr 23, 2009)

I know the kinds of critiques you're talking about -- the ones where it seems like the reader wants you to explain _everything_.  I've gotten them, and I'm pretty sure I've given them, too.   I think part of the reason those details come up in crits like that is simply because the work is being critted by other writers, and those writers are reading far more critically and intensely than most regular readers are going to.  There is a different mindset when you're reading a work on a critique site and when you're reading it in a magazine.  It's dumb, but it's true.  (That, to me, is also the difference between a critique and a beta read.  A beta read is just that -- someone acting as a reader, pointing out areas where they got confused or whatever, without necessarily trying to deconstruct why or offer suggestions on how to fix it.)

Bear in mind, also, that different critters approach those kinds of details differently.  Some aren't really pointing things out like "you need to explain why this is here" -- instead, they're providing you with the questions they were asking as they read, just as a kind of transcription of what was going on in their head as they experienced the story.  They're essentially saying, "This is what I was wondering about at this point in the story, and these are the questions I was asking myself," and if you answer those questions later on, fine; if you don't, fine.

As far as whether to crit first or try to sell something first, that's a personal decision and depends on the piece in question.  I don't put everything I write up for critique, but in general I do think it's good to get at least one or two beta-reads before going to the time and trouble of sending something to editors.  If a story has a major plot problem, I'd rather know it early on, when the story doesn't feel so set in stone, than find out after months (maybe years) of waiting and submitting and waiting and submitting again, when I get nothing but rejection letters.

It's also worth pointing out that just because you get no feedback -- say, if you just get a form rejection slip -- from an editor, that doesn't necessarily mean the story had big problems.  Many editors, especially these days, simply don't have time to write personal rejections.  So looking to editors for critique on why a story didn't work for them isn't always the most reliable way to go.  (And even when you do get it -- it's still one person's opinion and should be treated as such, no more and no less.  I had a story rejected about a dozen times, and when it was finally accepted, the editor wrote a wonderful note about why he liked it, in the acceptance letter.  He loved the same things about the story that some of the others had hated.)

And, as to your overall question of what you explain and what you don't, that's really up to you.  To use your example, if I'm reading a story in a magazine, or reading a published book, I as a reader probably am not going to care too much about why a metal floor is there.  If the author sets the scene in a room with a metal floor, I'm not going to go off on a tangent wondering why, unless the rest of the story is set in the Stone Age or something like that.  I guess it depends on which details are crucial and which are more incidental scene-setting.  (I know _everything's_ supposed to be crucial, but that depends on the piece -- you have more leeway with putting incidental details in novels, just to make the setting and characters more rich and easily visualized.)

Different readers are always going to approach a story differently, and get different things out of it.  Someone else may seize on a detail that I don't even notice.  It's not simply that you're never going to please everyone (although that's true), it's that different people are bringing their whole lives and mindsets to the page when they read your story -- they're all seeing it through different lenses.  And yes, some readers do seem to want everything laid out plainly for them, and others want mystery.  To me, that's also part of an author's style.  Some people hate Neil Gaiman's work for that reason, because they can't understand aspects of it.  I love it for the same reason; I love that sense of mystery where everything isn't all laid out, because it adds to the surreal nature of the worlds he creates.  So there's taste at work here, not just craft.

For example (and this isn't going to mean much to others here because they aren't on CC), in my story "Change of Heart," the dog was basically a catalyst for the plot, nothing more.  But everyone seemed to seize on the dog and wanted it to have some kind of symbolic meaning and/or significance to the plot (probably because I mentioned the dog too much because I didn't want it to come out of nowhere).  So, do I give the dog more meaning?  Cut back on mentions of the dog, so the reader doesn't assume that the dog is massively significant?  Chalk it up to the fact that most of my critters come out of the furry fandom?    I'm still answering those questions, and there isn't any right or wrong answer.

So, to go back to the issue of specific details, if the majority of your critters are having trouble with something, then yeah, you probably should take a closer look.  It doesn't mean you need to use their suggestions -- there may be other and possibly better ways to address the issue -- and it doesn't even mean that it's an issue, but it's at least worth considering.  Sometimes, though, you wind up with a set of crits where every single one points out something different and there's no consensus whatsoever.  At that point, you go with your gut.  Which is all you're really doing with crits all the time, anyway.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 23, 2009)

foozzzball said:
			
		

> 3. You must refrain from rewriting, except to editorial order.


Editorial order.  Well, yes, but this is coming from Heinlein, who I'm assuming wrote these rules after he became successful.  In other words, he'd been working with an editor for a while at that point, and thus had no need to impress anybody else.  So for a published author, this is much easier to accomplish.  I don't see it working quite so well for a beginner like myself, though, considering that we have no idea what 'editorial order' is going to be.  I'm mostly interested in selling to an editor at this point, which I would assume means finding that editor's weak spot and targeting it.  Which, since I don't know any editors, means that I should probably just concentrate on pleasing myself at the moment.


> I'd hold off on critique-circle until you've actually tried selling the thing.


While this makes sense, the thing is, I'm using CC as a learning tool more than anything.  As such, I think it's entirely necessary that I post the book up there, if only once.  That, and I often love the suggestions I get, which are usually things I never would have thought of myself.  Again, I attribute this to my being pretty much fledgling.


			
				Poetigress said:
			
		

> I think part of the reason those details come up in crits like that is simply because the work is being critted by other writers, and those writers are reading far more critically and intensely than most regular readers are going to.


I did consider that.  But this is how I'd like to see my own work oftentimes, so I see nothing wrong with that.


> They're essentially saying, "This is what I was wondering about at this point in the story, and these are the questions I was asking myself," and if you answer those questions later on, fine; if you don't, fine.


So you're saying it's more of a vocalization (well, written) of passing thoughts than an actual recommendation?  But it's still supposed to be taken into consideration: if something doesn't make sense to somebody, I want to know about it.


> It's not simply that you're never going to please everyone (although that's true), it's that different people are bringing their whole lives and mindsets to the page when they read your story -- they're all seeing it through different lenses.


So there's no real 'rule' about this sort of thing, is what you're saying.  If that's the case, I guess I can stop fretting about it so much.  In the end, maybe that this bothers me means that I'm still trying to find my 'style', whatever that means.


----------



## Poetigress (Apr 23, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> Editorial order.  Well, yes, but this is coming from Heinlein, who I'm assuming wrote these rules after he became successful.  In other words, he'd been working with an editor for a while at that point, and thus had no need to impress anybody else.  So for a published author, this is much easier to accomplish.  I don't see it working quite so well for a beginner like myself, though, considering that we have no idea what 'editorial order' is going to be.  I'm mostly interested in selling to an editor at this point, which I would assume means finding that editor's weak spot and targeting it.  Which, since I don't know any editors, means that I should probably just concentrate on pleasing myself at the moment.



Editors have different tastes and preferences just like readers (and editors also move around quite a bit, so even if you sell to one, there's no guarantee they'll still be working there by the time your next project is done).  

If you're trying to sell to a particular market, it pays to check the guidelines to see what they want and don't want (some will even have extensive lists of plots they see too much, and that sort of thing).  Generally, though, there's no big secret.  Editors just want good stories told well.  The rest comes down to personal preference and what fits best into the theme and scope of the market or publishing line.

So, in other words, I say, focus on writing as best you can, research your intended markets or publishers when it's time to refine and target the work, and see what happens.

(Side note: I know everybody recommends peer critique as being _the_ way for beginning writers to improve.  But honestly, I feel like you do have to get to a certain point with your writing before you're ready for critique, where you have an idea of what you want your writing to be, so that when the crits come in, you have that internal compass, to keep you from essentially writing by committee instead of searching your way through to what you mean for the story to be.  Which is what I think Heinlein's rule may have been warning against, if that makes any sense.)


----------



## Xipoid (Apr 23, 2009)

I believe I would agree with you Renard, though I do agree with a number of things said here. I am more of a "leave it to the reader" type of writer (well, I think I am).


Sometimes I will add in random details to mask parts of the story. Make something seem significant or insignificant when in reality it is the opposite.


----------



## TakeWalker (Apr 23, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> Of course, and I do, but when a large number of experienced writers follow the same general trend, I start to become suspicious, you see.  Since I'm in the market for publication with whatever I post on there, I'd like to know what editors want to see, right?  And experienced writers know that.  So I question my judgment on the matter.



If you'll allow me some hyperbole, it's always possible that that website is full of nitpicky nerds. Or that your stories attract that type via some unknown and possibly cosmic mechanism.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 24, 2009)

Some of you folks are making me feel like critiques are barely useful at all.  I guess, the way I see it is that when you're trying to sell a work, you want to know what other people think of it.  Because if everybody who reads it hates it, no matter how 'good' it actually is, you're not gonna' sell the thing to anybody.  So critiques are one way to see what the general opinion on the work is, alongside getting a few nice suggestions on how to improve it.  This is also what I use them for.  I'm not one of those writers who only writes for himself (not anymore, anyway); I'm in the market, and the market involves whoring yourself out to the public a little bit.
So PT... you're saying that once I find a potential buyer, I should tweak the story to fit into what that buyer wants to see?  See, I always figured that if you found a potential buyer, you'd send them your piece immediately, and then they'd tell you what to tweak in order to better fit their publishing specifications.  But it's better to try some tweaking first yourself?
(I say this because my method so far has been to write a story, then go through a gigantic list of possible publishers and find out which one would seem most likely to want it.  Hence, no pre-tweaking required.)

Also, if peer critique is _the_ way for beginning writers to improve, what's _the_ way for advanced writers to improve?



			
				Takewalker said:
			
		

> If you'll allow me some hyperbole, it's always possible that that website is full of nitpicky nerds. Or that your stories attract that type via some unknown and possibly cosmic mechanism.


I suppose that could be it.  I do write fantasy and sci-fi.  Fans of those genres have already kind of proven themselves to be nitpicky nerds.


----------



## Poetigress (Apr 24, 2009)

Hm.  Well, here's the way I see it.  I don't use crits as a way to find out if people like the thing.  What I find most useful is to find out what people were confused by.  Essentially, to me, crits (or beta reads, or anything that involves someone else's eyes on your work) are the way to find out if what was in my head made it out successfully onto the paper so that others can get what I'm going on about.

As far as publication goes, you're going to send them your manuscript, and then they can either reject it outright, or they might suggest changes, or they might accept it contingent on those changes.  Generally, you have to look at that editor's suggestions and decide if those are changes you want to make or not.  If you don't make those changes, it's likely they won't take it.  But it's worth mentioning that I've done rewrites that still weren't accepted. (This is for short stories, by the way, as that's the only field I have firsthand experience in.)

Now, after a piece is accepted, there may still be edits they want to make.  Usually these are line edits -- things like punctuation, trimming unnecessary words, making changes to clarify grammar issues, and other style stuff like that.  (In other words, rewriting on the sentence level, not big swaths of the text.)  A publication being run in a professional manner will give you the chance to read a draft copy of your story with their edits, before publishing it.  Once you've looked it over, you can accept the changes, make your case in favor of the way you've done it, or (depending on the editor and situation) you might be able to try rewriting the text in a way that solves their issue but without using their rewrite.

I try to accept as many of the changes as I can.  The rule I go by is to look at whether the change affects the reader's understanding of the story.  For example, I may not be crazy about an editor changing "okay" to "O.K.," but in the long run it doesn't affect the story, so I let it go.



> (I say this because my method so far has been to write a story, then go through a gigantic list of possible publishers and find out which one would seem most likely to want it. Hence, no pre-tweaking required.)



I don't know quite what you mean by tweaking.  But yeah, that's the standard method.  I'm thinking of things like genre expectations in general, not really making changes on publisher's requirements at that point.  The only time I've differed from that method is with things like themed contests or anthologies, where I might write a story specifically for them, with the idea that if it doesn't win or get in, I could maybe still do something else with it instead.



> Also, if peer critique is the way for beginning writers to improve, what's the way for advanced writers to improve?



Well, I was pointing that out because it seems like everybody pushes peer crit as the big thing, when it's only part of the picture. It can be important, but so is reading, reading critically, and writing -- regardless of where you are at any given time.


----------



## foozzzball (Apr 24, 2009)

> Also, if peer critique is _the_ way for beginning writers to improve, what's _the_ way for advanced writers to improve?





Poetigress said:


> Well, I was pointing that out because it seems like everybody pushes peer crit as the big thing, when it's only part of the picture. It can be important, but so is *reading, reading critically, and writing* -- regardless of where you are at any given time.




There is no better way to put it than that.

If you happen to think my writing's any good, keep in mind I have gotten very little by peer crit. Peer encouragement, which is not the same thing at all, but little to no crit. I got to where I am purely on those important three. (This may be why I get... cagey, let's say.) Part of my regime involves digging into lit-crit books, though, and I really find that _that_ helped, but mainly because it helped me with reading critically - not with writing.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Apr 26, 2009)

> Peer encouragement, which is not the same thing at all, but little to no crit.


Ha ha.. but from my recollection, you're not exactly receptive to criticism anyway, so maybe it's just useless for you to get them.


> Part of my regime involves digging into lit-crit books


There's an interesting idea.  Although literary critique often runs into the same problems as general popular criticism, in that it still tends to get really nit-picky.  (Sometimes to the point of absurdity: read anyone's analysis of _A Separate Peace_ if you want an example.)
Though picking apart a piece of literature for meaning usually is a good exercise.  It helps you understand why said piece is considered 'great', which helps you understand just what kind of thinking process goes on behind the creation of a classic, which helps you apply that sort of thinking to your own work.  Not to mention, it helps you enjoy the classic much more.
But I'd say the main use is for people who actually want to write literature.  Since I'm not that smart or ambitious, popular opinion might just serve my needs well enough, don't you think?

So far as reading critically is concerned, I guess this is why I tend to give critiques a lot myself.  And even when I'm reading published material these days, I tend to critique it in the back of my mind, looking for weak spots and trying to find out what makes the strong spots strong.  I think all writers start to do this naturally after a while, though.  Am I wrong?  Or, at least, they should start to do it naturally after a while, else they're not doing it right.
So yeah, that makes sense.  Maybe the reason crit is pushed so hard is because it's the only real way to see one's own work from the eyes of an outsider, and that's incredibly helpful.


----------



## foozzzball (Apr 26, 2009)

M. Le Renard said:


> Ha ha.. but from my recollection, you're not exactly receptive to criticism anyway, so maybe it's just useless for you to get them.



Could also just be a skill I lack. Maybe one should be 'innoculated' with criticism at an early point when writing!



> So far as reading critically is concerned, I guess this is why I tend to give critiques a lot myself.  And even when I'm reading published material these days, I tend to critique it in the back of my mind, looking for weak spots and trying to find out what makes the strong spots strong.  I think all writers start to do this naturally after a while, though.  Am I wrong?  Or, at least, they should start to do it naturally after a while, else they're not doing it right.



It's a good habit to get into. I find it easy to do with books I dislike, so I end up reading a lot of trash... >.>


----------



## ScottyDM (Apr 27, 2009)

Robert J. Sawyer had some thoughts on *Heinlein's rules*. For example I don't agree with what Heinlein's third rule seems to say, but I do agree with Sawyer's interpretation.


I think *critique* is useful and good. If for no other reason than you learn how to take criticism. Anyone who creates, then puts that creation out for public consumption, had better learn how to take criticism. It's also a good way to practice your craft. Rewriting is useful and good, but only if you have some goal. A critique can give you those goals.

Also, it's kinda hard to improve if you're working in a vacuum.


*How much detail?*

That depends on how much is necessary. I've discovered that readers outside the fandom don't always "get" what a morph is supposed to look like. One reader thought they should dress like Saturday morning cartoon critters. Another thought they all walked on four legs like their natural counterparts. And I've been confused by a writer who described his foxes as "kitsunes" with no other explanation. His characters were not mythical shape-shifting Japanese spirit foxes, but your typical "furry" bipedal tool-using morphic foxes.

So, *if it's necessary* that your readers see your character the way you see them, then put in the description, and put it in as soon as you introduce your character.

Let's take a simple example. Suppose flame-red hair on your character is somehow important to the plot. Perhaps she will be recognized as the long-lost messiah by a group of religious radicals, and kidnapped in chapter 23, because of her hair color. Waiting until chapter 23 to mention her hair is probably a bad idea. The problem is that readers will project their own ideas onto your characters if you don't supply the details. So if a reader has been thinking of her as a brunette for 22 chapters then you suddenly "switch" them to flame-red, they will be a little surprised. This kind of surprise is not good.

On the other hand if your character's personal appearance is not important, then there is no need to mention it. Let the reader fill in the details. If they like your character they may identify with her and project themselves into that role. Or they may see some personality quirk that reminds them of a friend, so they will project their friend into that role. Either way it helps draw the reader into the story.

*Likewise with settings.* If a metal floor has a purpose, then mention it. You don't have to explain it right away. The purpose might be to set a certain tone for that location. For example instead of saying, "The room looked like the operating theater of a demented vivisectionist," and stopping there--keep going with your description and mention the metal floor along with a few other odd things, such as the jars of formaldehyde filled with body parts. On the other hand if that floor is critical to the plot, e.g. the villain is electrocuted in the final chapter because the floor is conductive, then you _must_ mention the metal floor.

Now if you write in the genre of modern literary, where the words matter more than the story, then describe every detail. If your 20-thousand word novella balloons into a 100-thousand word novel because if it, so much the better. ;-) 

Scotty


----------

