Leaning into your premise

[sholio]

Just FYI, my latest book as Zoe, Dancer Dragon, is out on Amazon now.

--

There's something I've been thinking about lately, after some conversations with rachelmanija about ... well, it didn't even start out about writing at all; it was just that she was looking for books set in circuses and observing how few books with circuses in the title and/or on the cover are actually ABOUT CIRCUSES. And then we got to talking about it, and now I'm seeing examples everywhere of books (and movies, TV shows, etc) that promise to be about something interesting and then disappoint because they don't lean in. There's a circus on the cover, but only one chapter is set there, or the whole book is set there but it might as well be anywhere because they never really do circusy things.

It's intriguing to me how often books/movies do this, and how I've never actually seen this (as such) in any advice I've ever read -- lean into your premise, your setting, whatever's unique about your characters. Use it. I guess it's sort of a Chekhov's gun kind of thing (that everything in the book should serve an eventual purpose) but it's not exactly that. It's more like, if you're going to put ghosts in your book, why not use them to do uniquely ghosty things rather than just floating onstage for their one moment? If your protagonist is a con artist, she shouldn't solve problems like a normal law-abiding person would! I think a number of the works of fiction that have disappointed me have done it because, on some level, they were failing to do this. I can remember being annoyed, for example, with books that tell you about somewhere fascinating the characters might go, but never actually take you there.

(Insert obligatory disclaimer that it also depends on what an individual finds interesting; some people will be there for the detailed descriptions of dressmaking and some really wish you'd skip the dresses and get straight to the murder, etc.)

But honestly, even if it's not something the reader is actually into, I think that writing it so that it fills the page makes it interesting. I could not have cared less about either sailing or the Napoleonic Wars, but Patrick O'Brian's books are wall-to-wall both of those things, and they actually make me care about page after page of nautical terminology and blow-by-blow descriptions of battles, because he cares. You can practically feel the creaking of the deck under your feet.

... And you know, like anything else, not everything interesting has to appear on the page; maybe being stuck somewhere the protagonist finds dull is the plot. But I mean, even there, the reader shouldn't be bored, reading it; the dullness of the setting should fill the page until it becomes fascinating, like the vivid grayness of Dorothy's Kansas. The issue is when, as a reader, you find yourself thinking, "Why did you even tell me about that interesting thing if you weren't going to show it?"

To be fair, Dancer Dragon probably could lean in a lot more than it does. If readers are reading it for detailed descriptions of ballroom dancing they're probably going to be disappointed. On the other hand, there's definitely dancing in it; it's just really more of a thing the plot wraps around than the main plot. There's also the problem that what I know about ballroom dancing could fill a very small thimble with room left over.

I got some negative reviews on the first book in the series, Bearista, because it didn't have enough coffee shop in it! I mean, you wouldn't think coffee shops are something that people reading a romance novel would really care about, but they actually did; the premise promised a big dude working in a coffee shop, but we actually only got a couple chapters of that before Plot Happened and he ended up exiting stage right pursued by bears (literally). In retrospect I think the book those readers wanted to read would have been a fascinating book, and maybe I should write that book eventually.

Anyway, I don't really have a point here so much as ... I don't think this should be treated as any kind of a hard-and-fast rule, but it's another tool in the toolkit for editing and tightening a flabby plot. If your story feels flat, maybe you need to lean into the premise a bit more.

Comments

[yhlee]

Weirdly enough, this very thing came up in a tangent during a logistics (yes, logistics) panel I was on whose most notable panelist was the editor Ginjer Buchanan. I quipped that Americans are into Tom Clancy novels going on and on about weapons systems "because Americans," and Ginjer correctly me (gently, nicely) that actually, these novels are about getting into the gory details of whatever they're about--Dick Francis novels and...whatever they're about (I have never read a Dick Francis novel), or Tom Clancy and weapons systems, and this is a distinct style of novel that may not be of particular literary value but readers love them and they sell like hotcakes.

Of course, as a writer I find it impossible to tell when the thing I really really want to lean into is actually completely boring to readers, and the thing that I really really didn't want to write about is the thing the readers were clamoring for, but that is, I think, a separate problem.

[sholio]

Yeah; I think to some extent the difference between "absolutely fascinating" and "oh god make the infodumping stop" just comes down to is the reader's interest in the thing being infodumped (which isn't even necessarily a matter of how interested they were before reading the book!). I find the Tom Clancy variety generally unbearable, and yet, a lot of novels that really go into their settings or specific aspects of the characters' lives are absolutely riveting to me. I used the example of Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin novels above, because I went into those books with absolutely zero interest in the Napoleonic Wars or naval warfare, and yet somehow he made it so fascinating that I devoured the series like a stack of pancakes. I think you're right that it is a particular thing, though. Along similar lines, I really love a certain type of SF that I think of as "problem-solving SF" -- The Martian is a really good recent example, and I saw a lot of criticism around for its writing style, but I didn't care; I was utterly fascinated by the problem-solving, technological aspect.

[ginger_rude]

just comes down to is the reader's interest in the thing being infodumped (which isn't even necessarily a matter of how interested they were before reading the book!).

You know, that's not entirely my experience. And--sudden example of a carnival/circus!--The Night Circus comes immediately to mind. I LOVED the premise, and it absolutely leaned into it as a central focus, the details, both practical and sensual. I wanted to go there. And yet--well, okay, I liked it a lot more than I probably would have liked a similar length and writing style book about rock climbing, I admit it. But, the characters were pretty flat, and the plot was thin, and I ended up walking away with "that was just okay," rather than the LURVE that so many people seem to have for it.

A book that started off with fabulous world building that I had to put down because I was like "when the actual plot start? who are these people? I -want- to like this but dear god:" Gormenghast.

I really love a certain type of SF that I think of as "problem-solving SF"

Fair. I guess for me, it always comes down to whether or not I'm interested in the people. And/or, to a lesser extent, the plot. I can do -fairly- thin characters and an exciting, easy to follow plot in a setting I'm interested in (and readable writing style)--the Dresden Files comes to mind. They're also funny and fast paced, and at least some of the characters are likable and relatable, and grow over the course of the series.

An example of a book I couldn't finish that leaned in with a vengeance and was obviously brilliant writing: The Left Hand of Darkness. Yeah. It just took too long for me to get into the actual people, and I strongly disliked at least one of them.

tl:dr I mostly read genre, but high concept alone almost never does it for me, no matter how richly and well done it is or even how interesting the premise was for me.

[rachelmanija]

I love circuses and expected to love The Night Circus, but I DNF'd it because I was so bored. It did engage with its premise! But as you say, the characters were flat and the plot was thin, and the prose, setting, my inherent interest in the setting, and its genuine engagement with the premise were not enough to overcome my utter lack of caring.