October 18, 2005
A friend of mine who is a successful novelist asked if I would read through a manuscript of his that he's planning on marketing under a pseudonym. It was a technothriller and it had a fair amount of genetic science in it so I was a pretty good fit for it and was able to correct one or two genetic mistakes he had made, though in general the science was good, at least as far as the science in technothrillers go in general. And my friend is a good writer, very effective, and definitely knows how to rev his narrative engine.

My advice, at least the most important advice I thought, was my feeling that he revealed too much too early. In fact, right from the beginning, he reveals the "creature," let's say, being found in Panama in 1906. I recommended that he only hint at that for about the first 100 pages or so. In other words, don't reveal the physical nature of the "creature" until he absolutely had to. Give glimpses. Let the reader get a sense of dread or nervousness based on character's reactions, rather than pointing the camera, if you will, directly at the "creature."

I still think it's good advice and I'll be curious to see if he takes it. It may be very successful without doing that--I found it to be an entertaining book overall, but it really took off after about the first 100 pages. My gut instinct tells me it would be better with my suggestion. I was thinking about something Stephen King said about 'Salem's Lot. He had given his manuscript to his editor Bill Thompson and Thompson read it and they got together at a bar to discuss it and Thompson sort of bemoaned the fact that King was going to be typecast as a horror writer, but a bigger issue was he wanted him to cut all reference to the fact that the book was about vampires until the vampire Barlow actually makes his appearance somewhere around page 150 or so, revealing himself, if I remember correctly, at the local dump. King apparently commented that anybody in modern American would know he was leading up to a vampire based on what was going on and Thompson apparently told him he was a good writer but he was full of shit and to cut the early vampire stuff. So King did and frankly, it's one of King's best books in many ways, though he probably wouldn't be thrilled to hear that many people think his 2nd novel is one of his best. It's got a kind of raw energy to it and it was genuinely creepy.

So the lesson here? Tease the reader. Milk the suspense. It's definitely a balancing act, but the writer has control over when to reveal information, and it's better to give the reader breadcrumbs rather than the whole loaf, so to speak.

Best,
Mark Terry