More Than Just an Engine

Aside from writing and economics, I know a few other things as well (some would say very few). I do the bicycling thing fairly well and know the details underlying good habits of cyclists, I participate in Civil War reenactments (though not for a while), and I know a lot about biology (it was almost a second major for me in college). And as many people have found out, I know a thing or two about cars. Mostly the mechanical stuff - I can't tell the difference between a '65 and a '66 Mustang, but I can manage either of them under the hood (for a little bit).

In a way, this knowledge of car engines gives me a little advantage when my writing involves cars, but surprisingly not much. Sure, I can incorporate details that might create some atmosphere, but more often than not, if I start writing about spark plugs and carburetors (the things that pushed gas before fuel injectors), chances are that particular piece would sound like I was showing off as a writer rather than writing something of value.

For the bulk of writing, the reader requires one of two things: The fundamental points that drive the story, or why a particular detail is so important. More often than not, the reader requires the first thing but the writer too often tries to give them the latter. This leads to a lot of wasted words and the reader growing impatient with the process of story and plot movement.

I am sure most every reader knows the basics of a combustion engine: Gas goes in, gets compressed by a piston, gets ignited and pushes the piston back; this causes the engine to run and allows you to go to the McDonalds drive-thru in style. This is the stripped-down version of the engine and for most people that's all they need to know. If I get into fuel sensors, oil pressure, etc., none of that knowledge will affect how you roll through the drive-thru. Maybe a quick mention of how brakes work will help you understand how to stop, but the rest isn't important.

How does this translate to writing? Glad you asked. When our character does something, we need to know a few things: Motivation and resistance. In short, what pushes them to do it and what tries to hold them back. If a 16-year-old kid in high school wants to ask his crush out to prom, the most informative pieces here come from those two bits. Motivation: The kid wants to finally express this unrequited love. Resistance: Paralyzing fear of rejection because of low self-esteem. These are the elements that fill in what we need to know. Do we need to know that the low self-esteem comes from the kid's parents going through an ugly divorce that was very traumatizing? Do we need to know the roots of this kid's crush comes from their first day in second-grade together when they shared their lunches? If we have time for more details, we can add those in. For a longer piece, more background creates a deeper tension because that knowledge raises the stakes. However, don't spend so much time incorporating details if you don't mean it to be a pivotal event. The immediate conflict requires tension to give it value and that's it. More exposition can actually defuse the tension, and the reader loses interest in the kid's fate.

Deep inside, every writer should know all those details about the kid's life, the traumas, desires, and so forth. They're all important in creating the character in a full and rich manner. However, let the event dictate what needs to be written and what stays in the background. And if you, as a writer, feel a need to talk about every single detail about everything as it flies across the frontier of your awareness, well... might I suggest starting a writing blog?