The mystery box is empty

Say what you want about the Jack Reacher series. Lee Child's explanation for how to write page-turning thrillers is brilliant:

How do you create suspense? I’m asked that question often, and it seems that every writers’ symposium has a class with that title. It’s an important technical issue, and not just for so-called suspense novels. Every novel needs a narrative engine, a reason for people to keep reading to the end, whatever the subject, style, genre or approach.

But it’s a bad question. Its very form misleads writers and pushes them onto an unhelpful and overcomplicated track.

Because “How do you create suspense?” has the same interrogatory shape as “How do you bake a cake?” And we all know — in theory or practice — how to bake a cake. We need ingredients, and we infer that the better quality those ingredients are, the better quality the cake will be. We know that we have to mix and stir those ingredients, and we’re led to believe that the more thoroughly and conscientiously we combine them, the better the cake will taste. We know we have to cook the cake in an oven, and we figure that the more exact the temperature and timing, the better the cake will look.

So writers are taught to focus on ingredients and their combination. They’re told they should create attractive, sympathetic characters, so that readers will care about them deeply, and then to plunge those characters into situations of continuing peril, the descent into which is the mixing and stirring, and the duration and horrors of which are the timing and temperature.

But it’s really much simpler than that. “How do you bake a cake?” has the wrong structure. It’s too indirect. The right structure and the right question is: “How do you make your family hungry?”

And the answer is: You make them wait four hours for dinner.

As novelists, we should ask or imply a question at the beginning of the story, and then we should delay the answer. (Which is what I did here, and you’re still reading, right?)

I found this quote by way of this video critiquing JJ Abrams's mystery box method:

The takeaway from this is, as a writer, you shouldn't be in the same boat as your readers. You're the storyteller. You should know the answer to the questions you're asking, and you should know how to string readers along. It's okay if your first draft doesn't have that. But a finished work should.

Abrams is said to be a fan of the franchises he's rebooted. Perhaps that's why the Star Wars sequel trilogy sucks. He emulated a feeling he had when he watched Star Wars. That feeling comes from having a layered story slowly revealed to your imagination. When the creator himself doesn't know where a story is headed, he's reduced to gimmickry. Sure, he may be excited and motivated throughout the creative process as a fan, but it has to culminate into something tangible for the audience to feel invested.

As always, let me know what you think in the comments. I'll reply to you as soon as I can.

I have made available the first 4 chapters of my second book, Seeds of Calamity, for free. If it piques your interest, get yourself a copy at Amazon. For a free digital copy of my debut book, Tendrils to the Moon, sign up for the mailing list on the right side of the blog page. Or, if you're viewing this on the mobile site, click here. I appreciate the support!