Writer's Dilemma: Diagnosis

Fellow writers, what would you do? What do you think?


I have written two things that include oddities -- one an illness; the other a behavior. Some of the feedback I have received is that I should be telling (not good storycrafting) what the diagnosis is or explaining the behavior.

The illness is the story of a child who died and her father.  the story is set somewhat ambiguously in the 1940s, USA. The disease that the child died of was not even named until 1938, and that was in Canada.
Therefore, at the time of the story, there was no diagnosis.
None.
Treatment was of the symptoms as they arose.

The fact is, I didn't know myself what the disease was until I had finished writing the vignettes, and looked up the symptoms myself. Not quite a textbook case -- are they ever, really? -- but variations were within the norms for the condition.

In the story, the illness went undiagnosed, even after the death of the child.
Because there was, in that time period, no (or rare) formal diagnosis for it.

It was what it was, and so was the outcome. Those involved had to deal with the situation as it occurred, with no answers.

That was the story.

***********************************

The other situation was part of a novel, a character trait that was not consistent with the character's general development. An irregularity in verbalizing, even though the character had an enormous (for his age and the times) vocabulary with a good understanding of most words and the ability to guess accurately the meaning of unfamiliar words.

In the novel, the child's caretakers do notice and try to have this idiosyncrasy checked out. They mention at different times that this that or the other was done. A thorough physical, and the boy's hearing was tested, even though that seemed an unlikely cause since he could understand.
In the end, the adults decided it was just a quirk in the child's development and let it be, just keeping an eye on it as he ages.

It isn't really a BIG IMPORTANT detail, just, as I said, something of a character quirk.

****************************************

In both cases, or in either case, inserting today's knowledge in a yesterday's story doesn't seem right to me.
I also have not been able to figure out how I would do it, if I wanted to. (Which I don't.)


It speaks loudly and is a sad commentary that readers want everything put in a box, sorted, and labelled, don't you think? I wonder why it is this way. Does this approach really make anyone happier? Are children no longer allowed to be themselves, unique?

There are still undiagnosable conditions, especially in children.
There are still unexplainable idiosyncracies in childhood development.
There are still unique characters whose entire existence is outside the box.

What's most alarming is that these demands were made, not by everyday readers, but by other writers.
Make no mistake, these were demands. One critiquer was infuriated that I did not tell her and every other reader what was wrong with that boy. In her opinion, if I didn't explain it, I shouldn't write it that way.
And she had only read an excerpt. Even when I explained that the 'issue' was addressed in other parts of the book, she was still insistent that nothing undiagnosed, unexplained, or unlabelled could be in the story.

If out creative peoples are thinking and writing this way, what hope is there for the individualists in our world and the world to come?

Reading "It". and Writing.

I am reading "It" by Stephen King.

Yes, I know I'm thirty years or so later than the rest of the world, but this is the first time the book has made its way to me. That's how I do most of my reading. The books come to me. Sometimes it takes thirty years.

It's a difficult read. Numerous characters, each with a back story, as well as the current story. Keeping the reader engaged on all levels. Each character fits into the story the way a jigsaw puzzle fits together. You cant leave one out or make two into one -- the picture will not be complete; will not be what it is supposed to be. Each back story fits into each character in the same way; with/for the same reasons. Putting it all together, connecting sky to trees to earth, is an epic job.

It's done well. This reader is engaged with all phases of the story (and story telling.) I just wish it would move a little faster!

Someone once said of one of my stories, that it would work better as a movie or program. I wasn't sure what she meant at the time, but reading this novel has enlightened me. I now know what she meant.
This novel would work much better as a visual (or even audio) program. The characters can and do and will carry the story.
But the story must be told, with words, and words can be bulky.

"Show, don't tell" is (cliched) advice given to writers, but the fact is you cant do storytelling without the telling. You have to tell the words that show the actions. Or the settings, or the motives. You get more than a handful (literally) of characters in on the action, and the telling of their roles slows down the general forward thrust of the story.

My forementioned story has many of the same components as this one. Many characters . Back stories. Back stories unknown to the others. Yes, it may well work better as an acted-out story, rather than a told one.

But someone has to tell the actors, don't they?

I am heartened by this discovery. That my story (different genre; different style; different audience) has so many same attributes as a story told by a master storyteller. My story has faults that are shared by a story told by the King.

I couldn't ask for much more than that.