If a character's job or hobby involves some technical expertise, does the reader need all the twiddly stuff explaining?

Do you have any examples in mind, Bookman?
Not sure I'd want to read through anything to do with computers or life insurance; but conversly, love reading about arts, crafts, farming.
I've heard that men like to read anything about guns, gadgets and vehicles.

The only answer is, it depends. But be careful you don't pile it on. One of the many reasons I didn't enjoy McEwan's Saturday was because it looked like he shoe-horned in all the neurosurgery research he'd done just to show he'd done it. It didn't shed any new light on his character or add anything to the plot (insomuch as there was a plot).

Yes, the only answer is, it depends.

Readers vary, and you can't second-guess that. Writing historical fiction I come across this kind of trouble all the time, because so much seems to need explaining.

You only need to explain what's necessary to the plot. Anything else is info dump. And what you absolutely can't do without, you need to slide it in so that the reader doesn't feel you've explained everything any more than you'd need to explain everything about bus routing systems every time your character jumped on a Number 37. The gold standard to my mind is that it's in there as naturally as anything non-specialist would be. Earlier Dick Francis is what comes to mind, when I'm thinking of masterly handling of really technical stuff about the background to his plots. His later work is very info-dumpy.

It's easier if you've got a character-narrator, because you can just think, 'would he think/say/explain/see it this way.' If not, you leave it out, or write it how he would.

BUT I think this is also a bit genre-dependent: lots of readers read fiction partly to have facts served up tastily, and will happily swallow reams of history or science or technical stuff if it's in the guise of a novel.

Emma

I think a lot depends on whether "the twiddly stuff" is interesting in itself. I too was bored by the neurosurgery in Saturday, but I've just read Philip Roth's Americal Pastoral, which contains an enormous amount of detail about glovemaking (one of the characters owns a glove factory). It's not a topic I'd ever have imagined I'd find interesting, but it was fascinating.

Scout, I loved American Pastoral, and you're right, the glove-making factory stuff was fascinating, partly because he ties it all in with the fortunes of the family. And there's equally riveting stuff on crow-handling (?) in his novel The Human Stain (probably my favourite Roth novel I've read to date).

I so agree about the "Saturday" comments - the detail was dull to the point of insanity on all counts. And (to my mind), such a ridiculously cliched story too, which was a shame ...

A
xxx

I think a lot depends on whether "the twiddly stuff" is interesting in itself.

And the difficulty with that is that's what's interesting to one reader is boring as hell to another. There was probably some reader of Saturday who was riveted by every page. Maybe only one, but still...

glove-making factory stuff was fascinating, partly because he ties it all in with the fortunes of the family

I guess this is part of the key (I've not read it, though I'm with you on The Human Stain, Sammy: terrific book). The glove-making seemed to belong in the book because it was properly meshed in with the human story. I think readers start balking at lots of facts when they just seem to be there as facts, without having any other function in the novel. I do find myself thinking, 'Listen, if I'd wanted to know this much I'd have gone and got a book about it from the library.'

I spend a lot of revising time cutting swathes of researched stuff that I thought was necessary, and turns out not to be, and is therefore by definition undesirable. I know that when my mind starts whimpering 'but it's interesting' I have to get out the extra-large scalpel.

Emma

Bear in mind, too, that the twiddly stuff can give lots of extra plot and character ideas. And even if you don't actually use the details turned up in research, I think they give you an air of confidence and authority when you're handling the material of your novel.

Yes, I think that's true. You do need to have done the research you don't use, even though it's annoying when you cut the results of a day's library slog.

Emma

Let's say I was talking about photography. Do we need details of cameras, lenses, etc? Many professionals now use digital cameras, and sophisticated software is available and fairly easy to use. A novice can now produce the sort of spectacular results that would once have required a darkroom and some knowledge of chemistry to achieve. So a lot of the twiddly stuff's going to be pretty boring, isn't it?

<Added>

A novice can now produce the sort of spectacular results that would once have required a darkroom and some knowledge of chemistry to achieve.
That sentence doesn't make sense...hopefully you'll get the gist.

I think you have to let the context decide. What does the story need? What does the reader need to understand the plot, or something about the characters? Everything else is surplus.

For example, photographers tend to talk about cameras in terms of their brands, so you may need to sneak in something to explain: 'The Nikon'll be less conspicuous than the Hasselblad, and quicker to handle, too.'

On the other hand, you really don't need to tell the reader 'I turned on the computer and waited while it booted up and then closed down everything else so that Photoshop would run reasonably fast because since I updated to V2.2...'

Are you in a group? You could always upload a piece and see if the other members think you've got the balance about right.

Emma

I quite like it if the odd teeny bit of jargon/technical language is dropped into a piece of fiction, because I believe in that world more.

When I was describing a scene in a boat, I posted on a sailing forum and asked advice about terminology. I also got an offer from a guy to read the relevant section when it's finished, and I'm going to take him up on it. In these shared-information days of the internet, it's fairly easy to get enthusiasts to give you a hand with specifics.

I don't think the reader does - it could come across as info-dump - but i think you do, so that you can write from a position of authority.

Casey

I know a couple of photographers - one here if you want to have a look.

http://www.sandygardner.co.uk/

Not sure if she's very active these days.