A thing young writers (and many not-so-young writers) do is confuse making the reader wonder what is going on for making the reader wonder what is going to happen

An example: the story starts with a character at the airport. They're not catching a flight, they're waiting. They're nervous. Pages go by. They get a coffee, they're sweating. What are they doing? Finally, at the end, we learn that they're there to meet their biological father

If you've ever been in a workshop, you've encountered dozens of this kind of story. Yes, the narrative gins up a little interest by making you wonder what the character is doing at the airport. There's a bit of satisfaction at the reveal of the father emerging from the jetbridge

The problem is that in creating this form of interest, the author sacrifices the ability to move the story forward and create any narrative momentum. In reserving a key piece of contextual information, all the story can do is pause until that info is at at last provided

On the other hand, if the author goes ahead and tells the reader that the character is there to meet their biological father, then the focus becomes what happens next. For example: he emerges, turns out to be politically toxic, they fight, he leaves, etc

The story can proceed, and the reader is intrigued on the basis of discovering what will happen, and what will happen after that, and what it all means to the character. It puts the emphasis on consequences and causality rather than suspended context

The essence of storytelling is "what's next." As George Saunders once said (paraphrasing): "If you have a card, play it." Play it, and play the next one, and the next one. Do not hold onto one card the entire game and play it at the very end