I swear, I'm only just keeping myself back from throwing my current book across the room. Only because it would probably scare the dogs.
The thing is, it's actually a pretty good story. Reasonably well written. Except for one tiny thing.
The plot revolves around a royal family that has been wiped out (trope) except for one prince who got lost four years ago. Eh. So, of course, an ambitious nobleman has rounded up some orphans to find one he can pass off as the lost prince. The story is told in first person by one of these boys.
On page 250 (of 350) it turns out that the mc is actually really the lost prince.
One of the other characters tells him. "You lied to me." Yeah. That's kind of how I feel, too. How the H*** did this ever get published? Why does it have a rating of 4 + on Goodreads?
Seriously, I don't usually ask these kind of questions. When I read something I consider subpar, I just tell myself that if that got published, mine certainly will sooner or later. But . . . really? That wouldn't get past any pro or semi-pro short story market I can think of. And yet an agent repped it and an editor bought it. And readers seem to like it. (I will concede that it's well-written. It's just a lousy way to tell a story. And the pity is that, in spite of the trope, it would have worked well if the reader had known the secret all along.)
Is it just because it's MG/YA. Really? Disrespecting your readers doesn't seem like the best way to go to me.
I'm lost in the weeds here. I just do not understand.
Posts: 4633 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh the perils of dramatic irony. Most artful when readers are in the know. Subject to interpretation when readers are kept in the dark, perhaps artless withholding.
The concern I see with a lost prince rediscovered is whether the prince-protagonist-narrator knew all along and readers don't have enough clues to strongly suspect. The hard bright line falls within the dramatic irony principle of who knows what when. If readers are kept in the dark, the subject character should in most instances be in the dark too. The prince in this case. If the prince has a reason to keep others in the dark, if a writer is using that reason to keep readers in the dark, then it's a cliffhanger ploy that may or may not be artful. If readers are kept in the dark for little or no rhetorical purpose, then it is the dread withholding. Artless.
Artful keeping readers in the dark and subject or object character in the know? I don't know, tough to make it work. Perhaps if the narrator is unreliable, but readers have clues that keep them curious, yet the ending payoff (final outcome) inspirationally transcends the confirmation reader suspicions are warranted. That might work.
"a royal family that has been wiped out (trope)"
Recurrent literary motif maybe, recurrent literary premise certainly, a recurrent plot scheme surely: a problem wanting satisfaction, in other words. The rediscovered prince, though, might be a theme, as in the individual in society. I don't see it or the former as a trope: "a word or phrase used in a figurative sense" (Webster's). That's a situational trope.
In a larger view, an extended trope, one which is encompassed by and encompassing for a work, a literary trope is a motif, premise, or scheme used in a figurative sense. Encompassing an entire work. For example, faster than light travel is a literary trope metaphorically representing a desire to leave the natal home and strike out into new territory to establish or enhance one's independent self-identity. The frontier's person trope reinvented as a science fiction trope.
Whether a royal family wiped out is a trope or not, situational or extended, for me is a matter of whether it represents a figurative meaning or not. Like the stuttering end of the feudal system or the nostalgic revitalization of the feudal system. I don't think the writer appreciated that potential, not with a perhaps artless application of dramatic irony going on in the novel.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
He knew. He got "lost" at the age of eleven and no, he doesn't have amnesia. It's pertinent to everything that's going on in the plot. And it's written in first person.
*Still shaking my head*
Maybe the wiped out royal family with a single survivor isn't a trope. But it's surely been done many, many times before. Making it fresh is the key. Maybe that's why the author tried the withholding, but I still find it unforgivable.
Posts: 4633 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The "missing person being impersonated by the actual missing person" idea could almost be a trope.
Josephine Tey used a variation on it in BRAT FARRAR, and (spoiler warning?) Mary Stewart actually did it in one of her books--with a first-person narrator who KNEW the truth (shall I give the title so those who want to see how she did it can read the book?).
There was a young man in history whose name was recorded as "Perkin Warbeck" (I believe), who was presented as one of the Two Princes allegedly murdered by Richard III, and there is still some controversy over whether or not he could have actually been a prince.
Not to mention Anastasia Romanov. As long as there are missing, there will probably be stories about impersonators, and impersonators who may actually be the missing person.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
The cheat about withholding from a first person narrator is undeniably a cheat, and extremely hard to do right without cheating, in my opinion.
Any story in which a first person narrator knows something crucial to the plot and withholds it so there's a story is a story that is contrived and risks being weak (because what develops isn't natural and organic, nor is it fair to the reader).
What boggles my mind is that readers will forgive something like this, as you have pointed out, Meredith. Maybe it's one of those cases where other factors in the story (compelling characterization? beautiful prose? interesting plot developments?) make up for (cover) the sin of withholding--at least enough for the readers to want to try to be "good sports" about it?
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury: The "missing person being impersonated by the actual missing person" idea could almost be a trope.
Josephine Tey used a variation on it in BRAT FARRAR, and (spoiler warning?) Mary Stewart actually did it in one of her books--with a first-person narrator who KNEW the truth (shall I give the title so those who want to see how she did it can read the book?).
Sure. I'm always open to seeing how it can be done well.
I'm just discouraged to see something like this done so poorly. And it is always possible for a really good story to overcome handicaps like this.
Really. I haven't read a single really good YA story this year. Where are they all?
Posts: 4633 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sounds to me like the curiosity-invoking feature, thus suspense, thus tension, the dramatic question that raises the problem wanting satisfaction feature, is who will be prince? A poser or a poser who is the true prince? Seems also like the ambitious nobleman is a further complication. Is the prince really keeping the nobleman in the dark or readers? Probably meant to be the nobleman but readers too as a consequence of imagination shortcomings.
Another rework is in order, in my opinion, so that readers aren't kept in the dark until page 250 out of 350, more than two-thirds through. Probably meant to be a climactic dramatic pivot but late, in my opinion. Probably should be introduced in the opening act so readers are included as participants in the dramatic action and dramatic irony.
"Maybe the wiped out royal family with a single survivor isn't a trope. But it's surely been done many, many times before."
If a premise has been used many times before and it's not used freshly then it's trite.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ouch. Sounds like it wouldn't be my cup of tea either. I can imagine ways in which it could be pulled off artfully--but your reaction says it's definitely not in this case.
Posts: 66 | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury: What boggles my mind is that readers will forgive something like this, as you have pointed out, Meredith. Maybe it's one of those cases where other factors in the story (compelling characterization? beautiful prose? interesting plot developments?) make up for (cover) the sin of withholding--at least enough for the readers to want to try to be "good sports" about it?
Well, the writing's good--not stellar, but good. The characters are interesting. But I didn't find anything in it that was so good I would forgive the withholding. Maybe I need to keep reading/re-read it. Or maybe some readers just aren't that demanding.
Posts: 4633 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by extrinsic: Sounds to me like the curiosity-invoking feature, thus suspense, thus tension, the dramatic question that raises the problem wanting satisfaction feature, is who will be prince? A poser or a poser who is the true prince? Seems also like the ambitious nobleman is a further complication. Is the prince really keeping the nobleman in the dark or readers? Probably meant to be the nobleman but readers too as a consequence of imagination shortcomings.
I'm perfectly okay with him keeping his true identity from the nobleman. Wise choice, actually. But that doesn't mean the readers shouldn't know. It could actually be used to increase the tension/conflict.
Posts: 4633 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Meredith: I'm perfectly okay with him keeping his true identity from the nobleman. Wise choice, actually. But that doesn't mean the readers shouldn't know. It could actually be used to increase the tension/conflict.
Agreed. That's dramatic irony's purpose. But dramatic irony's artful application usually doesn't show up in early drafts, not until later drafts when its import is realized by a writer.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kathleen Dalton Woodbury: The "missing person being impersonated by the actual missing person" idea could almost be a trope.
I agree. Actually, the trope relates to identity discovery or realization as initiation, ripe for young adult literature. Perhaps most artful when the missing person doesn't know he or she isn't an impersonator and readers discover along with the character that he's not though he's been pretending. Though, for purposes of dramatic irony, knowing could just as artfully appeal to readers.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Withholding done poorly can be frustrating. I will say, though, that my favorite series is completely fraught with it (even in first person).
The author handled it successfully, imho, by writing the withholding more like one would in a mystery novel. Clues abound (some quite obvious) to the true natue of the character, but, because the reader has a preconceived notion of what * should * happen and what they should be seeing, they gloss over the obvious. A reread gives a completely different story once the alternate motivation is clear.
This is probably not what happened in your story, but done right, I find this kind of withholding/literary trickery sheer genius (might just be my preference, too, of course - I will say, though, the first book of this series is Newberry Honor, so at least someone else agrees with me.).
A question, though. Do you consider it withholding to allow a character's (even first person) abilities to unfold as the story unfolds? Do we have to know that Joe is an expert swordsman on page two when it's not an issue, or even something the charcter even thinks about, until page 100 when that crazy fight breaks out? What if there were clues in between (like he makes a very astute comment about someone else's sword or swordsmanship, etc.) that might pique a saavy reader's suspicions?
I guess my question is, when would you consider it withholding and when is it unfolding?
quote:Originally posted by RoxyL: Withholding done poorly can be frustrating. A question, though. Do you consider it withholding to allow a character's (even first person) abilities to unfold as the story unfolds? Do we have to know that Joe is an expert swordsman on page two when it's not an issue, or even something the charcter even thinks about, until page 100 when that crazy fight breaks out? What if there were clues in between (like he makes a very astute comment about someone else's sword or swordsmanship, etc.) that might pique a saavy reader's suspicions?
I guess my question is, when would you consider it withholding and when is it unfolding?
My own personal definition: Information should be made known to the reader either when it becomes relevant to the plot or when the character would reasonably think about it (and in first person, the reader should know what the character is thinking most of the time, imho).
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
BTW. Even Brandon Sanderson admitted to a certain amount of withholding in MISTBORN. He got around it by having Kelsier choose NOT to think about his backup plan. I'll confess, that never bothered me. Skill, I guess, can get you around many things.
Posts: 4633 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate withholding with a passion. I am sure it can be done right, but if you notice it, then its not done right. Worse for me is the last 3 stories I wrote I would either have to withhold or tell from another pov, I chose the other pov, which leads me with my MC dying in each story. Posts: 1168 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are two conflicting parts to the art of the surprise revelation.
Part 1: The reader must not have the slightest suspicion of the truth up to the very moment of revelation.
Part 2: From the very moment of revelation, the truth must seem completely obvious in retrospect.
If you fail to conceal the truth from the reader, then the story begins to look like an "idiot plot": one that only works because everyone in the story acts like an idiot. If you fail to make the reader feel like he *should* have seen this coming, the reader knows you're pulling a fast one on him rather than putting an honest day's work in making the story logical.
What you have to do is make the truth completely obvious but take advantage of reader inertia or cognitive biases. Here's an example of how to do it. Let's say our story is set thousands of years in the future, after humanity has fallen back into feudalism. Imagine a room crammed full of hundreds of princesses, all in beautiful gowns in countless colors. They are all wearing glittering jewels and crowns. Pan the camera of your mind's eye across the room, noting the bright eyes and laughing faces. Now lift the camera up for an aerial shot where you can take them all in at once.
Fix that glittering assemblage in your mind.
Good.
Now answer this question: how many of the princesses are black? Now there's no reason that *any* of them have to be black, but neither is there any reason that *some* of them can't be black. Even today there are at least eight black monarchs in Africa, and their daughters or sisters would be princesses.
Since you've read *The Keystone* you'll recognize that I used exactly this cynical stratagem. Julie is black while her "uncle" Archie is white. He is a duke, and she treats him as an inferior. Her feigned ignorance of things is very inconsistent (she pretends not to recognize Kate's uniform but can read Kate's campaign ribbons). But Julie with her dark skin and frizzy hair doesn't match anyone's mental template of "princess".
As for the story you are talking about, it sounds like just another of the countless retreads of the Grand Duchess Anastasia Romanova story. The first Anastasia-imposter-who-is-real story came out in 1928, ten years after the real 17 year-old Anastasia's execution by the Bolsheviks, and it's been redone practically every decade since (notably the 1950's movie with Yul Brynner and Ingrid Bergman).
When you spring and oldy-but-moldy like this on an unsuspecting audience, it's almost an *ethical* issue. Kids in the YA market won't realize they're getting an old plot re-tread, so they're not going to object, but the author must know he's copying.
Of course copying per se isn't bad, but as Picasso said, mediocre artists borrow, great artists *steal*.
Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a question. I wrote one not long ago in first person, where the MC mentions something he did following a traumatic event. His actions got him into trouble. But I don't reveal exactly what his actions were was until later, while he is recounting the event itself. Is that dirty pool?
Posts: 884 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rcmann: Here's a question. I wrote one not long ago in first person, where the MC mentions something he did following a traumatic event. His actions got him into trouble. But I don't reveal exactly what his actions were was until later, while he is recounting the event itself. Is that dirty pool?
Personally, I think it's more justifiable to conceal in first person narration than third person. The first person narrator should have an agenda, and can be expected to hide stuff until he decides that he can't or shouldn't.
Posts: 1459 | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rcmann: Here's a question. I wrote one not long ago in first person, where the MC mentions something he did following a traumatic event. His actions got him into trouble. But I don't reveal exactly what his actions were was until later, while he is recounting the event itself. Is that dirty pool?
Personally, I think it's more justifiable to conceal in first person narration than third person. The first person narrator should have an agenda, and can be expected to hide stuff until he decides that he can't or shouldn't.
Depends. If it's written as a direct address to the reader, maybe. A lot of YA right now is written in first person more or less the same as if it were third person. It's been a fad since HUNGER GAMES and TWILIGHT, maybe before, whether or not it especially serves the story. I would argue that I've read at least a couple of stories that would have been better served by third person past tense than first person present tense.
In this case, the true-but-disguised prince didn't even bat an eyelash--no internal emotion, even--when he first learned that all the rest of his family had been wiped out. Not even the amount of surprised dismay you might expect from an ordinary citizen. No internal reaction when he's told that he might not look enough like the lost prince. It's all just a game of hide the ball from the reader and this reader, at least, resents it.
I don't in the least resent it when an author surprises me--as long as it's done honestly. This isn't being honest or respecting your readers. I'm continuing to read this thing to try to figure out why other people seem to like it. The character is engaging. Is that enough to overcome this nonsense. Eh. Not for me, but I may be pickier than most.
Posts: 4633 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rcmann: Here's a question. I wrote one not long ago in first person, where the MC mentions something he did following a traumatic event. His actions got him into trouble. But I don't reveal exactly what his actions were was until later, while he is recounting the event itself. Is that dirty pool?
Dirty pool if the writer is being coy with readers, like the first mention is a cliffhanger ploy with no purpose beyond evoking curiosity by teasing readers with a delayed revelation. Perhaps not if the delay is causal, something meaningful causes the full reveal to be delayed until later. I think a greater concern is whether later when it is revealed he's telling the revelation to readers through a conversation with no other purpose or recollecting it as a dramatic flashback.
quote:Originally posted by MattLeo: Personally, I think it's more justifiable to conceal in first person narration than third person. The first person narrator should have an agenda, and can be expected to hide stuff until he decides that he can't or shouldn't.
I don't understand this. Hide important information from readers? Maybe from another character and thus readers, but not just to hold back from revealing to readers purely for a cheap suspense strategy. If rhetorically meaningful, maybe okay. But why miss out on potential dramatic irony influences.
quote:Originally posted by Meredith: Depends. If it's written as a direct address to the reader, maybe. A lot of YA right now is written in first person more or less the same as if it were third person. It's been a fad since HUNGER GAMES and TWILIGHT, maybe before, whether or not it especially serves the story. I would argue that I've read at least a couple of stories that would have been better served by third person past tense than first person present tense.
Hunger Games and Twilight do not appreciate first person present tense's strength; that is, subjectivity, open to question. Reliable, unbiased, trustworthy first-person, present-tense narrators fall short of objective self-reporting. Look at me, I'm perfect. All the rest of the world is messed up. My troubles are not my fault. They're society's, everyone else's fault. I was curious, having seen trailers and excerpts and reviews of Hunger Games, the novel and the movie, whether the story projected an anti-adult agenda. Oh my, yes. One or two sympathetic but weak adults, the rest portrayed as wicked and cruel. Katniss has a warped perception of adulthood.
Posts: 6037 | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really. I haven't read a single really good YA story this year. Where are they all?
Um, Meredith, why are you reading books that are designated with a different word for "children" and expect a complex story? YA is what it is.
Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Really. I haven't read a single really good YA story this year. Where are they all?
Um, Meredith, why are you reading books that are designated with a different word for "children" and expect a complex story? YA is what it is.
I disagree. Just because something is written for teens doesn't mean it shouldn't be just as well-written as any other genre. Better, if you want to keep those teens reading in a few years.
Also: "Read what you write."
Posts: 4633 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't see that there should be any real difference between young adult, and adult. I like Treasure Island just as much now as I did at twelve. Maybe more, because I can pick up some of the details that I missed back then.
Posts: 884 | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, yet I found those who write for a younger audience often underestimate said audience.
If you don't like my previous advice, here's another: get another book and forget about this one.
(And no, nothing above was written in sarcastic tones. I'm in a good mood ever since my parents went on a holiday.)
Posts: 1271 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
