*There are exceptions. In a particular mystery I won't spoil by identifying, the POV character was the killer. But everything ELSE he knew, we knew (AND it was written in first person, so we didn't feel like we had a pipeline into his head). This was almost considered a dirty trick by mystery readers, anyway.
I think it's perfectly legitimate to keep secrets from the reader -- provided the POV character doesn't know them either. Then we can experience the POV character's struggle to find out, rather than our struggle to get it from the text, which reminds us we're just readers and kicks us out of the story.
[This message has been edited by Christine (edited May 16, 2005).]
Use a different POV.
Write the tale in omniscient or have a smarmy narrator and deliberately withhold.
The super-sleuths in mysteries are sometimes not the POV character. Perhaps it is a sidekick whose eyes we see the events unfold. This is a good way of hiding information. But a mystery is usually about leaving clues for the reader. All of the information is there, but perhaps how it is presented is subtle, or vague, or even misleading due to a character's misinterpration. Maybe the sidekick saw it, but didn't know what to make of it.
Sometimes, a POV sees something and doesn't recognize it's importance until later on, after something else occurs. This is a good way of both giving and hiding the information.
For example: A sleuth is solving a crime. He goes through the crime scene and records everything in a meticulous fashion. He isn't able to make any good guesses as to who committed the crime until he learns more about the dead person. In this case, let's say the dead guy always uses a black ink fountain pen to write checks and correspondence. But this information isn't known until later in the story, and perhaps the POV doesn't realize it's importance then. Not until he discovers a check that's written in green ink. And maybe he doesn't quite see it then, either. Perhaps he's in the middle of doing something else. He sees it (and so does the reader) but he doesn't make the connection at first. Then, he borrows Colonel Mustard's pen, forgets to give it back, puts the pen in his pocket and forgets about it. Later, at home, he finds a green stain on his shirt. He realizes it's the pen that caused it. Even later, when he's writing a check at the dry cleaners, all at once he realizes who the killer is. Everything clicked right then.
That's a fairly lame example, but it shows how you can still give information and withhold it at the same time using the POV's knowledge.
And it needed to be done, and done well, just so it never needed to be done again. Now any mystery editor can reject a manuscipt that does it by saying, "It's already been done in ___ ______ __ _____ _______."
When it comes to keeping secrets from the reader that the POV character knows, I do it on a very limited basis; only when the reader will almost immediately find out what the secret is.
For instance, if the POV character suddenly understands who the murder is and how she did it, I might do something like this (only less cliched):
quote:
When Inspector Tain saw the bit of reddish mud on the carpet, everything clicked into place. "Of course!" he said, "I should have seen it earlier.""Seen what, Inspector?" asked Sergeant Fowles.
"Roberta Butler is the murderer."
"But she has a perfect alibi, Inspector."
"Only because we thought the murder was committed after seven o'clock. But this bit of mud proves blah blah blah lots of explanation here."
As long as the explanation is about to come out anyway, I don't think it's necessary to explain the POV character's theory as it exists in his mind before he explains it.
So-and-so saw the mud and he at last knew who was the killer. He raced out the door.
NEW CHAPTER
"When I saw the mud, I knew there could be only one explanation..."
blah, blah, blah...
murderer revealed.
That works (for me anyway).
[This message has been edited by HSO (edited May 16, 2005).]
> So-and-so saw the mud and he at last knew
> who was the killer.
MaryRobinette wrote:
> Ah, but HSO, aren't you still withholding
> information with that example...
"The killer is the Doctor!"
"Doctor who?"
"That's right."
"Doctor Wright?"
"No, Who is the killer."
"That's what I'm asking you: who is the killer?"
"Right."
"So the killer is Doctor Wright."
"No, I've already told you who the killer is."
"Who?"
"Right."
quote:
BUT in the next chapter, your POV character would be sitting on that information until he reveals it, wouldn't he?
Maybe. Or maybe not. As long as you don't make them wait too long, I think it's fine. It's sort of teasing the reader, giving them just a little more time to solve the mystery for themselves before you do it for them. I think, when writing mysteries, this is perfectly legitimate. Different rules may apply for genre mysteries... I think some leeway is given, but not much.
Spolier alert:
In the early parts of the book Agent Silke spends considerable amounts of time investigating the Don's murder. Then about the 2/3 point of the book you learn that the agent who had earlier spent a lot of time pondering who murderd the don, now shows he was partially responsible for killing the don. It's a serious flip flop that placed a bad taste in an otherwise fun book.
I have seen this done several times- deep penetration into a character's POV and later you discover the character had kept secrets from you (or himself).
This works okay in a movie No Way Out is a good example. But in books it's a cheat.
JB Skaggs
quote:
I would burn the book in effigy and cry "fowl!"
That's why ducks shouldn't write mysteries.
*ducks and runs *
[This message has been edited by MCameron (edited May 16, 2005).]
Elementary, my dear Survivor. It was Sarah Jane in the Conservatory with the sonic screwdriver.
[This message has been edited by Doc Brown (edited May 16, 2005).]
With all the chambers loaded.
NO SECRETS lest thine writing hands be smitten by a plague of ineptitude!
Nonsense.
From what I've read by many different authors, the use of withholding information is not entirely uncommon. I think the real issue is whether the reader feels suprised or cheated by the "reveal". In other words, did they expect it?
I think it's okay to withhold information from the reader so long as you've made it clear that there is infomration being withheld. It's a bit of a cheap teaser, but it can work well.
To me the major concern is to make sure you do not suprise the reader with information that any of your viewpoint characters already knew.
If the main character is the one who is in the dark, then you either tell the whole story through their eyes, or reveal what the other POV's know and watch the main character try to figure it out, or you make it clear that Bob is hiding something but not reveal it by either making sure Bob is never the POV, or making Bob's internal dialogue reveal that he is INTENTIONALLY hiding something...
SPOILER ALERT**
For instance, Terry Brooks does this in Sword of Shannara where he makes it clear at one point that one of the lead characters is purposefully not telling the "hero" something about their quest. He doesn't say what it is he's withholding, just that knows he must let the hero find out for himself what this secret is.
Thus, WE the readers much find out for ourselves what this secret is, too.
When we finally reach that point, we knew the sword held a secret that had been untold. It was enough to know there was something more to it than what the hero understood, and Brooks fulfilled his promise by revealing that in the moment the hero came to understand it. So to me, this use of intentionally withholding information worked -- I was at least prepared for it because I knew it was being withheld.
Besides, don't we always, in some way, end up withholding information? That's part of what the story is about -- figuring out what happened or how they reached a given conclusion. It boils down to what you've promised the reader and whether you've delivered on that promise.
Now an example of a "reveal" that did not work for me -- the Village. Ugh. Ick. Ack. Gag. Give me a break. I try to imagine what that would have been like if it were a book -- and the only way I think it would work would be if it were told strictly through one POV -- that of the daughter. I love the sixth sense because it gave you everything you needed to figure it out. It didn't withhold information, it just withheld the character's realization of what the clues meant until the character actually understood it himself. But I'd say 1/2 the audience had it figured out before Bruce Willis' character did.
But the Village. I think Shyamalan tried to be tricky once too often. He has all these 'clues' that something is not normal, but cannot actually reveal what even the clues themselves are because then it would be so painfully obvious that the story would die right away. So you can never feel like you take the 'threat' seriously, but never feel quite like you know why. WHen the first real clue is revealed, it blows the lid off the whole thing and you just spend the rest of the movie waiting for this girl to finally reach modern civilization. pthththt.
BUt I digress...if the reader at least feels like the information was available for them to figure out, then I think you're okay. It's the "haha - fooled you!" ending that will have people throwing you into the fire.
I dunno...perhaps the rule should really be don't LIE to the reader.
2 pennies....
But in other stories, I don't require that all the info to work out the end be present (although that can be interesting). I just insist that if the POV character knows it, so do I. There are exceptions, but when Niven did this (Ringworld), he clearly identified the exception (sort of saying to the reader: I'm breaking this rule right here for this one issue, but you won't have to flounder about anything else), and when the mystery writer I referred to did it, she did it for one particular issue (and still got flak for it). Experts break the rule in very limited ways, when they have to to achieve some goal. Newbies sometimes break it repeatedly so it feels like trying to listen to music on a stereo on which the speakers keep going silent.
Here it is, the POV character is Ginger, who we find out at the end is an undercover DEA agent named Heather. My rationalization for this is that, while undercover she's GINGER. she's immersed herself in that role. Yes, she would have thoughts as Heather, but she's pretending to be someone else and the story is written as if she is somebody else. she's not just keeping her identity secret from the reader, but from EVERYBODY.
Were the story from another character's POV it wouldn't be that interesting. Were the undercover DEA agent aspect revealed earlier, it would into a crime drama, which it most certainly isn't.
I plan on having Heather talk to a department shrink at the end, explaining the difficulties taking on an assumed persona, and BEING that person. To let the readers know that haven't in fact been cheated, for that time she WAS GINGER.
So, you think I could get away with it?
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited May 20, 2005).]
[This message has been edited by JOHN (edited October 02, 2006).]
This is like those stories you can tell to friends, in which remarkable things happened to you, and then you end with, "and then I reached over and pulled his leg -- just like I'm pulling yours right now!" In Nancy Kress terms, it's a broken promise: I promised to give you a story about this woman having these experiences, but what I'm actually delivering is "Surprise! Fooled you!" at the end.
Why not tell us up front that Ginger is really Heather -- and concentrate on whatever kind of story you really want to tell? If you can't do this w/o it turning into a crime story, I suggest the problem is you haven't fully created what you DO want to tell us, yet. When you do, readers will probably be happy to follow it -- at least, I thiink I would.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited May 20, 2005).]
Now, I just have to make you mad at Ginger/Heather and not me the author...
Sounds like the real kicker here is the male protagonist's reaction (and it does sound gripping). Make it from his point of view -- then I can _really_ feel just like he does! And drop a few hints, so that both of us can say, Lord, why didn't I notice that?
Or you could make her genuinely crazy so she doesn't know, herself. There's a movie that did that well. I won't post the title, avoiding spoilers.
[This message has been edited by wbriggs (edited May 20, 2005).]
There's all kinds of fun tricks you can use without withholdig information. My favorite is in the Wheel of Time books. Yes, they are flawed in many respects, but I love scenes with the Gray Men. I don't know how many times I've read those books, but it astounds me how well Jordan slips in the line " . . . a man walking in the door with a knife in his hand . . . " or something like that into the rest of a paragraph full of mundane description that you're already half-glossing over. When this assassin strikes, you realize, even YOU saw him and didn't notice him, just like the rest of the characters. It's a great little trick that just brings a little bit of the magic to life, no matter how many times I read it.
But you get the point. In a mystery story at a crime scene, instead of actually SAYING "the only clean surface in the house was the windowsill", thus alerting us that the clean windowsill is a clue, have the main character be looking for a clean surface to set their . . . I don't know . . . cup of coffee on. Describe how dirty the house is and the character's disgust at it, and the point of the clean windowsill is NOT "Okay, we're searching for clues now," it's "Dammit, where can I put my coffee, so I can get to work?" I know . . . not the best example. That's why I don't write mysteries . . . but you get the point.
Like a good magician . . . misdirection is the key. Focus the reader's attention on another aspect of the story . . . an intense conversation with another character or something, then slip the information in where it might get missed by someone in the POV charcter's situation. 9 times out of 10, the reader will be so busy identifying with that charater, they'll miss it too.
And . . . what if the reader DOES notice? Then they go "DAMN! The hero MISSED IT! When will he/she notice?" and you've legitimately built up the suspense without even meaning to.
And what if it's the kind of info that will spoil the story if the reader knows it? Then I submit that you are guilty of gimmickery. 
If you want to know how to do that well, read Phillip K. Dick. Other than that, you just have to take your chances.
quote:
After all, who reads stories in order _not_ to find out what's happening? It's like watching a movie where there's dirt on the projector lens so you can't see what's happening.
...No, it's more like watching Oceans 11 or the even-worse sequel...
[This message has been edited by TheoPhileo (edited June 05, 2005).]
I think that if you are going to have pov characters thinking about a secret they know then just say it. If I were reading that I would probably cry "fowl." If think that if a character wants to keep a secret we should see this from another character's pov by shifty eyes, evasive dialogue, bouts of nervous shaking and the like. I think that would be far more interesting than:
Jon thought he should tell them what he knew, but now was not the time, maybe he would tell them when they were ready, in another twenty chapters perhaps.
Agh!
Jon
quote:
If I were reading that I would probably cry "fowl."
That sounds chicken to me.
quote:
The POV character holding information from the reader is cheating. I’ve heard this from a lot of people, especially in conjunction with my story.
Here it is, the POV character is Ginger, who we find out at the end is an undercover DEA agent named Heather. My rationalization for this is that, while undercover she’s GINGER. She’s immersed herself in that role. Yes, she would have thoughts as Heather, but she’s pretending to be someone else and the story is written as if she is somebody else. She’s not just keeping her identity secret from the reader, but from EVERYBODY.
Were the story from another character’s POV it wouldn’t be that interesting. Were the undercover DEA agent aspect revealed earlier, it would into a crime drama, which it most certainly isn’t.
I plan on having Heather talk to a department shrink at the end, explaining the difficulties taking on an assumed persona, and BEING that person. To let the readers know that haven’t in fact been cheated, for that time she WAS GINGER.
So, you think I could get away with it?
quote:
I'd throw the book across the room.
This is like those stories you can tell to friends, in which remarkable things happened to you, and then you end with, "and then I reached over and pulled his leg -- just like I'm pulling yours right now!" In Nancy Kress terms, it's a broken promise: I promised to give you a story about this woman having these experiences, but what I'm actually delivering is "Surprise! Fooled you!" at the end.
Why not tell us up front that Ginger is really Heather -- and concentrate on whatever kind of story you really want to tell? If you can't do this w/o it turning into a crime story, I suggest the problem is you haven't fully created what you DO want to tell us, yet. When you do, readers will probably be happy to follow it -- at least, I thiink I would.
quote:
Actually, now that I think about it, that's kinda how I want you to feel. You'll feel a lot like the male protagonist who was set up by someone he thought was his girlfriend. Someone who he trusted. Someone he had every reason to beleive who she said she was.
Now, I just have to make you mad at Ginger/Heather and not me the author...
quote:
Seriously, I think the only way that will happen if she lies to me . . . and you don't.
Sounds like the real kicker here is the male protagonist's reaction (and it does sound gripping). Make it from his point of view -- then I can _really_ feel just like he does! And drop a few hints, so that both of us can say, Lord, why didn't I notice that?
Or you could make her genuinely crazy so she doesn't know, herself. There's a movie that did that well. I won't post the title, avoiding spoilers.
quote:
In a particular mystery I won't spoil by identifying, the POV character was the killer. But everything ELSE he knew, we knew (AND it was written in first person, so we didn't feel like we had a pipeline into his head). This was almost considered a dirty trick by mystery readers, anyway.
I would find this intolerable, even if it was done well, because it is such a dirty trick. The only possible way this could be pulled off (so I wouldn't hate it) would be if the POV character had a multiple personality disorder and actually didn't know that he was the killer he was tracking. Hey! That's not bad... in a made-for-TV-movie way.
Just remember that most people don't like being played with. Especially when they are being played with by someone who has all the power. And you, as the writer, have all the power. So by with-holding information your not being sneaky, or cleaver, your just abuseing your power. This may work somtimes, but what works better is telling the reader all they need to know, but doing it in a way they don't relieze they are getting everything they need to know. Then its the readers wit vs. the writers on a more equal footing, rather then the author manhandling the reader because he can.
(Because of the "Alias Time!" thread.)
The POV character didn't know he was actually destroying the aliens, so I didn't feel cheated. When I did learn what had happened, all the puzzle pieces and hints fell into place: of course that's what was happening! Yet, I hadn't the foggiest clue of what the truth was until I was told in the novel. Someone had even told me how it ended: the main character thinks he's running a simulation but is really commanding battles. And even after the last scene when the planet explodes, I was sitting there thinking...and when does the part come when he blows up the aliens? Yeah, I know, I'm a bright one.
Because all the plot pieces and hints were so carefully laid, and because Ender didn't know it so there wasn't a lot of fancy hand-waving to cover up the truth -- I didn't feel cheated. Didn't feel like the author was having a laugh at my expense. It turned everything into a startling, stark, "Oh -- I see it all now." And that well-done, startling revalation is what, for me, makes Ender's Game an amazing novel.
My $0.02
----------
Wellington
However whenever I hear 'POV violation' or 'withholding information' I just ignore it.
Why?
Not sure. Just don't agree that those two specific issues are the end of the world. I like violating the POV, I like withholding information. So I'ma keep doing it.
(I know I'm in danger of touching upon She Who Must Be Obeyed's pet peeve about critiquing something and then having the writer say they did that thing on purpose) ...
But there it is.
A writer is more likely to write a story that works for a large number of readers if that writer follows story conventions, but some writers don't want to write stories that work for a large number of readers.
One thing writers need to remember about doing things unconventionally is that they need to know what they are doing and have a good reason for doing it that way--understand the rules and be ready to suffer the consequences of breaking them.
The reason "I did it that way on purpose" is one of my pet peeves is that it is a response I have gotten when I have explained why doing it "that way" is not going to work in the story. The writer's response is basically, "I did a stupid thing for a stupid reason, and I'm not going to change even though you've given me good reasons for doing the smart thing."
If you violate point of view and make it work, that's great. The same goes for withholding information. Just be sure you know what you're doing, you are willing to have readers for whom what you are doing doesn't work be angry at you (throw the story across the room), and you have a GOOD reason for doing it anyway.
Everything that goes into a story has to have a good reason for being there. If not, the writer should get rid of it. (Paraphrased from one of my favorite rules of OSC.)
In a fanfiction I got tremendously far in but stopped writing because I realized I'd be better devoting my time to writing I could get published, I had four viewpoint characters. One of them was a seventeen-year-old woman (medieval setting -- she was full grown in her age) who was disguised as a thief boy. I withheld that information for a while, though I planned to reveal it fairly early in the story -- but I didn't withhold it as a violation of perspective, I don't think. She didn't realize she wasn't a boy at first. She'd been through a huge trauma in her past, both magical and psychological (though mostly the latter), and she was using her surface identity as a street boy as a shield of her inner self. But there were clues... she wouldn't undress, she freaked out when she was badly wounded and refused to see a healer. It isn't something I'd do again -- it was difficult to pull off, and it only worked with that particular plot anyway. But it was rather fun.
If you've read George R.R. Martin... well, there's a plethora of things to learn from his books, but the subject of viewpoints is especially relevant to his 'A Song of Ice and Fire' series. I write viewpoints somewhat the way he does; I don't label scenes or chapters with the viewpoint character's name, but I pick a character to center on for a chapter and stick solely to that character. In his books, you know what the viewpoint characters know, but he chooses those characters well. The reader still has some figuring out to do, learning along with the characters.
Briggs's original thought for this thread resulted from a fragment I posted in which a conversation is occurring between two unidentified speakers. I can't identify the speakers because that would give something critical in the story away. I also can't let on about everything the speakers know as that would give volumes away.
My thought was to give the reader just enough information to wonder about (a) who it was who was speaking and (b) what it was they knew but weren't revealing. Briggs was a little put off by this, I gather, but I thought it would intrigue the reader.
Thoughts?
If you want to keep something from the reader, the best way to do it is to have a POV character who doesn't know the information. Then the character is wondering, and trying to find out, and the reader becomes involved in what the character is thinking. As a general rule, fiction is all about getting the reader to become involved with the characters.
Simply withholding information is a cheap trick, and many readers resent it. Rather than drawing them further into the story, it makes them aware of the hand of the author, and often feels like the author is smirking smugly behind the scenes (ha ha, I know something you don't know!).
I haven't read your excerpt - I'm just speaking generally.
Like Beth, though, I haven't read the piece in question.
In the story, by the way, the reader will catch on relatively quickly that there's a force opposing the protag's efforts. The reader will then recall the opening conversation and know that it was this opposition that was speaking, though the reader still won't know who exactly this opposition is. Near the end of the story, there will be two possibilities -- it was one of two possible antags who was speaking (with a co-conspirator). The protag will be just about to declare who he has decided was his opposition when that opposition will arrrive to announce itself. In the end, the protag will understand the opposition's reasons for opposing him and play along.
So, while one antag was the force opposing him and which foiled the protag's plans, we'll see that it was really the other, innocent antag who should be feared.
Make sense?
"bump" means "I'm moving this to page 1 again."
SPOILER ALERT!!!!!
Think about it. The fact that Tyler Durden is actually the narrator's other personality is a fairly crucial bit of information. One could argue that the narrator didn't realize it until the end of the story, whicvh is true, but the story opens with Tyler Durden and the narrator on the top floor of the skyscraper, Tyler Durden jamming a gun in the narrator's mouth. At that point, the narrator most certainly did know that Tyler Durden was just in his own head, but he doesn't give us that information. Instead he lies by describing Tyler as a seperate person who is accosting him, a deliberate lie to the reader. The only clue he gives us in that opening scene is one line: "I know this because Tyler knows this."
My point? The never lie to the reader rule is not a hard rule, just like all the other "rules" of writing. If you break it well, then you can break it at will.
I kinda of lied to the reader in my current work. The key word there is kinda... In chapter two, the investigator, the M.C., tells his sidekick... "All is not what it seems." In chapter six another character echoes that statement. In chapter five, the father of the victim tells the person investigating the case that the mother is out of town, she went back home to Rome.
Later on in the story as the reader is bouncing back and forth between the action sequences and wondering who is the really behind the conspiracy the "lie" hits them as the solution is played out in two seperate scenes 20 miles apart. In the first scene, one of the characters, the focus of the story, is brought to a safe house manned by several people who you are led to rightfully believe know about the conspiracy. One says to the others, "Where is Maximillius?" "He is back in Jerusalem tending to unfinished business," is the reply. "NO!" screams the first...blah blah blah "WHy are you so worried," is the reply... blah blah blah. And suddenly, the wife/mother who is supposed to be in Rome appears. She begins to recount her story then... stop... back to Jerusalem to Maximillius where the answer is revealed.
Did I lie when I set the reader up to assume that the wife went back to Rome? Some can argue yes, but I did state in chapters two and six that all is not what it seems. After chapter two, its reader beware. After chapter six, you've crossed the point of no return.
Whether or not you choose hold back information is up to you. Its your story and your world. However, you cannot hold back on the information forever, it has to comeout sooner or later, especially if its a part of the puzzle. If its a character flaw, a nervous twitch, a scar etc, there'e no reason why the reader has to know the story behind that if it has nothing to do with the story. I choose not to do that, I'll go to great lengths to ensure that the reader knows how to perceive the characters, they are after all mine and a part of me.
Peace,
Scott
[This message has been edited by Zodiaxe (edited January 18, 2006).]
That seemed to work for that film.
Is there something different between film and books that makes it all right to keep secrets from audiences in film but frowned upon in writing?
quote:
I'm reminded of a certain movie...The Sixth Sense I think, where information was withheld from the audience until the end.
You know, that thing about Bruce Willis....That seemed to work for that film.
Is there something different between film and books that makes it all right to keep secrets from audiences in film but frowned upon in writing?
First, yes, it's different in books and film. You're never truly inside the character's head in a movie (or play, for that matter), so it's not nearly as deceitful to pull a trick like this in those mediums. It can still be really manipulative, though, depending on how it's done.
Second, The Sixth Sense wasn't being manipulative at all, in my opinion. Why? For the purposes of the film, we're looking at things mostly from Bruce Willis' viewpoint. And (spoilers here, if you haven't seen it) he doesn't have the slightest clue that he's dead, which is a fact that we're prepared for from very early on in the film. "They don't know they're dead", says Cole.
His realization comes at the same time as ours. So we don't feel cheated; instead, we feel the same rush of emotion as he does when he realizes and then accepts the fact that he's no longer for this life. Or at least, I did.
It's funny, because M. Night Shyamalan later proceeded to make one of the most stupidly manipulative and condescending films I've ever seen (The Village). Just goes to show, sometimes good storytellers don't really know why their stories do or do not work.
quote:
I'm reminded of a certain movie...The Sixth Sense I think, where information was withheld from the audience until the end.
You know, that thing about Bruce Willis....
Ah, but the truth wasn't, in fact, witheld from the audience. Clues clear as day were left throughout the movie. However, you had to be alert to pick them up. I'm totally gullible, so the ending surprised me, but upon re-watching the film I saw the clues everywhere. Not only does the boy tell Bruce Willis' character that "they don't know they are dead," but you begin noticing that no one interacts with him directly, that he doesn't interact with the environment (ie, he never moves the chair in the restaurant), and there is the fact that his being shot was never quite addressed after that scene.
No, withholding information from the reader is something different than laying down clever clues. Withholding information from us would have been like, say, finding out in the last scene that the MC is really an immortal alien who is invincible to gunshots. THAT sort of trickery is a cheat.
another example, one that really pissed me off, was in "wolves of the calla" SPOILER AHEAD. the main characters see a drawing of one of the wolves and recognize something on its head (a little satellite dish) and know immediately how to defeat the wolves (by breaking those dishes directly) but they don't (or rather, king doesn't) tell us what it was they recognized, but we know it's important, we know they know, but we don't get to know until some 2 or 3 hundred pages later. and, this wasn't like a common thing, where one hero says to his band, "ok, here's the plan..." and lower the sound and fade out, cause that one works pretty well most of the time. it's more fun to see the plan at work than to hear about it ahead of time (unless it's played amusingly like in "iron eagle" with the lunchbox (yeah, i'm mixing film and novels, but it all comes from writing)). king has even used that one in his novels, they've got a plan but we don't get to hear it, but sometimes, it's a detail so specific and so obvious in its importance, he might as well just say outright, "dear constant reader, the lead characters now have the knowledge to solve everything, but you don't get to know it cause i just don't want to tell you" then he can stick out his tongue and make us feel like crap
So the object in the woman's bag can stay secret because the filmed version could show by her actions how important the contents of the bag were to her without revealing those contents.
The satellite dish on the wolves' heads, especially since it was recognized by the characters (and even moreso if one of the ones who recognized it was the point of view character), should not be left out.
If what was on the wolves' heads was not recognized by the point of view character, at the least it should have been described, so that the reader might possibly recognize it (readers often enjoy being brought "in on something" that the point of view character doesn't know, and writers who do that can win readers thereby).
Writers who cheat by trying to hide something that would be obvious on film only irritate and annoy their readers.
Sorry, but I've been critting a story that uses many of the "tv" elements and it's driving me crazy. I find that movies should keep their tricks to themselves and let writers learn to write stories that are worth reading without needing movie style elements.
Tell the reader something important is on the viewpoint character, tell them what it is. You don't have to give all the details, but don't hide it. If the POV character knows, then it is wrong to keep important details from the reader.
Sophie tells her lover and thus the reader all about her heroism in the war. The problem is she's lying. Every word out of her mouth is a lie. The story works because Sophie is not the POV. The narrator Stingo is. As Stingo and Nathan learn the truth - that she is lieing - the reader learns it.
So an important peice of information is withheld. Sophie is a big fat liar but it is okay because we never get into Sophie's POV. If we did, the novel wouldn't have worked.
Edited to change a really badly worded sentance
[This message has been edited by kings_falcon (edited November 09, 2006).]
The problem with things on the tv and in movies, is that believability isn't the point of many of the shows. Big explosions are more valuable than believability. Where when we want to write, we have to find a way to make people want to believe what we are telling them. Lying to the reader, or hiding information, or even throwing in things that most of us won't believe in video, just won't work for me. I find most anime more believable than half the tv shows that come on...at least the anime writers seem to have a clue how to write a good story.
Oh well, as long as the editors don't start falling for it I should have many more years of books I'll be able to enjoy. If not, I have many years of good old fiction to enjoy.
It's not realism that counts (most of us work in sci-fi and fantasy), what matters is that it makes sense. And to make sense, all we need is the evidence. The evidence, and what it means, at least to the POV character at the time.
quote:
I've always wondered how that "every word was a lie" thing. I mean, a single word, by itself, doesn't usually constitute a statement. Unless you're answering yes/no questions.
Geez, Survivor. I'd hate to have you as an opposing counsel.
Ponder that one.
And to remain on-topic, I'm surprised nobody mentioned OSC's Ender's Shadow. The entire opening sequence is a dialog between two unidentified characters from no particular point of view, and the significance of the dialogue is not revealed until the middle of the second chapter. This kind of thing happens during some of the later Harry Potter novels.
Anyway my point is that most people here seem to agree that hiding information that the PoV knows is generally bad. I think its more accurate to say that you shouldn't hide information that the MC knows.
edit for eek face
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited November 13, 2006).]
A lie can be created by simply leaving out relevent facts and presenting the remaining 'facts' in such a way as to deliberately lead the listener into error. People who get caught doing this generally claim to have been misunderstood . Of course 'buyer beware' when it comes to listening to others anyway. But how can you prove someone's intent? Polygraph, voice stress analysis, FMRI, Electroencephalography? These may be able to detect a person's desire to conceal or deceive, but can't prove that a 'lie' actually occurred. All they can say is that a lie probably took place. In light of the difficulty of proving an intent to deceive, most people take the line that if a statement is 'technically correct' it is not a lie. This is often a mistake.
The dilemma is illustrated by the questions:
quote:
'Did you lie to her?'
'No.'
'Did you intend to deceive her?'
'Yes.
The answers may easily be referring to the same incident. To detect a lie requires judgement.
Another point, a statement can be verbal, but it can also be non-verbal. Therefore a lie can have no words at all.
In writing a story, lying to the reader is to deliberately misrepresent the 'facts' of the story, often by leaving out the 'relevent facts' that the POV character already knows by the time the story starts. This sort of thing is just plain stupid.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited November 13, 2006).]
Generally, a lie is defined as a statement which is known to be false when it is asserted. The "intent to decieve" is a secondary characteristic, we can assume that if a person knowingly makes false statements, that intention is present.
The essential difference between a "lie" and a deception is that lies must take place in the form of formal communication. A formal communication is a mode of information transfer in which both the transmitter and reciever are actively facilitating the transfer of information. This is fundamentally different from other modes of "communication" such as surveillance or intimidation, where one party or the other is not actively facilitating the transfer of information.
In other words, in formal communications the entire premise is that both parties want to communicate. If I'm under surveillance, then I haven't necessarily come to any kind of agreement with the other party that I will try to be honest. I'm therefore under no moral obligation to refrain from hindering the attempted information transfer. If someone is intimidating me, I have no reason to take them at their "word". But if I'm engaged in formal communication I am necessarily agreeing to the transfer of information. This agreement exists by virtue of the act of attempting formal communication. Thus to knowingly make false statements in formal communication is to undermine the very basis of an activity that I have implicitly acknowledged as valuable.
Naturally, books fall into the catagory of formal communications, being even more formal than spoken language. So any effort on the part of the writer to distort the information is clearly a lie, and will be treated as such.
quote:
The essential difference between a "lie" and a deception is that lies must take place in the form of formal communication.
That is not true. Both imply intent to deceive. One is to deliberately lead someone to believe something that is known to be untrue and so is the other. As you point out, a person who makes a mistake in their observations were not deceived by the subject, they were mistaken. But if the observed subject had intended to mislead an observer into believing something other than the truth, then the observer was deceived. Many people live a lies like this.
You're right about potential sidetracking the thread so to make my point cleare: when vital information is withheld from the reader it is not automatically a lie. It is either a lie or it is incompetence ie: I was trying to build mystique.
[This message has been edited by hoptoad (edited November 13, 2006).]
In any event, the "incompetence" is often more inexperience. Too many people when they first start out (and occassionally oft published novelist) think that withholding something that a POV knows is building suspense/setting the reader up for a twists. Twists are plot line devices that we didn't see coming despite the clues along the way.
During my "beach" trip to Maine, I have a simple rule (which is why I still call it a beach trip even though I'm in a cabin in the middle of the woods, anyway), the only thing I get to read is brain candy. Generally this translates into romance or romance/mystery novels. So I picked up a book that was in the cabin from a very established author. She violated the withholding information rule - got inside the POV of her antagonist and withheld critical information AND she left no clues to let me figure it out.
The price of doing that for me was that I won't ever buy/read her books again because she royally ticked me off. Had she told me the information she withheld, there would have been more suspense because I would have been worried that the MC and her friends wouldn't figure it out in time.
Just tell me. If you write a good story, telling me makes it better.
As I said, for purposes of writing a story, attempts to decieve the reader are necessarily "lies" because writing is a formal communication based on the implicit cooperation of both parties. It's simply not the same thing as closing the bathroom door when you're on the toilet.
Works for me, if not over-used.
If you just have to do something like that, don't have the POV character be the one who gets the revelation.
I don't mind a little delay in getting information. For example, if a scene breaks at the moment of an epiphany without the epiphany being disclosed to the reader, so long as the reader gets the epiphany in the very next scene with a relevant POV character, I'll go with the flow. That's a pretty standard device that works if it's not over used. I don't write that way, but as a reader I'm okay with it.
I must be a relatively forgiving reader. I don't mind getting manipulated by a writer (in fact, it's what I pay for). If it's too heavy-handed I'd chafe a little, but otherwise I let it go. I relate to books more on a visceral level than an intellectual level. I can't ever remember looking back after a book and said, "Hey, that's cheating!" I've probably been corrupted by movies, though.
The only books i've ever put down without finishing are the ones that try to be too literary, to give too much information about what the character thinks and feels and knows and likes and dislikes and experienced as a child, etc. Familiarity breeds contempt, I guess. But I'm getting off topic.
The problem then is figuring out how to get me to forgive you for the belly slitting
for previous discussion of that issue.
I'm reading Speaker for the Dead right now, and there's this critical bit of knowledge that a POV character learns, but does not share with the reader. That's okay, though, because as soon as he learns it, he dies. So the point there was that the knowledge went with him BEFORE he was able to share it with the reader.
Matt
quote:
If slicing your guts open would help me pass, I wouldn't be so pissed off.
Also I really enjoy Alistair Macleans books that Jenn mentioned. In them he has several pov characters and the subordinate one's are always complaining that he leader won't tell them everything. His reason for not telling them is that if they are captured by the germans (or whoever they are fighting) they will be interrogated and what they don't know they can't tell. The fact that you know your not being told everything adds to the suspense of the story.
I think that's the key as has already been mentioned. If the reader knows that he's not being told everything they might forgive you as long as it's done well.