What's Behind Your Back?

[Ankari]

I've fortunate to have a great writer's group that have helped me tremendously in shaping my world. They over tons of insight that I value. One of the comments I've received indicates that I should not hide information that the POV knows from the reader. I would love a consensus from a broader audience. First, let me provide a few parameters/notes:

1. Both people in the scene have prior knowledge of the unknown subject. It was not mentioned in the book because it is a long running plan/dream that is just now seeing light.
2. I agree with the comment in many instances. I agree that it's annoying when one person cuts of the other for no reason to hid the juicy detail from the reader. But this is different. It is something that has been said, just not within the pages of the book.
3. It's meant to be somewhat of a surprise. I think people will say "What the hell?" when they finish reading the book.
4. I am taking the method of Steven Erickson (I know, I use his name too much). He does this, and I think, tastefully By the time the plot unfolds I always praise the anticipation he builds up.

Feedback away!

[BWFoster78]

I agree completely with your writing group. If the POV character knows it and it's relevant, it should be shared with the reader.

If the POV doesn't know it, then it's okay to explore along with him.

Anything else, for me, doesn't work, regardless of your justifications and your "that's going to be so cool when they found out" moment.

BTW, if you're talking about scene 4.2, I made the same observation when I did my comments.

[T.Allen.Smith]

I think if the POV has knowledge then the reader should know. Now, how that information is relayed is totally up to you.

People see things very differently from one another. Many things can be boiled down to point of view. Also, there's a large number of people in the world who are either delusional or quite capable of lying to themselves to protect a fragile ego.

What I'm getting at here is characterization & character motivation. Just because a character "knows" something doesn't mean they are being real about that information. You can give out the information they know (and are willing to accept) that may be quite different from the reality that you reveal later.

That may even be more surprising as a twist.

[Steerpike]

In general, I agree with BWFoster. I don't think this always has to be the case. Erikson is a good example, and he does this very well. It doesn't seem like he is cheating the reader in large part because he doesn't provide a lot of backstory to the reader in exposition. You're kind of thrust into the events as they are unfolding, and left to piece things together. If it makes sense for characters to discuss something, then they do.

If both characters know about something but there's no particular reason for them to be talking about it, then I wouldn't force it. Also, if they both are aware of the other's knowledge, then in the natural course of dialogue it doesn't seem likely they'd recap the knowledge to one another - that's a convenient vehicle for the reader, but if you don't do it the conversation still makes sense.

If you're close in on the POV character and you share all of his thoughts and musings with the reader, and it would be natural for him to think about this secret but you avoid it just so you don't tip off the reader, then you've got a bigger problem. What Erikson does works because it is consistent and rational in light of the story. If the only time you are taking this approach is when you want to conceal the secret, I think it will stick out.

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I generally agree, but there are some times when it's okay to withhold something the POV character knows from the reader:

1. The POV character is an unreliable narrator. A lot of the greatest "literary" works use this device. (I hate unreliable narrators, personally.)

2. The POV character doesn't want to think about whatever it is, because it was horribly traumatic, so they keep a lid on it.

3. If it's really funny or awesome when the reader finds out the thing they didn't know. This is basically cheating, since you're only withholding the knowledge for dramatic effect, and should be done rarely and with care. Also, the longer you go between point A (where you should have revealed it) and point B (where you do reveal it), the less likely the reader is to tolerate it.

[Steerpike]

(I hate unreliable narrators, personally.)

You should read Lolita. It's brilliant

[Ankari]

As a reader, do you think it makes the story less enthralling if you know of upcoming betrayals, violent acts, or lie?

[T.Allen.Smith]

I like to be surprised for sure. That's the trick tho, give out the information the POV knows and still offer those devious surprises.

[Steerpike]

As a reader, do you think it makes the story less enthralling if you know of upcoming betrayals, violent acts, or lie?

It can create real dramatic tension when the reader knows about them but the characters affected do not. I think that can be even more effective than keeping the reader in the dark and springing it on them, because it gives the reader a sense of dread as events hurtle inevitably to the point of betrayal etc.

[Benjamin Clayborne]

It can create real dramatic tension when the reader knows about them but the characters affected do not. I think that can be even more effective than keeping the reader in the dark and springing it on them, because it gives the reader a sense of dread as events hurtle inevitably to the point of betrayal etc.

Yeah... I think they have different feels to them. In modern writing I more commonly find the in-the-dark approach, mostly because narration is most typically first- or third-person limited, in which case there's really no way to know in advance what's going to happen (for sure). I mean you can always have interludes from another POV that give you information the main POV character doesn't have, but actual foreknowledge of events is another story, and generally one I try to avoid, mostly because all the most emotionally affecting moments in stories I've read and seen have been of the in-the-dark method. (The Red Wedding is the shining example of this.)

Maybe it's more about a preference for the kind of tone you're setting. Knowing that someone is doomed and seeing how it goes down is one thing. Not knowing whether they're doomed (and finding out that they are at the same time they do) is another.