# Are some things better left a mystery?



## Mindfire (Jul 25, 2012)

Part of writing is deciding what to reveal to the reader and when. But is there ever a time when some things should just remain a mystery in the reader's mind? Is it ever okay, or even preferable, to leave the reader in the dark and let them guess "what _really_ happened?" I'm talking about this primarily with respect to backstory. Are there instances when it might be better to leave the reader in the dark about where something came from or "what really happened back then"?


More specifically, I have a people-group in my WIP called "The Mist". They're essentially swamp ninjas. (Stick with me here. It's a lot cooler than it sounds, I promise.) They're not of much importance in the grand scheme of things, but I'm planning for their encounters to leave a real impact on the reader and provoke questions like "what are they?" and "where did they come from?" Bits and pieces of clues to their backstory are actually embedded in the overall narrative, though they might not be recognized as such at first. So should I show the reader how the pieces fit together, or should I let the reader come up with their own theories, even though I have a canon backstory for them already thought out?


----------



## Amanita (Jul 25, 2012)

That's a difficult question. When reading books, I usually tend to prefer getting more information. According to other people's comments this isn't true for everyone though. 
I think there should be at least enough hints to make it possible for the readers to understand the role this part plays in the larger scheme of things. In case of Tom Bombadil (and the entire barrow scene) for example, I kept wondering what this storyline had to do with the main plotline and given that I didn't really figure it out, I failed to see the point in including it. This kind of thing doesn't make me hate a book but it's a bit frustrating for me. 
Opinions on this may vary though, I've seen quite a few online comments where people said that they did not want everything spelled out to them.


----------



## JonSnow (Jul 25, 2012)

Actually, I think that can work if it is done correctly. If you give the reader some clues as to what or who it is, without actually revealing the answer, it gives them reason to discuss the book later. Tom Bombadil, for example, has always been a hot topic of LotR discussion, because Tolkien never revealed the REAL reason he was there, or who he actually was. And readers are hotly divided over him... you either love Tom or you hate him. I've read LotR series 3-4 times... I actually skip over the Bombadil chapter now, because I think its useless. But for other people, it is one of their favorites because of the mystery.


----------



## Chime85 (Jul 25, 2012)

giving a small amount of mystery is a great way to draw the reader into your world. If the characters dont fully know who they are, why should the reader? Of course as the writer, you know exactly who and what they are, you designed them. But you have the chance to give or withold as much information as you wish.

I'm soon to be writing something similar with spirits. But as for the mechanics about how spirits, that is a mystery in itself. There are clues in their appearences (as hard to make out as they are) and behaviour which point to many possible reasons why they are there. The characters are left just as clueless as the reader will be

I think the best course of measurment is to think about what the characters know and do not know.

x


----------



## ShortHair (Jul 25, 2012)

If these swamp ninjas are nothing more than an obstacle to your characters, there's no reason to spell out everything about them. You can lampshade it by having a character ask, "What _were_ those things?" and another answer, "I don't know, and I don't want to know!"

If they later become germane to the plot, then yes, you may need to connect some dots for the reader.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Jul 25, 2012)

It depends on their role in the story to a certain degree. However, it's perfectly fine, and in some cases preferable, to leave things mysterious.

Leave them a mystery to start with & employ some test readers before you publish. See what those people think about these strange creatures. If the mystery works to enhance the story great! If not, you can always sprinkle more info in. If you write the details in now though, you're robbing yourself of the opportunity to discover if it works for your test readers. Once the info is out with them, it's out. They can't forget it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Jul 25, 2012)

Mindfire,

I prefer the approach that you're taking.  An important consideration, however, is the POV character.  Does that person know the backstory?  If so, lack of disclosure can be seriously annoying.  If not, it flows well with the story.  

Another point to consider: it's important to close open plot threads.  If you build up this big mystery, you need to provide some resolution, or the reader is going to throw the book across the room after they finish it (an expensive proposition if its on an ereader).  If it's not a big deal, then no need for a long explanation.  These people exist, and the characters interact with them.  No biggie.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Jul 25, 2012)

Some of it might depend on the POV used. In first person, for example, the reader only gets the knowledge/experiences of the POV character. A reader may put the pieces/clues together better than the character--or maybe not.


----------



## Addison (Jul 25, 2012)

It really depends on the reader really. If this is a standalone book and not any thought for a sequel then maybe sprinkle a little bit of both. If your protagonist(s) are in a spot where they need to find these Swamp Ninjas maybe they find something in the swamp which gives insight to the back story. Sprinkle in the clues and at the end, or toward it, the everything will fit together for the reader so they'll say "Oh so that's it!" Aside from reader preference, and yours, pick what goes well for the story.


----------



## Zero Angel (Jul 25, 2012)

One of the things I *hated* about LotR is the _excessive_ backstory involved in the books. It seemed like every location existed just to show the world-building prowess of Tolkien (which was admittedly awesome). There were many times in the books where I found myself reading ten-twenty pages of nothing. I love world-building as much as the next guy, but I am very impatient also (ADHD out the wazoo), so I tend to tell my stories with only the information that the characters come across available to the reader. 

On the other hand, I do have a full website and wikispaces where I allow anyone interested in exploring my world explore as much as they want to (but avoiding major storyline spoilers). This way I have the depth in lore and world-building that Tolkien had, but without hitting my readers over the head with it.


----------



## Addison (Jul 25, 2012)

Sometimes excessive back story is like exposition. Neither of them good. Readers want to know what's going on with the characters right there and right then. They don't want the background of the cafe they're about to brawl in. They don't want to know how the cliff the heroine is about to jump from got it's name. They want to know if she'll really jump and who, if anyone, will stop her. Don't go into backstory unless a.) it's really REALLY important for the reader or the plot or b.) it's in a prologue to help the readers get an idea of what the fantasy world is like.


----------



## Penpilot (Jul 25, 2012)

Yes it's fine to leave things a mystery. In your case, I'd say it depends on how you're using the swamp ninjas. If they're like a force of nature that can sweep down on your characters regardless if they're good or bad and cause all sorts of havoc, mystery is probably the way to go. Think Reavers from firefly or colonial age Indians, African's, insert your mysterious peoples from deepest darkest unexplored territories here. In that case they're more of background rather than characters and the bits of background, true or false, about them add to the flavor of the world. 

On the other hand, if your characters interact with them like civilized peoples, and and the more they interact with them, more explanation is expected and demanded by the reader. But even then some mystery can still be retained.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 25, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> Yes it's fine to leave things a mystery. In your case, I'd say it depends on how you're using the swamp ninjas. If they're like a force of nature that can sweep down on your characters regardless if they're good or bad and cause all sorts of havoc, mystery is probably the way to go. Think Reavers from firefly or colonial age Indians, African's, insert your mysterious peoples from deepest darkest unexplored territories here. In that case they're more of background rather than characters and the bits of background, true or false, about them add to the flavor of the world.
> 
> On the other hand, if your characters interact with them like civilized peoples, and and the more they interact with them, more explanation is expected and demanded by the reader. But even then some mystery can still be retained.



They're definitely more like a force of nature than a "civilization." They're extremely hostile, have unexplainable (as far as my protagonists know) powers, and cannot be reasoned with. They attack anyone that enters their territory with no respect for good or evil.


----------



## Rullenzar (Jul 26, 2012)

This may not be true for most I'm just giving personal opinion. When I read a book, I'm usually drawn in by mysteries/puzzles so I for one would say leave clues so the reader can come back later and possibly fit them together but don't outright give them the answer. Some things are better left shaded in mystery, I'm a type more drawn to the unexplained and coming to my own conclusions then being fed the answer. 

Not everything needs to be explained especially if they don't have a huge role in the scheme of things. Maybe them swamp ninja's just show up for some whoop ass every now and again.

One exception here is magic. More often then not magic plays key roles in fantasy but often isn't explained where and how it came to be. It just is. 

Maybe your swamp ninja's sprouted out of the swamp one day, maybe they are forsaken/disowned/exiled ninjas out for revenge. Who knows? I don't know but it sure makes them more interesting trying to figure it out.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jul 26, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Part of writing is deciding what to reveal to the reader and when. But is there ever a time when some things should just remain a mystery in the reader's mind? Is it ever okay, or even preferable, to leave the reader in the dark and let them guess "what _really_ happened?" I'm talking about this primarily with respect to backstory. Are there instances when it might be better to leave the reader in the dark about where something came from or "what really happened back then"?
> 
> 
> More specifically, I have a people-group in my WIP called "The Mist". They're essentially swamp ninjas. (Stick with me here. It's a lot cooler than it sounds, I promise.) They're not of much importance in the grand scheme of things, but I'm planning for their encounters to leave a real impact on the reader and provoke questions like "what are they?" and "where did they come from?" Bits and pieces of clues to their backstory are actually embedded in the overall narrative, though they might not be recognized as such at first. So should I show the reader how the pieces fit together, or should I let the reader come up with their own theories, even though I have a canon backstory for them already thought out?



Well, on one hand, I can understand not wanting to be too obvious and imply the readers are slow-witted by explaining everything in detail. Giving them a mystery to figure out is all well an good.

On the other hand, there is a certain bias here in that authors tend to severely underestimate just how difficult it is to draw the right conclusions - when you already know the answer, the riddle tends to seem much more simple than it really is. I recently had a discussion with a guy who had set up this vaguely implied scenario that you'd have to be freaking Sherlock Holmes to figure out, yet he thought it was clear as day and was completely baffled that anybody would have a problem with it.

So, if you're only going to imply, you want to imply _very _heavily. You do want your readers to be able figure it out, because when you establish a question like: "Who are these swamp guys?" the readers will expect an answer and they will end up frustrated if you don't provide that answer.


----------



## Mindfire (Jul 26, 2012)

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Well, on one hand, I can understand not wanting to be too obvious and imply the readers are slow-witted by explaining everything in detail. Giving them a mystery to figure out is all well an good.
> 
> On the other hand, there is a certain bias here in that authors tend to severely underestimate just how difficult it is to draw the right conclusions - when you already know the answer, the riddle tends to seem much more simple than it really is. I recently had a discussion with a guy who had set up this vaguely implied scenario that you'd have to be freaking Sherlock Holmes to figure out, yet he thought it was clear as day and was completely baffled that anybody would have a problem with it.
> 
> So, if you're only going to imply, you want to imply _very _heavily. You do want your readers to be able figure it out, because when you establish a question like: "Who are these swamp guys?" the readers will expect an answer and they will end up frustrated if you don't provide that answer.



I see what you're getting at. I want to invite speculation, not vitriol; give the reader something to think and speculate about. Tom Bombadil is a good example of what I'm getting at. No one, not even Tolkien, has figured out what to make of him really. But that's part of what makes him interesting. 

At first, I was going to let the Mist (that is their name) be like that, because I hadn't thought of an origin for them yet and I figured I never would, so I was content to leave it be and let the readers think whatever they wished. But then one day, their origin became so plain and obvious to me that it had to become canon, because it was a logical consequence of the metaphysics and history of the world. They fit in perfectly. But as a consequence of that, I am now worrying that this origin (and once you see it, it becomes almost facepalmingly obvious) might be too dull a payoff for the reader. I am worrying that it might not live up to the big expectations that a mystery invariably generates. 

An example of that would be Legend of Korra. While I myself am perfectly happy with Amon's identity and origin, I can't help but wonder if his character would have been more interesting in the end if they'd left him anonymous. Or perhaps it would just be annoying, like the way they've held out on telling us what happened to Zuko's mother.

You see? It's a bit of a lose-lose. Not revealing risks the reader's frustration. Revealing risks their disappointment. They might come to think their theories and speculation are better than my canon reveal. I'm hoping only giving small "clues" can be a happy medium or a safe middle road.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting (Jul 26, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> I see what you're getting at. I want to invite speculation, not vitriol; give the reader something to think and speculate about. Tom Bombadil is a good example of what I'm getting at. No one, not even Tolkien, has figured out what to make of him really. But that's part of what makes him interesting.
> 
> At first, I was going to let the Mist (that is their name) be like that, because I hadn't thought of an origin for them yet and I figured I never would, so I was content to leave it be and let the readers think whatever they wished. But then one day, their origin became so plain and obvious to me that it had to become canon, because it was a logical consequence of the metaphysics and history of the world. They fit in perfectly. But as a consequence of that, I am now worrying that this origin (and once you see it, it becomes almost facepalmingly obvious) might be too dull a payoff for the reader. I am worrying that it might not live up to the big expectations that a mystery invariably generates.



In that case, you've probably gone too far building up a mystery around the whole thing. I mean, you don't have to make a big deal out of it. It's probably enough if you present the question ("Who are the Mist?"), leave a few casual clues along the way for the attentive readers, and a while later you have your character discover the answer. That way you get a decent payoff, everyone gets to go: "Ah, I see! That makes sense!" and the readers who picked up on the clues get to feel smart.

_Or,_ you never reveal the answer. But then you _really _don't want to make a big deal out of it, because again, if you make a question seem important to the readers, they are going to expect an answer. Best approach is probably to just make it a background thing that you don't really draw that much attention to, so that it's possible to read the book without really thinking about it. But once you do start thinking about it, it's there and you can start piecing together a theory about it.

Either way, if it's not important to the plot, and maybe not that much of a surprise after all, then you shouldn't treat it as more important than it is. 



> An example of that would be Legend of Korra. While I myself am perfectly happy with Amon's identity and origin, I can't help but wonder if his character would have been more interesting in the end if they'd left him anonymous.



I still have to finish that show.

Still, I have to disagree. If you have a main bad guy who constantly wears a mask to hide his identity, you pretty much have to reveal that identity eventually. If I never found out who Amon really was, I think I would feel kinda cheated. 

It's what we call a promise: By giving the character a mask, you promise your readers that you will eventually let them see what is underneath it. You are telling the readers that this character is hiding something and if they keep reading you'll let them know what. It's like a christmas present: The wrapping makes the contents more appealing and the unwrapping is part of the experience.

You _can_ get away with never removing the mask, of course, but it's somewhat tricky. You essentially have to make the mask more important then the face underneath it. V for Vendetta is a pretty good example - what V looks like underneath that Guy Fawkes mask doesn't really matter because the mask does a better job of presenting his identity. He's more of a living symbol of anarchy than an actual person.

But for the most part, you'll want a decent reveal at the end.


----------



## Avi Love (Jul 29, 2012)

If they don't bear a lot of importance in the grand scheme of things then I'd say it's ok to leave them a mystery. Don't leave a mystery anything directly necessary to progressing the story. If you don't reveal the usage of an amulet of such-and-such immediately but it contains the magic power necessary to get the MC somewhere then you're, as far as I'm concerned, obligated to explain it directly later. By not explaining it immediately, you're just saying that this is better left in suspense for now.

However if it's not directly important to plot advancement and it's part of the metaphysics of your world then I'd actually enjoy it more left a mystery. What I would be interested to see in a story like what you're describing is that by the end of the book (but not before) the metaphysics of the world has been totally explained. However it hasn't been spelled out for me everything that the metaphysics affects. So I can read through the book a second time later and having already achieved the understanding of the metaphysics from the first read-through, discover all the things you hopefully included which are obviously facets of the metaphysics but the reader wouldn't recognize it until the end of the first read-through. The swamp ninjas could be one of those things. If you were going to do it that way, I would want to see more than one thing that I could go back through and discover for myself how it clearly fit into the metaphysics though.


----------



## Zophos (Jul 29, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> Part of writing is deciding what to reveal to the reader and when. But is there ever a time when some things should just remain a mystery in the reader's mind? Is it ever okay, or even preferable, to leave the reader in the dark and let them guess "what _really_ happened?" I'm talking about this primarily with respect to backstory. Are there instances when it might be better to leave the reader in the dark about where something came from or "what really happened back then"?
> ...



I absolutely think there are times you should leave things out. Not only as an element of mystery, but also as an actual plot device. Par Lagerkvist's Barabbas comes to mind as a supreme example of not tipping your hand to the reader. He leaves out his own beliefs and any in-situ description of what the protagonist actually thinks and feels and completely leaves the reader guessing. In that case, making the reader think was the point.

In your case, I don't see anything wrong with leaving out details based on your description. If you want your swamp ninjas to be an elemental (in the literary sense, not the magical sense) or fundamental portion of your narrative, there's nothing wrong with leaving some of the back-story off the table. Exposing it implicitly or indirectly is a fantastic way to make it more elemental and fundamental. Though, that's awfully difficult to pull off.


----------



## Lawfire (Jul 30, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> They're not of much importance in the grand scheme of things, but I'm planning for their encounters to leave a real impact on the reader and provoke questions like "what are they?" and "where did they come from?" Bits and pieces of clues to their backstory are actually embedded in the overall narrative, though they might not be recognized as such at first. So should I show the reader how the pieces fit together, or should I let the reader come up with their own theories, even though I have a canon backstory for them already thought out?



I think it would be better to keep the mystery alive. If you embed tidbits and clues, and you can really draw the reader in, your story becomes that much deeper (IMO). If you can find the right amount of information to include, you may be able to draw readers to a future piece. You could have a separate short story based on the Mist, or include more of them in a future work in the main series (if it is a series).


----------

