Signpost or Billboard?

[psychotick]

Hi,

In my view it depends on what you're trying to convey to the reader. As a reader I'd be peeved if at the end of the book the shotgun comes out and there was never any indication that there was one. It would seem a deus ex machina ending and I don't really want that. So I think you need to foreshadow it in some way.

I'd go for the hints and few references approach if the intent is for the shotgun to be whipped out at the end as some sort of surprise. But I'd use the heavy flagging of the shotgun approach if the point is not for the shotgun's appearance to be a surprise but rather a meaningful part of storyline where things have been building up to My Little Pony getting pelleted for some time.

And as the writer its your responsibility I suppose to make sure that it all works well. That you haven't killed the surprise by overflagging the shotgun early on, or spoiled the emotional angst of the shotgun by underflagging it previously.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[BWFoster78]

I don't favor doing anything under the assumption that you're so clever or subtle, and your readership so dimwitted, that you need to hammer at them or they won't get what you're saying (I realize that's not that you are saying, BWFoster, I'm just making a generalized statement).

There are always going to be some who don't get it, I suppose, but I think you're much better off catering to the more astute, intelligent readership. There are a hell of a lot more of those than authors seem to think.

In other words, I'd completely disregard readers in category 3(b). They're a small minority, and changing the work for their benefit can harm the work and at the very least detracts from it from the viewpoint of your other readers.

I agree completely.

The problem is that my inclination when someone points out a "problem" is to fix it. Then, I step back a second and say, "Does this really need fixing?" If I come to a conclusion that it doesn't, sometimes a little doubt creeps in that says, "Maybe you're wrong and failing to fix it will completely ruin the book."

Discussions like this one discussing ideal writing philosophies really help.

Thanks!

Brian

 

[Guru Coyote]

Sometimes, when a "Does it need fixing" doubt starts to creep in... what I do is look at the part in question and think about how I could change it so that the 'problematic' part no longer is there..
That is a bit like using tools like Pro Writing Aid. The actual fix is not it suggests, but by changind my writing so that it no longer complains... I've often achieved a new level of clarity.

Maybe what that boils down to is: take the reported issue as a hint that *somethig* if off. But fixing the reported issue is sometimes not the solution... it might be something else.

 

[Penpilot]

I think the problem lies in: Will the reader get that P + H + A = W, X, or Y? And, more to the point, is it the author's responsibility to make sure that the reader does understand the equation?

Stated another way: As long as the equation exists and is possible to be inferred, what is the author's responsibility to help the reader understand how he got his answer?

Ah... Ok... You can't hold the reader's hand. They have to do some work too. I try to hide the parts of the equation in plain sight. I would probably never write something like "There was a gun on the mantle." I would mix mentioning the gun among mentioning other things in the room that may or may not be important. As for how this would work with character development, it's kind of the same thing. Hide it among the details of the character. I try to reinforce the existence of these parts subtly throughout the story.

As for the reader adding it all up, at the turning point, sometimes, but not always, I like to make a small callback to one or two of the key parts to the equation, reminding the reader of some of the reasons for the conclusion, but regardless of that, I always try to acknowledge the conclusion in some way. If the reader doesn't understand how the answer was derived after you've shown them the parts of the equation in a fair manner, then they weren't paying attention enough. It's on them. But acknowledging the conclusion lets the reader proceed on firm footing even if they don't know how they got to where they were.

The problem is that my inclination when someone points out a "problem" is to fix it. Then, I step back a second and say, "Does this really need fixing?" If I come to a conclusion that it doesn't, sometimes a little doubt creeps in that says, "Maybe you're wrong and failing to fix it will completely ruin the book."

For me, I always bet on myself if I'm unsure of if a piece of advice is correct or not. Sometimes it backfires in a big way, but that mistake will probably never be made again. It's better to flop on your own and learn a lesson rather than proceed blindly and succeed without understanding.

Part of it is about developing your own instincts and learning when to trust yourself. When a critique points something out, most times I aware of the possible problem, and they're just reaffirming my suspicions. When something I'm not aware of gets pointed out, I have one of three reactions. One is like a light switch turning on and I immediately know they're right. The second reaction is I know they're wrong. The third is the middle ground, and when I can't really decide if they're right or wrong after a long think on it, then I default to me being right.

 

[Feo Takahari]

I've noticed that when I put up one signpost, a lot of readers miss it, and consequently don't get what the hell happens in the ending. When I put up four or five, none very large, they're likely to notice at least one, and that gives them enough of a grip to at least understand what's going on.

 

[Weaver]

I've noticed that when I put up one signpost, a lot of readers miss it, and consequently don't get what the hell happens in the ending. When I put up four or five, none very large, they're likely to notice at least one, and that gives them enough of a grip to at least understand what's going on.

Lucky you. I've had stories where I all but hit the reader over the head with several signposts and they still didn't get it.

 

[Xaysai]

Even with a beta reader call out, I'm not sure "fixing it" is justified.

My theory is that there are three types of readers when it comes to situations like this:

1. A lot of readers aren't going to pay any attention to this kind of thing one way or the other. They'll go along with however you present the characters without any question unless you do something that clearly contradicts what you've established. For this type, you have to make a pretty blatant mistake in order for them to notice it. On the other side of things, they're also unlikely to notice, except perhaps purely on a subliminal level, the effort you put into subtly setting up the conflict.

2. Some readers are going to completely get what you did. They'll marvel at how subtle and complex your characters are because of the deftness of the way you handled it. I don't think many readers fit this category.

3. Some readers will interpret something you wrote differently than you intended. These readers, I think, can be broken into two categories:

A. Some of those will adjust their opinion of your character based on the new information and move on.

B. Some of those will get annoyed because they'll see the new information as contradictory.

I hate to adjust what my story simply to meet the desire of a subset of one type of reader. If it were a clear mistake, that would be one thing. Since I feel that, in this case, the problem lies with a subjective interpretation on the part of the reader, I'm not sure a revision to make it more clear would be justified.

That's kind of the crux of the whole question: To what lengths should an author go to make sure he's not misunderstood?

Wow, this is a great point which has a ton of real world application for me.

stick with me while I make a point which I hope is relevant.

I work in sales consulting, and 99% of my job is training and motivating a sales force numbering in the thousands, and ranging from entry level to senior management. This means teaching entry level "client facing" employees how to sell, and those who supervise the entry level employees how to maintain training, create excitement and engagement surrounding a rather mundane job, how to recognize top performers and what a conversation should look like with those who can't or won't sell.

Because I deal with so many different levels within the organization, and because I deal with every possible type of employee along the spectrums of educational or socio-economical backgrounds, and differing motivation, aptitude, morale and engagement levels, etc., I have to put a tremendous amount of thought into how I communicate with every single person I work with so they get the greatest benefit from it.

Over time, it's become easy for me to pick up on what someone needs from me to have a productive and successful interaction, because they are sitting in front of me and I can judge by their facial expression, body language, tone, focus, engagement, as well as verbal cues. If I need to dig deeper to find out what this person needs from me to be happy and/or successful, I'm armed with hundreds of different clever questions to ask which will give me the information I need without them even knowing that I am mining them for data.

I've never thought about this before, but as an author, you don't have that luxury. It's like you are giving a presentation and people either take it or leave it based on their own personal preference and you never know the difference, and I've never thought about how scary that is.

During my persuasive arguments instruction, I always advise people to preempt questions, comments or concerns that any dissenters might have BEFORE giving the dissenter a chance to raise them.

As such, I almost wonder if you have to layer the signposts: "super subtle" for the astute reader, "subtle" for the average reader and "not so subtle" for the person who might not get it, in an attempt to proactively cater to many different readers and hope that your intelligent readers can appreciate the "super subtle" and "subtle" cues enough to not be insulted by knocking them over the head with the "no so subtle" cues for the sake of the people who can't put two and two together.

 

[BWFoster78]

As such, I almost wonder if you have to layer the signposts: "super subtle" for the astute reader, "subtle" for the average reader and "not so subtle" for the person who might not get it, in an attempt to proactively cater to many different readers and hope that your intelligent readers can appreciate the "super subtle" and "subtle" cues enough to not be insulted by knocking them over the head with the "no so subtle" cues for the sake of the people who can't put two and two together.

The problem is that it's not possible to do this without adding more scenes (or at least expanding existing scenes) and more words. What's more important: Making sure that some readers won't miss a minor point or keeping your pace/writing tight? I tend to go with the latter.

 

[Zero Angel]

I don't think you should worry about people that assume something wrong and get annoyed with you, although you should definitely go back and make sure you're not misrepresenting your character(s)/plot. You really can't please everyone, you know?

On the other hand, many people don't get subtleties and have a hard time following complex plots, but still stick along for the ride. I'm starting to think that this is a large portion of consumers with how obvious the billboards are in most modern media. Anything you can do to help them (without being an info dump of Dumbeldore proportions) would probably be worth it. As in, after the reveal or after you think everybody should have figured out the reveal.

The shotgun example along with "tight writing" is one reason why most things you watch on TV or on the movies is so predictable however. If they're taking the time to mention it, it is going to come back in the last act.

One thing I think people that choose signposts do that they shouldn't, and I'm probably guilty of this as well, is to use too many signposts. Very recently this ruined the last Batman movie for me. By the first signpost I was going, well that's going to come into play later. By the second signpost I said, that's still not ready for resolution yet? And by the third signpost I was flipping out, "OH COME ON! THIS IS JUST BAD WRITING!"

Spoiler: Batman

How many times were they going to mention the bloody autopilot?

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Personally, I'm a fan of both the signpost and the red herring, used in tandem. After all, most of our narrators are unreliable, and people, fictional or otherwise, will notice many things - not all of them will point them in the right direction. We see nothing wrong with making a reader work a little. If the reader is engaged enough to put out effort in trying to figure out what is really happening, then they will keep turning pages.

 

[Sheriff Woody]

You've all probably heard the old adage that goes something like: If you have a shotgun in the first scene, you need to use it in the last. And, if you use a shotgun in the last scene, it needs to appear in the first.

There are ways, however, to emphasize or minimize the appearance of said shotgun.

If you mention it in passing as a setting detail, putting up a signpost that can be easily overlooked if you will, the reader is likely to forget about it. If you go on about it and connect the character's emotions to it, sorta like putting up a huge billboard with flashing lights, it will stand out in the reader's memory.

The question is:

What is the author's responsibility when it comes to laying the foundation for plot developments, character actions, etc.?

If you pay something off later on, it needs to appear earlier in the story - and have a function that relates to its initial appearance.

If you introduce something that is clearly not being used at the time, the reader will deduce that it must have some use later on, and this can give away your pay-off.

To camouflage this, give the item in question a purpose in the scene in which it first appears. This way, the reader will remember the item, but not assume it will show up later because it already served one purpose. They won't even know it's a set-up for a later pay-off.

The other night, I watched an animated movie called Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs. This movie is an absolute masterclass in set-ups and pay-offs. I definitely recommend it. So many jokes that you think were through pop up later on. It's fantastic.

 

[Trick]

I voted signpost but largely because billboards repulse me. Why not use a poster board? If your twist or surprise is somewhat confusing without explanation, even to intelligent friends and family who read it before publication, then less subtle hints are needed. But just because some readers don't put the effort forth doesn't mean you need a forty foot glowing sign on Main Street saying, "LOOK, A SHOTGUN!!!!!"

I think this all depends on the level of complexity. Ask yourself, "How long did it take me to come up with this twist (or character development)?" and "How smart am I, really?"

If it just popped into your head and you're not an evil mastermind then a signpost should do. If, on the other hand, you're a registered genius and it tooks weeks of plotting and outlining to iron out your perfect twist/surprise then perhaps you need a billboard, if a poorly lit one.

Sidenote: As long as you don't drop hints and subtle connections a hundred times and then never resolve them whatsoever, I'll read your book and thank you for sharing your work. I recently read a Detective/Mystery that had two interwoven plot lines and only resolved one.... no sequel to follow either. I nearly vomitted in disgust and rage.

 

[Zero Angel]

I voted signpost but largely because billboards repulse me. Why not use a poster board? If your twist or surprise is somewhat confusing without explanation, even to intelligent friends and family who read it before publication, then less subtle hints are needed. But just because some readers don't put the effort forth doesn't mean you need a forty foot glowing sign on Main Street saying, "LOOK, A SHOTGUN!!!!!"

I think this all depends on the level of complexity. Ask yourself, "How long did it take me to come up with this twist (or character development)?" and "How smart am I, really?"

If it just popped into your head and you're not an evil mastermind then a signpost should do. If, on the other hand, you're a registered genius and it tooks weeks of plotting and outlining to iron out your perfect twist/surprise then perhaps you need a billboard, if a poorly lit one.

Sidenote: As long as you don't drop hints and subtle connections a hundred times and then never resolve them whatsoever, I'll read your book and thank you for sharing your work. I recently read a Detective/Mystery that had two interwoven plot lines and only resolved one.... no sequel to follow either. I nearly vomitted in disgust and rage.

I regularly get a "surprised by the ending" response from readers. Although people are surprised, I think it's pretty well established and obvious on a second read-through.

That being said, I remember one of my beta readers read it and said it came out of left field and I should include more to make it less surprising, then when they read the final version of it they said, "I'm glad you made that more subtle because it was a little obvious before"

To me, one of the best things about reading a book a second or third time through is picking up on the little things that you may have missed before. It doesn't have to be surprise endings, but even just a look one of the characters gave or a brief action overlooked. A billboard isn't missed by any but the least perceptive and saps some of the joy from a second or third read-through.