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.

 

[Penpilot]

It's a delicate balance. To me it's all about being in the character's head and what's immediately on their mind. If something big and important to them is immediately on their mind, then it's cheating when you hide it. Now, on the flip-side, I think it's totally valid for someone to break the POV character's train of thought and distract them just as they are about to reveal some juicy bit, but use this sparingly. Do it too much and the reader won't like it. It's like being too much of a tease.

• 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.
  
• 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.

If something as I mentioned above, if it's important to the characters and is on their minds at any point, it's unfair to hide it.

• It's meant to be somewhat of a surprise. I think people will say "What the hell?" when they finish reading the book.
• 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.

For a surprise ending to work, you have to at least leave clues for the reader to foreshadow the ending. It has to flow logically as a direct possibility for the ending based on the information presented subtly during the telling of the story. If it isn't set up and information is directly withheld unfairly, then it's the story trying to trick the reader in a way that's going to make reader pissed off instead of be wowed.

Yes, there's holding back information to create tension, but I think that line of thinking is overrated. Revelation can create just as much tension if not more.

If you take a standard mystery novel where the killer is revealed at the end. There's tension in trying to find out who the killer is for the reader. But if you flip that a bit and have the reader know who the killer is right from the start, the author can set up situations filled with other types of tension as the killer interacts with people. Any time the killer is alone in the room with someone there'll be a question of if they'll kill that person. It can add tension to the seemingly innocent things they say. An innocent phrase like, "Oh, I'd love to babysit," becomes quite dark if you know it's from the mouth of a child molester. OR "Oh, you be quiet or I'll strangle you." Can go from innocent hyperbole in a conversation to real menace if it's from the mouth of a killer.