Forum: Author Hangout

Generally, the traditional limitation on first person was that the narrator relates only what he was aware of at the time of the events he relates as he gets there.

Wouldn't that depend more on tense than first vs third person?

Why should that be a limit for a first person past tense story?

How the information was obtained doesn't need to be shared, of course. The fact that the information wasn't available to the MC at the time, however, is. Otherwise, it's confusing - why did the MC act in such a way, if he had that knowledge? It changes the perception of the characters by the reader. That the information was discovered later must be mentioned if such information is revealed at a point in the narration that the narrator didn't have that information.

The fact that the information wasn't available to the MC at the time, however, is. Otherwise, it's confusing - why did the MC act in such a way, if he had that knowledge?

I'm not getting why you think that would be confusing with first person past tense.

Ok. Guy presume that some gorgeous redhead asked the MC out. She then completely fucks him over (not in a good way). Later, he finds out that she had a reputation as a coldhearted cheating slut golddigger.

Now, if he were to relate the story, and mentions her reputation at the time she asked him out? Well, that means he's a dumbass who deserved what happened. If he mentions her rep, but in an aside with "I wished I knew then, but she was known for..." then the meaning is very different.

Something which is/was key to his decision making yes, but I don't see that as generally applicable to ANYTHING he might have learned learned later.

Well, if he possibly had a way to know or at least allege what he claims and it's just background not influencing his decision making in any meaningful way, yes. At worst, he may come out as unrealistically knowledgeable, but it may be possible to insert the smartass comments in a different voice suggesting those coming from distance of time.

Then, it's even possible to argue that any information not part of narrator's decision making is superfluous...

If just a way to relate future world history events is sought and the narrative isn't very tightly following but slipping in a distance now and then, then there's probably worth mentioning forms like:

"It was when moon mining started when I..."

Well, if he possibly had a way to know or at least allege what he claims and it's just background not influencing his decision making in any meaningful way, yes.

For stuff that does affect the MC's decision making, I would agree that it shouldn't be put in early. However, while doing so may affect reader perception of the MC in negative way, that's not something I would call confusion.

At worst, he may come out as unrealistically knowledgeable

I don't think that's a real possibility. With a first person past tense story, the MC as narrator, as a logical necessity, knows things that the MC as character does not.

I don't think that's a real possibility. With a first person past tense story, the MC as narrator, as a logical necessity, knows things that the MC as character does not.

True. He knows how everything turns out. However, he doesn't reveal that information until the narrative reaches that ending.

If a narrator wants to reveal information he obtained at a point later than the point in the narration in which he wants to reveal it, he pretty much has to do it as an aside to the reader and reveal that he didn't know it at the point the narration was at.

If a narrator wants to reveal information he obtained at a point later than the point in the narration in which he wants to reveal it, he pretty much has to do it as an aside to the reader and reveal that he didn't know it at the point the narration was at.

Not necessarily.

The narrator shouldn't reveal details that come out in the process of the story early. But that's a spoiler issue, not a reader confusion issue.

I don't think that sort of thing applies at all to purely background information that the narrator didn't learn until years later long after all the events of the story were long over.

The narrator shouldn't reveal details that come out in the process of the story early. But that's a spoiler issue, not a reader confusion issue.

It's certainly going to lead a reader to ask "why the fuck is the moron doing this when he knows that this other thing is true?"

It's certainly going to lead a reader to ask "why the fuck is the moron doing this when he knows that this other thing is true?"

Yes, but that's because the author has in a way mislead the reader about the character's motives/knowledge in a way that is disconnected from the characters actions. It's also possible to create such a disconnect without "future" information.

I agree, such information generally shouldn't be reviled early, but I don't see it as confusing the reader. The reader properly understands what they've read.

Lets take a different kind of information. Background information like a secondary character's name or occupation.

MC interacts with a cop in one scene. The cop's name never comes out during the story and the MC as narrator didn't learn the cop's name until long after the events of the story being told.

Do you really think the narrator needs to go through "I found out years ago that the officer's name was..."

So, basically, you're talking about info that's irrelevant?

Who cares what the pig's name was? Unless it becomes important later.

But even then, if the narrator's character (in your example) later gets a phone call from the donutphage and he doesn't recognize the name (even though he apparently knew it hours before, and he's otherwise shown a remarkable facility for remembering people - or approximations thereof such as cops, lawyers, politicians, clergy, or used car salesmen - then it's gonna seem strange)

But even then, if the narrator's character (in your example) later gets a phone call...

And I had previously said:

The narrator shouldn't reveal details that come out in the process of the story early.

In my opinion, an author who tells the reader what will happen before it happens has wasted the time and effort they invested in creating a situation

Well, I could imagine possible advantages.

Say, wrapping up a side plot after a point it is no longer profitable for the main tread to explore, or providing closure for characters leaving the story.

... that was the last I talked with him. I thought him being an asshole for never calling back, but actually he had died in a car accident three days later.

Sure there could be an actual later scene where the point of view character learns that fact, but the natural order may put it so much out of focus by then it would only confuse things, and/or a whole scene just for that may be wasteful.

Or sometimes a tense situation needs defusing so it can be glanced over, if immediate details are irrelevant to the larger story or would only add unnecessary complexity, while aftermath of the situation matters.

...when we started launch sequence of the ship it failed. Well, the bubble modulator Gary had bought from traveling alien junk trader had been counterfeit, but at that time we of course had no equipment to diagnose that. So we spent next three days in futile testing only getting more baffled, and then...

A character's ignorance of certain facts at a given point in a story is part of why the character acts in a particular fashion. Telling the reader that the character will learn certain facts in the future is nothing more than trying to protect the character's reputation.

Telling the reader facts learned by the character at a later date isn't the problem. Telling the reader facts learned by the character at a later date and not making it clear the character didn't have the information available at the time is a problem.

Look at it this way: if the story is being told about the MC investing in various stocks (let's assume it's not a time travel/DoOver story) and the MC takes some major risks that pay off. If he (as narrator) reveals information that makes the story look to the SEC as a confession of insider trading, that's idiotic...particularly if it's information the MC later gained.

It's totally ok to reveal information that the MC later acquired, but only if it's made clear the MC didn't have it at the time.

A character's ignorance of certain facts at a given point in a story is part of why the character acts in a particular fashion. Telling the reader that the character will learn certain facts in the future is nothing more than trying to protect the character's reputation.

Telling the reader facts learned by the character at a later date isn't the problem. Telling the reader facts learned by the character at a later date and not making it clear the character didn't have the information available at the time is a problem.

Look at it this way: if the story is being told about the MC investing in various stocks (let's assume it's not a time travel/DoOver story) and the MC takes some major risks that pay off. If he (as narrator) reveals information that makes the story look to the SEC as a confession of insider trading, that's idiotic...particularly if it's information the MC later gained.

It's totally ok to reveal information that the MC later acquired, but only if it's made clear the MC didn't have it at the time.

Why spoil that suspense and drama by revealing what will happen in the future?

"Stress and nervous tension are now serious social problems in all parts of the Galaxy, and it is in order that this situation should not be in any way exacerbated that the following facts will now be revealed in advance.

The planet in question is in fact the legendary Magrathea. The deadly missile attack shortly to be launched by an ancient automatic defense system will result merely in the breakage of three coffee cups and a mouse cage, the bruising of somebody's upper arm, and the untimely creation and sudden demise of a bowl of petunias and an innocent sperm whale."

It's words from an old book called Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. When I was first introduced to it, I must have read it and the second book like five times because they are so funny and clever and I still reread them.

Why spoil that suspense and drama by revealing what will happen in the future?

If the information in question is something that would not otherwise come out in the course of the story and is something only learned long after the events of the story took place, what suspense/drama could possibly be spoiled?

If the information in question is something that would not otherwise come out in the course of the story and is something only learned long after the events of the story took place,

If the information in question is something that would not otherwise come out in the course of the story and is something only learned long after the events of the story took place, why give the reader the impression the MC/narrator knew it at the time he could act on that information?

why give the reader the impression the MC/narrator knew it at the time he could act on that information?

1. But does narration necessarily give that impression?

In first person present tense, sure.

In first person past tense, logically, the MC as narrator necessarily knows thinks not known to MC as actor. Any reader who isn't a moron knows this.

2. It might be background information that adds color/flavor to a secondary character, but isn't something that would be relevant to the MC's actions.

1. But does narration necessarily give that impression?

Yes. Because the narrator gives information about what happened in the order it happened, including what information was available at the time. If the narrator reveals information without telling the reader that that information was obtained later, it's assumed the character knew it at the time.

If the narrator reveals information without telling the reader that that information was obtained later, it's assumed the character knew it at the time.

Such an assumption would be patently invalid if the narrator was third-limited. I fail to see why it's any more valid when the narration is first person past tense.

No, if the narrator is in third person and reveals some information at some point in the story, it's assumed the narrator had that information at that time in the story unless otherwise noted. It just doesn't make any difference in third person.

No, if the narrator is in third person and reveals some information at some point in the story, it's assumed the narrator had that information at that time in the story unless otherwise noted. It just doesn't make any difference in third person.

I lost my initial reply due to connection issues.

We'll just have to disagree on this.

In my opinion:

A third person narrator could be relating events based on second hand information.

Far from assuming that anything a third person narrator says he knew at the time of the events in the story, you can't even assume an unknown third party narrator knew anything at all at the time of the events of the story.

Lets consider an oral story for a moment. We are sitting around a campfire and an old man is telling stories of his youth.

Not only would I not assume that everything he relates in narrating the story are things he knew at the time, if I made any assumption at all it would be that he would have trouble separating what he knows now from what he knew then unless there was a specific reason for that difference to be important and therefore memorable.

I would apply the same to a written story.

Well, you really are talking about the possibility of a unreliable narrator. He may just be full of shit, and acting like he knew more at the time than he really did. But as far as a oral storyteller, again...he'd more appropriately offer 'out of character' information as asides. If he's telling the story faithfully, it's limited to what he knew at the time it was happening. He's free to break the fourth wall and let the reader know that he's since learned more, including what he's learnt, but it comes down to whether he's trustworthy or not.

If he's telling the story faithfully, it's limited to what he knew at the time it was happening.

That's kind of the point. In real life, real storytellers even telling real stories first person, can forget what they did and didn't know at any given point in the past.

ETA: Never simply assume as a reader that the narrator is 100% reliable unless it's third-omni

If an author writes a scene to create suspense/drama, then that is the suspense/drama that will be undermined by telling the reader at that point in the story that there is no need to be concerned because . . .

Sure, but not all possible future info would do that.

The only issue that would apply to all possible future info would be the survival of the MC. But then, that the story is being told first person past tense itself necessarily implies that.

But I also recall an author with a first person narrator (the MC) that ends with the death of the MC.

That would be fine if the story is first person present tense.

First person past tense implies that the MC is telling the story to someone else at a later date. Kind of hard to do if the MC is already dead, unless he's telling the story to someone else in the afterlife.

That would be fine if the story is first person present tense.

The ghost of the MC is narrating. Simple enough. Did that long ago, in a murder mystery. MC was the last victim of the killer.

With that in mind, there is no way a 1st person narrator could tell the story after the fact regardless of whether it was told in present or past tense.

But the fiction is that in present tense, the story is being told as it happens, not after the fact.

So in first person present tense, the story would just end as the lights go out for the MC.

I agree it is proper to tell the reader at the appropriate time on the story's timeline that the MC didn't have the information. However, I believe the proper time is when the author reveals the results of the earlier scene.

"If I'd known going into the game that I had a tell, things might've turned out differently. [insert high-stakes poker game, which MC wins by sheer luck after bluffing on the flop, only to be accused of cheating...]"

There's no problem with the narrator expressing regret over a decision that later turned out to be the wrong one at the time the decision is made, done correctly it can just work as foreshadowing.

Ok, good example. If I was gonna do a story like that, I'd probably skip from the initial 'settling in together' scene to the funeral. Because yes, the revelation screws with drama.
OTOH, if I didn't want to be bothered trying to right the story of the older sister's slow decline, or mysterious death, or whatever, and the story was totally meant to be a 'fish out of water' young guy pressed into raising a female child type thing, that revelation allows jumping straight into the story rather than wasting time on the patient wasting away.

I agree with @bk69 and don't see much problem with the scene as is, IF the scene then breaks with the reveal and skips to (much) later events. I would agree that continued exploration of the given scene would be made almost pointless by such revelation, but I would also claim that exactly that is valid goal of such a revelation. It forces a skip out of the scene that narrator doesn't want to explore any further.

The author could continue the hospital scenes right up to the death of Sara, but there would be no hope for her survival. The only reason to do that would be to introduce other factors

Well in that case I would agree that error in narration had been made. A grim foreshadowing could be made without revealing exact information. The last sentence could be something like:

I might not have made that promise if I had known how it would change my life.
or
I might not have made that promise if I had known how serious it was.

Either of those doesn't leave much hope Sara will get any better soon, but there's still possibilities of different twists open.

4. Can be included to add depth to secondary characters or places with no special handling. When the MC learned it has no impact on the MCs actions or the story timeline. When the MC learned it is irrelevant.

For the sake of argument, let's say there's an amusement park (or whatever large scale object) under construction next to main character's school, and then one day all work there suddenly stops and the construction site gets abandoned and kids sneak in and use it for whatever mischief they do.

Meanwhile, there's quite interesting and very much universe defining story (say, of deeply rooted corruption and mob rule and law enforcement struggle against that) behind the fail of the project, with would be beneficial to be narrated because it would greatly help to color future events and attitudes of background characters, things the inhabitants of that world had "with mother's milk," so to say, but otherwise would require multiple recurring explainers for readers benefit later.

However, the exact story couldn't possibly be pieced together without evidence in court documents created two decades later, and even if the kids could possibly have heard rumors and claims to that effect at the time, it's far outside of their current interests anyway. Without attributing the knowledge as later learned it would seem very weird.

because it would greatly help to color future events and attitudes of background characters

Case 1. No future events period.

If the story goes out that far, see case 2

However, the exact story couldn't possibly be pieced together without evidence in court documents created two decades later, and even if the kids could possibly have heard rumors and claims to that effect at the time, it's far outside of their current interests anyway. Without attributing the knowledge as later learned it would seem very weird.

If the story is being told years later by one of the kids, I would find it odd that any characters who would be much affected by the information would feature that much in the story.

That said, you may have found a 5th case that needs a different rule. My whole point in this has been no one blanket rule will cover everything well.