Forum: Author Hangout

Umm... I thought foreshadowing was generally a good thing. And Chekov's gun? Well, yeah, I know about this, but what I'm trying to get a handle on seems way more than just an unexplained thing thrown in. It really goes to the heart of narrative drive. Feels like the author is saying, "I know something you don't, but you'll have to keep reading to find out," and for no real purpose.

Not talking about mystery here, nor the suspense that comes from the characters not knowing something and the reader discovering it along with them. What I'm seeing strikes me as a major flaw in the stories, like the author really expects readers to "hang in there" just to be told what should have been revealed much earlier. Sometimes it's like the author is trying to avoid an info-dump, but ends up just leaving the reader in the dark too much.

It is often used to avoid an info dump.

Yeah, I mentioned that. But is there a name for it when it goes wrong? Something like when the Socratic method just becomes needless obfuscating that hinders student learning rather than encouraging it?

It's not foreshadowing.

I know what you're talking about. It's a lazy, uncreative way of building suspense. One of my favorite authors, Raymond E Feist, did this in his Riftwar books. (I'm not sure which one) but it stands out because Jimmy the Hand keeps saying, "Oh, you'll see!" when he could easily explain what he knows to Locklear (his best friend at the time).

It's a shitty technique that builds suspense. Steven Erickson does this too by getting characters together, creates a needless scene, and right when they are about to get down to business he cuts away so that later in the book, when his characters do something, it seems "Planned" when really you know he had no idea how they were to get where they were going and do what they ended up doing.

The movie, The Martian, has a great example of this in the first minute and thirty seconds. Scientist has an idea, but instead of telling his boss, he laughs and they cut to the next scene after a moment of "suspense" that I call "annoying."

It's Withholding Information that doesn't need to be withheld for anything other than the fact that the writer doesn't know how to incorporate it into the story in an interesting way.

Yes, that's what I'm seeing. Although sometimes, it's seems to be not because they don't know how to incorporate it, it's because that, if it were revealed, the reader would go, "well that's dumb" and quit reading.

I think withholding a dumb idea is the "used car salesman" technique.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun

From that link:

The principle is recorded in letters by Anton Chekhov several times, with some variation; it was advice for young playwrights.

When you are putting on a play, props and set elements can be expensive.

I disagree that this advice is of any relevance to someone writing stories intended to be read.

I've read all your stuff -- one of the very few I read as published -- and I don't remember anything close to what I'm talking about. There have been some great responses to my question, and I've learned stuff, but... Yeah, I don't think I was clear.

In the stories that hit me this way, the author seems to feel that the way to keep reader attention is by hiding what the book is about!

For example, in one story, the main character kept doing things that didn't make sense. It seemed like the story would be going one way, then she would, for no apparent reason, do something inexplicable to send the story in a different direction. However, nothing hinted that figuring out what was going on with the main character was the point of the book. It got so frustrating, I finally skipped to the end, only to find out that she had done even more bizarre and worse things. When I gave the author feedback on how the story hit me, I learned the MC was possessed by a demon. What? No one mentioned demons in the story! There was no hint it was a supernatural tale! What??

As I wrote the above, I just thought what it might be. I never saw The Sixth Sense with Bruce Willis, but from what I understand, it's a story where a sudden reveal at the end totally changes the viewer's understanding of the whole film. Maybe that's what they are trying for?

WAIT, WAIT -- I think I've got it. After writing the last paragraph, I did a quick search and found an article about The Sixth Sense, I saw it called a "twist ending." And in this article about how to write a great twist ending (which notes it is very hard to do), I found this note: "don't buy into the lie that secret background information qualifies as a satisfying twist."

Hmm... that makes more sense. I guess I've never really thought about even trying to write a twist ending. And I've learned something about storytelling. :) It's a good day!

Can anyone think of any stories on SOL with a good "twist ending"?

Too few clues and it's akin to a deus ex machina.

Exactly!