Misdirection for suspense/plot twists - what's acceptable and what's dishonest?
Note: I'm primarily asking this question because while Surtsey, the original asker of the question didn't actually ask a thing (and instead copy-pasted an excerpt of a novel) I believe it's a worthwhile question to ask. With that in mind, let's begin.
Sometimes, tension, drama, or a twist can only be preserved by withholding certain information from the reader. This can be done via a variety of means, such as using a limited POV (where the drama/tension/twisted is experienced by both a character and the reader, as they both know as little as each other) or setting up a red herring, a form of misdirection. There are other kinds of misdirection, but too much of it, and a twist can be considered an 'Ass Pull', that is, pulled from a writer's arse.
A good example of this would be in M Night Shamaylan's Devil, in which several sinners are trapped in an elevator, dying one by one. It's obvious that it's the Devil doing this, but for an extra 'twist', it's revealed a random pickpocketing old lady previously killed was, in fact, the devil, despite there being no previous indication of this (or indeed, there being a need for any of those people to be the Devil considering he's a supernatural entity).
So, with this in mind, where is the line drawn between 'cheating' and 'fair play' with regards to misdirection? I personally have a few takes on the issue:
- Outright lying to the reader is a no-no. A POV character can come to an erroneous conclusion, but it must be honest as far as the POV character knows.
- Any information a POV character knows should not be arbitrarily hidden just to preserve tension. If the plot twist is just magically known all along by every in-universe, but not the reader, it reads as odd.
- Red herrings are legitimate, but should not be egregious. If every piece of evidence points to the red herring and none to the truth, even upon a re-reading, it's a poorly-constructed drama/mystery.
What do you lot think? Is there an objective line, and if so, where is it drawn?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/38910. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
The problem I always have with this question, and any other question that asks, directly or indirectly, about our readers' knowledge is that no two people ever come at a story from exactly the same place. What I see as a pointless attempt to disguise information or build tension for the "big reveal" many another person sees as clever bit of foreshadowing. They don't instantly recognise the clues for what they are saying and I do, and the same is true in reverse in many other cases; other people see the forest while I'm still looking at the trees even after the answer has been revealed.
In short you can't actually write a story that hides/reveals everything you want hidden, or revealed, to the audience. Not in key parts nor in the narrative as a whole. Give readers the information you want them to have and let the chips fall where they may.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/38915. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
I think the line is subjective, and relates to whether the typical reader will feel like the narrator (that is not the author) cheated or tried to trick them.
Of course the author tried to trick them, that isn't the point. It is if the narrator did. So if you are writing 3rd person omniscient, the narrator knows everything, and pretty much all deception is off limits. Perhaps the narrator can give a cryptic clue, like "Mary did not know how wrong she was," but then the reader knows Mary's perception is wrong, the omniscient narrator is not lying by omission and letting the reader believe Mary's logic was sound.
If you are writing 1st person, or 3rdP Limited, then the narrator only knows what the POV character knows, so deceptions have wide range. But then, the stumbling block becomes plausibility, the MC(s) that are deceived must have plausible reasons for being deceived. It can't just sound good and understandable at the point of deception, it must still sound good and understandable after the reveal. It can't seem like "this character would never fall for that." If the reader goes back and reads the scene where the MC was deceived, knowing the MC is being deceived and how, the reader must still finish saying "Okay yeah, that could happen, and this sounds like the MC."
My favorite example of this is "The Sixth Sense." I watched it as soon as it came out, and did not expect the twist. But I also watched it again, immediately, and ... sure enough, every clue was there throughout the film, and I just missed it. There isn't a single instance where MNS cheats us, it is just done so well that we miss the clues that were in plain sight.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads