Is it ok to omit info as narrator?

[Devon.Q.Ly]

Hi Guys,
My story is written from an omniscient point of view, but there is a section where I don't particularly want to name the characters who are talking or reveal who exactly is talking.
I guess I'm trying to not give away everything hopefully let the character's voice reveal who he is.
The problem is that this character has already been established much earlier.

Is this something ok to do?
Or is it customary to name who's talking / performing action if they have already been shown / established earlier?

Thanks a ton
- Dev

 

[Brian G Turner]

It is something that is done - Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card immediately comes to mind.

However, with everything, take care - it's an older book so I'm not sure whether it would be as acceptable now.

 

[JonH]

I'd say yes.

There's more than one type of omniscient, and the narrator omniscient can reveal or withhold anything you want. To me that's the best reason for going omniscient.

 

[Overread]

I've read a couple of books where the author gets lax when doing a conversation with more then two people or where one person joins in mid-conversation. If I, as a reader, get lost on what's happening I'm likely to fault the book and might even stop reading. Because the book has thrown me - I don't want to re-read the same segment 5 times over to work out who is saying what to who, especially if the authors intent is to confuse me and thus leave me unable to understand what has happened.

By all means have two "unknown" characters (even if they are known to the reader from earlier) talking; just be sure that I can work out who many and who is saying what even if they don't have names/faces. Mystery of an event is one thing - but confusion is quite another.

 

[Devon.Q.Ly]

Thanks for the feedback guys,
Really appreciate it.

Brian : I'll check out Ender's Game (movie was so-so but I'll still read the book )

Overread :
I know exactly how you feel.
Most of the events and dialogue so far have tagged the character directly or indirectly by way of names in dialogue.

In this case I am intentionally going out of my way to create a bit of mystery and while I am not directly referencing the character there's his voice, manner of speaking and some pretty big hints in the dialogue.

I'm hoping it gets the reader a tiny weeny bit more engaged as they'll have ramp their imagination into full gear.
If I can leave the reader thinking "I'm pretty sure it's X but what if" scenario then that scene have done its job.

 

[barrett1987]

Ender's Game was an easy read but once you know the ending it loses something.

Do read it though, its short and one of those books you HAVE to read at least once.

 

[Mr Orange]

for me, there'd have to be a reason within a scene as to why the characters aren't "seen"

 

[Kissmequick]

I'm positive I've read this in mystery/thrillers -- a character is introduced (not necessarily POV) and a later chapter has the Unnamed Bad Dude doing stuff. It is later revealed they are the same.



Agatha Christie famously did a whodunnit from the murderer's POV so the reader was unaware it was him until the big reveal. Unreliable narrators are common. It's just another version of that. Deliberately not naming the POV/withholding info can be irritating but...

I think it's probably quite hard to do well, but it can be done. I think the trick is to make the reader not feel info is being withheld for a big FOOLED YOU! later. Tricky but doable.

 

[sknox]

It is ok if it works. Not ok if it doesn't.

Truly. It's all in the execution. Any number of "no-no" techniques have been implemented by successful authors.

But, also truly, why do you want to be coy about this? Ask yourself, is this something that is absolutely indispensable to telling this story? If the story requires it, then fine, give it a shot. But if it's author who wants it, it's time to call in the hard-eyed editor.