Significant Omission

[The Judge]

I was thinking of putting this in GBD, simply in order to discuss examples, but then I thought it might be instructive for us to consider the technique when we're writing. Or perhaps not.

Anyway, at the weekend I picked up a second hand copy of The Return of the Soldier by Rebecca West under the Virago Modern Classics imprint. There's an introduction by Victoria Glendenning, who is herself a novelist and who wrote a biography of West in 1987. West's first book was a study of Henry James, and in Glendenning's intro there's this:

In Henry James, Rebecca West had written of the master's technique of significant omission: "that if one had a really 'great' scene one ought to leave it out and describe it simply by the full relation of its consequences".

She then goes on to show how West does just this in the novel with a scene where the first person narrator stands at a window but covers her eyes so she can't see a meeting in the garden below that will impact on the characters.

My knowledge of James is limited to having read Washington Square donkey's years ago, and repeatedly trying and failing to get into The Golden Bowl which I eventually threw out after it had sat on my shelves unread for well over a decade, so I've no idea if West's comment about his technique is correct.

I was wondering whether anyone else had come across this "significant omission" idea. Off the top of my head, the nearest I can think of is in plays where battles and deaths happen off-stage (eg Lady MacBeth's suicide) and are then reported to the characters on-stage. To a lesser extent in Pride and Prejudice we're not given direct speech when Elizabeth and Darcy are reunited, though that seems more a product of Austen's discretion and reticence than anything else, and for me the really great episodes are when Elizabeth first rejects him and then refuses to conform to Lady Catherine's insolent demands, both of which are seen in full.

In The Return of the Soldier the technique works both in the scene Glendenning mentions and in a later scene where there's another meeting which has even greater impact on the characters, but because we have a first person narrator, it would have felt false to have her there seeing and hearing everything said anyway. Also, in both, the narrator is watching to some extent, so although we're not present when the two people meet, we see one of them walking towards/walking away from the other, and we can imagine what has happened, so it's not wholly off-stage, as it were.

Any other novels where the "great" scenes happen off the page and are then only deduced by what the characters do thereafter? Is it something we should attempt in our writing? Are we short-changing our readers if we omit big scenes? Discuss.

 

[Toby Frost]

I have seen this technique used by that famous pupil of Henry James, David Eddings. There’s a chapter in The Diamond Throne which ends with a young knight looking forward to an exciting battle. The next chapter begins with his body being carried off the field at the end of the battle. As a 10-year-old I was extremely disappointed to have missed out on the bit in between.

Deliberately not putting in the most exciting point could work, but it does sound like a device used by Victorian writers when it looked like their novels weren’t turgid enough. I don’t think that I’ve used this, although I could see that might be worth doing in certain circumstances.

 

[MWagner]

I've seen the technique used a few times, and it can be quite effective. Really, fiction is about how people respond emotionally to things happening. We don't always need to see the action presented in a scene to feel sorrow, anger, or relief in the aftermath, so long as the author was successful in building up the anticipation.

Have you seen Chariots of Fire? Ian Holm can't watch the Ben Cross' final race because he's a professional coach, so he sits alone in a hotel across from the Olympic stadium, hat in hand. He hears the roar of the crowd. He waits. Then he hears God Save the King, and punches a hole in his hat. We didn't need to see the race - the important thing is what it meant to the characters.

 

[LittleStar]

A very interesting thought, that I hadn't considered before.
Off the top of my head there are a couple of battle scenes (my memory was prompted by Toby's input) in GRRM, Tyrion's involvement in one is glossed over entirley, and I think much of the Blackwater battle was offscreen, the whispering wood battle as well. It seems to be something that I would imagine makes large scale battle scenes much easier to tell and help getting the scope across. Though Bernard Cornwell didn't struggle in his Grail trilogy (can't recall if it was close 3rd or omniscient though, maybe that makes a difference?)

 

[tinkerdan]

I'm not sure that I recall this; though I read bit of fiction once called Conundrum and what you describe as the omission begins to sound like a conundrum.

In the conundrum you might have bits and pieces of what is seen along with speculation that characters have and that could also include a full description of what someone saw, with the understanding that they could hear nothing of the exchange. This creates a bit of suspense and of course a lot of speculation. The problem with it is that the speculation could be spot on or no where near what happened because that's the nature of a conundrum.

I think the only way that it is effective is if somewhere within the story there is someone who can explain the entire scene with some verified veracity. Or if it is less important to the story it might work having it as an interesting suspense builder while the reader is left lacking confidence in what actually happened.

 

[Fishbowl Helmet]

Any other novels where the "great" scenes happen off the page and are then only deduced by what the characters do thereafter? Is it something we should attempt in our writing? Are we short-changing our readers if we omit big scenes? Discuss.

I'm not sure it counts as a 'great' omission, but the scene I'm thinking of was a rather important scene to the characters involved. It was basically skipped over and recounted after the fact, mostly as described, but rather than a witness refusing to watch, the author simply chose to skip it, essentially. I think it was more to lessen any 'trigger' effect the scene might have if played out in real time, but that's entirely supposition.

The book is Deed of Paksenarrion by Elizabeth Moon, the scene is the attempted rape of Paks. If I remember right, Moon goes from Paks getting up and leaving a tent (the mess hall?) at the end of one chapter, but at the start of the next she's bruised and beaten and chained to a jail cell wall. It was a jarring jump, but it's really well-done.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think it only works if the author doesn't keep doing it. Readers will become frustrated if they never get to see the exciting parts of a story.

Although this does fit in with the discussion in the thread on love stories, and the decision an author must make about whether to fade to black and skip the sex scene, or to describe what happens in glorious (or lurid, depending on how it is done) detail. If up until that scene the story has been all about the intense physical attraction between the two lovers, then not writing the scene is considered a cop-out by many readers. But if the story is focussed on other ways the characters are drawn to each other, mentally, emotionally, intellectually (or maybe all three), dropping in a sex scene may strike many readers as an unwelcome distraction, a break in the story they've been reading so far, and it is better left out. In that situation, all readers want to know is how the characters feel about what happened and about each other afterward.

Although I can think of some books where—in spite of the fact that the story and the characters really are best served by concluding at or shortly after the first kiss, just the way the writer wrote it—it might have been hilarious to see what happened in the bedchamber on the wedding night.

 

[Toby Frost]

What about Rashomon? It doesn't quite work, as the incident in question is related several times by unreliable narrators, but there's not a single definitive description of the crime.

 

[TitaniumTi]

From memory, Stephen Baxter does this at least once in Proxima. It seemed like rather a cop-out to me, but it might work better in a strongly character-driven story.

Speaking of character, could you have significant omission of a character, who affects events but is only introduced to the reader by the reactions, thoughts and words of other characters?

 

[MWagner]

Sauron?

 

[TitaniumTi]

Sauron?

Yes. I think Sauron is more sinister in LOTR because he is never depicted.

I think significant omission of events might make them more powerful, but only in the hands of a very skilled story-teller.

When I think of parallels in real-world events, events that unfolded in real-time on the television usually have more emotional impact on me than events that were reported after they occurred and these, in turn, have more impact than events I am aware of chiefly because of their impact on history. However, the most heart-wrenching account of a terrorist event that I have read was given by relatives of a victim, who were in their motel room when they heard the explosion.

 

[Maieius]

One example I can think of is Edmund from The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe: he's injured in battle but there isnt much detail of it - only that he's hurt and Lucy saves him with her potion.

Personally, I don't like it, but of course it depends on the scene happening off the page. I think in order to grasp the emotion of the character and their reaction to the situation, we need to experience the event itself as well. However, if the character whose point of view we are reading from isn't present until after the event, it's still perfectly acceptable. It depends entirely on the event happening itself.

 

[HareBrain]

One example I can think of is Edmund from The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe: he's injured in battle but there isnt much detail of it - only that he's hurt and Lucy saves him with her potion.

Isn't there also the bit where Aslan gives him a "talking to" off-stage? You'd think that would be quite a powerful scene that most other authors would want to include.

 

[Maieius]

Isn't there also the bit where Aslan gives him a "talking to" off-stage? You'd think that would be quite a powerful scene that most other authors would want to include.

I think so, it's been a long time since I've read it, it's one I need to reread. My only frame of reference to it right now is the film. I do agree, it would have been a powerful scene. I don't like missing things like this out, it's interesting and moves the story forward. It would have been interesting to see how Edmund took his telling off.

 

[Mirannan]

There's another sort of omission that can actually work quite well. Describing it is a test of my skill - but it's an allusion to facts that a character might know and conclusions they might draw, all without explicitly mentioning the conclusion being arrived at. I'll illustrate this with something from my WIP:

“Which religion do you follow, miss?”

“I am surprised you do not know, good priest. Do they not teach you of other religions during your training? Think, and see whether you can guess. I will give you a clue; I wear other clothes on duty.”

I didn’t want to believe the answer that popped into my head then. Tall, spectacular and beautiful blue-eyed blonde woman with moves like that...

“I think you are usually more martially dressed on duty. But that thought makes all my assumptions crash in ruins, if true.”

So - does this rely too heavily on common cultural baggage? IMHO, just coming out with the info about just who and what the woman in this fragment is wouldn't work as well, But maybe I'm wrong. BTW, the viewpoint character is a Catholic priest - at least some of them probably get some education in comparative religion.

 

[J Riff]

Maybe in general, if a story has a decent-sized cast, it can add depth. Sauron is that way tho I'd never noticed.
A distant threat, an unseen menace, fear generated by a name alone. Heck, leave out entire armies, whole empires of evil villians, as long as the reader has them in the back of their mind. Then maybe a few paragraphs about the utter savagery of the battles, the weapons used, the death-count, and you can let it sit throught the rest of the entire romance fantasy drama and none the wiser. These old-skool writers knew their craft, and were sneaky as well. *)))

 

[Mirannan]

One example I can think of is Edmund from The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe: he's injured in battle but there isnt much detail of it - only that he's hurt and Lucy saves him with her potion.

Personally, I don't like it, but of course it depends on the scene happening off the page. I think in order to grasp the emotion of the character and their reaction to the situation, we need to experience the event itself as well. However, if the character whose point of view we are reading from isn't present until after the event, it's still perfectly acceptable. It depends entirely on the event happening itself.

That particular example probably has something to do with the Narnia books being intended for children. Gory details (literally, in this case) probably aren't appropriate.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Isn't there also the bit where Aslan gives him a "talking to" off-stage? You'd think that would be quite a powerful scene that most other authors would want to include.

Yes, this definitely is done off scene and, I think, might be all the stronger for it. It gave the childlike sense of being talked to by the headmaster and nobody knowing what was said, but sure it must be awful. On that level, it worked.

One Day by David Nichols (?) - there is a significant omission in an early scene that we only find out at the end that changes the reader's perception of everything that went before.

Spoiler

The reader is led to believe the two protagonists had not slept with each other at the start of the book and we later find out they did. It changes the dynamics of the portrayed relationship a lot and makes the end much more poignant.

I had left out quite a few scenes in AH right up to the last round of edits, when Teresa told me they had to go back in. I'd done it for fear of the start being too slow and not hooky enough but she showed me that in choosing the right scenes this didn't need to be the case. And in putting them back in it drew the reader into the full experience and made more sense of later scenes. But I think there's a real skill in knowing what to and what not to.

 

[psychotick]

Hi,

It can work but it has to be used sparingly in my view. There was a book I vaguely remember long ago where the young men of the town were marching off to war and the MC was standing on the sidelines begging people not to go because she knew it would end in disaster. And sure enough the next chapter starts after the battle where the bodies are being picked over by carrion crows. You don't see the battle, but that just serves to make it more terrible somehow.

Cheers, Greg.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Hi,

It can work but it has to be used sparingly in my view. There was a book I vaguely remember long ago where the young men of the town were marching off to war and the MC was standing on the sidelines begging people not to go because she knew it would end in disaster. And sure enough the next chapter starts after the battle where the bodies are being picked over by carrion crows. You don't see the battle, but that just serves to make it more terrible somehow.

Cheers, Greg.

Actually Margaret Mitchell does that well in Gone with the Wind. The Tarleton boys are shown so vividly at the start, all it takes is their names on the list of dead to bring the horror to the reader.