Honesty in writing

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm reading A long Way to the small angry planet, which is very good. But the opening chapter uses an unnamed third person pov, and there is no reason to hide it. By five pages later we know exactly who it is. Nothing is gained from it except putting my teeth on edge. Ha-rumph.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

To be honest I have become more hardline on this the older I've got. I don't really have time to led up the garden path by an author. If a story doesn't have a name early on then I don't buy it to find out the reason for it.

 

[Toby Frost]

I agree. This is fast turning into a pet hate of mine (I blame you guys). A lot of stories start with "He" or "The man" and don't use a name for no good reason. There's no real need for it. I think that when you hide things from the reader, it becomes obvious unless you're really careful.

Rogue Male by Geoffrey Household contains an excellent climax where the reader slowly is made to understand how the hero (1st person narrator) will escape from his confinement. The reader is one very small step behind the hero, so that when the hero springs his trap, it's both shocking and entirely feasible in the (gross) context of the story.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I go out of my way when writing, even in first person, to get my MCs name in there. With Mayhem I had his dad yelling at him and in Tendril/Spark or whatever there is a cartoon with a caption.

The final book has Socrates sleep-throwing a clock at someone and they yell to wake him up. (figured if I ever got a publisher to take the series the last book would be allowed a wake up scene)

 

[Denise Tanaka]

I think it's about playing your characters authentically; if the hidden fact is something that'd be forefront in their mind but the author hides it, it's a character fail - unless they're in a fugue state.

pH

Exactly!

 

[Droflet]

My first three books start with the characters name. So there.

 

[HareBrain]

I've just finished a book that feeds nicely into this discussion: Cannonbridge by Jonathan Barnes. After about halfway through, it begins to seem that every chapter ends with something like "And what she read in that letter made her recoil in horror as she realised what was coming and what it meant for humanity". And when do we find out what's in the letter? About three freaking chapters later. And this happens again and again. I guess he's doing this because the secrets when revealed aren't actually as exciting as the suggestion of them, so he needs to wait for the reveal until he's already set up another. And I suppose he thinks he can get away with this because he's an omniscient narrator. But it tests one's patience in much the same way as an asteroid strike would test the structural integrity of a wooden shack.

It's a very extreme case, though. Thankfully.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Patrick Ness had me wanting to chuck The Knife of Never letting Go away for that.

 

[Hex]

One of the Orhan Pamuk's (possibly My Name Is Red) has a bit at the end saying "And if you've been paying attention, you'll know the secret." That drove me nuts (I hadn't been paying enough attention and I had no idea what the secret was) but it didn't make me think less of the book.

I can find names being given right off a bit artificial. It's like descriptions being given as soon as possible -- there's a Laini Taylor that pretty much starts with a girl looking at herself in a shop doorway (it doesn't quite start that way, but within a page or two) and despite what an amazing writer Laini Taylor is, and how much I was looking forward to the book, I just couldn't go on with it.

 

[HareBrain]

Patrick Ness had me wanting to chuck The Knife of Never letting Go away for that.

Is that possible? From the title, I always imagined it had glue on its handle.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I've just finished a book that feeds nicely into this discussion: Cannonbridge by Jonathan Barnes ...it tests one's patience in much the same way as an asteroid strike would test the structural integrity of a wooden shack.

It appears Cornelia Parker has read this book.

pH

 

[Venusian Broon]

I can find names being given right off a bit artificial. It's like descriptions being given as soon as possible -- there's a Laini Taylor that pretty much starts with a girl looking at herself in a shop doorway (it doesn't quite start that way, but within a page or two) and despite what an amazing writer Laini Taylor is, and how much I was looking forward to the book, I just couldn't go on with it.

It could be worse. It could be the girl looking at herself in a shop doorway that is then revealed to be part of a dream she is having that she wakes up from at the end of chapter 1.

 

[Toby Frost]

On a dark and stormy night?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Illuminated by a flickering neon sign, or else how can she see her reflection to describe it on such a dark and stormy night with rain swept streets. Probably she pulls her inadequate coat tighter and pushes wet hair back from her eyes. Is that tears or just the rain?

If she stands there any longer a kerb crawler may mistake her for a street walker, especially as she is inadequately dressed for the weather.

Unfortunately for the kerb crawler, she's actually a teenage vampire as it's 2015, not 1945.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

I'd much rather "It was one a dark and stormy night"; a dream of a shop window or an infodump description in an otherwise great tale than wondering a hundred pages in when I'm going to find out who the character is and when the author is going to figure out what the story might be.

 

[Steve Soldwedel]

So I picked up a novel - first chapter, good close POV. Second chapter is omniscient and hides character names.

I now realise why I don't usually like it - it's not simply distant, it's dishonest. It's purposefully trying to keep information from the reader.

Now, there's a time and a place for that - I accept that. In this instance - as in many - it's confusing without needing to be. But it's made me realise how important honesty is in fiction.

Honestly is about taking the reader by the hand and being open about everything - flaws, emotions, events. You can tackle really complex themes this way.

But a writer who doesn't take the reader by the hand, but instead pushes them away? If that's not the intention, then it's simply bad writing. It's being dishonest not only with the reader, but also themselves.

Honestly, I wish agents, editors, and publishers would take better note of what they're producing.

Or maybe I'm just very lucky, that I've had people such as Teresa, and loads of chronners, point out stupid mistakes as I've made them, before trying to be published.

Just ranting, 'tis all. But thought the issue of honesty, rather than specifics of badly done omniscient, might make for an interesting discussion with further contributions.

I wrestle with this, when I write. I like a close third-person perspective, but sometimes I don't know if I should reveal everything or hold some things in abeyance until a more momentous occasion.

Lately, I've been erring on the side of disclosure. I've found, when reading other people's work, that I dislike it when an omniscient narrator withholds from me in a way that doesn't seem to service the plot nor build tension; it just withholds ...

 

[Droflet]

Yep, couldn't agree more. That's why I stick to close third. Oh, and Welcome aboard, Steve.

 

[LittleStar]

I've just finished a book that feeds nicely into this discussion: Cannonbridge by Jonathan Barnes. After about halfway through, it begins to seem that every chapter ends with something like "And what she read in that letter made her recoil in horror as she realised what was coming and what it meant for humanity". And when do we find out what's in the letter? About three freaking chapters later. And this happens again and again. I guess he's doing this because the secrets when revealed aren't actually as exciting as the suggestion of them, so he needs to wait for the reveal until he's already set up another. And I suppose he thinks he can get away with this because he's an omniscient narrator. But it tests one's patience in much the same way as an asteroid strike would test the structural integrity of a wooden shack.

It's a very extreme case, though. Thankfully.

Just to play devil's advocate a little bit, and while I can see the frustration from this I can also see how it might be chocked up to building suspense. Without reading it myself I couldn't attempt to say which, so where is the line? Or are they so far apart that the line means nothing already?

Is omniscient a big factor here, if the narrator knows what's in the letter and isn't sharing?

I know they're probably silly questions, but I read a writing book a few months ago (I can't remember which, but is one of the biggies) that kept talking about honesty in writing, and never actuall saying what that meant, so I struggled with the concept, hence following this topic closely. I often need things explained letter by letter to be confident I know whats gong on it seems

 

[HareBrain]

Just to play devil's advocate a little bit, and while I can see the frustration from this I can also see how it might be chocked up to building suspense. Without reading it myself I couldn't attempt to say which, so where is the line? Or are they so far apart that the line means nothing already?

There is a line, but it's probably a personal one. I was quite happy with this technique for the first half of the book (as I have been happy with it when used in other books). But it just got so frequent and extreme, it became tedious -- and worse, it began to seem that the artificial building of suspense by withholding information was becoming all the story there was. As a result, I lost faith in it and started skipping sections to get to the "answers", increasingly suspicious that they would not be anywhere near as interesting as the story had suggested.

Is omniscient a big factor here, if the narrator knows what's in the letter and isn't sharing?

I think this is what makes the omni narrator a risky device for those who don't know exactly what they're doing -- it opens up a toolbox of techniques not available to those who write in close-third, and one of these is the right to withhold information the character would not only know, but be fully focused on. It's a valid technique, used sparingly, but easy to misuse.

For a close-third character to read a letter for the first time containing shocking news, the POV should at least contain the gist of it, I'd say -- unless it cuts away it that point, which is a valid technique (though it can also be frustrating for the reader). For her to read it, put it away and hold a subsequent conversation without its contents coming to her thoughts would seem nonsensical.

I know they're probably silly questions

Not at all. Hope my replies have been helpful.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I read a writing book a few months ago (I can't remember which, but is one of the biggies) that kept talking about honesty in writing, and never actually saying what that meant

I think there is a very good chance they were talking about something very different from the discussion here. Here we are talking about the writer's power to trick or mislead readers in order to achieve certain effects, and when and how some writers misuse it (or not) as a lazy way of creating interest they might otherwise have created by ... well, writing better.

But usually when writers talk about honesty they are talking about characters and events and whether the things characters think and do are what real people would think and do in the same circumstances and whether the consequences are credible, rather than the author manipulating it all in order to make things interesting or, worse, to pursue an agenda, regardless of the fact that none of it is plausible.