Honesty in writing

[LittleStar]

Ah I see. Thanks Teresa. Despite adding another way to be dishonest into the mix that actually clears up a lot, for me at least.

 

[Zebra Wizard]

For me i find theres nothing wrong with misleading a reader, it all depends on how well it is done. If its obvious and stands out, it will rub the wrong way.

 

[tinkerdan]

What the original post suggest to me is not so much a matter of dishonesty but the with-holding of information for...dramatic effect.

In theatre dramatic effect might be used to draw the viewer closer to the scene.

In its difference: a novel might do this to obfuscate as mentioned; but in many cases it is done primarily to draw attention by alerting the reader to the possibility that they need to pay attention to the description for clues about these people either to discern who they are (meaning the reader already knows them) or at least to remember what happens because it will be important to the story at some later time.

Perhaps I'm more forgiving than some; but I have no problem with these scenes-except in the odd occasion where there is no connection to anything in the novel(which is rare).

I definitely don't feel this falls under a discussion of honesty in writing; but more in one of whether the technique is appropriate and whether it's been accomplished properly.

I have seen this accomplished in many traditionally published books and would question any assumption it was a lack of understanding how to properly write the POV, when it in fact is possibly just a difficult task for newer writers to do well.

 

[LittleStar]

I've been thinking about this for a few months now, as part of my WIP plotting, and I feel it's close enough related to ths question to add in the discussion here ather than a whole new thread.

With regards to what a POV does and does not disclose in close third, how do you go about keeping secrets from the reader without coming across as false? Or is there no legitimate way of doing it, outside amnesia etc.?

My scenario is my MC either witnesses a death or causes said death, but at present I don't want to say which, is it possible that close third from this POV would be able to conceal this? I sort of half like the ambiguity that arises and the reader interpretation, but can't think of a way to pull it off. Besides that it would mean a decent alteration in character obviously, so I'm putting off having to choose if he lowers to the depths of vengeful murder or not... So is there a way, or do I just need to decide which route he takes and roll with the consequences?

 

[AnyaKimlin]

It's possible if you never really discuss the elements that cause the death.

EG say the MC has knocked someone over in a car. Then discuss everything after your MC gets out the car, their feelings, what they saw but never discuss the car journey or even mention they were in the car. Keep creating scenarios whereby the narrative never goes that far back in time.

 

[tinkerdan]

It is possible that you could wade right into the whole thing and milk it for what it's worth::

I've been thinking about this for a few months now, as part of my WIP plotting, and I feel it's close enough related to ths question to add in the discussion here ather than a whole new thread.

With regards to what a POV does and does not disclose in close third, how do you go about keeping secrets from the reader without coming across as false? Or is there no legitimate way of doing it, outside amnesia etc.?

My scenario is my MC either witnesses a death or causes said death, but at present I don't want to say which, is it possible that close third from this POV would be able to conceal this? I sort of half like the ambiguity that arises and the reader interpretation, but can't think of a way to pull it off. Besides that it would mean a decent alteration in character obviously, so I'm putting off having to choose if he lowers to the depths of vengeful murder or not... So is there a way, or do I just need to decide which route he takes and roll with the consequences?

:: While dancing around the notion of who did it; simply by having periodic flashbacks of the event where it is quite evident that the MC is there and what happens is quite clear and yet never quite allow that person to visualize the entire act with the actual hand that commits the damage.

In fact I just recently saw this done quite well by Rosemary Kirstein in The Outskirter's Secret (Steerswoman Series Book 2). It worked quite well because you could always tell that something more had happened than what the character was describing and yet even though it could be one of two ways for it to go it was still quite shocking both in what had happened and the other character responses.

 

[LittleStar]

So it's not cheating to not think of the actual event itself, even though it's would have such an emotional impact? As long as the character is shown to be occupied by the events leading up to it, we can imply that the death is still playing on their mind. Right?

 

[HareBrain]

I think it's legitimate to conceal in close third anything that the character isn't thinking about at the time. If he's evading thinking about it himself, through guilt or whatever, then you can keep the reader guessing. And you're allowed a bit of licence anyway. Ultimately, you have to judge whether the concealment adds to the story (through tension) or detracts from it (by seeming a contrivance to increase tension).

You've just posted again, so ...

So it's not cheating to not think of the actual event itself, even though it's would have such an emotional impact? As long as the character is shown to be occupied by the events leading up to it, we can imply that the death is still playing on their mind. Right?

It's not cheating as long as it doesn't come across as cheating! That might not be helpful, but it's true. But I think you've got a grasp of how you can make it work.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Ultimately, you have to judge whether the concealment adds to the story (through tension) or detracts from it (by seeming a contrivance to increase tension).

And that's exactly it. It mustn't seem contrived. Or clumsy, or artificial. A work of fiction is something contrived by the author, but the reader needs to believe in it while immersed in it.

 

[LittleStar]

Ok thanks, as always, everyone

But I think you've got a grasp of how you can make it work.

I think I have it, and not sure I'll have to change my original plan too much, at least not in first draft when i invariably discover it hasn't worked

 

[Brian G Turner]

I was talking with the family about this yesterday - the need for the writer to be honest about what they are writing. That means ensuring they are putting a lot of their own true experiences into the story.

Oh, I know, the inevitable objection follows that most of us don't have the experience of flying a starship or riding a dragon. But we know what it's like to feel vulnerable, powerful, happy, afraid. We can draw on all those sorts of experiences and simply change the context.

And IMO that's the part that will make the difference between a good writer and a weak one - the ability to open up to the reader.

It also underlines the point about writing what you know - the ability to put more truth in a story to keep it convincing, and dispel suspension of disbelief.

I know Joe Abercrombie has recommended before about being truthful in writing. I didn't understand what he meant at first. Now I think I do.

 

[Vaz]

Yep, I've always took this to mean just being emotionally honest in your writing. Drawing on those emotions Brian has mentioned and putting them fully into the characters and the story.

No half measures y'all!

Also, another facet to this is being honest with your prose. Just write the story how you would actually tell it - don't feast on a thesaurus or three and then regurgitate that into your prose is your prose is not naturally ornate or dense.

V

 

[tinkerdan]

When looking back on the original post and the example given I can almost see where this is less an issue of honesty and more one of choosing how to use the POV.

Since Omniscient POV includes an objective element and if one draws back with that element and reports what is seen then you get what is in that example and in the same token that allows that unless they get closer then they would need to wait until the characters begin to identify themselves or each other. Obviously the author has possibly failed a bit in pulling this off but it is not as much dishonesty or holding back as making a decision about POV.

Getting closer might involve some subjectivity and when I say that I'm not necessarily saying that it requires closeness to the characters as much as it requires that the narrator has a voice, not necessarily a character voice as that would be close to a close third, rather the narrator takes on its own voice with which it comes close to the characters and demonstrates how much they know about these characters without being in the characters voice and that's a different POV than the Objective Omniscient.

However both points of view in the Omniscient's are allowed a certain leverage to tell as much or as little as the narrator decides to tell at the time because that is once again one of the characteristics of those points of view.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

I think it's a question of whether or not to rely too much on easy and obvious tricks like withholding information, instead of working harder at making the writing compelling in other ways.

If the writing is otherwise excellent, keeping back these surprises and springing them at just the right moment may make the story even better.

If the writing is clumsy and amateurish, withholding information may make that even more evident.

 

[Toby Frost]

Oh, I know, the inevitable objection follows that most of us don't have the experience of flying a starship or riding a dragon. But we know what it's like to feel vulnerable, powerful, happy, afraid. We can draw on all those sorts of experiences and simply change the context.

I think that's a very good point. For a long time, I've felt that "write what you know" ought to be "write what you can convincingly depict". Depicting a spacecraft or unicorn convincingly probably means going back to a real-world equivalent to evoke the sense you want: the experience of being on a ship or in a warehouse, say, or the smell or the size of a horse. There needs to be something to overlap with the reader's own experiences.

While the majority of readers won't know what it's like to be falsely accused of treason and deprived of your ancient castle, they will know how it feels to be cheated, or to feel justly aggrieved. I think some writers heap too many woes on the hero, thinking that this will make them relateable. Not only does this begin to feel melodramatic, but after a while the character is very hard to identify with or to depict reacting in a realistic way.

 

[Steve Harrison]

For me, writing what you know means writing what you know about the human condition. If you are writing about and for humans and you have a good idea about how humans tick, you can set your stories in any historical period and anywhere in the universe. The rest is 'just' research and imagination.

 

[Lumens]

For me, the most important honesty is the one directed towards myself. That kind of honesty is harder than it sounds, but writing helps with it. It creates an opportunity for me to be more objective about myself. If the reader picks up on that, it's a bonus.

I still need to learn how to write fiction though.

 

[Liz Bent]

I admit, I'm a novice writer, and it's possible I just don't know how to use or appreciate POV properly. But I *enjoy* reading "movie camera" POV- to me it forces me to take an active role in figuring out what is going on. The dots are not being connected for me, I have to connect them, and I enjoy that mental challenge. I enjoy it while watching movies, and I enjoy it when reading as well. If not enough information is given later to allow me to connect the dots, it might be frustrating- but why would any writer bother with a "movie camera" POV and then not reveal later what was going on so the reader can see if she was correct or not? I've yet to come across that.