Hiding information from the reader

[jen.nifer]

Hi guys,

I'm in the middle of writing a 3000w story for my writing course. It's in 3rd person limited omni. What I would like to know: if I'm describing a scene, say scene #345, and I deliberately leave out some details, when I get to the end of the story can I then bring up something new that had happened in scene #345? Will the reader feel cheated? It's not like I am changing what had happened in the scene, I'm purposely leaving out that detail; I want to create this mindset for the reader at the end: "oh, well, I didn't he know he had done that back then, but it's just as well that he did..."

Hmmh. What are your thoughts? If this is not going to work, does anyone know how I can get around it?

[JeanneTGC]

It gets done all the time, but as a reader, I hate it.

Agatha Christie excelled at this, and it didn't seem to hurt her career at all.

However, particularly since you're writing for a class where they can and will pick you apart, I'd recommend thinking carefully about WHY you want to hide this from the reader. If it's so you can do the A-HA at the end, maybe there's a better way to go about it.

It also will depend on what type of story this is. In mystery, unless you ARE Agatha Christie, then the reader expects to be given all the same clues as the detective, and then matches wits with them. In other genres, it might be more allowable, but it again depends on both how you do it and why you're doing it this way, and what is gained from why and how you do the reveal.

Readers like to be surprised. Readers do NOT like to be "fooled" or cheated. It's a fine line sometimes.

[TheIT]

POV makes a difference. Is the detail something which is appropriate to the scene but not something the POV character would notice? In that case, leaving out the detail could be fair. Also, is the narrator reliable or unreliable?

If the left out detail is something the POV character did, then I would probably feel cheated if it wasn't described.

What's "3rd person limited omni"? If the POV is limited, how can it also be omniscient?

[jen.nifer]

Thanks for responses so far. They make sense and I will have a good think about my reasons.

To answer your question, TheIT, it's the character number that is limited, not the POV. You get the lowdown on a single character only. That's how I understand it. Someone will no doubt correct me if I'm wrong. :)

[TheIT]

3rd person limited means the story is told through one character's POV at any one time. A story can have different POV characters (rotating viewpoint), but that doesn't make it omniscient.

If you're sticking with the same POV character throughout the entire story, then I think the answer to whether withholding information is fair is based on the previous comments. Is the detail something the POV character would notice? Is the POV character reliable? Is the detail something the POV character has done?

I forget where I read it, but some story had the POV character "putting an item in his pocket" or somesuch, but didn't say what the item was until later when it was used. It bothered me a lot since it felt like the author was cheating by trying to keep the item secret.

Good luck!

[PeeDee]

I keep stuff from my readers all the time. I delight in it. I like the thought that there's a whole set of stuff which is hidden from the readers. Like another story that you wouldn't ever notice going on below the surface. The big trick is to make sure that the story on top, the skin-story, is enjoyable and satisfying all by itself, so that the reader will be content evne if they never see any of the stuff you put underneath.

[JeanneTGC]

I keep stuff from my readers all the time. I delight in it. I like the thought that there's a whole set of stuff which is hidden from the readers. Like another story that you wouldn't ever notice going on below the surface. The big trick is to make sure that the story on top, the skin-story, is enjoyable and satisfying all by itself, so that the reader will be content evne if they never see any of the stuff you put underneath.

I agree that's cool to do, because in repeated readings the reader can find new depths to the story.

But I think Jennifer's talking about a plot point, rather than, say, the underlying reasons why a character does what he does or is the way she is. As in, the POV character looks into the mirror and SEES that he has the mark that identifies him as the murderer, but the reader is never shown what the POV character has seen until it's revealed at the end. To me, that's cheating the reader.

[jen.nifer]

Thanks Pee Dee. That makes me feel better. :)

TheIT, the item in his pocket thing would irk me as well, and is luckily not the same approach I'm using.

Re: the mode, I don't want to debate it, as I'm just doing what is working for me with this particular story. But maybe I can't explain my chosen mode correctly and so I'll post this instead ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_person_limited_omniscient

[jen.nifer]

Plot point...

Ok, I guess I better give an example.

In the scene, the character thinks he has lost his camera but he spots it. So, as he grabs it, I was going to include something like, "... and he fiddles with his camera".

But, not reveal until the end that he had actually taken the memory card out when he had "fiddled" with the camera.


Thoughts?

[Melanie Nilles]

Say exactly what he did. Unless you've given something away that the reader knows why, it will be just one detail that they can go back on and say, "That's why he did that." On the flip side, if a reader understands why, it can be used to build suspense, a good thing. You want the reader to anticipate something happening. That's what keeps them reading.

Melanie

[Elektra]

Plot point...

Ok, I guess I better give an example.

In the scene, the character thinks he has lost his camera but he spots it. So, as he grabs it, I was going to include something like, "... and he fiddles with his camera".

But, not reveal until the end that he had actually taken the memory card out when he had "fiddled" with the camera.


Thoughts?

Seems a bit like authorial intrusion to me. Don't come between the reader and the story.

[James D. Macdonald]

The character knows darned well what he did. If it's important, tell the reader.

I think that what you're trying to say (and what the Wikipedia article is trying to say) is that you're using a third-person limited POV, with an omniscent narrator. That is to say, the narrator (the person telling the story) knows everything, but viewpoint is only what can be seen through one pair of eyes and we only get to hear one person's thoughts.

I'm not convinced that "omniscent narrator" is a helpful categorization in this.

Let's talk about surprise for a moment. Yes, readers love to get surprised. No, literary surprise has little to do with actual "suprise." Literary surprise has as much to do with real surprise as a stage whisper has to do with an actual whisper. If there's an action that'll be important at the climax, and the POV character knows about it, tell the readers.

I've got some cheap tricks for surprising the readers: one of them is to run a plot with two arcs in it. Run the first plot arc, but leave off the climax. Instead, start the second plot arc. When the second plot arc hits its climax, substitute the climax from the first plot arc.

Another way, which requires a bit less rewriting down at the structural level, is this: Give the clues to the reader, but hide the vital clue in a weak paragraph or a weak sentence. Put an important bit of information in a sentence that begins "There was," and the reader will know that you played fair by laying everything out -- but the reader won't notice the clue at the time.

[blacbird]

To me, in the guise of a reader, the real satisfaction comes from having something reveal itself at or near a book's conclusion, and recognizing that the signs and symptoms of it had been there all along. That's a proper reader's surprise. A writer bringing in something new completely out of the ozone layer on page 345 of a 346-page novel makes me want to shred the damn thing. Agatha Christie was fond of this latter technique, as was Mary Roberts Rinehart, her American contemporary and rival. They may both have been successful, but I've read all of both of them that I ever intend to read. For me, there are far better mystery writers out there whom I will re-read (Rex Stout, for instance) before taking on any more Christie or Roberts novels.

caw

[Celia Cyanide]

Plot point...

Ok, I guess I better give an example.

In the scene, the character thinks he has lost his camera but he spots it. So, as he grabs it, I was going to include something like, "... and he fiddles with his camera".

But, not reveal until the end that he had actually taken the memory card out when he had "fiddled" with the camera.


Thoughts?

Hi, Jen. Thanks for clarifying.

I do have another question. Is this character the main character? Or is it someone the main character is observing? If it is the main character, is he aware of the significance of removing the memory card at the time?

I agree with what Jeanne is saying. I think readers enjoy surprises. I think they don't appreciate it as much when the surprise comes from new information at the last minute. However, it tends to annoy readers just as much when a plot twist is so poorly rendered that it becomes obvious.

It would not bother me if the main character observed another person fiddling with his camera and didn't notice what he did. It would be different if the main character removed his memory card and knew it would be significant later on, but kept it from me. I hope that makes sense.

I should also add that, as Jeanne said, withholding too much information from the reader is something that happens in novels all they time. They do not have any trouble getting published.

[jen.nifer]

Hi again everyone,

Thanks for the input. James: "third-person limited POV, with an omniscent narrator" -- noted. Celia: yes, this concerns the main character...

In this case, I think it's best that I let the reader in on this detail.

I'll have a play anyway and see what happens.

Bye for now!

[Zolah]

Plot point...

Ok, I guess I better give an example.

In the scene, the character thinks he has lost his camera but he spots it. So, as he grabs it, I was going to include something like, "... and he fiddles with his camera".

But, not reveal until the end that he had actually taken the memory card out when he had "fiddled" with the camera.


Thoughts?

I think in general, in a story with a third person limited or first person narrative, you have to tell the reader what the viewpoint character knows. We're seeing everything through their eyes and their mind, and unless you deliberately intend to set this character up as an unreliable narrator, who often holds things back and is not to be trusted, it would seem odd for them to just not think about or see a detail which is important to them. If the detail is NOT vital at the time (for instance, he just takes that memory card out absently and then forgets it himself) there might be a case for not mentioning it at the time, providing that the reader learns about this as soon as the fact takes on significance for the character. So, in the moment when the villain seizes the camera and throws it into the lake, and the POV character puts his hand in his pocket and realises the memory card is there, we, the readers, need to know this. Otherwise it's cheating.

[James D. Macdonald]

I should also add that, as Jeanne said, withholding too much information from the reader is something that happens in novels all they time. They do not have any trouble getting published.

That puts you in Sturgeon's Law territory. Most novels are poorly written. I'd disagree that they don't have any trouble getting published. You have your obviously unpublished novels -- they don't get published under any circumstances. That's the huge majority. You have your obviously brilliant novels. They definitely get published. That's your tiny minority. Then you have your publishable but mediocre novels Somewhere in the top ten percent of the slush, but not in the top two. They'll get published one day, not published the next. Lots of competition in those ranks.

The large number of mediocre novels that get published every year are evidence that there are more publishing slots than there are good books written in a given year.

[Zolah]

...You have your obviously unpublished novels -- they don't get published under any circumstances. That's the huge majority. You have your obviously brilliant novels. They definitely get published. That's your tiny minority. Then you have your publishable but mediocre novels Somewhere in the top ten percent of the slush, but not in the top two. They'll get published one day, not published the next. Lots of competition in those ranks.

The large number of mediocre novels that get published every year are evidence that there are more publishing slots than there are good books written in a given year.

Er...is there some room for good novels - ones which aren't brilliant but are hopefully a lot better than mediocre? There is, right?

Right?

I'll just be tying this noose, if anyone needs me...

[Shadow_Ferret]

I don't believe in deliberately withholding information from the reader. Now if you want to downplay that information, make it seem unimportant at the time it's described and then SURPRISE! that was the main clue, that's one thing.

But not mentioning it at all and then SURPRISE! the murder weapon was the blood covered letter opener sitting on the desk that was never mentioned until the end, well, I'd hate that. :)

[greglondon]

In this case, I think it's best that I let the reader in on this detail.

Yay!

[Gillhoughly]

One of the rules is show everything so the reader has a chance to figure out the mystery. But you just have to be clever at hiding the clue so that the reader misses it.

As mentioned, Christie was an expert at palming the ace. Take a crash course in mystery short stories at your library. It will have Ellery Queen and Hitchcock collections to teach you this art. Read Edward Hoch.

Read the stories and figure out what the writer did to bring it off. That's how I learned.

[Alex Bravo]

I think it is easier to leave it out, but the skill in being a great writer would be to pull it off as others have suggested above. Let the reader know, but in a way that doesn't point to the importance it will hold later. I actually love books when I realize something was in front of me all along and I just didn't get it at the time. Is it hard to do? Of course. But remember, we are artists and we should be creative.

I loved the Da Vinci Code because, even though I didn't agree with it, I loved how he made me see famous things in a new way. Hide your true intentions, the surprise, by making the item or news important in a different way.

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, about writers trying to surprise readers at the very end, but this writer said greater tension can come if the reader knows. The example given was a man tries to have an affair with a much younger woman, they sleep together, etc... and in the end we learn that the woman is his daughter. How much more tension would be created if we learned up front tha woman was his daughter? How much more would we cringe each moment that the two are together and we are saying, NO NO NO, you don't want to do this?

Hope that helps.

[pianoman5]

I think the temptation to conceal clues is driven by the writer's feeling that "If I tell them this, they're bound to 'get it'". But you should bear in mind that an individual clue is often only obvious to the writer because they already know the plot.

In a good whodunnit mystery the clues are strewn thick and fast, with red herrings and false trails leading to more obvious suspects, so a single clue doesn't stand out with a flashing beacon. The vital pieces of evidence needed to solve the mystery are all there but somehow de-emphasised, as UJ astutely (as always) observes - often turning up in weak sentences of the "There was..." kind.

I've noticed that in movies they usually play more than fair. If we're shown a scene with a lot of people and stuff in it. the camera might linger for a fraction of a second longer than would seem necessary on a clock, for instance, or the placement of a shotgun. That's the director's version of 'mentioning' something that may be significant but is not necessarily so. The trick is to have so much stuff going on that it's still hard to sort the wheat from the chaff and put it all together. Misdirection is your friend in this.

[UrsusMinor]

It is very tricky to conceal knowledge the viewpoint character has--at least for long. It not only feels like "cheating" but, when revealed, tneds to unbalance the established degree of intimacy with the viewpoint character.

I loathed Christie's "Roger Ackroyd," where the narrator is the murderer. This is often cited as a classic example of an "unreliable narrator," but it isn't; the narrator is deliberately withholding vital information. I think that successful unreliable narrators simply misconstrue or misunderstand, in the vein of "I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus." [Sorry to stick that insipid tune in your head.]

The urge to conceal viewpoint-character perception usually tells me I have chosen the wrong POV. Consider why the successful Holmes stories are all related by Watson.

[jonpiper]

Hi guys,

My story is written in 3rd person limited omni. What I would like to know: if I'm describing a scene, say scene #345, and I deliberately leave out some details, when I get to the end of the story can I then bring up something new that had happened in scene #345? Will the reader feel cheated?

I'm purposely leaving out that detail; I want to create this mindset for the reader at the end: "oh, well, I didn't he know he had done that back then, but it's just as well that he did..."

The way I look at it is:

You are presenting the story through an omniscient narrator. But THIRD-PERSON LIMITED narrators are not completely omniscient. Your narrator can get into the head of only one character, much like a first-person narrator. A pure omniscient narrator gets into everybody's head, anytime.

However, your limited omniscient narrator knows everything else in the story, things that the POV character cannot see. True, your narrator cannot get into the heads of other characters, but your narrator knows what's happening in setting and action hidden from the POV character.

Ask yourself: In scene #345 should your POV character be aware of the details that you don't reveal at the time of the scene? Consider also if it's good for the reader to be aware? Does it weaken the story?

In other words let's say, going into the scene, your POV character and the reader don't know the girlfriend is unfaithful . . . one or both may suspect that the girlfriend is unfaithful.

In the scene your narrator could show the girlfriend SNEAKING out of the party to the bedroom with another character, thus revealing her infidelity. The reader would then know; however the POV character, not being omniscient, would still be in the dark.

The question is: Do you want to ruin the reader's suspense about the girlfriend? Does this make her a more complex character? Everything you reveal during the story has consequences. How you time the revelations can make or break the story. Every case is different.

[rugcat]

I loathed Christie's "Roger Ackroyd," where the narrator is the murderer. Spoiler!

I write first person, so it's not much of a problem. But the trick with first person is to neither make your narrator too stupid or too smart. The ideal is when the MC and the reader simultaneously slap their heads and exclaim, "Of course! How could I not have seen that?"

[farfromfearless]

Depends on your POV really - if you write in third person limited, then you're restricted to the current POV of the particular character whose scene it is. You can reveal the story and information pertinent to the plot in small, seemingly innocuous bits from different perspectives and use it like misdirection. There are many techniques to work with, and it wouldn't hurt to do a little research before hand.

[James D. Macdonald]

I'm going to mention (again!) my favorite book on constructing stories and directing the reader's attention to what you want him to see:

Magic and Showmanship (http://www.powells.com/partner/34766/biblio/0486410870/) by Henning Nelms.

[jonpiper]

If you write in third person limited, then you're restricted to the current POV of the particular character whose scene it is.

NOTE I've edited this post because some of what I wrote was inaccurate. Please contradict anything that is still wrong.

I don't believe when you write in third person limited, you are restricted to the POV of the character whose scene it is. True, you can get into the head of only one character at a time. True, you can show how he/she feels, what he/she sees, hears, tastes, smells, what he/she thinks. True the narrator cannot omnisciently reveal information that a character is not aware of.

However you can reveal things that the main character may not sense by going into the POV of another character. Limited does not mean you are limited to the POV of only one character. Limited means the omniscience is limited to what characters can perceive.

The reader may therefore receive more information about the story than the single third person main character receives. This allows the reader to know more about the story than the main character is aware of.

I believe that is why third person limited is more powerful than first person. In first person, the character IS the narrator; therefore, the first person main character knows everything the reader knows. Put another way, the reader does not know more than the first person main character.

In my above post describing a scene with an unfaithful girfriend, the main character did not know his girlfriend snuck away to have a tryst. But the reader knew.

Does all this make sense?

[NeuroFizz]

I'm going to agree with Uncle Jim, Gillhoughly, and a few others here. The best reader reaction, in my mind, is a forehead slap with the words, "I should have seen that coming." This is usually pulled off with clever writing--not holding back on the critical details, but planting them in the readers' mind in a way that they only register upon re-introduction and in combination with other subtle instances or experiences. The job of a writer isn't to trick the reader, it's to challenge the reader. In my mind, that means you give him/her a chance to catch the twists in the story. If they're too obvious, the reader may feel encouraged, but maybe not fully satisfied. It they're too obscure, or they come "out of the blue" as in something that was never presented, the reader may not pick up your next book.

[James D. Macdonald]

Please notice that the POV character and the main character are not necessarily the same person.

[jonpiper]

Please notice that the POV character and the main character are not necessarily the same person.

Correct. Imagine a scene in a roomful of people that includes Jerry, the main character of the story, and Peter, his friend. That scene could be written in third person from Peter's POV.

But also realize that the narrator in third person and the POV character are not the same. The narrator has access to more information about the scene and the story than any POV character.

The question is: how much should the narrator and how much should a POV character reveal to the reader? And when is the best time to reveal certain things? Depends on the story. Each story is different

[BruceJ]

I'm going to agree with Uncle Jim, Gillhoughly, and a few others here. The best reader reaction, in my mind, is a forehead slap with the words, "I should have seen that coming." This is usually pulled off with clever writing--not holding back on the critical details, but planting them in the readers' mind in a way that they only register upon re-introduction and in combination with other subtle instances or experiences. The job of a writer isn't to trick the reader, it's to challenge the reader. In my mind, that means you give him/her a chance to catch the twists in the story. If they're too obvious, the reader may feel encouraged, but maybe not fully satisfied. It they're too obscure, or they come "out of the blue" as in something that was never presented, the reader may not pick up your next book.

This says it as well (probably better) than what I was going to write. Those times I've sensed essential information was deliberately withheld until it necessarily sparks a climax I felt the author cheated (or at least just lacked the mastery of subtlety), although I've run into this more often in TV fare than in novels. I agree: the slap-on-the-forehead reaction, to me, is a sign of success.

[James D. Macdonald]

For more on surprise:

See the excerpt "Hide and Seek" in this post: http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/008408.html

Then read the whole document (http://homepage.mac.com/noteon/Sites/Snyder_on_writing.pdf) it's taken from (warning: pdf). Some seriously good advice there.

[arrowqueen]

I always provide all the clues. I just use sleight of hand so my readers don't notice them until the end.

[farfromfearless]

Correct. Imagine a scene in a roomful of people that includes Jerry, the main character of the story, and Peter, his friend. That scene could be written in third person from Peter's POV.

But also realize that the narrator in third person and the POV character are not the same. The narrator has access to more information about the scene and the story than any POV character.

The question is: how much should the narrator and how much should a POV character reveal to the reader? And when is the best time to reveal certain things? Depends on the story. Each story is different

This is usually how I approach a story; for me, it is a challenge to take those threads (POV's) and weave them together to reveal information to the reader. It's also interesting that characters who are not the MC can hold knowledge pertaining to the plot along side the reader and follow as the MC struggles to make sense of things through interaction and discovery.

[jonpiper]

This is usually how I approach a story; for me, it is a challenge to take those threads (POV's) and weave them together to reveal information to the reader. It's also interesting that characters who are not the MC can hold knowledge pertaining to the plot along side the reader and follow as the MC struggles to make sense of things through interaction and discovery.

Exactly.
POV can be used in creative ways. The writer can, by referring to the POVs of various characters, selectively reveal information. This allows you to build a complex plot. How many times have we wanted to shout at the MC in a story and tell him/her to be careful when approaching a certain character. For example, suspense can be added to a story when the villian is revealed to the reader before the MC is informed.

[Chumplet]

You could have another character observe the overt handling of the camera, and 'something' being inserted in a pocket, in that other character's POV. He sees something happening, but he doesn't know its significance. That way, the reader and the main character have a clue, but just barely.

Sometimes we deal with the opposite problem. The reader knows what's going on, but the protagonist is clueless. I read The Da Vinci Code, and kept screaming inside, "It's A-P-P-L-E, stupid!"

My protagonist withholds information from the female protagonist by playing dumb, but my problem is the reader thinks he's too stupid to live, too.

[jonpiper]

My protagonist withholds information from the female protagonist by playing dumb, but my problem is the reader thinks he's too stupid to live, too.

So, you've unknowingly created an unlikeable male protagonist. Can you correct his evil ways.

[jen.nifer]

Wow, good to see that the advice has kicked on. Thanks everyone.

I've actually just posted the story in question under ShareYourWork in the mainstream/contemporary area. If anyone wants to see how I tackled it in the end, feel free to have a squizz. Critiques are welcome too (well, that's why I chucked it in there!). Please be gentle, though. And try not to laugh too hard. No, it's not a comedy! ;-)

[sfecphory]

I would be careful... it sounds like something from a Scooby Doo cartoon to suddenly pull information out of a hat. "I know that old man Jenkins is the fake ghost because I found this paint and these roller skates (which we didn't let our viewers know about)."

I'd say that pov and subtle clues is a better way to go. You can provide information to the reader (through dialogue for instance) without being heavy handed and it invites them to connect the dots with you, not rely on you to spoon feed them.

[Alex Bravo]

I said before that I think a creative writer would weave it into the fiction, but downplay it; but after more thought, I think a super creative writer would not only show the device up front but make it important in a different way, then, at the end, when the device is used it makes perfect sense and it had been there all along but for different reasons, valid reasons, that the reader didn't expect. An example would be the time turner in Harry Potter. The reason it was first used (albeit odd that they would grant that much power to a young girl) was so Hermione could take more than one class at the same time. That actually added some fun to the novel. But later, the time turner was used for something even more.

Another example, in the movie Aliens, Sigorney gets a job as a loader (the human like forklift), and later we see her use the loader to move boxes in the cargo area to get ready and it's an amusing part in the story. So at the end, when she fights the queen using the loader, we aren't surprised. In fact, I love how they weaved that into the story because each time the loader was mentioned it was important for the story at that time. The first time, she had gotten demoted as an officer and it was the only job she could find, and the recruiter made fun of her doing that, that it was a dead end job. The second time, she felt useless and wanted to help so she got on the loader and moved a box. The third time, she fought the queen.

Does all that make sense? Anyway, I recommend looking at what you need to use at the end, then figure out how to add it and make it important earlier on in the novel but for other reasons than what you would use it for in the end. Use your creativity!!!

[Christine N.]

I actually think JK Rowling is really REALLY good at this. Remember, more than just being about 'magic', her stories are mysteries - at least the first three or four are.

She drops the clues right in front of the reader, but does so in a way that you don't get the whole picture until she decided to show it to you.

Prisoner of Azkaban did this exceptionally well IMO... (read the book, don't watch the movie). Because the whole book you think Sirius is after Harry, based on things that have happened in the past, or supposedly happened, because of what others have 'heard' and assumed. "He's at Hogwarts..." Add in the trip that Ron and the Weasleys took to Egypt, off-screen, and mix it all together with a werewolf.

When you find out the real story, you have the "Oh, so THAT'S what it meant" feeling. I think Half-Blood Prince did a pretty good job of it too.

She's excellent at misdirection, but all the pieces you need are definitely there in the pages.

[kristie911]

IMO purposely hiding details is a sign of cheap writing and I'm usually just ticked off when authors do this.

It's been mentioned a million times that if you show a gun in a scene, you need to use it later. And, conversely, if you're going to use a gun in a later scene, please, please, introduce it at some point before you use it.

When the author suddenly throws in an object or a plot twist that was never foreshadowed or introduced earlier the reader usually just says, "Where the hell did that come from?"

But a forehead slapping, "OMG, I can't believe I didn't see that coming" is a sign of good writing.

[Alex Bravo]

I actually think JK Rowling is really REALLY good at this. Remember, more than just being about 'magic', her stories are mysteries - at least the first three or four are.

She drops the clues right in front of the reader, but does so in a way that you don't get the whole picture until she decided to show it to you.

Prisoner of Azkaban did this exceptionally well IMO... (read the book, don't watch the movie). Because the whole book you think Sirius is after Harry, based on things that have happened in the past, or supposedly happened, because of what others have 'heard' and assumed. "He's at Hogwarts..." Add in the trip that Ron and the Weasleys took to Egypt, off-screen, and mix it all together with a werewolf.

When you find out the real story, you have the "Oh, so THAT'S what it meant" feeling. I think Half-Blood Prince did a pretty good job of it too.

She's excellent at misdirection, but all the pieces you need are definitely there in the pages.

Great examples Christine!!!