Witholding info from the reader: Fair? Annoying?

[JoNightshade]

Just wanted to get some feedback regarding the way in which I'm tackling my new WIP. This is a bit of an experiment for me, since my writing is usually very straightforward. I've been inspired by the books my husband likes to read... he's a big fan of Gene Wolfe, if anyone has read him. These books don't give the reader a lot of information... the story may not be a mystery per se, but the reader is basically sort of knocked into the fray and is left to piece the background together as the story goes along.

So my question is, do you find this tactic annoying? Specifically, would you find this annoying in the following example?

My story begins after a significant amount of back-story has taken place. Essentially, two of my main characters used to work for a rather violent government organization. One is now retired; the younger partner quit and took up a new profession. Both want to forget the past, and talking about their history together could get them into major trouble and possibly even killed. Nevertheless, both are dealing with the ramifications of their past lives. My story begins with said ramifications. The younger guy is the (third person) narrator, and he is attemping to deal. But, while I explore his inner thoughts, I have him avoid details about the past. So far, all the reader knows is that 1) These guys have a history, 2) It's secret, and 3) It's probably dangerous.

Later, a third MC/narrator, who knows nothing, will enter the scene. She will be the one to slowly strip away the secrets.

Is this plausible? I'm trying to construct this so that the reader is the one who is trying to "solve the mystery" of the past, but I'm just a little concerned that people will feel that I (the author) am "cheating" them by not simply revealing the information.

[veinglory]

I don't mind mysteries if the protagonist is in the dark too. But why would a person's own thoughts not cover important stuff? IMHO to avoid being a cheat there has to be a reason, repression, amnesia, something like that. Otherwise it just isn't plausible and coherent--i.e. deliberately done to 'trick' the reader which can be annoying,.

[alaskamatt17]

Not only fair, but necessary. You can't throw everything up front. Then the reader has no incentive to keep going.

[Dancre]

How about weaving the info into the story with dialogue and actions? I don't lay all my cards on the table at once, but instead feed the reader the info when I think they'll be asking for it. Instead of dumping all the info on the reader in the first chapter, weave it into the story, a bit at a time. I find it a great page turner.

kim

[Anne Lyle]

I have a similar issue in my WiP, in which the PoV protagonist has a guilty secret. So far I've managed to handle it OK by having him not want to think about it - sometimes he gets flashes of memory (visual images, mainly), which he shoves to one side. Hopefully this will not get too irritating for the reader!

[Dancre]

Also, if the past is that hard for him to face, maybe you could use that as a way to withhold info until a later time? Have him push those thoughts away. use it as a worm on a hook and dangle it before the reader. She now has to keep reading to find the answers.

[Anne Lyle]

SNAP!

:D

[maestrowork]

I don't mind if the author/narrator slowly reveals information and the plot through dialogue, action, etc. The suspense can be a wonderful thing. I tend to use that technique myself.

However, if you deliberately do something like "I know something but I am not going to tell you now" it's annoying as hell. Dan Brown does that, and I really hate him for that. It's smug, coy, and rude. It's also poor writing if your readers catch on -- and they will become resentful if you keep pulling that stunt. It's one thing if the narrator doesn't know, or if there's no reason to reveal any information at any certain time.

[JoNightshade]

How about weaving the info into the story with dialogue and actions? I don't lay all my cards on the table at once, but instead feed the reader the info when I think they'll be asking for it. Instead of dumping all the info on the reader in the first chapter, weave it into the story, a bit at a time. I find it a great page turner.

I have a similar issue in my WiP, in which the PoV protagonist has a guilty secret. So far I've managed to handle it OK by having him not want to think about it - sometimes he gets flashes of memory (visual images, mainly), which he shoves to one side. Hopefully this will not get too irritating for the reader!

Okay, this reassures me-- it's essentially what I've been doing. It's clear he doesn't like to think about it, and he has so many other things on his plate in the first few chapters that he doesn't really have time to reflect even if he wanted to. I've seeded my narrative with plenty of references in dialogue, and a couple of memory teasers. For instance, he remembers a happy, comforting moment between him and his partner... it's something he would naturally focus on, but doesn't reveal all.

My thought was, people don't actually going around remembering things like "For 10 years I was a part of a secret government organization that did such-and-such!" Memories are more fluid... we remember snatches here and there as they relate to what we're doing. For instance, "This is just like when I shot that guy with the toupee" rather than, "This is just like in June of 1998 when I killed Louis Falcone on Lincoln street with my .45."

[Rolling Thunder]

I don't mind if the author/narrator slowly reveals information and the plot through dialogue, action, etc. The suspense can be a wonderful thing. I tend to use that technique myself.

However, if you deliberately do something like "I know something but I am not going to tell you now" it's annoying as hell. Dan Brown does that, and I really hate him for that. It's smug, coy, and rude. It's also poor writing if your readers catch on -- and they will become resentful if you keep pulling that stunt. It's one thing if the narrator doesn't know, or if there's no reason to reveal any information at any certain time.

Doesn't that fall under 'unreliable narrator' though? It does work well in some instances from what I've read. I used it in SYW once, however, and got swatted for doing it. :D

[maestrowork]

"This is just like when I shot that guy with the toupee"

This is perfectly fine. It's natural.

But this isn't: "This is just like when I shot that guy. I remember exactly the date, the weapon I used, and the way he looked. I don't want to talk about that now, though."

[maestrowork]

Doesn't that fall under 'unreliable narrator' though? It does work well in some instances from what I've read. I used it in SYW once, however, and got swatted for doing it. :D

It is if your character (first person narrator) is smug, coy and rude. ;)

It doesn't work for 3rd limited narrative.

[JoNightshade]

Okay, I think I'm handling it right then. My narrator is not smug, coy, or rude in any sense of the word. He's not intentionally withholding info. He's just in pain, and he doesn't want to dwell on the past for any length of time. He's also very good at focusing on the positive and trying to move on.

[rugcat]

The only thing is, if you use that withheld info to resolve the plot, readers are going to be pissed, and rightly so.

The worst example of this is a first person mystery, where the narrator solves the crime because all along he's known, for example, that the jewels were false, but he never tells the reader that, and without that info the reader has no chance of figuring it out.

This is not an "unreliable narrator," like in The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd, it's just a cheat.

[JoNightshade]

The only thing is, if you use that withheld info to resolve the plot, readers are going to be pissed, and rightly so.

The worst example of this is a first person mystery, where the narrator solves the crime because all along he's known, for example, that the jewels were false, but he never tells the reader that, and without that info the reader has no chance of figuring it out.

This is not an "unreliable narrator," like in The Murder Of Roger Ackroyd, it's just a cheat.

Nope, my central plot doesn't even have much to do with the characters' past. It basically just gives them an excuse to be the sneaky, cranky, nominally psychotic people they are. :)

[SilverVistani]

I have a character in one of my many WIPs who is hiding their gender for very important reasons. Thus, I intend to refer to said character by the wrong pronouns because that's what almost everyone who knows the character (or, thinks they do anyway, as the case is) who interacts with the character in the story thinks that's the gender of the character.

Basically... I asked your general question to a few people and got that that's what I should do. So, yeah... I'm gonna ask you back. :P What do you think of this approach. Would you hate to read a story only to find out towards the end that the character you thought was one gender is actually another gender? But then, the character had to do this, because it was in order to do something -very- important to said character.

And don't worry, I'm going to answer your question for you as well. ^_^() I'd say that, in general, I agree for the most part with what's been said. No good book that I'm aware of reveals everything all at once. If the character(s) don't want to think about it-- and I'm assuming they wouldn't if it's as horrible as "rather violent government organization" makes it sound-- than it's only natural it's something he/they would keep bottled up.

[Raphee]

Simple answer: I find information withheld as a great page turner. Like Ray said, you have to do it right. Don't be coy or smug.

[blacbird]

I don't mind mysteries if the protagonist is in the dark too. But why would a person's own thoughts not cover important stuff? IMHO to avoid being a cheat there has to be a reason, repression, amnesia, something like that. Otherwise it just isn't plausible and coherent--i.e. deliberately done to 'trick' the reader which can be annoying,.

Exactly. In a mystery, as far as I'm concerned, the author cannot play "I've got a secret" with the reader. If the reader can't know what's going on, the narrator can't know, either. Which is a primary reason why nearly all good modern mysteries are related from a first-person (Rex Stout) or protagonist-centered third-person (Tony Hillerman) limited POV. BTW, Neil Simon, in his play (and movie) Murder by Death made good satirical fun of Agatha Christie for her Deus ex machina endings.

caw

[James D. Macdonald]

Don't withhold information from the reader.

Withhold it from your characters.

[herdon]

Nothing wrong with it at all. Plenty of great novels give information piece by piece. 1984, for example, doesn't give all the information about the world up front. You experience it through the character -- the character may even know about them beforehand but not see the information as significant.

The Illuminatus Trilogy takes the idea of not giving the reader all the information to the extreme in its randomized distribution of the scenes.

[Chris Grey]

It seems there are two questions in this thread.

How much backstory should you reveal? Don't tell the reader anything before they care.

How much information that the narrator knows can you withhold? If it's background, the narrator shouldn't mention it until the reader would care. If it's current information, don't blindfold your reader.

There's an exception, of course. Take The Big Sleep. First-person point of view, and everything Marlowe sees, the reader sees. But Marlowe pulls sleights of hand and sleights of mind. When he figures out what happened to Regan, the reader had access to all the same evidence, but if they didn't put two and two together, they're in the dark until Marlowe shows his hand. Let the reader find out everything the narrator finds out, but it's up to your discretion when the reader finds out everything the narrator figures out.

[aruna]

Okay, I think I'm handling it right then. My narrator is not smug, coy, or rude in any sense of the word. He's not intentionally withholding info. He's just in pain, and he doesn't want to dwell on the past for any length of time. He's also very good at focusing on the positive and trying to move on.

My first person narrator is the same. She's in pain due to her backstory: 3 years ago her husband and unborn baby died. She refuses to talk about it with anyone; she's on the run from the bad memories, avoids men and babies. The reader knows why she does this - she's in pain because they died - but doesn't know HOW exactly they died. The narrator isn't telling us her thoughts all the time, and anyway,she's very busy with what's going on NOW, so it's OK, I think, to withhold that info.

I'm hoping the reader will really want to know more, but it's only a subplot and there's lots of stuff going on in the present (the actual plot) so I don't think it'll annoy them, not knowing the HOW. It would be differnt, I think, if this information was essential to the unfolding of the main story.

At about the half-way point she tells the story to a possible new suitor, which is the point, maybe, she begins to heal. Speaking about it for the first time ever is a major breakthrough for her. I hope it works!

[Chris Grey]

My first person narrator is the same. She's in pain due to her backstory: 3 years ago her husband and unborn baby died. She refuses to talk about it with anyone; she's on the run from the bad memories, avoids men and babies. The reader knows why she does this - she's in pain because they died - but doesn't know HOW exactly they died. The narrator isn't telling us her thoughts all the time, and anyway,she's very busy with what's going on NOW, so it's OK, I think, to withhold that info.

I'm hoping the reader will really want to know more, but it's only a subplot and there's lots of stuff going on in the present (the actual plot) so I don't think it'll annoy them, not knowing the HOW. It would be differnt, I think, if this information was essential to the unfolding of the main story.

At about the half-way point she tells the story to a possible new suitor, which is the point, maybe, she begins to heal. Speaking about it for the first time ever is a major breakthrough for her. I hope it works!

If she's on the run from her memories, then it's not like you're withholding information from the reader. Your narrator's trying to avoid the truth herself, and your readers will learn things when she does. Reminds me a bit of Silent Hill 2.

[Tia Nevitt]

My story begins with said ramifications. The younger guy is the (third person) narrator, and he is attemping to deal. But, while I explore his inner thoughts, I have him avoid details about the past. So far, all the reader knows is that 1) These guys have a history, 2) It's secret, and 3) It's probably dangerous.

We all avoid thinking about things from time to time. In fact, I believe that good mental discipline requires it. If you continually dwell on the past, you will hamper your ability to deal with the present. I've seen this in real life.

Therefore, I think withholding this information is not only plausible, but its not really a problem at all. These guys are trying to deal with something from their past. I would immediately be dying to know what this thing is that they are trying to deal with. It would keep me turning the pages. Therefore, I would continue to do exactly what you are doing. It sounds like a great concept.

In fact, you've given me some ideas. Hmm . . .

[MDSchafer]

What I cannot stand is when a writer withholds a key piece of information. Bad mysteries use this as cheep page-turner. I read a few short stories in The Sword Review last month and both had likes like "And as soon as they saw it they figured it out," without telling us what they saw. I hate that.

I think you have to play it smart with holdbacks. There have to be logical reasons for why the information isn't flowing while at the same time I think you have to keep the reader's mind engaged because they're trying to figure out whats going on along with your reader.

It is a fine line to work, but if you do it successfully I don't think your reader should notice what you're not saying until it becomes obvious.

[Linda Adams]

I don't mind if the author/narrator slowly reveals information and the plot through dialogue, action, etc. The suspense can be a wonderful thing. I tend to use that technique myself.

However, if you deliberately do something like "I know something but I am not going to tell you now" it's annoying as hell. Dan Brown does that, and I really hate him for that. It's smug, coy, and rude. It's also poor writing if your readers catch on -- and they will become resentful if you keep pulling that stunt. It's one thing if the narrator doesn't know, or if there's no reason to reveal any information at any certain time.

Kathy Reichs does it, too. She seems to be using it to try to generate suspense and cliff hanging chapter endings, but instead, it comes across as annoying. What she does is end a chapter with something like, "I opened the door and was horrified at what I saw" and not even give a hint of what's going on. Then the story veers off onto another subplot, and we don't even get the answer for ten chapters.

[aruna]

I think you have to play it smart with holdbacks. There have to be logical reasons for why the information isn't flowing while at the same time I think you have to keep the reader's mind engaged because they're trying to figure out whats going on along with your reader.


A great example of this is We Need to Talk about Kevin. There is a shock ending, which had me floored for days. The first person narrator knew this all along, and it is indeed a key piece of information - but due to the very structure of the book it's all so logical that you are not annoyed -rather, everything falls into place and you understand perfectly.

[job]

>>>Nope, my central plot doesn't even have much to do with the characters' past. It basically just gives them an excuse to be the sneaky, cranky, nominally psychotic people they are<<<<

So ... this backstory doesn't drive the central action -- but it provides an emotional thread as it is slowly revealed and 'peeled back'.

Hmmm ...

Speaking very generally here and not perhaps with any applicability to what you are doing ...

It is perhaps more elegant and economical
if the emotional moments of a story
arise from the action happening right in front of the reader,
rather than from a reprise of backstory.

Thus ...
"My God, Miriam. You just coldbloodedly emptied your revolver into that mugger. Lookit the blood! And he's ... twitiching. Shouldn't we call the cops?."

is likely to be more engaging and useful to plot, all else being equal, than ...

Miriam remebered the day she shot an innocent mugger. He bled and twitched and she felt a pang of ... peeved annoyance would be the mots justes here.


To say the character is a failed monk, former stockbroker, circus strongman, washed-up astronaut, reformed cat burlgar
is a good shortcut to characterizing him.
And it is useful in a story where the Latin liturgy, Archer Daniels Midland, heavy weights, NASA or the ASPCA figure prominently.

But if you intend to involve the reader in the revelation of backstory,
-- if you are thinking about how to lay the backstory out and what to show and what to hide,
then you might ask yourself if the emotion and time expended by the reader on long ago/far away incident would not better be transferred to action in the true storyline.

So ..

George was a cat groomer and a con artist, tall, dark, and handsome but scratched. Like a Queen Anne highboy, say, that was a fake. is characterization.


George remembered a harrowing incidents from his former life as a cat groomer. is backstory. It characterizes but does not involve us in the storyline.
(It sounds as if you are trying to fit in a good bit of this sort of thing. Your reason is to characterize, perhaps.)


Yeoowl. Hisss! AArrrggghhh. George groomed Fluffy. is story action. It tells us he is a cat groomer. It characterizes. And it involves us in the story action. Three bites at the apple. Admirably economical.

[Anthony Ravenscroft]

Approaching from the other direction, I hatehatehate it when a writer data-dumps all over me. The only thing worse than starting with a loooong boooooring "history"-lecture Prologue is to get the plot up to speed, get me invested, then stop everything for the lecture.

Almost as bad is when the writer dangles a "banana" at me in arrogant expectation I'll perform like a trained monkey & follow blindly along. If the story doesn't interest me already, then withholding a punchline won't help, & likely makes me want to bite someone.

This can be made worse by making it something trite, cliched, & Really Damned Obvious, then dangling it gleefully at every opportunity, then springing it four or five times, then mentioning the "surprise" every few pages. Yes, I've seen it.

There are certainly "gimmick" & "gotcha" stories I've enjoyed greatly, but it's like a firecracker: once you set it off, what's it good for tomorrow? If all that's there is the surprise, then that's a one-off.

I think that's why I like the limitations of first-person: the reader can be surprised because the narrator is limited & fallible.

[Soccer Mom]

This is the essential dilemma of writing a mystery: Playing fair with the reader, but not giving away the twists and turns of your plot before you are ready to. It takes practice and a steady hand. When it works well, it's a great thrill ride. When it doesn't work, it's a horrid, muddled mess.

[aruna]

Job: just wanted to say I loved your examples! The one about the cat groomer cracked me up.

[job]

One's characters should all be cat groomers
... in the sense that their activities should be fraught with peril and adventure and colorful expletives.


If librarians, let them guard tomes of deep magic, or fight city hall for the privilege of shelving Sons and Lovers.

If bakers, let them have gremilins in the oven, or care passionately about their profiteroles.

If hired assassins, let them flee from Mafia bosses and ex-wives.

The first sin is boring the reader.