Axioma
(?)Community Member
- Posted: Tue, 08 May 2007 12:48:46 +0000
NOTE: I've no answers, sai, say sorry.
I want to talk to you about lying to your reader. Specifically, if it should be done, and if so, how.
I'm thinking of twists in the story, those places where you get to smash the reader's understanding of the story like a man destroying an ongoing chess match with a signle furious swipe of his hand. The ones where it turns out that he's really dead, and she's actually an alien, and it's actually a cookbook, and the purloined letter was on the desk all along.
Now, in order for a twist to work, the reader has to expect something else. They should have no doubt that A is about to happen, when what really happens is B. And the readers form their expectation of what WILL happen in the narrative based on what HAS happened in the narrative and on what the narrator has said.
How do you mislead?
In some cases, it's easy if you can rely on an unreliable narrator, who may simply lie blithely to the reader, keeping the writer safe. Equally, there is no problem with simply kicking some minor character from the backstage into the highlights and havign them read a prepared speech filled with, well, falsehood.
If you want the reader to think the castle is a hundred years old, when in reality it is a hundred thousand years old, all you need do is pluck a couple of strings on a nameless dummy to make it say "It's 100 years old," and they'll believe you, and when it turns out that isn't the case, hey, don't blame me, blame the dummy, it was his fault.
Or you can just not give out critical information and let the reader develop erroneous assumptions. This is pretty smooth if you can pull it off, but I'd be too afraid of the readers instantly developing suspicions as to why I'm keeping something back. If the situation were normal, they'd reason, she would be honest with us, and her attempted obfuscation proves she has something to hide. That means that she's trying to pull a fast one on us. And before long, the twist is ruined.
And now, the reason I've called you all here today - what about just plain LYING?
I mean, can I type
And then, after a certain amount of time, either explicitly contradict myself by saying she was never actually dead, or introduce a character whom Mark and the reader are supposed to THINK is the dead Sonya not actually dead, but who is actually just pretending to be Sonya risen again? In the latter case, I would have to have the narrator call the impersonator "Sonya", as in "Sonya said this and Sonya did that" because if I kept calling her "the girl" in an attempt to remain technically truthful while misleading the readers that I meant "Sonya" rather than "An evil clone twin from dimension X".
You know what I mean? Is it okay for the narrator to lie and then later contradict himself with the truth even when the narrator is NOT looking through everything through the eyes of an obviously fallible character, but who is supposed to be giving you the gospel truth from the mouth of the Writer herself?
***
I want to talk to you about lying to your reader. Specifically, if it should be done, and if so, how.
I'm thinking of twists in the story, those places where you get to smash the reader's understanding of the story like a man destroying an ongoing chess match with a signle furious swipe of his hand. The ones where it turns out that he's really dead, and she's actually an alien, and it's actually a cookbook, and the purloined letter was on the desk all along.
Now, in order for a twist to work, the reader has to expect something else. They should have no doubt that A is about to happen, when what really happens is B. And the readers form their expectation of what WILL happen in the narrative based on what HAS happened in the narrative and on what the narrator has said.
How do you mislead?
In some cases, it's easy if you can rely on an unreliable narrator, who may simply lie blithely to the reader, keeping the writer safe. Equally, there is no problem with simply kicking some minor character from the backstage into the highlights and havign them read a prepared speech filled with, well, falsehood.
If you want the reader to think the castle is a hundred years old, when in reality it is a hundred thousand years old, all you need do is pluck a couple of strings on a nameless dummy to make it say "It's 100 years old," and they'll believe you, and when it turns out that isn't the case, hey, don't blame me, blame the dummy, it was his fault.
Or you can just not give out critical information and let the reader develop erroneous assumptions. This is pretty smooth if you can pull it off, but I'd be too afraid of the readers instantly developing suspicions as to why I'm keeping something back. If the situation were normal, they'd reason, she would be honest with us, and her attempted obfuscation proves she has something to hide. That means that she's trying to pull a fast one on us. And before long, the twist is ruined.
And now, the reason I've called you all here today - what about just plain LYING?
I mean, can I type
Quote:
"I'm sorry," he whispered to the corpse of the girl he had loved and killed, smoke still rising from the hole in her forehead, the expression on her face one of terminal surprise.
Even in the end, she had not believed he would really do it, no matter the atrocities that marked her soul. And now she was dead.
The cruel wind blew across the valley and brought no respite from the heat.
Even in the end, she had not believed he would really do it, no matter the atrocities that marked her soul. And now she was dead.
The cruel wind blew across the valley and brought no respite from the heat.
And then, after a certain amount of time, either explicitly contradict myself by saying she was never actually dead, or introduce a character whom Mark and the reader are supposed to THINK is the dead Sonya not actually dead, but who is actually just pretending to be Sonya risen again? In the latter case, I would have to have the narrator call the impersonator "Sonya", as in "Sonya said this and Sonya did that" because if I kept calling her "the girl" in an attempt to remain technically truthful while misleading the readers that I meant "Sonya" rather than "An evil clone twin from dimension X".
You know what I mean? Is it okay for the narrator to lie and then later contradict himself with the truth even when the narrator is NOT looking through everything through the eyes of an obviously fallible character, but who is supposed to be giving you the gospel truth from the mouth of the Writer herself?