Hiding the ball in a first-person narrative?

[BTTap]

What are your thoughts in a story where the author plays hide the ball in a first-person narrative? Is it bad form for a narrator to keep a secret from the reader? I'm not talking about lying, but misdirection by omission, etc. Is there an applicable standard? I'm curious, as it seems to be a bone of contention among commentors in a new Francis McComber story, Divide and Conquor.

 

[sr71plt]

It's done frequently. Whether it works with the reader depends on how well it was done--which can't be determined in the abstract.

First person is determined by who is narrating. That person doesn't have to reveal what is in that person's mind to the reader in part or in total while narrating.

 

[nakdsub]

Lw is a difficult genre...

You have actually three schools of thought in one genre. First you have the, "Kick her to the curb" group who believe any reconciliation under any circumstances shows the husband as being weak cuckhold. Second, is the opposite, the willing cuckholds who do not distinguish between sex and fidelity and love stories where the husband enjoys giving his wife to one or more lovers. The third group is the middle of the road believing reconciliation is possible under certain circumstances.

We who like to read LW usually are very passionate as as to where we fit in. The story you mentions was extremely well written. It did lead the reader to believe reconciliation with his cheating wife was the husband's goal. I can see all the, "kick her to the curb," crowd getting ready to fire both barrels with their comments, when at the very end, he divorces his wife even though his plan to break up her affair worked perfectly. What a let down that must have been for those people. Even though I loved this story and gave it 5*, I do see how many readers would feel they purposely taken down the wrong path.

 

[CarlusMagnus]

What are your thoughts in a story where the author plays hide the ball in a first-person narrative? Is it bad form for a narrator to keep a secret from the reader? I'm not talking about lying, but misdirection by omission, etc. Is there an applicable standard? I'm curious, as it seems to be a bone of contention among commentors in a new Francis McComber story, Divide and Conquor.

I think a lot depends on the nature of the secret. I write a lot in the first person, and it's often necessary to my stories to keep readers in the narrative's present. That is, if the action being described took place five years ago, and I want the reader to experience the story as "I", the narrator, experienced it, then I can't divulge—in the time frame of the narration—what's going to happen three years later than the "present" of the story, or two years later, or one year later… or even five minutes later. Until, that is, the narration reaches those points in time (if it ever does).

 

[BONNIEBREA]

I write all my stories in first person, and I've never considered keeping something from the reader that the first person character would know (at least as that insight or knowledge becomes relevant in the story). To me it's one of the attractions of writing first person POV: that the reader and the narrator/character are having the same perceptions and frame of reference. Although, sometimes the first person character might not have all the information, or be interpreting something in a biased way - and then it's a matter of: can the reader discern those misperceptions?

But I don't see anything to be gained by keeping information/plot points secret in a first person story. Having the reader share the narrators POV is really the whole point of writing in first person - and having the reader come to some understanding or sudden perception along with the narrator is a particularly sweet moment . My view is that if an author wants or needs to keep information from the reader - to be doled out only when the dramatic time is right - then third person is a better choice.

 

[PennLady]

What are your thoughts in a story where the author plays hide the ball in a first-person narrative? Is it bad form for a narrator to keep a secret from the reader? I'm not talking about lying, but misdirection by omission, etc. Is there an applicable standard? I'm curious, as it seems to be a bone of contention among commentors in a new Francis McComber story, Divide and Conquor.

I don't see why you can't do that. There's no rule that I know of that says a first person narrator must reveal everything.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

It's done frequently. Whether it works with the reader depends on how well it was done--which can't be determined in the abstract.

First person is determined by who is narrating. That person doesn't have to reveal what is in that person's mind to the reader in part or in total while narrating.

I agree with sr but surely there are two kinds of 'hide the ball' here. Something that the narrator doesn't choose to share with the reader and something even the narrator has got a confused angle on.

 

[estragon]

The classic, of course, is "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd", by Dame Agatha Christie, where the narrator is himself the murderer. Commentators went ballistic, claiming Dame Agatha "palmed the ace". But our stories should only sell one-millionth as well as hers.

 

[sr71plt]

If there's a ball bouncing around that even the narrative doesn't know about, she/he isn't hiding it--he/she doesn't know about it. You have to know something exists to be hiding it.

 

[nakdsub]

I had the impression...

After reading this thread, I got the impression that the story had a bunch of negative feedback so I went back and reviewed most of it. Most of the feedback was positive. It would have surprised me if it were not. In spite of the (surprise ending) the story was extremely well written and thought out. It got 5* from me.

As for the end, surprises and misdirection are very common for murder mysteries. I try to incorporate some surprises in most of my work. I believe it adds to the story if you can keep your reader guessing, at lest to a certain extent.

In this case, the author really did mislead the reader like a magician does, watch the beautiful lady over here while do this over there. The story still carries the esteemed, red "H" with honor.

Again, I think most of the negative flack was do to the category and the nature of Loving Wives readers.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

If there's a ball bouncing around that even the narrative doesn't know about, she/he isn't hiding it--he/she doesn't know about it. You have to know something exists to be hiding it.

No, not actually. There are two premises for first person narrative secretive. The narrator deliberately keeps some key fact back from the reader or the writer uses the ignorance of the narrator to keep a key fact secret until a denouement.

Both have the effect of surprising the reader. That is provided the narrator has stayed faithful to first person and not strayed into talking to the readership.

 

[mynameisben]

The classic, of course, is "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd", by Dame Agatha Christie, where the narrator is himself the murderer. Commentators went ballistic, claiming Dame Agatha "palmed the ace". But our stories should only sell one-millionth as well as hers.

The true master of "hide the ball" was Meadowlark Lemon.

 

[nakdsub]

So very true...

The true master of "hide the ball" was Meadowlark Lemon

Here is proof.

Shot in my press days.