Loose Threads (Refering to things that never on page)

I wouldn't mind it and would probably forget all about it...until the later novel showed up, which would make me glad of the foreshadowing. I don't like it when I'm reading a series Part 3 and they're dealing with Uncle Henry's alcoholism, and I'm thinking, "Wait a minute here. Uncle Harry was in Part 1 and they never mentioned his drinking in any way!"

You do have to be careful, though, that the inclusion of this situation isn't *totally* gratuitous, that it serves some kind of purpose in the present novel as well. Maybe in Part 1, Patty mentions Uncle Henry's drinking to get across to a boyfriend that she's dealt with embarrassing family members, or whathaveyou. Just a character note in Part 1, but it becomes significant later. That's the kind of thing you're talking about, right?

--Q

Ditto what quossum said. IMNSHO, if you want to run a thread through a few novels and then deal with it, the thread needs to be a problem/conflict, otherwise it's not interesting enough. when i read, i don't mind seeing that because i know the author is planning ahead to create conflict in future books. i think it's best when they hint that they will deal with it in the future, which implies we will see it in future books. otherwise it can feel like the author 'forgot' about that conflict. like if the characters acknowledge that, yes, they got out of this scrape, but by golly the texas mafia are still after them so they can't rest too easy. or, we've dealt with the immediate consequences of screwing up, but we haven't changed that fact that the MC is still a screw-up.

What Quossum and Kitty said. If you include information in the present novel, it should serve some purpose in the present novel. Actually, substitute the word chapter or scene there, in place of novel, and that describes classic foreshadowing technique.

Similarly, if you describe a problem or conflict, it should seem to be resolved in the present novel. Perhaps the protag was to busy to check up on whether the solution really worked; perhaps only the surface symptoms were cleared up, while the underlying problem was left to fester. Whatever the reason, the fact that the problem wasn't truly resolved can be discovered in the later novel.

A lot of the back story of a character is inferred. I remember in a Hemingway novel, one character mentions going Bankrupt, but nothing further is said about the situation. I don't think you really ever need to fill in the back-story. Just because someone says that Jonie was raped at seventeen doesn't mean you need a scene later to "show it." They might be saying this only to explain why she is afraid of intimacy or something.

Use Her Name said:

Just because someone says that Jonie was raped at seventeen doesn't mean you need a scene later to "show it." They might be saying this only to explain why she is afraid of intimacy or something.

Click to expand...

No, no, not a scene later to "show it"; a scene later to use it. For one thing, nothing should ever be used for only a single purpose. For another, rape is a powerful event; it should be used for a powerful purpose.

An early scene might reveal the information about the rape in connection with her fear of intimacy. At that point in the story, it would seem like that's the only reason it was mentioned. Later in the story, though, it will turn out the rape is important for some bigger reason. (Maybe she's being stalked and it turns out her stalker is a 14 yr old boy, the son conceived in that rape whom she gave up for adoption; maybe some other character gets raped and she's the only one who can relate.) You don't have to introduce the rape then "out of left field" because the reader already knows it happened.

What you describe sounds like it would be fine for me. Completely random details, facts, and events that seem like they should or are supposed to go somewhere but never do are not a good thing. Things that are actually pertinent in some way, shape, or form are fine, and from what you said it doesn't sound like you'd need to explain it all the way.

I'd think of it in terms of what you see in life everyday. You rarely get the full story about any event from anyone. It's almost like sharing an inside joke with a friend, but you learned about the inside joke second hand. It would still make sense, and it would still be funny, but it wouldn't be quite the same as having the shared experience. If the person sharing the joke isn't familiar at all with what's going on, or it just sounds like jibberish, then there's a problem. If they are familiar, there's more meaning. I hope that analogy made sense. I'm somewhat infamous with my friends for making really odd ones that occasionally don't make sense.

Outside of all that, I'd also say that having a few things said in passing mention would be okay too. It's okay not to dive into everything that gets brought up, but it should be clear that it's not a direction that necessarily needs to be gone into. If the fact's seem more mundane, then people are less like to care and it can seem more like a nice detail that can help set the world. If it turns out that fact or detail is important later on, that can be cool.

Of course, it's all my opinion.

I like it when you start seeing a story arcing over several books but it's got to be done just right - for me that means slowly and subtly. It's only when you realise the connections and go back and find more, you think "ooh, clever!". Jim Butcher's Dresden Files are a masterpiece at this. He's been dropping breadcrumbs since day one and I didn't even notice until about book 5!

And yeah, don't use something as a convenience ("ooh, I forgot I am a martial arts expert") to get out of a tight corner or forget about stuff like this as readers remember it! ("What happened to that spaceship that landed on top of the big baddie in book two? That was kinda wierd, eh?"). ;-)

Clare

If it's handled well it won't bother me.

Just don't make it seem like you're contradicting yourself, or like you're leaving out something important, and you should be fine.

Well, I personally would be mildly irritated if I felt there was an issue that was brought up and then never explained; it makes me think, why did the writer even bother with this if they're not going to explain it??

But, since you're talking about a series of novels, I guess that mitigates it. I'd still be irked, but that's just me, because I'm impatient that way. It doesn't mean the technique is wrong in any way. (I've probably used it myself in fact.)

You seem to be comfortable with the way people have responded thus far, so this is just further opinion. Without knowing what this thing is it's hard to be able to say if it would bother me or not. But I am one of those who really notice foreshadowing, or unresolved sub-plots, etc. - something important anyway. Not "Simone was born in Buffalo, NY." That doesn't need further explanation, but if later we discover later that she couldn't have been, because she'd never seen snow, it would have to be addressed in a way that makes sense to plot or sub-plot, or her relationship with her friends and why she lied.

I think it's always in the handling of the information. Readers aren't stupid and avid readers of series books are especially gratified with consistent threads that they've been waiting to read more about, or who remember subtle references and say "oh, that's what it means" in a self-satisfied kind of way. We all know the situations in which we say "hey wait a minute; there was no way that could happen" and feel our suspension of disbelief has just been abused. And that's not a good thing.