The reader knows before the main character

I write adventure fiction for kids and historical mysteries for adults, and in both types of books the reader does find out things before the MC. It's a common way to write thrillers and a good way to build tension.

This is largely a PoV issue to my mind... if you are using omni or seeing some scenes from the PoV of another character who does know (i.e. you get inside the head of the villan for a scene) then there isn't a problem with it. If you are writing purely from the PoV of the MC as a tight third person singular then I would have to ask 'how is it possible to have something seen by the reader which is not known by the MC'?

don't hide things

You mean hide what the bad guys are going to do?

I used to think like that. Then I realized letting the reader know something bad is about to happen is the best way to raise tension. No need to hide it.

Look at the classic shower scene in Psycho. Would it have been scary if we didn't know there was guy w/a knife coming in? I'd say 90% of suspense is knowing a disaster is about to happen, but being powerless to warn the hero.

"Psycho initially received mixed reviews, but outstanding returns prompted a re-review which was overwhelmingly positive"

I didn't use to mind the whole 'keeping the plan secret' thing but over the years I have become tired of it. It's hard to achieve without it appearing contrived. If the character has a good reason for not sharing their plans *with that (or those) character(s)* then withholding also from the reader can work.

I suppose it's the elephant in the room. If someone present in the scene would know the plan, the reader should too. If we're in first or tight third, then if the narrator is thinking about the plan, it's hard to hold it back from the reader. Not that it can't be done.

A friend who read an early novel of mine commented that things just 'seemed to happen' to the protagonist because we never got to find out what he was planning.

tko said:

You mean hide what the bad guys are going to do?

I used to think like that. Then I realized letting the reader know something bad is about to happen is the best way to raise tension. No need to hide it.

Look at the classic shower scene in Psycho. Would it have been scary if we didn't know there was guy w/a knife coming in? I'd say 90% of suspense is knowing a disaster is about to happen, but being powerless to warn the hero.

Click to expand...

This seems right on to me. It's the difference between surprise and suspense. If characters are riding along in a bus and it blows up, that's surprise. If we see the bomb being placed under the bus, and they're riding along, that's suspense.

I'd say the real danger in this is that your MC looks stupid. You don't want that.

areteus said:

If you are writing purely from the PoV of the MC as a tight third person singular then I would have to ask 'how is it possible to have something seen by the reader which is not known by the MC'?

Click to expand...

It's harder, but it's possible. The MC must interpret something incorrectly, but in a logical way (given their character), and both their character and the set of other facts known should suggest a misinterpretation and thus make that something's true meaning clear to the reader. Some relatively easy-to-dramatize examples would be a 7-year-old MC encountering something sexual or a delusional MC encountering...whatever he has delusional beliefs about. But characters who are otherwise mentally competent can misinterpret (and have misinterpreted) things, too.

SomethingOrOther said:

It's harder, but it's possible. The MC has to interpret things incorrectly, to put it reductively.

Click to expand...

Then the reader can't know them, either. Or if it's something that every reader gets right, and the MC gets wrong, the novel just ain't gonna work.

I agree with everything that's been said about 'the plan should be known if the characters know it'.

There's also a saying: 'no plan survives contact with the enemy'

Assume the plan is: Move on compound from the west while helicopters distract enemies with aerial rocket barrage.Enter compound, clear room by room to room in north-east corner where intelligence confirmed our target is located. Ensure his death and pull out.

Okay, we know the plan. But is that really going to happen? Even spies make mistakes. Even the best of the best muck it up. Maybe the big bad does something to thrawt the plan.

Even better, maybe they actually succeed according to plan but something unforseen happens along the way which adds suspense (e.g. in my prior plan, they ensure the guy's dead but loose two guys in the process because someone stepped on a mine. For the remainder of the assault everyone's scared shitless of mines.).

Or maybe things go according to plan but someone's surprised (e.g. prior example again: They go into the compound from the west, go into the building room by room and in one room there's a guy sitting in the corner who opens fire. He misses all his shots, they get the guy, but he's spooked whoever missed him and he dilligently checks every corner henceforth.)

So much you can do with plans even if the reader knows.

Jamesaritchie said:

Then the reader can't know them, either. Or if it's something that every reader gets right, and the MC gets wrong, the novel just ain't gonna work.

Click to expand...

It's perfectly possible to do that, I think. A favourite book of mine is Cugel's Saga, by Jack Vance, a picaresque following the title character's adventures in a far-future Earth. Cugel the Clever is an unprincipled rogue who is always trying to manipulate people; often, it turns out, he's not as clever as his mark, and he gets fooled himself. Part of the fun of the novel is the fact that when Cugel is overreaching himself and trying to be too clever, it's obvious to the reader before it's obvious to him. That's kind of the definition of dramatic irony, and Vance is a master of irony.

Vance tends to write in the (apparently unfashionable) third-person omniscient, but he sticks pretty close to Cugel, who never really learns from his mistakes - he keeps outwitting himself and biting off more than he can chew. Over time, we get to know Cugel better than he knows himself - we're not afflicted by his vanity. So although we aren't really privy to the schemes and motivations of others, in terms of what Vance explicitly tells us, we're warier and smarter than Cugel is, and we can see the shape of what's coming.

Seeing Cugel's comeuppance looming from a way off is amusing and pleasurable in a way that should be familiar to anyone who has ever watched a sitcom, where the audience is generally able to spot the seeds of, say, George Costanza's doom coming a mile off. You can also do this as tragedy or horror and aim to have the reader going "Noooo! Don't open that door!" This shouldn't be the same as an Idiot Plot, which would hinge on everyone being a moron, but again - it's a recognisable and serviceable literary device.

Jamesaritchie said:

Then the reader can't know them, either. Or if it's something that every reader gets right, and the MC gets wrong, the novel just ain't gonna work.

Click to expand...

Disagree. The book can then be about the character learning the truth, if it wasnt about that already.

I disagree with most of the other responses. When I know something before the MC does, then I'm just sitting around waiting for them to catch up, and I don't find that interesting at all. I find myself thinking that the MC is stupid for not figuring out what's going on. And when the bad thing finally does happen, it's not exciting, because I knew that it would.

EthanJones said:

Hi everyone,

I’m revising my novel and I noticed that I have a lot of situations when the reader knows before the main character about an important element of the plot. I guess this is almost inevitable in spy fiction. The author gives the reader the actions of the good guys and those of the bad guys separately, and some time needs to pass for the good guys to discover what is being plotted by the bad guys.

I have seen authors try to go around this by employing an I-will-tell-the-reader-later device. This is when the main characters are talking to one another and they discuss the ‘plan’ or the ‘solution’ among themselves, but the reader does not know what is going on until later on in the story. The authors may use expressions like ‘he told her what their plan was’ or ‘he described his idea’ or ‘his secret weapon was in the knapsack’.

Personally, I find this a bit contrived and would prefer for the reader to know what is being planned. Hopefully, he will cheer for the good guys to discover and stop the impending doom.

What do you think? What do you do in these situations?

Click to expand...

'Tis an art. Because else you're left with deus ex machina.

(duex if there's more than one)

dawinsor said:

This seems right on to me. It's the difference between surprise and suspense. If characters are riding along in a bus and it blows up, that's surprise. If we see the bomb being placed under the bus, and they're riding along, that's suspense.

Click to expand...

someone's being reading their writing theory.

Paul said:

someone's being reading their writing theory.

Click to expand...

Someone's been listening to Connie Willis at a writing workshop. My god, I love Connie.

James Ellroy does this to an extent. He has complex plots, lots of characters, and as you read the mysteries are slowly unraveled. So the reader may not know what's going on until the big explanatory part where he explains how it all clicks. I like this concept, but think it takes a lot of work to pull off well.

It comes down to how you want to manipulate tension. General rule of thumb is: if you're showing me what the MC's plan is in advance, then it had better go wrong during implementation. Otherwise, it's boring. No surprises. OTOH, if all will go according to plan, then don't show me the plan in advance. I can see it play out in real time.

Aren't you all discussing the difference between a thriller (or suspense thriller) and a mystery? Though similar in many ways, the way the story is told is different.

Alfred Hitchcock had something to say about this and I think he used the bomb in the bus as an example.

Anyhow, in treatment, they is two different animals.

BethS said:

General rule of thumb is: if you're showing me what the MC's plan is in advance, then it had better go wrong during implementation. Otherwise, it's boring. No surprises.

Click to expand...

What amazes me is how Pullman completely ignores this in Northern Lights/Golden Compass yet everybody goes 'great book'. No, not in that section, anyway.

Buffysquirrel said:

What amazes me is how Pullman completely ignores this in Northern Lights/Golden Compass yet everybody goes 'great book'. No, not in that section, anyway.

Click to expand...

That whole series is unevenly written. It has moments of brilliance and moments of "what was he thinking?"