Thank you for exactly saying why I am suspicious of many highly promoted or popular mystery/thrillers (a genre I love) that are called "compelling," "propulsive," or "can't put down" because they often rely on a form of this: you have to keep reading to find out what the hell is going on but not in a fun way.
That's something I actually could have added a whole section on... I do notice that mystery/thriller/suspense stories often do this with at least SOME point-of-view characters, in part so you don't know who the bad guy is. But at it seems like it only works (or is only done) when we have multiple POVs, so we aren't in this opaque one for long. I'm thinking of polyphonic novels like Liz Moore's recent God of the Woods, which does it well, and also of Agatha Christie, who would sometimes do this as she dipped into various characters' POVs (from a more omniscient third). It can be really fun when it's done well, and briefly, and within the conventions of the genre... and yeah, it can be hell when it just results in general confusion.
Another famous surprise ending short story is Guy de Maupassant's The Necklace. But like O. Henry, (and every other writer who pulls this off) he knew that the story itself had to work during the 99% before that killer last line. Similarly, O. Henry's The Gift of the Magi details the protagonist's great love for his wife in so lovely a fashion that we are thoroughly "there" until the ironic ending twist that works as the last piece of a puzzle--but a puzzle that is still beautiful without it.
I have a close friend who aches to be a writer but falls into so many of traps you bring up. One of his stories - from his own life- was a piece he wrote about his gorgeous surfer roommate in the 80s, when my friend was overweight and hero-worshipped him. And my friend was so anxious to get to the shock ending -- reading his obituary a decade later, in which "Ken" has died in an AIDS hospice -- that everything up to that is rushed through. (This happens, and this happens etc.) I asked him a few questions, like, "Did he know you were in love with him?" and he said, "Oh, I wasn't in love with him. I didn't dare think I could have those feelings for him, me being so fat." And I said: "Okay, where's the 3-4 paragraphs on THAT?" Similarly, "looking back, do you see some signs that he was on the down-low that you missed?" He eventually came up with a few. "So write about that" "But it would ruin the ending!" "So maybe start the story with your "ending," or put it in the middle, but the meat of this has to be about you!" "But I never had these thoughts, consciously!" "Well that's the point of writing retrospectively, you can see things now you couldn't see then!" And so it went.
The rewrite was not a success - he was too uncomfortable stripping off the layers of self and I seemed to know more about him then than he did.
Withholding is a pet peeve of mine. I recently reviewed a book that had been on several "most anticipated books of 2004 lists," and it happened to be a dystopian novel, which granted is a genre which pretty much requires withholding. But I got to the end of the book without knowing who these people actually were, where they were, where in history it was, or what had happened to cause the breakdown of society. Result: a boring book.
Hello Rebecca. I’m a new subscriber here. Thank you for this post. I loved the “When does it work?” section, especially.
I’ve been keeping a list of stories that withhold something crucial and reveal them in the end.
1. A Temporary Matter by Jhumpa Lahiri
2. So Late in the Day by Claire Keegan
3. A Rose for Emily by Faulkner
4. The Rest of Her Life by Steve Yarbrough
I’d love to hear if you have any thoughts on these stories.
In “A Temporary Matter,” Shukumar is altered, yes, but it’s not because of his reveal, right? Also he is the viewpoint character and he is keeping it as secret. Should we take this as because it was too hard for him to even think about it?
In “So Late in the Day” also, the viewpoint character is keeping a secret till the end. And I’m not sure if Cathal actually changes. Maybe he does, but definitely not because of the reveal. But, on the other hand, it wasn’t just any other day.
“A Rose for Emily” — it’s, like, the narrator is telling us some town gossip and he is intentionally leading up to that climax reveal.
“Rest of Her Life” alternates between two timeframes, but I don’t think the main character Dee Ann is altered by the end of the story. Of course she is altered if we compare her between the two timeframes (past and present), but she is not altered because of anything happens in the present timeframe, I guess.
Anyway, I’d love to hear what you think of the reveals in any of these stories.
The struggle to find the balance between withholding and the big reveal is real. And then there’s the challenge of the big reveal being an anti climax once you get there after such a build up. The satisfaction for me is when the character finds out either at the same time as the reader, or after the reader. As you rightly say, more balancing required for those approaches to work well too.
Perfect ending. Five stars. And thank you. This is actually a pet peeve of mine. I love a good twist, but it's not a twist when you already KNOW THEY KNOW SOMETHING.
I've struggled with this in writing an epistolary novel consisting of the journal entries of a self-sabotaging indie author over seven high-stakes months. In her journal, she reports on current feelings and happenings she wants to remember. She also refers to persons or situations in her past. The journal entries must unfold in a way that informs the reader without the character seeming to tell herself stuff she already knows.
I hate when that happens. I am such an O. Henry fan though, especially The Gift of the Magi. I read it when I was a very young girl. It worked so perfectly for me. I liked all of the points you presented. Thanks.
Love this. The only thing I disagree with, and I realize this makes me fairly renegade in classic literature circles, is O'Henry. I've detested those gotcha stories since they were inflicted on me back in junior high, more than fifty years ago. I do love the Prize story collections named after him though.
Thank you for exactly saying why I am suspicious of many highly promoted or popular mystery/thrillers (a genre I love) that are called "compelling," "propulsive," or "can't put down" because they often rely on a form of this: you have to keep reading to find out what the hell is going on but not in a fun way.
That's something I actually could have added a whole section on... I do notice that mystery/thriller/suspense stories often do this with at least SOME point-of-view characters, in part so you don't know who the bad guy is. But at it seems like it only works (or is only done) when we have multiple POVs, so we aren't in this opaque one for long. I'm thinking of polyphonic novels like Liz Moore's recent God of the Woods, which does it well, and also of Agatha Christie, who would sometimes do this as she dipped into various characters' POVs (from a more omniscient third). It can be really fun when it's done well, and briefly, and within the conventions of the genre... and yeah, it can be hell when it just results in general confusion.
You said this is one of the top three problems plaguing student work. What are the other two?
Another famous surprise ending short story is Guy de Maupassant's The Necklace. But like O. Henry, (and every other writer who pulls this off) he knew that the story itself had to work during the 99% before that killer last line. Similarly, O. Henry's The Gift of the Magi details the protagonist's great love for his wife in so lovely a fashion that we are thoroughly "there" until the ironic ending twist that works as the last piece of a puzzle--but a puzzle that is still beautiful without it.
I have a close friend who aches to be a writer but falls into so many of traps you bring up. One of his stories - from his own life- was a piece he wrote about his gorgeous surfer roommate in the 80s, when my friend was overweight and hero-worshipped him. And my friend was so anxious to get to the shock ending -- reading his obituary a decade later, in which "Ken" has died in an AIDS hospice -- that everything up to that is rushed through. (This happens, and this happens etc.) I asked him a few questions, like, "Did he know you were in love with him?" and he said, "Oh, I wasn't in love with him. I didn't dare think I could have those feelings for him, me being so fat." And I said: "Okay, where's the 3-4 paragraphs on THAT?" Similarly, "looking back, do you see some signs that he was on the down-low that you missed?" He eventually came up with a few. "So write about that" "But it would ruin the ending!" "So maybe start the story with your "ending," or put it in the middle, but the meat of this has to be about you!" "But I never had these thoughts, consciously!" "Well that's the point of writing retrospectively, you can see things now you couldn't see then!" And so it went.
The rewrite was not a success - he was too uncomfortable stripping off the layers of self and I seemed to know more about him then than he did.
Withholding is a pet peeve of mine. I recently reviewed a book that had been on several "most anticipated books of 2004 lists," and it happened to be a dystopian novel, which granted is a genre which pretty much requires withholding. But I got to the end of the book without knowing who these people actually were, where they were, where in history it was, or what had happened to cause the breakdown of society. Result: a boring book.
Hello Rebecca. I’m a new subscriber here. Thank you for this post. I loved the “When does it work?” section, especially.
I’ve been keeping a list of stories that withhold something crucial and reveal them in the end.
1. A Temporary Matter by Jhumpa Lahiri
2. So Late in the Day by Claire Keegan
3. A Rose for Emily by Faulkner
4. The Rest of Her Life by Steve Yarbrough
I’d love to hear if you have any thoughts on these stories.
In “A Temporary Matter,” Shukumar is altered, yes, but it’s not because of his reveal, right? Also he is the viewpoint character and he is keeping it as secret. Should we take this as because it was too hard for him to even think about it?
In “So Late in the Day” also, the viewpoint character is keeping a secret till the end. And I’m not sure if Cathal actually changes. Maybe he does, but definitely not because of the reveal. But, on the other hand, it wasn’t just any other day.
“A Rose for Emily” — it’s, like, the narrator is telling us some town gossip and he is intentionally leading up to that climax reveal.
“Rest of Her Life” alternates between two timeframes, but I don’t think the main character Dee Ann is altered by the end of the story. Of course she is altered if we compare her between the two timeframes (past and present), but she is not altered because of anything happens in the present timeframe, I guess.
Anyway, I’d love to hear what you think of the reveals in any of these stories.
The struggle to find the balance between withholding and the big reveal is real. And then there’s the challenge of the big reveal being an anti climax once you get there after such a build up. The satisfaction for me is when the character finds out either at the same time as the reader, or after the reader. As you rightly say, more balancing required for those approaches to work well too.
Perfect ending. Five stars. And thank you. This is actually a pet peeve of mine. I love a good twist, but it's not a twist when you already KNOW THEY KNOW SOMETHING.
I've struggled with this in writing an epistolary novel consisting of the journal entries of a self-sabotaging indie author over seven high-stakes months. In her journal, she reports on current feelings and happenings she wants to remember. She also refers to persons or situations in her past. The journal entries must unfold in a way that informs the reader without the character seeming to tell herself stuff she already knows.
I hate when that happens. I am such an O. Henry fan though, especially The Gift of the Magi. I read it when I was a very young girl. It worked so perfectly for me. I liked all of the points you presented. Thanks.
Love this. The only thing I disagree with, and I realize this makes me fairly renegade in classic literature circles, is O'Henry. I've detested those gotcha stories since they were inflicted on me back in junior high, more than fifty years ago. I do love the Prize story collections named after him though.
Underrated candy bar, though.