>>> Item number 21020 from WRITERS LOG9311C --- (163 records) ---- <<< Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1993 18:00:04 JST Reply-To: WRITERS Sender: WRITERS From: Mike Barker Subject: TECH: Twisty Endings (was CRIT: final destination) Hi, Allen, jc, et all. I think we're doing "it's been done before" again, with the focus on twist endings. Anyway, let me add my usual endless babbling to the good words jc had to say. I think maybe the best place to look at how to handle "twist" endings is over in the mystery genre. They are probably the most conspicious and blatant about the story being a puzzle - almost a struggle - between the writer and the reader, with the writer presenting all the pieces and (in the best mysteries) the reader still wondering just who did it, how, etc. The great mysteries, though, as jc suggests, can be read a second or more times, and still are interesting, even though you know exactly who did it. Some of the keys seem to be in providing a depth of characterization, "other information", and "extraneous plotting" that provide enough other interest that the underlying puzzle really isn't that important. The mystery genre is fairly harsh about requiring that all the clues and information needed to solve the puzzle be available to the reader, preferably well ahead of time. Frankly, the readers also require it - there is nothing worse than having a writer "pull a rabbit out of the hat" at the end and thus solve the mystery. It is almost as bad as having the writer pull a god out of the blue and resolve the drama that way (deus ex machina, anyone?). On the other hand, IF the clues and information have been there all along and the reader still doesn't know the solution, then they are delighted when the detective fits it together and catches the criminal. There's a kind of intellectual pleasure in watching the great detectives winnow through exactly the same clues and information you had and show you how to fit it together and solve the mystery. Part of the trick for the writer is "burying" the clues ahead of time. (I think I've seen articles on this - Mystery Writers Handbook, maybe? Didn't take the time to dig it out, you'll have to settle for notions off the top of my fevered id...) Some of the ways I can think of to bury clues: 1. buried in rubble - simply include the information as part of a massive amount of information. e.g., the police surgeon details the clothing, etc. and contents of pocket including A, B, C, D, E, and F. Found near the body... D turns out to be the crucial clue, but since it is simply presented without emphasis, most readers skip right by it. 2. the dog that didn't bark - absence of G is crucial. Sherlock Holmes made this famous, but it still throws readers regularly - missing keys, etc. are noticed by the detective, but not by the reader. Be a little careful, because readers can get upset. The best thing is to provide them with the information that G would normally be present in another part of the story or another context (capture a thief and turn out his pockets, including the keys that weren't in the victim's pocket...) 3. purloined letter - hidden by obviousness. knives in a kitchen, the doorman that no one notices, the mailbox that no one checked, etc. if presented as part of the background without special emphasis, the reader skips right by such normal items... until the detective points out that George, the doorman, was there that night too, even though no one has included him as a suspect... 4. misinterpretation by the reader - this is tricky. basically, it involves deliberately leading the reader into implications and suppositions that hide the true meaning of the clue(s) from them. unless it is carefully done, it is very likely to convince the reader that you have misled them as a writer. a good way to cover - use your "Watson" or other minor character as a foil - let them misinterpret it, and be baffled by the detective, then the reader can chuckle at their own mistake because obviously Watson also goofed. If you want an example - lots of jokes depend on this. consider almost any of the ones about "the doctor" doing something - reader/listener jumps ahead, thinking the doctor is a man - and then revealing that "the doctor" was a woman. 5. Unusual usage - the ice cubes used to lift the table the necessary two inches, the nylons used as a fanbelt (which let her drive the car even though the fanbelt was broken), etc. - the trick is to present something that can be left and described in plain view whose normal use misleds the reader. popular mechanics used to have lists of these "emergency tricks" and I think there are books of them now. part of the trick of getting away with this is making a fuss about the water around the table legs or the condition of her nylons - which clues the reader without giving away the trick. 6. Bits and pieces - presented separately and clearly, but in an order that makes it difficult for the reader to recognize how to put it together into the rube goldberg sequence that makes it work. this is the MacGyver or A-Team or even Mission:Impossible puzzle - you've seen all the pieces, but until they show you how to put them together, they seem insignificant. Notice that while these shows use this kind of puzzle, they normally don't use this resolution as the main plot climax - it is a subplot, playing along with the main part. The key to all these tricks (IMHO), though, is to start at the end - what are the pieces that the detective puts together to solve the problem? then go back through the story and find natural hiding holes for all these. For example, a lipstick might be an important clue. ok - can you have the criminal passed out? then the detective can go through her purse, looking for ID, and incidentally (haha!) finding the lipstick and ignoring it (as the reader ignores it, since it is perfectly ordinary then). I suspect the writer may also be the best judge of whether the story has enough depth to stand, even when the trick is known. After all, the writer knows the trick, knows where they've stuffed every clue - all they need to ask themself is whether the story is interesting even ignoring that part. Is there background, changes or revelations about the characters, and action to make the reader come back even when the trick is well-known? Incidentally, if you want to see a set of SF stories that fall pretty flat the second time around, try the Star Surgeon stories by James White. The first time through, the focus is on figuring out what is wrong with the patient, and the reader puzzles with the protagonist. The second time through - blah! For a contrast, try Borders of Infinity by Lois McMaster-Bujold. The puzzles are there, and the reader tries to guess. But even after that, you can read and reread the stories for the depth of characterization and emotion, for the sheer fun of the roller-coaster ride. I think if you grab this ( send listserv /ship writers 24200) 024200 93/06/17 17:00 69 TECH: Well-Worn SF Ideas I listed the "common slushpile twists" one of the SF editors provided. Be aware that Card, for example, in Ender's Game, breaks one; Footfall (Pournelle and Niven) runs over well-trod ground - alien invasion; and other writers have made their name deliberately taking on ideas like this that have been done a few too many times - but not the way they did them! A notion for the birth idea - suppose you assumed that fetuses, unknown to science, actually form a telepathic link with the mother's brain, and experience everything in the womb. And suppose that it is only the trauma and shock of birth that destroys that link and the already well-developed patterns of thought. The patterns of thought imprinted during this time are actually what later develops into the individual... Heck, you could even postulate that all fetuses are linked - until birth. Imagine being torn from a telepathic community. no wonder they yell! Anyway, now you have a good reason for a thinking, feeling baby - who may even know that birth will be the end of this life! You've also got a significant struggle - the baby knows this telepathic life, and knows it is ending. Go ahead and use it - if you want to. I don't think anyone has done that one yet... and even if they have - put your own spin and depth into it, so that the story doesn't live or die on the twist, and it will be your story. tink