Dealing with reader knowledge.pdf

Dealing with Reader Knowledge

by Wen Spencer

Is it really stupid to go down into the basement with whatever light source you

can find?

Think about, you're sitting at home and the lights go off. What's wrong? You

could just sit there and hope the lights come on, or you start trying to find the nearest

light source. Ah here's a flashlight. Cool. Turn it on. Now what? Well, is it just your

house or the whole neighborhood? Hmmm, looks like just your house, so possibly you

blew a fuse. Down into the basement you go to see if flipping the circuit breaker will

work.

Typical life.

Why, then, do we think characters in a horror movie are so stupid to do the same?

Because WE KNOW what's down in the basement waiting for them. We know

that this is a horror movie. We know that there's a killer on the loose. We know BAD

things happen in basement. Only an idiot would go down and try to get the lights on.

Consider this situation:

Hannibal the Cannibal walks into a flower shop where the heroine works. He is

neatly dressed, clean, and well-spoken. He says, "Can we step into the cold room to look

at flowers?" We KNOW who he is, and we're climbing the walls. "No, no," we cry to the

heroine, "can't you see how evil he is?" With every clue she misses, the more we think

her an idiot. But to be fair to her, she's probably worked in this flower shop for years,

taking care of customers and never once had anything go wrong. Why would she mistrust

Hannibal?

Indiana Jones bursts into flower shop, dirty from a crawl through a tomb, whip in

hand, gun on his hip, and a slight crazed look. "Come with me if you want to live!" he

says. We KNOW who he is -- the hero -- and now cry, yes, yes, trust him! If the heroine

locked Indy in the freezer, ignoring all his claims that Hannibal was an escape murderer

that ate people, we would be angry with her. But why should she trust the armed and

obviously dangerous Indy?

Insider knowledge, unfortunately, unfairly colors the reader's reaction to

characters. They want the characters to react as if they too know this insider information.

One of the strengths of Law & Order is that we, the viewer, don't know anything

more than the cops. All we know is the facts as they are presented and that the police

honestly want to find the true criminal. When they think they find their evil doer and zero

in on that person, you cheer their attempts because they think have the right person. We

applaud their bending the law to the point of breaking. We are angry with judges and

defense lawyers protecting these obviously bad people.

Time and time, again, however, new evidence proves otherwise, and you and the

police have to chose a new suspect. If we the viewer knew who the real criminal was,

however, we'd be angry for them following red herrings. The case could run exactly the

same, but our respect of the detectives wouldn't be the same.

On the other hand, the old classic, Columbo, we were shown the murder at the

beginning of the show. We enjoyed what seemed outwardly as bumbling by Columbo

because we also could tell he was locking in on the real killer. The fun came from

watching the killer squirm as Columbo fumbled around him, closing in. If we didn't know

the killer, I think our patience would have been much less with what seemed to be an

inept policeman.

At the beginning of DOG WARRIOR, I play a small trick on the reader. I don't

give them all the information I could on Atticus Steele. Why? Because I want them to be

in the dark as much as Ukiah is. What I wanted was it to be reasonable that Atticus and

Ukiah didn't cry "Brother!" and hug. So I hide information out in plain sight, clues that

could be read either way, so the reader is unsure -- and is willing for the characters to be

equally unsure of one another.

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: