Story Telling Style: Do you like being confused?

I don't mind mysteries. I don't even mind the odd unexplained story element. However, I find it frustrating when crucial points are left unresolved. This always seems to me like the author either showing off, if he's skilled, or being lazy or just unintelligent, if he's not.

Marcian, I recommend you read some works by Gene Wolfe, if you haven't already. I particularly enjoy his "Latro in the Mist" (the best thing I've ever read about ancient Greece) and "Wizard Knight" series. Wolfe leaves all kinds of things unexplained. Minor characters wander in and out seemingly at random, scenes that have critical importance later in the plot are omitted, and characters' motivation often has to be deduced rather than being spelled out, even if the character is the narrator. Wolfe is generally well-respected as a novelist, and I enjoy his styling, so he reads to me as if he's showing off. Despite that, I find him entertaining, and given the preferences you've expressed here, I think you would as well.

I do not like films/books/etc that explain everything carefully as if you were a 3 year old, in order to make sure that you don't miss anything. The older generation, even my parents who aren't as bad as those even older, confuse me entirely with their complete aggravation at any piece of fiction that doesn't have massive exposition to make sure they don't have to wonder about anything for five minutes, or infer anything from the actions and statements of the characters.

I also think that sometimes it's a massive mistake to try and wrap things up too neatly, explain every little thing (Midichlorians, anyone?), and so on. I tend to think any story should make you think and leave you with questions, because ultimately, how YOU answer those questions is more important than how the author might have.

But the flip-side is of course, Lost. And other stories where the authors are lazy and realize that they can get people to pay them money just by creating nonsense and never answering anything. They don't have an idea of the answer themselves, or even a real game plan for the plot. They just develop it as they go along, and it's all a giant mess.

And there are stories where the author clearly did have an plan, but it was so nonsensical that it just leaves you going "Huh?" at the end.

Basically I like to have to wonder and guess at things as the story develops. And I do think there needs to be some resolution to the story at the end. But, as in real life, there are no real "endings", so I don't think everything should be wrapped up or answered at the end.

Finding the balance between the two is, I think, where the skill of a writer is tested.

Well... We may be talking about two different things when we say older generation. I'm 32. My parents are in their 50s. And I'm thinking of my grandparents' generation and the movies from the 40s and 50s where absolutely EVERYTHING is explained, there are no surprises whatsoever, and you never have to wonder what's happening or even what will happen next.

I don't mind a mysterious story as long as the mystery is eventually explained.

Looking at you, Lost.

I don't terribly mind Borgesian or inconclusive fiction, especially if presented in an inviting format. I loved Dictionary of the Khazars by Milorad Pavić. I could not finish If on a Winter's Night a Traveler by Italo Calvino.

<《 New Colchis / Guides / Mission Architect 》>
"At what point do we say, 'You're mucking with our myths'?" - Harlan Ellison

I can't believe this thread hasn't had a single mention of Momento or the first season of the Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya yet. Both are fun examples of nonlinear stories that can throw the veiwer for a loop.

I don't think I'd have used the term confusion for any of those examples. I love mysteries. Mysteries intentionally don't spoon feed details and sometimes give you information which leads to an incorrect conclusion. That's not confusing to me, as is not having all of the back story in a show like Pushing Daisies or doing the Radio missions and not knowing exactly why or how the radio is directing me. That's intriguing. Confusion is frustrating.

Some stories are told out of oder, like Pulp Fiction. That, to me, is a little more confusing than just not having all the pieces. As long as it all comes together, I don't feel confused and I generally try to trust the story teller to make sure it does. Most of them do, as I think was done in Pulp Fiction. The Radio missions may still leave people wondering, but in the end it doesn't matter why, so I don't feel like the not knowing leaves me unsatisfied or confused.

When story tellers don't start putting pieces together in a timely manner, throw in too many red herrings or side stories just because they can, or have strange and pointless things going on for no reason, or have a lot of contradictions in the plots, then I might get confused or frustrated. A better example of this, I think, would be David Lynch's Twin Peaks television series. Twin Peaks was the Winchester Mystery House of the television neighborhood. There were plots that seemed important one week, then went nowhere. A few quirky people is one thing, but the town was full of eccentrics with no explanation. What was up with the backward-speaking dancing dwarf? I stuck with the show through every episode and enjoyed it as something I thought of as unique, but it bore little resemblance to what we've come to expect as a typical TV show and that bothered a lot of people. Unless you only cared about the "Wow, I wonder what crazy thing will happen next," there was no pay day on your investment. It was self-indulgent craziness. (Which you could say about anything Lynch has done, really.) I liked it, but sometimes it was confusing or frustrating because it didn't delivery what's expected of most television shows. Expectation has a lot to do with this kind of thing. If I considered it "entertainment," and didn't expect it to be like other shows, it was and I enjoyed it. If I expected it to deliver something that made sense of it all, I was let down.

Lost sometimes borders on that, but they've learned to include more payoffs than Lynch did. They leave you with questions, but they do deliver answers. They mislead you, but they make up for it. Make me think, make me work to figure some things out on my own, but don't waste my time doing it. You don't have to give me everything right away, but give me something so I feel that I can trust that you'll deliver in the end. That's the difference, I think, between confusion and keeping people guessing. I enjoyed Twin Peaks but I never trusted that Lynch would have a satisfactory payoff in the end, even if it hadn't been canceled. Lynch never delivered enough smaller payoffs for me to trust him with that. I loved Pushing Daisies and I did trust that the story tellers there would give me a satisfactory payoff because that was the pattern they'd established in the conclusion of every episode. (In the end it was nearly satisfactory, but they were rushed when they got canceled.) Pulp Fiction delivered, even though it didn't wrap up everything into a neat little package and left you wondering about some things. That made people talk and I think it was great.

I like stories that keep me guessing and have a payoff. I tend not to like stories that leave me confused, never seem to get to a point or have no payoff, and seem to be more about the story teller saying, "look how clever I am" than about the actual story. Keep me guessing, then deliver. If the story is just muddled confusion and can't deliver or the story teller changes the balance so I don't feel the delivery is worth waiting for or worth my effort, I'm most likely not interested.

If you do enjoy movies that make you work and may or may not confuse you, check out Primer. The less you know about it going in, the better.