How Much?

On our evening dog walk up and round a dark and gloomy hill (well, gloomy except for the ever present glow of Doncaster and its environs, anyway), we fell into talk of one of our favourite books series - A Song of Ice and Fire.

This is an excellent topic, worthy of much revisiting (though it is not the inspiration of the title of the blog) and allows for many sup-topics.  We can always get more mileage out of comparing the HBO show with the original texts and discussing the reasons behind those changes.  Evaluating which version works best and in which ways is always good, too.  Adaptation to a different medium requires change, after all, so we do not subscribe to the notion that any change is automatically bad, though some stump us.  I am not sure I will ever understand why Season One has a sex scene playing in the background of a speech by Littlefinger which isn't even in the books and which did not add to the narrative in a way which was necessary for me.  However, there can be many reasons for anything to be in a TV show, and it is perhaps just that I would rather watch Littlefinger being sarcastic or Tyrion being sarcastic or...well, there are a number of options for sarcastic characters, aren't there?  Almost as many options as there are for dead characters.  But, I digress.

Another sub-topic is the ever entertaining game of trying to predict the outcome of this work by a man who is on record as hating to have a predictable outcome.  Tonight, we discussed the imagery in the scenes where Danny is in the House of the Undying Ones.  As with many great fantasy novels, certain things are seeming a lot clearer now we know what happens later, and therefore new ideas are springing up.  A certain wedding seems to have been foretold...

The purpose of this blog, however, is not to discuss theories for this novel.  I know there will be many websites and threads devoted to that already, even though my own experience of such threads is mainly from the hour upon hour I have spent reading feverishly through Wheel of Time posts.  That Robert Jordan - a total master of foreshadowing.

No.  In this blog, I am wondering about how many hints are needed for it to be a satisfying read.  Back in the day, people wrote in and complained about Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, arguing that she had not played fair by concealing an essential clue from the reader.  There had been no way, it was wailed, for the reader to work it out before the denouement.  Now, this seemed odd when I first heard this, as I had never thought the point of a murder mystery was to work it out for yourself, but that is because I did not exist back when people felt his way about their murder books.  After the legacy of so many reinventions of the murder and mystery books, including those, such as Strangers on a Train, where the whole point is we know fine well who the murderer is going to be and are on the ride with him as he tries to wriggle out of it, it isn't such a clear-cut expectation.  Not so to many of Chrsitie's readers, it would seem.  (If you haven't read The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, I heartily recommend it.  Not only because my mum's maiden name is Ackroyd - as that is less likely to interest those of you who aren't me - but because it is a great twist.  Also, Poirot grows the vegetable marrows.  Or tries to.  He and Sherlock Holmes should set up a smallholding.  Holmes, of course, will tend the bees.)

I've also read The Da Vinci Code and, whatever else you can say about it, it keeps you turning the pages.  I think, sometimes those of us still working on getting published forget that this is a vital ingredient and not a skill everyone has.  Set up one little mystery, answer it as setting up another, repeat.  More than once, I honestly turned back a few pages to check what I had taken to be the reveal of a little mystery, because it was now being revealed again.  It seemed that that first reveal was still supposed to just be a clue.

All of this makes me wonder how much information is the right amount.  I have read some books with classes where they have been up in arms because it does not have a 'proper ending'.  Atwood's The Handmaid's Tale is especially likely to send the kids up in flames over this.  To me, this book has a perfect ending, by which I mean it seems fitting and right for the book.  It is satisfying.  Not knowing is partly the point, after all.  That is one of the themes of the whole book, not being able to be sure.  However, I am less sure about a couple of other novels by the same author.  Great writing, language skills which make me shiver, but one or two times where I have been left unsatisfied.  Now, Atwood is something special, so maybe I was meant to feel that way.  It is also totally valid that these endings just don't sit as well with me, but work for others.  Books do not have to come to a conventional ending, after all.  They just have to have an ending which is considered right for that book.

It must be the same with the amount revealed, and where it is revealed, within the book.  I am addicted to writing stories where things seems to start in the middle and information is dripped in very slowly.  I like this.  Wherever possible, I prefer not to come out and state anything.  I need to watch this does not tip over into being so vague that nothing makes sense.  (I'm working on it.)

So, how much is too much?  When G.R.R.Martin finally reveals his ending, will we be left yelling 'Oh, come on, George.  There's subverting expectations and then there's just taking the piss', or will we be looking back at the clues and kicking ourselves?

In many ways, I suppose it doesn't matter, as long as we enjoy the ride.  He is letting us ride a-dragon-back, after all.  I'm willing to let a lot go for that.  (This will all change in a heartbeat the minute you kill off The Mother of Dragons, Mr Martin, and I am still not accepting that last scene with my other favourite in it.  No, I am not.  You know who I mean.  Lalalala - didn't happen...)