Addition: I am getting a number of comments on this video saying that this is a pantser's or discovery writer's issue only, some of them worded...quite harshly. My belief about writing process is that *no process* is foolproof or better, and no process will cause certain issues with a story. Any process can face this issue, and any process can also overcome it. Just because you have an outline doesn't guarantee your solution is creative enough to overcome this paradox. You can have a plan, follow it, and still have the solution to your mystery be underwhelming. Overcoming this issue takes creativity and problem solving, not just proper set-up. As well, just because you are discovering the story as you write doesn't mean you can't come up with a clever solution, or that you can't later revise the story to fit everything into place after you've written it. Knowing the ending and having an outline may be a great strategy for avoiding this issue for many writers, but it's not the only way to overcome this, and knowing the ending in advance won't guarantee success either. I just want to be clear that I don't support process elitism or shaming anyone for their writing process. I didn't talk about writing process at all in this video because I don't believe in equating process to specific issues because they cannot be correlated (process is too specific to the individual), but this video has attracted a lot of plotting elitism, which goes against the message I try to share on this channel.
You can have a good outline and follow it poorly, making the story fall flat. And you can have an unclear plot from the start, but nail it perfectly as you go. I love your defense of pantsing videos. The internet needs more content like that!
I’m a fair mix of both outliner and discovery writer, but it does annoy me a bit when I’m looking for inspiration to fix an issue or learn something new only to have the answer be “just outline it”. I love your channel, and many discovery writers channels in general, because there’s no outline to get in the way of thoroughly understanding the topic. I love videos that help understand the premise and deduce our own solutions, it’s just far more stimulating.
Lost was like a 1000-piece puzzle where the creators had already made about 500 very imaginative pieces before realizing that all the pieces are actually supposed to create a picture in the end.
This is how I felt about Maze Runner (the first movie, I never read the books). The idea of the maze and its secrets were way more interesting than finding out that it was just another dystopia story.
It's difficult, because what could the maze have been otherwise? I guess it could have been its own living entity or something and that's it, and that may have been interesting too
@@EmilynWood Like ANYTHING else. Sometimes it feels like YA/Teen novels forget there is such thing as other genres. Like, how cool would it have been, if like you said, the Maze was just this mysterious living entity, ensnaring random victims, and the characters never fully understand it. Like fantasy with a touch of cosmic horror. Then again I am super biased, so take that as you will.
@@clydesdale1775 That's fair though--I haven't read much dystopia so that may also be why it's not a big deal to me. I know people who read a lot of one thing can get more bored with it easily because everything starts to blur together.
I haven't read much (read: any) dystopia myself, but even I was kinda disappointed when Mazerunner went, oh, just another dystopia. (Saw the first and second movies, never read the books.) Even the plot it did have didn't necessarily need a dystopian setting. Come to think of it I don't remember what it was about anymore. Something something disease, something magical cure? I don't remember why the maze was necessary in the first place. That said, I didn't dislike the story, but I don't feel like I would have missed out on anything by not watching it either.
I think the Star Wars Sequel trilogy is an interesting case study, specifically in regards to Rey's parentage. The first movie set her up as this girl whom her parents abandoned on this desert planet for unknown reasons. The memory of it comes up in a vision, Rey herself is desperate for an answer, etc. It's all pretty mysterious, and, naturally, for months afterwards people came up with theories about which named characters she was secretly related to: was she a Skywalker? A Kenobi? Related to a character from the Rogue One movie? And then the second movie came out. Say what you will about the writing of The Last Jedi, it certainly had some issues, but in my mind Rian Johnson found a perfect answer to this mystery. Rey's parents, as is revealed to her in an absolutely devastating moment, are just some nobodies. Unimportant people, who sold their child for selfish, unimportant reasons. And it worked! It was such an interesting twist! It forced Rey to confront her fear of rejection and her general wish to be someone who mattered. It played into the movie's themes of legacy. It was a nice contrast to both Kylo Ren, who spent the previous movie completely obsessed with his grandfather, and to Luke Skywalker, who found out he was Darth Vader's son in the second movie of his trilogy. It brought back the idea that a force user, even a strong one, could come from anywhere. And it was just kinda refreshing to see a powerful female character, whose powers did not come from a male lineage. Like... they had a really satisfying answer. They overcame the paradox. And then they completely blew it with the third movie, because everything we had just learned about Rey's parents was just a cover story for her being Palpatine's granddaughter somehow.
@@markborok4481 It's more disappointing in this case though because he actually had a satisfying answer fall into his lap and then went out of his way to retcon it into an unsatisfying one
You hit the nail on the head. It is the mystery itself that compels people forward in a story and the answer seldom lives up to what we come up with because it can't be all things to all people. When the answer is vague and in our heads, it is highly personalized, when the author writes it down it inevitably loses that personalization.
There was a moment in Better Call Saul where Jimmy/Saul just got a job at Davis and Maine. There was a switch next to the window with a sticker on it saying, "Never turn off!" or something like that. Of course, Jimmy flipped the switch and that's where the episode ended. I watched the next episode because I had to find out what would happen now that he'd flipped the switch. The answer was never given. I went on Reddit (because I was obsessed at this point, I guess) where someone explained that the switch was meant to show how Jimmy will always be Jimmy despite now being a successful lawyer. It was meant to convey that Jimmy was secretly unhappy with his new job and deeply desires to be his old conman persona, 'Slipping Jimmy'. When I learned that, I actually thought it was a fantastic choice of the writers. Rather than making the flipped switch an actual subplot, they tied it into Jimmy's character development. That was pretty much the biggest lesson in writing a show ever taught me: always make sure your mysteries tie into the inner conflict of your characters, or that they at least say something about your theme.
I think that the thing about mystery resumes to management of expectations. If you know what the answer is, make sure that you don't subvert the reader's expectations for lower (aka make them think the answer is a big deal when it's trivial), unless you're writing a comedy; in most cases, it's more effective to make the reader think that he answer is trivial and then go for something bigger, but not too big, or it'll feel exaggerated.
Agreed, but there are different ways of making it 'bigger'. This can be in terms of stakes, or scope, but it can also just mean picking the most interesting option as your outcome. If I'm reading a mystery novel and the solution feels like just one of several possible solutions, this is disappointing. Whereas if this answer raises the stakes, or is more interesting than the other options, or all the clues suddenly fall in place and this was in fact the only possible option, then this will feel much more rewarding to me.
Loving this one as a surrealist/fabulist writer, because that sort of writing entails a lot of crafting mysteries that are never explained. In the altered world, to the narrator, it isn't a mystery and doesn't need explaining, so the reader/viewer has to draw their own conclusions, or just enjoy the fact that they don't know what's going on. This is always something I've loved when I see it in other media and something I'm always trying to emulate. :-)
I love this explanation. Not all mysteries need to be answered - as long as they're not set up to have an explainable answer in the first place, I think, even if they might have one.
I think whodunnits require explanation; that's their point - setting up a mystery to be answered. On the other hand, Horror and Fantasy not only need less explanation but can be diminished by it. The movie 'US' I think suffers from this; Groundhog Day is successful for not explaining. Part of the appeal is not knowing why, and shining a light on the darkness often only shows up how implausible the whole thing is.
Depends what kind of fantasy and what kind of explanation. I love getting explanations in Brandon Sanderson's books because the explanations are clever and fit in with the magic system and give his worlds more detail. I don't like explanations that cheapen the story, but I also don't like when there is all this build-up of a mystery and then it's never solved.
I think the main problem with the paradox of mysteries is that the writer(s) don't know the answer to the mystery in the first place when they are writing, which is totally okay if your a discovery writer but then you have to go back and make sure all your breadcrumbs line up. I think that was the main problem with Lost. My solution: I like to work backwards: know the answer and figure out the question/clues. Its usually a challenge to make the question/clues just as compelling as the answer/twist, which completely solves the paradox. But I can see if you discovery wrote a mystery and then realize you don't have an answer, how you could try to shoe horn any idea and it would fall short.
This is sooo true. I'll admit as someone who has both outlined/discovery written, the issue wasn't even discovery writing, but not having a solution in mind very early in the planning process. Even when I would outline my work, I still had this issue come up a lot because I would have a cool mystery in mind but take months or years to think of a solution, so the solution would feel shoehorned in, even if I eventually had an outline to help foreshadow. I think ideally, if you can come up with a mystery and its solution at the same time, so they feel like two halves of the same concept rather than a question and an answer, it will be a huge benefit (though that is easier said than done).
@@ShaelinWrites The difficulty with not having the end at the start of the process is that eventually you do have an answer and you need everything to align. This means that some of the exciting things that you thought "made" the novel don't align with the ending now need to go or the ending itself will be weak and fail. If you choose to keep the exciting things, you have to continue searching for that magical ending that will tie up all these events that may never align. This is why, kill your darlings, to clarify and improve meaning in a work, is such common advice. With that said, I never know the ending to my mysteries and I do well enough because I consider the entire process highly flexible and subject to change at any moment. I don't get precious about things. I keep going over ideas and situations until something clicks. Once the backbone of the story clicks, including the ending, and major shifts or turning points in the story, I clear the deck, and EVERYTHING is subject to be edited out if needs be. From that point, I essentially reconstruct the story, but now in a meaningful way. It requires patience, and being a plotter at some point (pre or post first draft) is 100% essential unless you intend on writing/rewriting for years and years and figuring out the meaning in the slowest way possible!
I think the problem for TV writers is that they don’t know how many series they will get. Something that they had planned for one series, is then re-commissioned for four or five - they can’t just give the answers or there will be no show, so it just goes on getting more complex. That said, if they keep introducng mysteries it would be nice to know that they understood what the reasons were at the time they introduced them, Polar bears anyone….?
As a voracious mystery reader AND writer, this was actually kind of scary for me. I'm actually in the middle of writing a mystery myself and was concerned whether or not my 'why' was on the same level as the concept that would pull readers into the story. But this was an amazing case study and really helped me a lot. Goes to show that you just need to keep expanding your mind and find more and more possible answers 🙂
In all your examples, what was missing is the why. With the sugar bowl, it's a classic McGuffin, like the suitcase in Pulp Fiction. You might be momentarily, or, er for 15 years, intrigued with the mystery about what's inside, but for the writer constructing the narrative, that wasn't the point. The point of the object was to provide narrative drive. However, for the reader, if too much emphasis is brought on something, they will yearn for meaning. If none is provided, it will feel unsatisfying. The weakness was thus treating the object like a literary device despite overemphasizing it in the story, instead of thinking about how the reason why the object should matter/exist within the story world itself. With Lost, you have the same dynamics, but abused a bit more. Lost is a series that was literally pantsed without consideration of the ending because the writers never had a thematic why. Riverdale and Pretty Little Liars have the same weakness in writing - highly compelling mysteries that never pay off in the end. This is all to say, the writers intention is to satisfy the reader in the moment, not to create a satisfying, cohesive narrative that will build to a meaningful conclusion. Because of this, you can get a show like Lost (and Game of Thrones AND Pretty Little Liars) that at the time are cultural phenomenons because having no "point" means the writers can pretty much do anything. The problem is that human beings are all about meaning. We search for it constantly in everything we do. Once we realize something is devoid of meaning, it's hard to enjoy it. Some people will still enjoy these shows, but probably add their own meaning, "Well, this is just popcorn fun" or "This is so bad it's good" and watch it for other reasons, but without fundamental meaning, things become...well, meaningless, and therefore pointless. So this weakness that you point out is really a weakness in a type of pantsing that never bothers to become self-aware about what is being created. It is the epitome of writing something in the moment without considering the outcome or conclusion (aka the thematic point). Of course, when you pants a novel you can find the meaning AFTER the first draft and revise with intention, but some TV show creators can get away with never doing that work at any stage, so you get enjoyable TV in that moment, ephemera, but incredibly bitter at the end when viewers realize that there was never anything there.
This is brilliantly worded, Holly. I think you are spot on. Mysteries make a 'promise' that the author / screenwriter must deliver, otherwise you risk losing your audience. The amount of build up must pay off, not only in a sufficiently satisfying solution to the mystery, but in character development and drive home the thematic purpose as well, so that we get a sense of meaning. The best and most captivating stories that come to mind, the ones I return to over and over, seem to understand that human longing for meaning and leaves you with something bigger than the story itself to reflect on.
I have no real contribution to this except the fact that I think that The OA (Netflix) is the one example of this kind of mystery that was very clearly built from the outside in (either that, or they are brilliant adaptive-writers). The mystery starts off fairly simple, but it grows so big that the solutions are unfathomable until they're presented to you. I'm so deeply irritated that this show was cancelled, while others, with no genuinity behind their meanings, that focus only on short-term satisfaction (through a number of things, like smaller mysteries and stuff, but often sexuality, and attractive cast), live(d) on. It's very disillusioning, too, to know that a planned, cohesive, groundbreaking story will get cut off, while others won't. It took me two watches of The OA to appreciate it, but on the second run I was able to really appreciate its beauty as a story. Edit: there would obviously also be other examples of this, but in my opinion The OA is quintessential.
Haven't watched the video yet but I really like this analysis. And also how you explain it in a way that is respectful of discovery writers and doesn't blame these problems on pantsing. As you said, some writers don't even need to know the outcome or meaning until after they've finished the first draft.
I have these two stories that have been sitting in my head for years and I haven't written them yet because of this exact problem. It's so hard to get so caught up in my own mysteries and questions that I don't feel satisfied by any answer. I think in both cases of my own work not answering the mystery would come off as cheap, a cop-out, an incomplete story, etc, because they're very important questions, so I'm gonna have to keep looking for my specific answers, but I still really appreciated this video, it inspires me to look for answers and think about these stories again.
imo, one of the best shows for sheer payoff for mysteries is dirk gently's holistic detective agency (2019). it manages to overcome this paradox whilst still being pretty unpredictable, by just making every answer so absolutely off-the-wall nuts that you'd never think of it, even though the clues were there all along. it's also one of the things that makes it so rewatchable, because just seeing all this crazy stuff unfold is as much fun as trying to figure out the mysteries the first time. but imo, this only even works because the world is clearly established as being strange from the beginning, so it doesn't seem so ridiculous as to ruin your suspension of disbelief.
As you mentioned about the mystery of the hatch, part of the reason it worked better was that it was towards the beginning of the show. I think one really good tip for avoiding the paradox of mystery is to reveal answers in the middle of your story. It is always tempting to save the most dramatic reveals for the climax of the book, but this means that your answer has to give not only the surprise you crave after a period of suspense, but also the catharsis of everything ending in a satisfying way, and those two things often oppose each other. It is better to have the answer to your mystery introduce another interesting element (not another mystery or you will get stuck in a mobius strip of building tension) like a new character or plot device. Similar techniques actually apply to many elements of writing, like when you kill someone off, or have two characters start dating. Most things come off better when there is time to process the implications. I am trying to do this in my current work. It is an extremely strange novel, with lots of mysteries, and an omniscient but unreliable narrator. About halfway through, the reader learns most of the mysteries, and the focus is shifted to watching the characters crash and burn as they try to figure them out. It also helps to keep a general sense of absurdity to the answers. I like to keep a running note on my phone of just weird things in everyday life that would be interesting to add to a book. I calling it giving batman bagpipes. For reasons. Hope this helps
This is how I feel about HIMYM, the mystery of wondering who the mother is that finding out almost ruined the fun?? (although there was A LOT more wrong with the ending lol)
I disagree. Honestly, Tracy is SO GOOD, I could have gone without two or three less seasons of Ted having short affairs and Robin and Barney's will they won't theys.
I think the hatch example works because it opens up the world and casts everything that has happened in a new light. I think that is one good way to overcome the paradox. I think Brandon Sanderson is generally good with the mysteries he sets up. The Mistborn trilogy is a great example. There is a reveal in the third book that casts the first book in a whole new light, which makes the reveal so satisfying. I’m referring to Vin’s character, but that’s about as specific as I want to get. I think the Harry Potter series is also another great example of overcoming the paradox. The prisoner of Azkaban in particular had an amazing answer to the mystery. In these cases, it makes you want to reread them with the new perspective. So if an author can achieve that, I think it overcomes the paradox.
You should watch The Leftovers. It's made by one of the creators of Lost and the mystery is left ambiguous. By far my favourite TV series that focuses primary on character and setting over plot. And it's only 28 episodes compared to however hundred there are in Lost.
Hi Shaelin, sorry for the long comment, but I would like to say thank you for your videos. I lost my best friend and writing partner October 28th last year of Covid, and I swore I would never write again without him. But then your videos kept showing up in my feed and I didn’t want to unsubscribe because it’s not your fault I no longer want to write. But I watched one of your new videos and I really wanted to write again, I told myself I will write one short story and then put it in a drawer somewhere. But then I had so many more ideas for the story and admitted to myself this is a novel. So for camp NaNoWriMo 2021 I wrote the book ‘the death of Domhnall Flaherty’ a whodunit style thriller set in Ireland. I am going to start on the sequel soon. Thank you for your videos again, and I will always look forward to your next one!
Another example of "what's in the sugar bowl" is "doctor who?" Where a lot of the plot is based around the question, but "it must never be answered" for some reason. I've wanted to know for years, since I was 12 or so and the show started emphasising it again. But I also knew that if they ever answered it, it would lose so much of its meaning, because there is no name that could hold so much meaning. Edit: I also think it's interesting to note that Moffat creates a lot of mysteries similar to that. I'm not saying here that I either do I don't like his writing, but I think looking at the way he handles these mysteries can be interesting. 1. Is to not answer it, as with the Doctor's name. 2. Is a recurring theme in Sherlock, about mysteries all really coming back to human error, as opposed to some elaborate, fantastical solution. Especially in regards to the answer of how Sherlock survived the fall, I remember watching a video essay that criticised their handling of that story arch (which really, more so than within the actual storyline, was about the two-year wait for an answer in the next released episode) as anticlimactic, and mocking of the people who had worked so hard to find answers - but that really annoyed me because I think he entirely missed the point. It was meant to be "mocking" only in the same way as Moriarty had been towards Sherlock *in* that episode that the fan base had fixated on for two years. Essentially, the answer had already been given to you: it's not as significant or ethereal as you think. I'm not saying this is a good method, and there are obvious downsides to it (the experience of anticlimax leaves people feeling cheated rather than relieved the way they want to be, so it's inherently dangerous), but I did think that was interesting, and I think it falls under this mystery of paradox that you're talking about here
I feel like this a thing with many stories not just mysteries. Some stories are just weaved that way that I doubt that any ending/answer could ever be satysfying. I kept thinking about GoT as you were talking and realized that there probably is no satisfying ending/answer for this story (even though many other endings could have been vastly better than the one we got, but anyway). Then other stories started coming to mind of different genres... Very interesting topic!
Love this vide! The moment you started to explain the concept my brain went: "LOST". :D And I giggled throught the whole Lost explanation because I was imagining people who never saw it trying to follow. But now I want to start a rewatch right away. I havent attempted one since the last episode aired because I actually liked the show and the ending a lot. And I didn't want to ruin this feeling... but at the same time it's been so long that I basically don't remember the last 2 seasons at all. Anyway, love your other examples as well and it explaines why I feel let down by the endings of most mysterious plots. The funny thing is that I kind of accepted it and am expecting to be let down by the ending from the start. So that I get pleasantly surprised when an ending is actually good. For me Pines by Blake Crouch managed to overcome the paradox. I think it was because it was my first book by him and I went into it not knowing anything, not even the genre. So because of the plot I was thinking I'm reading one genre with a specific set of potential answers to the mystery. And then the explanation went into a completely different direction I wasn't anticipating and I realised I had been reading a completely different genre the whole time.
Honestly I enjoyed the show *more* on rewatch! It feels more coherent because you already know what's going to happen, and you can watch more for the character development than the suspense (which sometimes is a let down).
Lost means a lot to me even though I never saw a single episode. My magnum opus of WIPs, which I will probably still be working out on my deathbed, was inspired by overhearing a single line from one of the creators in a television interview - something to the effect of "we did flash forwards, flashbacks, and THEN we decided to try flash-sideways!" I still do not know what "flash-sideways" meant in the context of Lost, but it planted the seed for me of an interdimensional/parallel universe world which I am still nurturing into my dearest story all these years later.
i don’t really think that ASoIaF is a mystery though, at least not much more than any other story is. The question is more like „what will happen to these characters we‘ve followed for so long, when all their arcs inevitably clash?“, less focused on any single mystery element and those there are, like „who is the knight king?“ „what’s going on with this fire god?“ can i think go unanswered (not saying they should) and still lead to a satisfying conclusion. the question of „who’s gonna sit on the iron throne?“ got a lot more emphasized in the show i think, but in the books it’s not so central. it’s more like any story with a lot of buildup in need for a matching ending.
Worm (a very long serial web fiction) is probably the best example I've seen where different mysteries and mechanics of the world are all answered in a single cohesive explanation that's satisfying, narratively fitting, and ties meaningfully into the ending all at once. I think it's fine to leave some mysteries unanswered for sure but the central mysteries going ignored feels like a cop out. I remember being terribly disappointed in the ending of a series of unfortunate events when I first read it. It felt like they left almost everything hanging/unexplained which gives the impression there were never really any cool answers to be found behind the questions.
WORM SPOILERS I agree! I found the shard stuff underwhelming to be honest, but Khepri was such a mind boggingly good end to Taylor's arc/the main conflict.
Great video. Nailed this conundrum. Just finished a new novel, which runs up against this very issue. It is a historical mystery (based on a real event) that bumps up against the paranormal. In the end, the only conclusion was to keep the ending open, yet hint at a bizarre answer by walking up to the line.
Shaelin, can I just say that you deserve BIG PLAUDITS for actually using BOOKS to illustrate your ideas. FAR too many people turn to film examples (understandable, but often not useful) to make their point. As challenging as it can be when running an ongoing advice channel, actually using books to illustrate writing issues or techniques is BY FAR (yup, more CAPS) the BEST way! Congrats!
In defense of LOST: There was a writers strike before the last season was written and apparently that’s why the ending was so unsatisfying. Anyway, love the video!!!! Great tips and examples 💗
Lost is the epitome of this for me, I felt so vindicated when you mentioned it! We followed it for years, the final episode was such a letdown, but we also realized at some point that no answer would satisfy us after so many years of wondering.
drew gooden actually recently made a really interesting video essay about lost that made me and my roommates want to watch it! i definitely recommend lol
You got me at "faithful adaptation," since I've never read the books, I want to try the series and see what I get out of it. I'm intrigued by the idea of a mystery question that almost outweighs the answer to that question.
Random add on: I’ve found I really enjoy when the mystery is known already and the audience is in on it. Like dexter or lucifer, knowing who these characters truly are and how they act with those who don’t believe them or don’t know is fascinating to me .
This is something that I was thinking about lately and your video popped up. I also have never heard of other people discussing it. I appreciate the video a lot. It was well done. I never write comments, but this was important to me. This sort of problem happens in all sorts of media and I have experienced it so often and seen good answers to a mystery so rarely, that I came to also doubt if such a satisfying answer is even possible. Having thought about it, I came to the conclusion that it is possible, it is very hard though. I have some thoughts of my own which explain what I mean: Firstly, I think that a satisfying answer is theoratically always possible and is superior to a mystery with no final answer like the sugar box. I believe that the anticipation for a mind blowing answer in our minds is evidence that such an answer is possible. It's like problems always co-arising with solutions, even if you don't know or can't think of the solution. A problem has the possibility of being solved inside it, if that makes sense. We could even say that a problem is defined by the absense of a certain solution, which however is always implied to exist. Therefore I believe that (in theory) all extraordenary mysteries have a possible solution which will blow you away, change you, provide meaning, make the story whole etc. In reality though it is very hard to pull off. But it needs to be hard to pull off and genious, otherwise we could think of it ourselves or have the feeling that we could have thought of it. The answer needs to be (when the mystery is very deep) BEYOND US in a way. It needs to be a STEP UP from the mystery. Something so complex that it needs time to be internalized, not just a simple sentence. It will need explaining and it will take thought. THIS CAN BE DONE, in my opinion. Thus the order of satisfaction in stories with deep mysteries is like this, in a decending order, with 1. being the most satisfying way to handle a deep mystery: 1. Deep mystery with satisfying, komplex, meaningful, mindblowing answer. This is the ideal senario. 2. Deep mystery that is ongoing with no answer, like the sugar box. This can work (if done right) and is superior to next one. This can be a trap like in LOST. 3. Deep mystery with weak or unsatisfying answer. This one, in my opinion, is much worse than a deep mystery with no answer, because without an answer you can maintain the hope that such an answer exists. With a weak answer, you know that there is not more to the mystery. It is done and it leaves you unsatisfyied. Secondly, I feel that a good ending to a deep mystery needs information as fuel. As I said before, the revelation can not just be a sentence or a name. It will need explanation. Something as complex as this needs a lot of information, to fill all the questions you had. Like in your example with LOST, an answer can not just adress a few aspects of the mystery and leave other integral parts unanswered. It need to be thorough. Otherwise your niche questions will leave you feeling like: "Yeah, I guess that makes sense. But what about this...And this...Wait, but how would that explain that part..." It will make you feel uneasy, as if it the revelation isn't complete. I have experienced this a lot. Even if there might be answers, they will need to be delivered in a complete and powerful way. I will explain more about this in my next point. But staying on this train of thought, if a complex revelation needs a lot of "input" of information and context, where in the story is it put? I think there are 2 broad ways of doing this: 1. The end explains a lot and the revelations escalate and explode towards the end of the mystery. You get a lot of new information which will then form an answer to all your questions. OR 2. You get a small answer in the end with little information, which however connects to many many little crumbs woven through out the story. "Ahhh, so this thing in the beginnig actually this...Wait, that means that this is connected to that little detail...OMG!" In this case the fuel and bulding blocks for the revelations where always there but you just needed that one answer to explain everything else. A combination of both is best, I think. Thirdly, it is important to realize, that the information or the "raw answer" is not enough in most cases to be satisfying. The way you deliver the punch line and all the inbetweens of story telling need to be on point. It needs to blow you away. If you can kinda guess the answer beforehand, it might not be as powerful, but if it doesnt make you go "Aha!" it might be too disconnected, even if it technically provides an explanation for your questions. Delivery is very important. Of course you wouldn't care much about the mystery if you did't connect with the story in the first place. Characters, Plot, World, Style, Pacing, Themes etc. It needs to be a good story all around for you to care enough about the mystery. Doesn't need to be perfect on all those aspects, but all of it will make the revelation more impactful. Lastly, I want to suggest a method of making this grant revelation work. I don't understand it fully at all, but this is an idea which might be useful: Think about the Answer/Revelation and then TONE DOWN the mystery, so that the Answer will be a step up. You will end up with a mystery of smaller scale and depth but with a satisfying conclusion. This, in my opinion, is better than a hugly compelling mystery with a revelation that is a step down. Now, if the revelation is extremely complex and mindblowing, you will be able to make the mystery around it still very intriguing. Starting with an interesting deep mystery and THEN trying to OUTDO yourself to provide an Answer is often unseccessful. Small extra point: I think a new mystery as a revelation to an existing mystery doesn't really count, like your example with the hatch in LOST. Unless all of it is tied together later and is not deisgned to string you on. There is much more to talk about and this is a very important topic. I wish it was discussed way more.
Yes! GOT fell pray to this. The whole thing about Bran and the gods, it was so mundane at the end when it was kind of answered. When I write I often feel like my mysteries are better than the answers. I appreciate this video!
Great video, gave me a brain spark about a solution to the paradox. Letting the reader/viewer figure it out before the MC so they get the satisfaction of seeing the MC figure it out.
Wow! That was so fun! I really like this style of video. I hope it performs well and you get to make more! A book I read recently which did pull this off was the Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe. I was told the whole time by Internet Scholars that all the seemingly random events would make sense at the end--and they did! A book that avoided this trap was the Magus by John Fowles--which has big lost energy. I also think the SEcret History avoids this trap. I'm obsessed with stuff which can answer it's own questions, though, I think it's really fun when that happens successfully!
Agreed. This is a fantastic type of video, an exploration of genre, with contemporary examples, and an easy to follow breakdown that was well researched. Shaelin, you've clearly learned a lot from being at Reedsy! You sound a like a fantastic expert!
Amazing discussion you’ve opened here, Shaelin. To answer your question at the end about my WIP, I’m also in the camp of writers who will circumvent the paradox of mystery by simply not providing an answer. The main theme of my story is grief and how people use different belief systems to deal with it. My protag is struggling to come to terms with the death of a family member because he does not believe in an afterlife, whereas his younger brother does-but to the extreme point of acting like the deceased’s spirit is with them at all times. There will be moments in the book where either brother could end up being right, but this will be left unanswered (even I don’t know!). And why not? My characters have to deal with the frustration of not knowing, so my readers will too 😈
This is EXACTY what I needed at the moment, thank you so much for making this video!! I'm writing a story in which the mystery is so big that it can't really be explained. It's between sci-fi and fantasy, and revolves around the infinite mysteries of the universe. I've been conflicted about what to do with the ending, but this helped a lot. I've been wanting to take the 'keep the mystery unexplained and never-ending' route, and your explanation really solidifies that decision. It was great to see this paradox being explained so well, since I'm suffering from it right now lol.
I think The Haunting of Hill House (novel) is another example of this paradox being pulled off by leaving a lot unanswered. A lot of mysteries are unresolved, about the house and about Eleanor herself, but it is more compelling that way.
The reason leaving the mystery unanswered in A series of Unfortunate Events works is because of the themes of the books. It was a story of children learning how to navigate the confusing and mysterious world of adulthood. Becoming an adult means that you have to live with some questions being unanswered, perhaps forever. It means accepting that you won’t know everything, but to focus on what you do know and can know. What was in the bowl was also completely irrelevant: it was a McGuffin, a plot device.
A good example of a short story that solves this paradox in such a way that we get a neat answer to the mystery without raising more questions is Tower of Babylon by Ted Chiang, where the mystery is, what happens when the characters break through the vault of heaven at the top of the tower? Also, I think the paradox exists for smaller questions too, like when the title of a story makes us curious.
I think one solution to this problem can also be to leave the answers open to interpretation. A good example is the movie "Mulholland Drive". So much mystery, so much build up, but as the film comes to its closure, the possibilities for interpretation are as intriguing as they are satisfying.
This totally happens sometimes and you're so right that it's more common in different genres that have mystery than a mystery of limited presented options! Like in GoT there was the mystery from the start surrounding Jon's mom and Lyanna's death & when you got the "oh Jon's been a Targaryen this whole time, end of story" it's so lack luster in perspective of this grand developed world full of magic and unknowns that sometimes don't need to be known.
I completely agree when she was talking about Series of Unfortunate Events. I never read the books, but even after only watching the show I knew there was not going to be a satisfactory answer for what was in the sugar bowl. When they find out it destroys half of the interest and believability of the story
I think the key thing for me is that there has to be a sense of closure. That may be an answer, or somehow putting an end to the mystery by destroying it (example: why does this monster exist? Dunno, but it's dead now). Something I feel a lot of stories do that could be done better is all those stories that establish a mystery and then answer it in a very concrete way that doesn't always tie in with the rest of the story thematically (example: the monster was created by a mad scientist. What does that have to do with the main character's struggle with their grades tho?). To me, it seems like a lot of stories tried to answer questions in a way that makes too much sense, when it would've been a lot better to make the answer metaphorical (like that bottle thing, although that one didn't work). Anyway, I'm crossing my fingers for the end of Made In Abyss. Although, a character in it has clearly stated that they keep certain pieces of info from reaching the surface so that the wonder remains, so I assume the author has noticed the potential pitfall already
Super interesting that you bring up Lost in this because if I’m remembering rightly the idea of the mystery itself being better than the answer is JJ Abrams’ whole ethos. Which is kinda why I’m really tempted but also nervous to read his/Doug Dorst’s book S because it sounds so intriguing but it’s also a lot of leg work if the payoff isn’t great 😬 awesome video as always!! ❤️
Thank you for talking about this problem, because I've been thinking about it for years - really, ever since Lost went off the rails. One point I'd like to make is, I don't think we're always good at proportionally assessing stories that fall victim to the paradox of mystery. Some mysteries end in revelations that are really interesting and well thought out - they just don't *quite* hit the mark in terms of satisfying the level of fascination the mystery inspired. Other mysteries just end in a really lame reveal that falls flat (such as with the worst revelations in Lost). But I notice, when people talk about this problem, they don't always distinguish between the two cases. A *slightly* unsatisfying answer is treated just as harshly as a horribly unsatisfying one. I don't think it's really possible to achieve 100% success in the face of the paradox of mystery because, even the best answer imaginable won't make up for the fact that your reader (or audience) once had an imagination brimming over with possibilities as to what's really going on in the story and they now have to live with just this one answer. But, I think it's possible for the author to hit a pretty high mark by revealing *just enough* of what's going on without overexplaining every point. If you're very very *very* careful in your storytelling, the reader can be left with enough pieces to connect the dots in their imagination and some of the fascination in the story lingers after the end without the reader feeling cheated. But, I consider this one of the hardest things to pull off in fiction.
I felt this way about a popular thriller I read recently,(don't want to spoil it since it's still relatively new). It's supposed to be a take on And then There Were None but ended up having a paranormal answer to 'how it was done'. I was hugely disappointed, not because I don't like paranormal stories, but because it felt like a cop out. As people started dying off one by one I kept thinking to myself, how can any one of them have done it?? Instead of coming up with a clever answer the author said 'let's just make a dead person have done it all.'
One of the most satisfying conclusions to a mystery I've ever seen was the mystery of Jon Snow's parents. It starts with such a simple question of parentage that leads to you down such a rabbit hole. The story of the L+R=J theory and the events of Robert's Rebellion was so good that it could have a show on its own. Of course, the fan base already predicted this for years but having been proven correct after going through so many plot twists and unpredictable events from the books and show, it felt so satisfying. Part of me thinks that maybe a way of overcoming this Paradox of Mystery is to have a really good and complete story from the start then picking an important event near the end of this story then branch out and form a mystery out of that. Then just sprinkle your mystery with some clues and red herrings all around. Another special mention was the mystery of Hodor and why he can only speak those words. Not the most satisfying conclusion to a mystery but one of the most emotional imo.
The problem in large part comes from expectations. We, as readers, or viewers (someone else brought up Lost - a great example of this) - enjoy seeing questions being asked, but then expect those questions to be resolved satisfactorily (i.e. no deus ex) by the end. David Lynch is the best example of a creator who just says 'nah, f all that' and does what he likes, and to great effect. We need more writers to have the courage to step outside the bounds of expectations and simply refuse to answer the questions they've asked.
I am currently writing a story and for (literally) years I've been trying to find a satisfying answer to the mystery I created and I've realized there is none, so I kind of want to give a "maybe this happened" ending . But it is so hard to make that satisfying. I'm scared that if I ever let other people read the story, they'll be like "wait, that's it?" And be frustrated. It's a hard line to walk.
I think Kafka is an example in literature. In those pieces where he wrote the mystery without explaining anything you can read it as a parable it is satisfying . But in unfinished pieces he just trailed off so they mean nothing at all
Hi Shaelin, I was enjoying to watch your "mistery" paradox video, it gave me some ideas about a book I am working on, it's my memoirs about very mysterious things what happened in my life about 40 years ago. I finally recognized the importance of those mysterious events so I decide to write a book about it, and how to incorporate the "mysteries feeling" in my writings, and if i should explain or not explain at all the mystery itself, or just to come with my best guess of it, so there will be the no clear answer at all. LOL. Regards, Andrei
I'm late to the party but I loved your video and this is a really interesting topic. I enjoyed reading the comment section as well! :) I agree with you on both Piranesi and The Haunting of Bly Manor, even though both are great! I guess often the answers feel a bit mundane after all the mystery. For another example, I really liked Ari Aster's movie Hereditary but I think it fell prey to this paradox as well. I love Japanese horror/ghost movies because they often leave things unexplained. I remember watching a few American remakes of Japanese movies and thinking they fell flat precisely because they tried to explain everything (I'm thinking of Ring or Dark Water, but it's been a long time so I may be wrong). A more recent movie I loved was Burning by Lee Chang-dong, which is more of a thriller with no paranormal element to it, but it kind of does the same thing. It doesn't tell you exactly what happened - which I loved. But coming out of the movie theater I heard a few people saying that they didn't like the movie/the ending or were too confused to have enjoyed it. I think it's partly a question of taste but also of expectation, and maybe Hollywood got people used to clean resolutions. Anyway thanks for the video. I always enjoy your channel and your writing content is probably my favorite on RUclips!
Love the video. Never read or seen any of the titles you mentioned though, but it's a compelling topic. I think it's kinda like soft magic vs. hard magic. Soft magic is more like a flavor creating a sense of wonder. You don't need to know how a fireball is made because that's not what solves the plot. Hard magic on the other hand is integral to the plot and therefore you need to know how that fireball is made so you can understand why it failed/succeeded at that critical moment. Mystery is the same. If it's part of the plot it needs a satisfying answer. If it's just a flavor it can be left more open ended. As another commenter mentioned one way for it to work is if the solution casts a new light on everything that came before. Another way would be if the real mystery isn't what you think it is. Sweet Girl did that really well, though it's more action than mystery. I'm not generally a fan of open endings to hard mysteries. I think it especially has a bigger chance to fail if wasn't intended to be open ended from the beginning. It often comes off as cheap or lazy. Still, I tend to like those "it was just a dream... or was it?" Except for that movie that's a victim to nameception everywhere.
This topic definitely has me pondering the catharsis of mystery. What is satisfying?Probably the best mystery I ever read was Michael Crichton’s Sphere.
Christopher Nolan is an inconsistent writer but I think Memento and The Prestige are examples of this paradox being overcome really effectively, and the thing that sticks out to me about both of those stories is that the twists/answers we get aren't just answers to the plot questions; they are thematically resonant. If your reader/viewer can walk away from the story with answers that are thematically consistent with the rest of the story, answers that feel like they have something to say beyond just the facts, I think they'll be a lot more satisfied by them. It gives them something to take home with them beyond just "Does this answer all of the questions that were raised?"
I think games Dark Souls (1-3) and Bloodbourne are a great examples of that paradox well overcomed. The games' narrative is being build mostly on visuals: how the world looks, how the enemies look, how some symbols and resemblances in the world are recurring. Then we have also few dialogues during the games and items' descriptions that sometimes seems vague but by observing the world and finding more clues ourselves we can piece all those informations together. All these games base their stories on mysteries which are actually planned to have its answer being in the world and in the gameplay story. Games just don't hold our hands and invite us to discover clues and ponder upon their meaning often to find the solutions... or to watch lore videos of those who did. Those types of games are actually not my type, I don't enjoy dying over and over again. But I found my interest in their worlds by amazing visual design and got myself into the lore because of really grand and satisfying endings. Their emotional impact left me thinking about them for a long time. They're also very inspiring in a lots of ways.
The ending of the TV series Monk, I believe, has that paradox. All throughout the series it’s mentioned that Monk’s wife, Trudy, was murdered, but it’s in the last episode where we find out who killed her. While it was nice to be given an answer, it definitely wasn’t the most satisfying answer, partially because the answer was right there and Monk didn’t see it, and partially because all the things that seemed to be clues to her death didn’t seem to have any substance in the ultimate solution. It seemed like the writers were just made to write a solution, honestly.
That is a very interesting problem you raise! I do believe that leaving something as a mystery that is unresolved is a higher form of art since that imitates real life. We never have answers - only conjectures. However, I think the author/screen-writer/story teller should have their own idea of what is really going on. This version might not necessarily be "the truth" or the only truth but it should dictate some of the logic in the piece. The problem with shows like "Lost" or "Gossip Girl" which is one that I've watched on and off (the mystery being who is gossip girl), is that the writers don't commit to an answer or a theory from the get-go. And so all the theories eventually get eliminated and you are left with - nothing. Nothing makes sense. I had a very different experience with Pirenasi. I actually loved it when we started getting answers because the answers I was coming up with were so dark and horrible that even the "dark truth" of the book was preferable to the alternatives in my head. I mean at some point I thought the dead people he had discovered were his family, that he may have killed them or that they may not have survived the harsh conditions. But then having there be a "folded child"... that was just very dark. Anyways, I do get what you're saying about the world-building or magic involved in the answer being a bit less imaginative than the setting but I think the book makes up for it in the end when Pirenasi isn't lost inside the person he becomes but is a dual personality living within the modern human. I think one could see it as a parable of our lives in the modern age.
The last episode I remember from Lost was when the woman who was in fact a foster parent for Jacob and his brother, murder their biological mother after she delivered them
Hey! I missed your writing videos of this kind. And you're talking about mystery! Woo-hoo! My genre. I'm bookmarking and watching later. But just wanted to say hi. :D
"Lost" was a spiritual descendant of "Twin Peaks". People were also expecting satisfying explanations to its bizarre mysteries, although anyone familiar with David Lynch should have known better. It was surrealism, not a traditional narrative. "Fringe", which followed "Lost" in the J.J. Abrams oeuvre solved the problem brilliantly (IMO): each mystery turned out to be a red herring concealing another, equally tantalizing mystery. None of them were so bizarre that any solution was bound to be disappointing. Finally, there's H.P. Lovecraft. "At the Mountains of Madness" presents mysteries which are solved, revealing terrible secrets that seem less terrible as you learn more about them... then, at the end, he hints at some other, even more terrible secret. You never learn what it is, but it drives one of the characters insane when he catches a glimpse of it.
Another great example would be that show, "Manifest" Idk if there's going to be another season, but if it IS saved, the conclusion is probably going to be kind of a let down because the mystery has been SO compelling this far.
Fair mysteries that use clues to foreshadow an answer the author already knows: J.K. Rowling Mystery boxes where the author himself has no clue what’s inside (the sugar bowl, the hatch etc.): J. J. Abrams
The upside-down corked bottle is a nice imagery for other opportunities, I reckon. I don't have a mystery in my work... ...oh, wait, maybe I do. After all, the MC's targets all seem to know or hint at sth so his curiosity eventually drives him along, but the answer will just be the actual villains motive for "why?", mostly. So I gotta check that motive is not too simple, then, which'll be a challenge since the man doesn't get a lot of page time...
Attack on Titan overcame the Eren's basement paradox of mystery. The answer caused a total paradigm shift. The rest of the story is built around the consequences of this revelation.
I've learned that you must have all your questioned answered, even if you never share them with your reader. Never kick the can down the road thinking, ah i don't need to unpack this problem right now, i'll answer it later. answer it now, at least for yourself. People will read for your mystery but stay for your characters. The details of the plot will be forgotten, but they will remember your characters forever. so focus on giving your characters their climatic ending, and don't worry about answering the mysteries that surround them. But by answering them, at least for yourself, no matter how unsatisfactory that answer may be, by answering them yourself, it will instruct your story. It will prompt you to put in compelling clues and character motivations. You will be glad you answered them.
Okay so I'm gonna stop being a lurker now lol heyyy I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS! Your thoughts about stuff and your favorite writing matches with mine so close so I really get a lot of new recs and ideas for my writing so thank you 💕 And I'm a huge Lost fan must have seen it a bunch of times, and I just want to say I was frustrated by pretty much the same stuff. But the most disappointing part for me at least * spoiler alert * was the ending showing it as if it's purgatory and they're waiting for their sentence - like to me I love Supernatural the Winchesters do heaven hell and other Christian mythology really well but if they use purgatory as a concept it's okay that show is more guilty pleasure anyway, but when Lost did it, that seemed anticlimactic to me at least. And now for the one show that really didn't fall short for me in this regard was Castle Rock. It has so much depth, symbolism etc and very great mystery it will keep you guessing and at least at the end of season 1 ( it has 2 seasons btw) I didn't feel cheated. Anyway have a great weekend 😁😘
I love mystery stuff, especially small town mysteries, but I'm like incapable of writing plot so whenever I try to think up one it would be more based on the aesthetics of that subgenre rather than the content but there's not really a point in that being released but god, I want to write a small town mystery so bad.
Wrote a novel where a bunch of people die on-screen but, later, appear alive. I was pantsing the writing of the book, only having the final scene in mind (which doesn't solve the mystery) plus a general idea of each character's character arc. When I introduced this mystery, I actually had no idea about the conclusion. Of course I could answer it using the supernatural, and with this being the first book in a series where supernatural elements will come up, I could have easily gotten away with it. But I felt it wouldn't be satisfying to just introduce magic as the twist in the end, so I decided to go balls to the walls massive conspiracy (sth I always wanted the book to have but not to that degree) and answer it in what is, in my opinion, a decently satisfying non-supernatural answer that only implies supernatural elements to come. Haven't finished the editing of the book yet, so I won't spoil anything. Also, not going to even try publishing it, it was just for my own amusement.
a story that i think brilliantly overcame this problem was the podcast The Magnus Archives, even though it made it extra hard for itself by being both a mystery and a horror. normally things get less scary once you know whats going on, but in this show every time you got an answer it either introduced more mystery or expanded on the horror aspect and put more pressure on the characters. I think a common thread of the story is that the protagonist keeps seeking knowledge but every answer just makes things worse. Big revelations are hard fought, propel the story into it‘s next stage and add new layers/genres of horror. There are also a lot of smaller mysteries/connections that don‘t necessarily mean much to the characters, but the listener can pick up on them to get a fuller picture. I think the most important part in the solution to a mystery is not the answer itself, but what it means to the characters, wether there is an obvious „right“ reaction or wether the suspense carries over into the question of what to do with it and thus pushes the character arc. without any spoilers, it think the last season of Magnus Archives really does that incredibly well.
Addition: I am getting a number of comments on this video saying that this is a pantser's or discovery writer's issue only, some of them worded...quite harshly. My belief about writing process is that *no process* is foolproof or better, and no process will cause certain issues with a story. Any process can face this issue, and any process can also overcome it. Just because you have an outline doesn't guarantee your solution is creative enough to overcome this paradox. You can have a plan, follow it, and still have the solution to your mystery be underwhelming. Overcoming this issue takes creativity and problem solving, not just proper set-up. As well, just because you are discovering the story as you write doesn't mean you can't come up with a clever solution, or that you can't later revise the story to fit everything into place after you've written it. Knowing the ending and having an outline may be a great strategy for avoiding this issue for many writers, but it's not the only way to overcome this, and knowing the ending in advance won't guarantee success either. I just want to be clear that I don't support process elitism or shaming anyone for their writing process. I didn't talk about writing process at all in this video because I don't believe in equating process to specific issues because they cannot be correlated (process is too specific to the individual), but this video has attracted a lot of plotting elitism, which goes against the message I try to share on this channel.
You can have a good outline and follow it poorly, making the story fall flat. And you can have an unclear plot from the start, but nail it perfectly as you go.
I love your defense of pantsing videos. The internet needs more content like that!
Of course people who only do outlines think that you only mess up if you don't use outlines 😂
I’m a fair mix of both outliner and discovery writer, but it does annoy me a bit when I’m looking for inspiration to fix an issue or learn something new only to have the answer be “just outline it”. I love your channel, and many discovery writers channels in general, because there’s no outline to get in the way of thoroughly understanding the topic. I love videos that help understand the premise and deduce our own solutions, it’s just far more stimulating.
Lost was like a 1000-piece puzzle where the creators had already made about 500 very imaginative pieces before realizing that all the pieces are actually supposed to create a picture in the end.
This is how I felt about Maze Runner (the first movie, I never read the books). The idea of the maze and its secrets were way more interesting than finding out that it was just another dystopia story.
It's difficult, because what could the maze have been otherwise? I guess it could have been its own living entity or something and that's it, and that may have been interesting too
And Divergent!
@@EmilynWood Like ANYTHING else. Sometimes it feels like YA/Teen novels forget there is such thing as other genres. Like, how cool would it have been, if like you said, the Maze was just this mysterious living entity, ensnaring random victims, and the characters never fully understand it. Like fantasy with a touch of cosmic horror. Then again I am super biased, so take that as you will.
@@clydesdale1775 That's fair though--I haven't read much dystopia so that may also be why it's not a big deal to me. I know people who read a lot of one thing can get more bored with it easily because everything starts to blur together.
I haven't read much (read: any) dystopia myself, but even I was kinda disappointed when Mazerunner went, oh, just another dystopia. (Saw the first and second movies, never read the books.)
Even the plot it did have didn't necessarily need a dystopian setting.
Come to think of it I don't remember what it was about anymore. Something something disease, something magical cure? I don't remember why the maze was necessary in the first place.
That said, I didn't dislike the story, but I don't feel like I would have missed out on anything by not watching it either.
I think the Star Wars Sequel trilogy is an interesting case study, specifically in regards to Rey's parentage. The first movie set her up as this girl whom her parents abandoned on this desert planet for unknown reasons. The memory of it comes up in a vision, Rey herself is desperate for an answer, etc. It's all pretty mysterious, and, naturally, for months afterwards people came up with theories about which named characters she was secretly related to: was she a Skywalker? A Kenobi? Related to a character from the Rogue One movie?
And then the second movie came out. Say what you will about the writing of The Last Jedi, it certainly had some issues, but in my mind Rian Johnson found a perfect answer to this mystery. Rey's parents, as is revealed to her in an absolutely devastating moment, are just some nobodies. Unimportant people, who sold their child for selfish, unimportant reasons. And it worked! It was such an interesting twist! It forced Rey to confront her fear of rejection and her general wish to be someone who mattered. It played into the movie's themes of legacy. It was a nice contrast to both Kylo Ren, who spent the previous movie completely obsessed with his grandfather, and to Luke Skywalker, who found out he was Darth Vader's son in the second movie of his trilogy. It brought back the idea that a force user, even a strong one, could come from anywhere. And it was just kinda refreshing to see a powerful female character, whose powers did not come from a male lineage. Like... they had a really satisfying answer. They overcame the paradox.
And then they completely blew it with the third movie, because everything we had just learned about Rey's parents was just a cover story for her being Palpatine's granddaughter somehow.
I think that you expressed my opinion perfectly.
Another J.J. Abrams story. By this point, anyone familiar with his work should have known better than to expect a satisfying explanation.
@@markborok4481 It's more disappointing in this case though because he actually had a satisfying answer fall into his lap and then went out of his way to retcon it into an unsatisfying one
The Rey's parents mystery was an utter failure
You hit the nail on the head. It is the mystery itself that compels people forward in a story and the answer seldom lives up to what we come up with because it can't be all things to all people. When the answer is vague and in our heads, it is highly personalized, when the author writes it down it inevitably loses that personalization.
There was a moment in Better Call Saul where Jimmy/Saul just got a job at Davis and Maine. There was a switch next to the window with a sticker on it saying, "Never turn off!" or something like that. Of course, Jimmy flipped the switch and that's where the episode ended. I watched the next episode because I had to find out what would happen now that he'd flipped the switch. The answer was never given. I went on Reddit (because I was obsessed at this point, I guess) where someone explained that the switch was meant to show how Jimmy will always be Jimmy despite now being a successful lawyer. It was meant to convey that Jimmy was secretly unhappy with his new job and deeply desires to be his old conman persona, 'Slipping Jimmy'. When I learned that, I actually thought it was a fantastic choice of the writers. Rather than making the flipped switch an actual subplot, they tied it into Jimmy's character development. That was pretty much the biggest lesson in writing a show ever taught me: always make sure your mysteries tie into the inner conflict of your characters, or that they at least say something about your theme.
I think that the thing about mystery resumes to management of expectations. If you know what the answer is, make sure that you don't subvert the reader's expectations for lower (aka make them think the answer is a big deal when it's trivial), unless you're writing a comedy; in most cases, it's more effective to make the reader think that he answer is trivial and then go for something bigger, but not too big, or it'll feel exaggerated.
This is very true!!
Agreed, but there are different ways of making it 'bigger'. This can be in terms of stakes, or scope, but it can also just mean picking the most interesting option as your outcome. If I'm reading a mystery novel and the solution feels like just one of several possible solutions, this is disappointing. Whereas if this answer raises the stakes, or is more interesting than the other options, or all the clues suddenly fall in place and this was in fact the only possible option, then this will feel much more rewarding to me.
Loving this one as a surrealist/fabulist writer, because that sort of writing entails a lot of crafting mysteries that are never explained. In the altered world, to the narrator, it isn't a mystery and doesn't need explaining, so the reader/viewer has to draw their own conclusions, or just enjoy the fact that they don't know what's going on. This is always something I've loved when I see it in other media and something I'm always trying to emulate. :-)
I love this explanation. Not all mysteries need to be answered - as long as they're not set up to have an explainable answer in the first place, I think, even if they might have one.
I think whodunnits require explanation; that's their point - setting up a mystery to be answered. On the other hand, Horror and Fantasy not only need less explanation but can be diminished by it. The movie 'US' I think suffers from this; Groundhog Day is successful for not explaining. Part of the appeal is not knowing why, and shining a light on the darkness often only shows up how implausible the whole thing is.
Depends what kind of fantasy and what kind of explanation. I love getting explanations in Brandon Sanderson's books because the explanations are clever and fit in with the magic system and give his worlds more detail. I don't like explanations that cheapen the story, but I also don't like when there is all this build-up of a mystery and then it's never solved.
I think the main problem with the paradox of mysteries is that the writer(s) don't know the answer to the mystery in the first place when they are writing, which is totally okay if your a discovery writer but then you have to go back and make sure all your breadcrumbs line up. I think that was the main problem with Lost. My solution: I like to work backwards: know the answer and figure out the question/clues. Its usually a challenge to make the question/clues just as compelling as the answer/twist, which completely solves the paradox. But I can see if you discovery wrote a mystery and then realize you don't have an answer, how you could try to shoe horn any idea and it would fall short.
This is sooo true. I'll admit as someone who has both outlined/discovery written, the issue wasn't even discovery writing, but not having a solution in mind very early in the planning process. Even when I would outline my work, I still had this issue come up a lot because I would have a cool mystery in mind but take months or years to think of a solution, so the solution would feel shoehorned in, even if I eventually had an outline to help foreshadow. I think ideally, if you can come up with a mystery and its solution at the same time, so they feel like two halves of the same concept rather than a question and an answer, it will be a huge benefit (though that is easier said than done).
@@ShaelinWrites The difficulty with not having the end at the start of the process is that eventually you do have an answer and you need everything to align. This means that some of the exciting things that you thought "made" the novel don't align with the ending now need to go or the ending itself will be weak and fail. If you choose to keep the exciting things, you have to continue searching for that magical ending that will tie up all these events that may never align. This is why, kill your darlings, to clarify and improve meaning in a work, is such common advice.
With that said, I never know the ending to my mysteries and I do well enough because I consider the entire process highly flexible and subject to change at any moment. I don't get precious about things. I keep going over ideas and situations until something clicks. Once the backbone of the story clicks, including the ending, and major shifts or turning points in the story, I clear the deck, and EVERYTHING is subject to be edited out if needs be. From that point, I essentially reconstruct the story, but now in a meaningful way. It requires patience, and being a plotter at some point (pre or post first draft) is 100% essential unless you intend on writing/rewriting for years and years and figuring out the meaning in the slowest way possible!
I think the problem for TV writers is that they don’t know how many series they will get. Something that they had planned for one series, is then re-commissioned for four or five - they can’t just give the answers or there will be no show, so it just goes on getting more complex. That said, if they keep introducng mysteries it would be nice to know that they understood what the reasons were at the time they introduced them, Polar bears anyone….?
As a voracious mystery reader AND writer, this was actually kind of scary for me.
I'm actually in the middle of writing a mystery myself and was concerned whether or not my 'why' was on the same level as the concept that would pull readers into the story.
But this was an amazing case study and really helped me a lot. Goes to show that you just need to keep expanding your mind and find more and more possible answers 🙂
In all your examples, what was missing is the why. With the sugar bowl, it's a classic McGuffin, like the suitcase in Pulp Fiction. You might be momentarily, or, er for 15 years, intrigued with the mystery about what's inside, but for the writer constructing the narrative, that wasn't the point. The point of the object was to provide narrative drive. However, for the reader, if too much emphasis is brought on something, they will yearn for meaning. If none is provided, it will feel unsatisfying. The weakness was thus treating the object like a literary device despite overemphasizing it in the story, instead of thinking about how the reason why the object should matter/exist within the story world itself.
With Lost, you have the same dynamics, but abused a bit more. Lost is a series that was literally pantsed without consideration of the ending because the writers never had a thematic why.
Riverdale and Pretty Little Liars have the same weakness in writing - highly compelling mysteries that never pay off in the end. This is all to say, the writers intention is to satisfy the reader in the moment, not to create a satisfying, cohesive narrative that will build to a meaningful conclusion. Because of this, you can get a show like Lost (and Game of Thrones AND Pretty Little Liars) that at the time are cultural phenomenons because having no "point" means the writers can pretty much do anything. The problem is that human beings are all about meaning. We search for it constantly in everything we do. Once we realize something is devoid of meaning, it's hard to enjoy it. Some people will still enjoy these shows, but probably add their own meaning, "Well, this is just popcorn fun" or "This is so bad it's good" and watch it for other reasons, but without fundamental meaning, things become...well, meaningless, and therefore pointless.
So this weakness that you point out is really a weakness in a type of pantsing that never bothers to become self-aware about what is being created. It is the epitome of writing something in the moment without considering the outcome or conclusion (aka the thematic point). Of course, when you pants a novel you can find the meaning AFTER the first draft and revise with intention, but some TV show creators can get away with never doing that work at any stage, so you get enjoyable TV in that moment, ephemera, but incredibly bitter at the end when viewers realize that there was never anything there.
This is brilliantly worded, Holly. I think you are spot on. Mysteries make a 'promise' that the author / screenwriter must deliver, otherwise you risk losing your audience. The amount of build up must pay off, not only in a sufficiently satisfying solution to the mystery, but in character development and drive home the thematic purpose as well, so that we get a sense of meaning. The best and most captivating stories that come to mind, the ones I return to over and over, seem to understand that human longing for meaning and leaves you with something bigger than the story itself to reflect on.
I have no real contribution to this except the fact that I think that The OA (Netflix) is the one example of this kind of mystery that was very clearly built from the outside in (either that, or they are brilliant adaptive-writers). The mystery starts off fairly simple, but it grows so big that the solutions are unfathomable until they're presented to you. I'm so deeply irritated that this show was cancelled, while others, with no genuinity behind their meanings, that focus only on short-term satisfaction (through a number of things, like smaller mysteries and stuff, but often sexuality, and attractive cast), live(d) on. It's very disillusioning, too, to know that a planned, cohesive, groundbreaking story will get cut off, while others won't. It took me two watches of The OA to appreciate it, but on the second run I was able to really appreciate its beauty as a story.
Edit: there would obviously also be other examples of this, but in my opinion The OA is quintessential.
@@adrienbrook1071 I keep hearing about this series. I need to watch it, but I'm sad to hear it was cancelled!
Haven't watched the video yet but I really like this analysis. And also how you explain it in a way that is respectful of discovery writers and doesn't blame these problems on pantsing. As you said, some writers don't even need to know the outcome or meaning until after they've finished the first draft.
Woah you put it very nicely. Added a lot to the points in the video.
I have these two stories that have been sitting in my head for years and I haven't written them yet because of this exact problem. It's so hard to get so caught up in my own mysteries and questions that I don't feel satisfied by any answer. I think in both cases of my own work not answering the mystery would come off as cheap, a cop-out, an incomplete story, etc, because they're very important questions, so I'm gonna have to keep looking for my specific answers, but I still really appreciated this video, it inspires me to look for answers and think about these stories again.
Ditto.
imo, one of the best shows for sheer payoff for mysteries is dirk gently's holistic detective agency (2019). it manages to overcome this paradox whilst still being pretty unpredictable, by just making every answer so absolutely off-the-wall nuts that you'd never think of it, even though the clues were there all along. it's also one of the things that makes it so rewatchable, because just seeing all this crazy stuff unfold is as much fun as trying to figure out the mysteries the first time. but imo, this only even works because the world is clearly established as being strange from the beginning, so it doesn't seem so ridiculous as to ruin your suspension of disbelief.
As you mentioned about the mystery of the hatch, part of the reason it worked better was that it was towards the beginning of the show.
I think one really good tip for avoiding the paradox of mystery is to reveal answers in the middle of your story. It is always tempting to save the most dramatic reveals for the climax of the book, but this means that your answer has to give not only the surprise you crave after a period of suspense, but also the catharsis of everything ending in a satisfying way, and those two things often oppose each other. It is better to have the answer to your mystery introduce another interesting element (not another mystery or you will get stuck in a mobius strip of building tension) like a new character or plot device. Similar techniques actually apply to many elements of writing, like when you kill someone off, or have two characters start dating. Most things come off better when there is time to process the implications.
I am trying to do this in my current work. It is an extremely strange novel, with lots of mysteries, and an omniscient but unreliable narrator. About halfway through, the reader learns most of the mysteries, and the focus is shifted to watching the characters crash and burn as they try to figure them out.
It also helps to keep a general sense of absurdity to the answers. I like to keep a running note on my phone of just weird things in everyday life that would be interesting to add to a book. I calling it giving batman bagpipes. For reasons.
Hope this helps
This is how I feel about HIMYM, the mystery of wondering who the mother is that finding out almost ruined the fun?? (although there was A LOT more wrong with the ending lol)
I disagree. Honestly, Tracy is SO GOOD, I could have gone without two or three less seasons of Ted having short affairs and Robin and Barney's will they won't theys.
I think the hatch example works because it opens up the world and casts everything that has happened in a new light. I think that is one good way to overcome the paradox. I think Brandon Sanderson is generally good with the mysteries he sets up. The Mistborn trilogy is a great example. There is a reveal in the third book that casts the first book in a whole new light, which makes the reveal so satisfying. I’m referring to Vin’s character, but that’s about as specific as I want to get. I think the Harry Potter series is also another great example of overcoming the paradox. The prisoner of Azkaban in particular had an amazing answer to the mystery. In these cases, it makes you want to reread them with the new perspective. So if an author can achieve that, I think it overcomes the paradox.
Yess, the reveal at the end of Misborn is incredible!!
oh boy, youd love attack on titan
You should watch The Leftovers. It's made by one of the creators of Lost and the mystery is left ambiguous. By far my favourite TV series that focuses primary on character and setting over plot. And it's only 28 episodes compared to however hundred there are in Lost.
Hi Shaelin, sorry for the long comment, but I would like to say thank you for your videos. I lost my best friend and writing partner October 28th last year of Covid, and I swore I would never write again without him. But then your videos kept showing up in my feed and I didn’t want to unsubscribe because it’s not your fault I no longer want to write. But I watched one of your new videos and I really wanted to write again, I told myself I will write one short story and then put it in a drawer somewhere. But then I had so many more ideas for the story and admitted to myself this is a novel. So for camp NaNoWriMo 2021 I wrote the book ‘the death of Domhnall Flaherty’ a whodunit style thriller set in Ireland. I am going to start on the sequel soon. Thank you for your videos again, and I will always look forward to your next one!
Woah 😮
Im sorry for your loss 😞. But really glad you found a passion for writing again!
I'm so sorry for your loss, sending you love
Another example of "what's in the sugar bowl" is "doctor who?" Where a lot of the plot is based around the question, but "it must never be answered" for some reason. I've wanted to know for years, since I was 12 or so and the show started emphasising it again. But I also knew that if they ever answered it, it would lose so much of its meaning, because there is no name that could hold so much meaning.
Edit:
I also think it's interesting to note that Moffat creates a lot of mysteries similar to that. I'm not saying here that I either do I don't like his writing, but I think looking at the way he handles these mysteries can be interesting.
1. Is to not answer it, as with the Doctor's name.
2. Is a recurring theme in Sherlock, about mysteries all really coming back to human error, as opposed to some elaborate, fantastical solution. Especially in regards to the answer of how Sherlock survived the fall, I remember watching a video essay that criticised their handling of that story arch (which really, more so than within the actual storyline, was about the two-year wait for an answer in the next released episode) as anticlimactic, and mocking of the people who had worked so hard to find answers - but that really annoyed me because I think he entirely missed the point. It was meant to be "mocking" only in the same way as Moriarty had been towards Sherlock *in* that episode that the fan base had fixated on for two years. Essentially, the answer had already been given to you: it's not as significant or ethereal as you think.
I'm not saying this is a good method, and there are obvious downsides to it (the experience of anticlimax leaves people feeling cheated rather than relieved the way they want to be, so it's inherently dangerous), but I did think that was interesting, and I think it falls under this mystery of paradox that you're talking about here
I feel like this a thing with many stories not just mysteries. Some stories are just weaved that way that I doubt that any ending/answer could ever be satysfying. I kept thinking about GoT as you were talking and realized that there probably is no satisfying ending/answer for this story (even though many other endings could have been vastly better than the one we got, but anyway). Then other stories started coming to mind of different genres... Very interesting topic!
You're so close to 100k subs it makes me feel things 😄
Like I've been watch you for so long I can't believe you're soon gonna he a 100k channel 😄
Love this vide! The moment you started to explain the concept my brain went: "LOST". :D And I giggled throught the whole Lost explanation because I was imagining people who never saw it trying to follow. But now I want to start a rewatch right away. I havent attempted one since the last episode aired because I actually liked the show and the ending a lot. And I didn't want to ruin this feeling... but at the same time it's been so long that I basically don't remember the last 2 seasons at all.
Anyway, love your other examples as well and it explaines why I feel let down by the endings of most mysterious plots. The funny thing is that I kind of accepted it and am expecting to be let down by the ending from the start. So that I get pleasantly surprised when an ending is actually good.
For me Pines by Blake Crouch managed to overcome the paradox. I think it was because it was my first book by him and I went into it not knowing anything, not even the genre. So because of the plot I was thinking I'm reading one genre with a specific set of potential answers to the mystery. And then the explanation went into a completely different direction I wasn't anticipating and I realised I had been reading a completely different genre the whole time.
Honestly I enjoyed the show *more* on rewatch! It feels more coherent because you already know what's going to happen, and you can watch more for the character development than the suspense (which sometimes is a let down).
Lost means a lot to me even though I never saw a single episode. My magnum opus of WIPs, which I will probably still be working out on my deathbed, was inspired by overhearing a single line from one of the creators in a television interview - something to the effect of "we did flash forwards, flashbacks, and THEN we decided to try flash-sideways!"
I still do not know what "flash-sideways" meant in the context of Lost, but it planted the seed for me of an interdimensional/parallel universe world which I am still nurturing into my dearest story all these years later.
This makes me think so much of Patrick Rothfuss and the Chandrian.
This is definitely going on with A Song of Ice and Fire
Literally my first thought
i don’t really think that ASoIaF is a mystery though, at least not much more than any other story is. The question is more like „what will happen to these characters we‘ve followed for so long, when all their arcs inevitably clash?“, less focused on any single mystery element and those there are, like „who is the knight king?“ „what’s going on with this fire god?“ can i think go unanswered (not saying they should) and still lead to a satisfying conclusion. the question of „who’s gonna sit on the iron throne?“ got a lot more emphasized in the show i think, but in the books it’s not so central. it’s more like any story with a lot of buildup in need for a matching ending.
@@13doppel13 No not really. There's a shit ton of mysteries woven into the story...
Worm (a very long serial web fiction) is probably the best example I've seen where different mysteries and mechanics of the world are all answered in a single cohesive explanation that's satisfying, narratively fitting, and ties meaningfully into the ending all at once.
I think it's fine to leave some mysteries unanswered for sure but the central mysteries going ignored feels like a cop out. I remember being terribly disappointed in the ending of a series of unfortunate events when I first read it. It felt like they left almost everything hanging/unexplained which gives the impression there were never really any cool answers to be found behind the questions.
WORM SPOILERS I agree! I found the shard stuff underwhelming to be honest, but Khepri was such a mind boggingly good end to Taylor's arc/the main conflict.
As soon as you explained the paradox I IMMEDIATELY thought of Piranesi!
Great video. Nailed this conundrum. Just finished a new novel, which runs up against this very issue. It is a historical mystery (based on a real event) that bumps up against the paranormal. In the end, the only conclusion was to keep the ending open, yet hint at a bizarre answer by walking up to the line.
Shaelin, can I just say that you deserve BIG PLAUDITS for actually using BOOKS to illustrate your ideas. FAR too many people turn to film examples (understandable, but often not useful) to make their point. As challenging as it can be when running an ongoing advice channel, actually using books to illustrate writing issues or techniques is BY FAR (yup, more CAPS) the BEST way! Congrats!
In defense of LOST:
There was a writers strike before the last season was written and apparently that’s why the ending was so unsatisfying.
Anyway, love the video!!!! Great tips and examples 💗
This was definitely the case of 'The Seven Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle' a book that was huge in the UK a couple of years ago.
Lost is the epitome of this for me, I felt so vindicated when you mentioned it! We followed it for years, the final episode was such a letdown, but we also realized at some point that no answer would satisfy us after so many years of wondering.
Loved this video Loved Piranesi. And finally I feel less embarrassed when saying: I loved Lost.
As someone who never watched Lost the last part of the video was very wild lmao
Honestly it might make even less sense if you have seen it that show is mind boggling
drew gooden actually recently made a really interesting video essay about lost that made me and my roommates want to watch it! i definitely recommend lol
I will have to check it out! Honestly still looking for that good Lost content in 2021
You got me at "faithful adaptation," since I've never read the books, I want to try the series and see what I get out of it. I'm intrigued by the idea of a mystery question that almost outweighs the answer to that question.
really excellent that the last words of the video are just I DON'T KNOW!
I literally don't know!!!
The worst is when a book has an awesome story, with a less than mediocre ending👎👎. Awesome stream👍👍!!!
Random add on: I’ve found I really enjoy when the mystery is known already and the audience is in on it. Like dexter or lucifer, knowing who these characters truly are and how they act with those who don’t believe them or don’t know is fascinating to me .
Fantastic video! Maybe you could follow up with a video breaking down some of your favourite mysteries and analysing why they worked so well?
This is something that I was thinking about lately and your video popped up. I also have never heard of other people discussing it. I appreciate the video a lot. It was well done.
I never write comments, but this was important to me.
This sort of problem happens in all sorts of media and I have experienced it so often and seen good answers to a mystery so rarely, that I came to also doubt if such a satisfying answer is even possible. Having thought about it, I came to the conclusion that it is possible, it is very hard though.
I have some thoughts of my own which explain what I mean:
Firstly, I think that a satisfying answer is theoratically always possible and is superior to a mystery with no final answer like the sugar box.
I believe that the anticipation for a mind blowing answer in our minds is evidence that such an answer is possible. It's like problems always co-arising with solutions, even if you don't know or can't think of the solution. A problem has the possibility of being solved inside it, if that makes sense. We could even say that a problem is defined by the absense of a certain solution, which however is always implied to exist.
Therefore I believe that (in theory) all extraordenary mysteries have a possible solution which will blow you away, change you, provide meaning, make the story whole etc.
In reality though it is very hard to pull off. But it needs to be hard to pull off and genious, otherwise we could think of it ourselves or have the feeling that we could have thought of it. The answer needs to be (when the mystery is very deep) BEYOND US in a way. It needs to be a STEP UP from the mystery. Something so complex that it needs time to be internalized, not just a simple sentence. It will need explaining and it will take thought. THIS CAN BE DONE, in my opinion.
Thus the order of satisfaction in stories with deep mysteries is like this, in a decending order, with 1. being the most satisfying way to handle a deep mystery:
1. Deep mystery with satisfying, komplex, meaningful, mindblowing answer. This is the ideal senario.
2. Deep mystery that is ongoing with no answer, like the sugar box. This can work (if done right) and is superior to next one. This can be a trap like in LOST.
3. Deep mystery with weak or unsatisfying answer. This one, in my opinion, is much worse than a deep mystery with no answer, because without an answer you can maintain the hope that such an answer exists. With a weak answer, you know that there is not more to the mystery. It is done and it leaves you unsatisfyied.
Secondly, I feel that a good ending to a deep mystery needs information as fuel. As I said before, the revelation can not just be a sentence or a name. It will need explanation. Something as complex as this needs a lot of information, to fill all the questions you had. Like in your example with LOST, an answer can not just adress a few aspects of the mystery and leave other integral parts unanswered. It need to be thorough. Otherwise your niche questions will leave you feeling like: "Yeah, I guess that makes sense. But what about this...And this...Wait, but how would that explain that part..."
It will make you feel uneasy, as if it the revelation isn't complete. I have experienced this a lot. Even if there might be answers, they will need to be delivered in a complete and powerful way. I will explain more about this in my next point.
But staying on this train of thought, if a complex revelation needs a lot of "input" of information and context, where in the story is it put?
I think there are 2 broad ways of doing this:
1. The end explains a lot and the revelations escalate and explode towards the end of the mystery. You get a lot of new information which will then form an answer to all your questions.
OR
2. You get a small answer in the end with little information, which however connects to many many little crumbs woven through out the story. "Ahhh, so this thing in the beginnig actually this...Wait, that means that this is connected to that little detail...OMG!" In this case the fuel and bulding blocks for the revelations where always there but you just needed that one answer to explain everything else.
A combination of both is best, I think.
Thirdly, it is important to realize, that the information or the "raw answer" is not enough in most cases to be satisfying. The way you deliver the punch line and all the inbetweens of story telling need to be on point. It needs to blow you away. If you can kinda guess the answer beforehand, it might not be as powerful, but if it doesnt make you go "Aha!" it might be too disconnected, even if it technically provides an explanation for your questions.
Delivery is very important.
Of course you wouldn't care much about the mystery if you did't connect with the story in the first place. Characters, Plot, World, Style, Pacing, Themes etc. It needs to be a good story all around for you to care enough about the mystery. Doesn't need to be perfect on all those aspects, but all of it will make the revelation more impactful.
Lastly, I want to suggest a method of making this grant revelation work.
I don't understand it fully at all, but this is an idea which might be useful:
Think about the Answer/Revelation and then TONE DOWN the mystery, so that the Answer will be a step up. You will end up with a mystery of smaller scale and depth but with a satisfying conclusion. This, in my opinion, is better than a hugly compelling mystery with a revelation that is a step down.
Now, if the revelation is extremely complex and mindblowing, you will be able to make the mystery around it still very intriguing.
Starting with an interesting deep mystery and THEN trying to OUTDO yourself to provide an Answer is often unseccessful.
Small extra point: I think a new mystery as a revelation to an existing mystery doesn't really count, like your example with the hatch in LOST. Unless all of it is tied together later and is not deisgned to string you on.
There is much more to talk about and this is a very important topic. I wish it was discussed way more.
Yes! GOT fell pray to this. The whole thing about Bran and the gods, it was so mundane at the end when it was kind of answered.
When I write I often feel like my mysteries are better than the answers. I appreciate this video!
Great video, gave me a brain spark about a solution to the paradox. Letting the reader/viewer figure it out before the MC so they get the satisfaction of seeing the MC figure it out.
Wow! That was so fun! I really like this style of video. I hope it performs well and you get to make more!
A book I read recently which did pull this off was the Book of the New Sun by Gene Wolfe. I was told the whole time by Internet Scholars that all the seemingly random events would make sense at the end--and they did! A book that avoided this trap was the Magus by John Fowles--which has big lost energy. I also think the SEcret History avoids this trap. I'm obsessed with stuff which can answer it's own questions, though, I think it's really fun when that happens successfully!
Agreed. This is a fantastic type of video, an exploration of genre, with contemporary examples, and an easy to follow breakdown that was well researched. Shaelin, you've clearly learned a lot from being at Reedsy! You sound a like a fantastic expert!
Amazing discussion you’ve opened here, Shaelin. To answer your question at the end about my WIP, I’m also in the camp of writers who will circumvent the paradox of mystery by simply not providing an answer. The main theme of my story is grief and how people use different belief systems to deal with it. My protag is struggling to come to terms with the death of a family member because he does not believe in an afterlife, whereas his younger brother does-but to the extreme point of acting like the deceased’s spirit is with them at all times. There will be moments in the book where either brother could end up being right, but this will be left unanswered (even I don’t know!). And why not? My characters have to deal with the frustration of not knowing, so my readers will too 😈
I really like your concept!
This is EXACTY what I needed at the moment, thank you so much for making this video!! I'm writing a story in which the mystery is so big that it can't really be explained. It's between sci-fi and fantasy, and revolves around the infinite mysteries of the universe. I've been conflicted about what to do with the ending, but this helped a lot. I've been wanting to take the 'keep the mystery unexplained and never-ending' route, and your explanation really solidifies that decision. It was great to see this paradox being explained so well, since I'm suffering from it right now lol.
I think The Haunting of Hill House (novel) is another example of this paradox being pulled off by leaving a lot unanswered. A lot of mysteries are unresolved, about the house and about Eleanor herself, but it is more compelling that way.
The reason leaving the mystery unanswered in A series of Unfortunate Events works is because of the themes of the books. It was a story of children learning how to navigate the confusing and mysterious world of adulthood. Becoming an adult means that you have to live with some questions being unanswered, perhaps forever. It means accepting that you won’t know everything, but to focus on what you do know and can know. What was in the bowl was also completely irrelevant: it was a McGuffin, a plot device.
A good example of a short story that solves this paradox in such a way that we get a neat answer to the mystery without raising more questions is Tower of Babylon by Ted Chiang, where the mystery is, what happens when the characters break through the vault of heaven at the top of the tower? Also, I think the paradox exists for smaller questions too, like when the title of a story makes us curious.
I think one solution to this problem can also be to leave the answers open to interpretation. A good example is the movie "Mulholland Drive". So much mystery, so much build up, but as the film comes to its closure, the possibilities for interpretation are as intriguing as they are satisfying.
This totally happens sometimes and you're so right that it's more common in different genres that have mystery than a mystery of limited presented options! Like in GoT there was the mystery from the start surrounding Jon's mom and Lyanna's death & when you got the "oh Jon's been a Targaryen this whole time, end of story" it's so lack luster in perspective of this grand developed world full of magic and unknowns that sometimes don't need to be known.
This is just what I needed!!! It’s like you read my mind. I was struggling with this in my current project.
I completely agree when she was talking about Series of Unfortunate Events. I never read the books, but even after only watching the show I knew there was not going to be a satisfactory answer for what was in the sugar bowl.
When they find out it destroys half of the interest and believability of the story
I think the key thing for me is that there has to be a sense of closure. That may be an answer, or somehow putting an end to the mystery by destroying it (example: why does this monster exist? Dunno, but it's dead now). Something I feel a lot of stories do that could be done better is all those stories that establish a mystery and then answer it in a very concrete way that doesn't always tie in with the rest of the story thematically (example: the monster was created by a mad scientist. What does that have to do with the main character's struggle with their grades tho?). To me, it seems like a lot of stories tried to answer questions in a way that makes too much sense, when it would've been a lot better to make the answer metaphorical (like that bottle thing, although that one didn't work).
Anyway, I'm crossing my fingers for the end of Made In Abyss. Although, a character in it has clearly stated that they keep certain pieces of info from reaching the surface so that the wonder remains, so I assume the author has noticed the potential pitfall already
Super interesting that you bring up Lost in this because if I’m remembering rightly the idea of the mystery itself being better than the answer is JJ Abrams’ whole ethos. Which is kinda why I’m really tempted but also nervous to read his/Doug Dorst’s book S because it sounds so intriguing but it’s also a lot of leg work if the payoff isn’t great 😬 awesome video as always!! ❤️
Thank you for talking about this problem, because I've been thinking about it for years - really, ever since Lost went off the rails. One point I'd like to make is, I don't think we're always good at proportionally assessing stories that fall victim to the paradox of mystery. Some mysteries end in revelations that are really interesting and well thought out - they just don't *quite* hit the mark in terms of satisfying the level of fascination the mystery inspired. Other mysteries just end in a really lame reveal that falls flat (such as with the worst revelations in Lost). But I notice, when people talk about this problem, they don't always distinguish between the two cases. A *slightly* unsatisfying answer is treated just as harshly as a horribly unsatisfying one.
I don't think it's really possible to achieve 100% success in the face of the paradox of mystery because, even the best answer imaginable won't make up for the fact that your reader (or audience) once had an imagination brimming over with possibilities as to what's really going on in the story and they now have to live with just this one answer. But, I think it's possible for the author to hit a pretty high mark by revealing *just enough* of what's going on without overexplaining every point. If you're very very *very* careful in your storytelling, the reader can be left with enough pieces to connect the dots in their imagination and some of the fascination in the story lingers after the end without the reader feeling cheated. But, I consider this one of the hardest things to pull off in fiction.
I felt this way about a popular thriller I read recently,(don't want to spoil it since it's still relatively new). It's supposed to be a take on And then There Were None but ended up having a paranormal answer to 'how it was done'. I was hugely disappointed, not because I don't like paranormal stories, but because it felt like a cop out. As people started dying off one by one I kept thinking to myself, how can any one of them have done it?? Instead of coming up with a clever answer the author said 'let's just make a dead person have done it all.'
One of the most satisfying conclusions to a mystery I've ever seen was the mystery of Jon Snow's parents. It starts with such a simple question of parentage that leads to you down such a rabbit hole. The story of the L+R=J theory and the events of Robert's Rebellion was so good that it could have a show on its own. Of course, the fan base already predicted this for years but having been proven correct after going through so many plot twists and unpredictable events from the books and show, it felt so satisfying.
Part of me thinks that maybe a way of overcoming this Paradox of Mystery is to have a really good and complete story from the start then picking an important event near the end of this story then branch out and form a mystery out of that. Then just sprinkle your mystery with some clues and red herrings all around.
Another special mention was the mystery of Hodor and why he can only speak those words. Not the most satisfying conclusion to a mystery but one of the most emotional imo.
The problem in large part comes from expectations. We, as readers, or viewers (someone else brought up Lost - a great example of this) - enjoy seeing questions being asked, but then expect those questions to be resolved satisfactorily (i.e. no deus ex) by the end. David Lynch is the best example of a creator who just says 'nah, f all that' and does what he likes, and to great effect. We need more writers to have the courage to step outside the bounds of expectations and simply refuse to answer the questions they've asked.
My mentor Shaelin talking about my TV love (Lost). Epic!
I am currently writing a story and for (literally) years I've been trying to find a satisfying answer to the mystery I created and I've realized there is none, so I kind of want to give a "maybe this happened" ending . But it is so hard to make that satisfying. I'm scared that if I ever let other people read the story, they'll be like "wait, that's it?" And be frustrated. It's a hard line to walk.
I think Kafka is an example in literature. In those pieces where he wrote the mystery without explaining anything you can read it as a parable it is satisfying . But in unfinished pieces he just trailed off so they mean nothing at all
Hi Shaelin, I was enjoying to watch your "mistery" paradox video, it gave me some ideas about a book I am working on, it's my memoirs about very mysterious things what happened in my life about 40 years ago. I finally recognized the importance of those mysterious events so I decide to write a book about it, and how to incorporate the "mysteries feeling" in my writings, and if i should explain or not explain at all the mystery itself, or just to come with my best guess of it, so there will be the no clear answer at all. LOL. Regards, Andrei
just read I Will Never Tell You This, i'm blown away!! thanks for what you do!!!!
I'm late to the party but I loved your video and this is a really interesting topic. I enjoyed reading the comment section as well! :)
I agree with you on both Piranesi and The Haunting of Bly Manor, even though both are great! I guess often the answers feel a bit mundane after all the mystery.
For another example, I really liked Ari Aster's movie Hereditary but I think it fell prey to this paradox as well.
I love Japanese horror/ghost movies because they often leave things unexplained. I remember watching a few American remakes of Japanese movies and thinking they fell flat precisely because they tried to explain everything (I'm thinking of Ring or Dark Water, but it's been a long time so I may be wrong).
A more recent movie I loved was Burning by Lee Chang-dong, which is more of a thriller with no paranormal element to it, but it kind of does the same thing. It doesn't tell you exactly what happened - which I loved. But coming out of the movie theater I heard a few people saying that they didn't like the movie/the ending or were too confused to have enjoyed it. I think it's partly a question of taste but also of expectation, and maybe Hollywood got people used to clean resolutions.
Anyway thanks for the video. I always enjoy your channel and your writing content is probably my favorite on RUclips!
Love the video. Never read or seen any of the titles you mentioned though, but it's a compelling topic.
I think it's kinda like soft magic vs. hard magic.
Soft magic is more like a flavor creating a sense of wonder. You don't need to know how a fireball is made because that's not what solves the plot.
Hard magic on the other hand is integral to the plot and therefore you need to know how that fireball is made so you can understand why it failed/succeeded at that critical moment.
Mystery is the same. If it's part of the plot it needs a satisfying answer.
If it's just a flavor it can be left more open ended.
As another commenter mentioned one way for it to work is if the solution casts a new light on everything that came before.
Another way would be if the real mystery isn't what you think it is.
Sweet Girl did that really well, though it's more action than mystery.
I'm not generally a fan of open endings to hard mysteries. I think it especially has a bigger chance to fail if wasn't intended to be open ended from the beginning. It often comes off as cheap or lazy.
Still, I tend to like those "it was just a dream... or was it?" Except for that movie that's a victim to nameception everywhere.
This topic definitely has me pondering the catharsis of mystery. What is satisfying?Probably the best mystery I ever read was Michael Crichton’s Sphere.
i like the kind of things you talk about when it refers to writting or storytelling.
This was explained so well
[25:00] Lost is an island in a Nobilis (the roleplaying game) setting.
Christopher Nolan is an inconsistent writer but I think Memento and The Prestige are examples of this paradox being overcome really effectively, and the thing that sticks out to me about both of those stories is that the twists/answers we get aren't just answers to the plot questions; they are thematically resonant. If your reader/viewer can walk away from the story with answers that are thematically consistent with the rest of the story, answers that feel like they have something to say beyond just the facts, I think they'll be a lot more satisfied by them. It gives them something to take home with them beyond just "Does this answer all of the questions that were raised?"
I think games Dark Souls (1-3) and Bloodbourne are a great examples of that paradox well overcomed.
The games' narrative is being build mostly on visuals: how the world looks, how the enemies look, how some symbols and resemblances in the world are recurring. Then we have also few dialogues during the games and items' descriptions that sometimes seems vague but by observing the world and finding more clues ourselves we can piece all those informations together.
All these games base their stories on mysteries which are actually planned to have its answer being in the world and in the gameplay story. Games just don't hold our hands and invite us to discover clues and ponder upon their meaning often to find the solutions... or to watch lore videos of those who did.
Those types of games are actually not my type, I don't enjoy dying over and over again. But I found my interest in their worlds by amazing visual design and got myself into the lore because of really grand and satisfying endings. Their emotional impact left me thinking about them for a long time. They're also very inspiring in a lots of ways.
The ending of the TV series Monk, I believe, has that paradox. All throughout the series it’s mentioned that Monk’s wife, Trudy, was murdered, but it’s in the last episode where we find out who killed her. While it was nice to be given an answer, it definitely wasn’t the most satisfying answer, partially because the answer was right there and Monk didn’t see it, and partially because all the things that seemed to be clues to her death didn’t seem to have any substance in the ultimate solution. It seemed like the writers were just made to write a solution, honestly.
I was waiting for you to mention Game of Thrones but you’re right, GoT was unsatisfying for different reasons 😅
That is a very interesting problem you raise! I do believe that leaving something as a mystery that is unresolved is a higher form of art since that imitates real life. We never have answers - only conjectures. However, I think the author/screen-writer/story teller should have their own idea of what is really going on. This version might not necessarily be "the truth" or the only truth but it should dictate some of the logic in the piece. The problem with shows like "Lost" or "Gossip Girl" which is one that I've watched on and off (the mystery being who is gossip girl), is that the writers don't commit to an answer or a theory from the get-go. And so all the theories eventually get eliminated and you are left with - nothing. Nothing makes sense.
I had a very different experience with Pirenasi. I actually loved it when we started getting answers because the answers I was coming up with were so dark and horrible that even the "dark truth" of the book was preferable to the alternatives in my head. I mean at some point I thought the dead people he had discovered were his family, that he may have killed them or that they may not have survived the harsh conditions. But then having there be a "folded child"... that was just very dark.
Anyways, I do get what you're saying about the world-building or magic involved in the answer being a bit less imaginative than the setting but I think the book makes up for it in the end when Pirenasi isn't lost inside the person he becomes but is a dual personality living within the modern human. I think one could see it as a parable of our lives in the modern age.
The last episode I remember from Lost was when the woman who was in fact a foster parent for Jacob and his brother, murder their biological mother after she delivered them
The Big Sleep. People enjoy the mystery but have no idea what was going on.
Hey! I missed your writing videos of this kind. And you're talking about mystery! Woo-hoo! My genre. I'm bookmarking and watching later. But just wanted to say hi. :D
"Lost" was a spiritual descendant of "Twin Peaks". People were also expecting satisfying explanations to its bizarre mysteries, although anyone familiar with David Lynch should have known better. It was surrealism, not a traditional narrative. "Fringe", which followed "Lost" in the J.J. Abrams oeuvre solved the problem brilliantly (IMO): each mystery turned out to be a red herring concealing another, equally tantalizing mystery. None of them were so bizarre that any solution was bound to be disappointing. Finally, there's H.P. Lovecraft. "At the Mountains of Madness" presents mysteries which are solved, revealing terrible secrets that seem less terrible as you learn more about them... then, at the end, he hints at some other, even more terrible secret. You never learn what it is, but it drives one of the characters insane when he catches a glimpse of it.
Another great example would be that show, "Manifest"
Idk if there's going to be another season, but if it IS saved, the conclusion is probably going to be kind of a let down because the mystery has been SO compelling this far.
You are a great help. Thank you very much
I'm Pretty sure "Lost" is my villain origin story.
Fair mysteries that use clues to foreshadow an answer the author already knows: J.K. Rowling
Mystery boxes where the author himself has no clue what’s inside (the sugar bowl, the hatch etc.): J. J. Abrams
The upside-down corked bottle is a nice imagery for other opportunities, I reckon.
I don't have a mystery in my work... ...oh, wait, maybe I do. After all, the MC's targets all seem to know or hint at sth so his curiosity eventually drives him along, but the answer will just be the actual villains motive for "why?", mostly. So I gotta check that motive is not too simple, then, which'll be a challenge since the man doesn't get a lot of page time...
Lost is the epitome. Battlestar Galactica too. And more recently, 7.5 Deaths of Evelyn Hardcastle.
Awesome video ! So true !!
Attack on Titan overcame the Eren's basement paradox of mystery. The answer caused a total paradigm shift. The rest of the story is built around the consequences of this revelation.
I've learned that you must have all your questioned answered, even if you never share them with your reader. Never kick the can down the road thinking, ah i don't need to unpack this problem right now, i'll answer it later. answer it now, at least for yourself. People will read for your mystery but stay for your characters. The details of the plot will be forgotten, but they will remember your characters forever. so focus on giving your characters their climatic ending, and don't worry about answering the mysteries that surround them. But by answering them, at least for yourself, no matter how unsatisfactory that answer may be, by answering them yourself, it will instruct your story. It will prompt you to put in compelling clues and character motivations. You will be glad you answered them.
Okay so I'm gonna stop being a lurker now lol heyyy I LOVE YOUR VIDEOS! Your thoughts about stuff and your favorite writing matches with mine so close so I really get a lot of new recs and ideas for my writing so thank you 💕 And I'm a huge Lost fan must have seen it a bunch of times, and I just want to say I was frustrated by pretty much the same stuff. But the most disappointing part for me at least * spoiler alert * was the ending showing it as if it's purgatory and they're waiting for their sentence - like to me I love Supernatural the Winchesters do heaven hell and other Christian mythology really well but if they use purgatory as a concept it's okay that show is more guilty pleasure anyway, but when Lost did it, that seemed anticlimactic to me at least. And now for the one show that really didn't fall short for me in this regard was Castle Rock. It has so much depth, symbolism etc and very great mystery it will keep you guessing and at least at the end of season 1 ( it has 2 seasons btw) I didn't feel cheated. Anyway have a great weekend 😁😘
Great vid shaelin
I love mystery stuff, especially small town mysteries, but I'm like incapable of writing plot so whenever I try to think up one it would be more based on the aesthetics of that subgenre rather than the content but there's not really a point in that being released but god, I want to write a small town mystery so bad.
Write a story where the mystery is there isna cryptid messing with people like FrogMan or the Hodag.
this video is a very original material, and very true. again, inspiring with the current book I'm working on
The numbers brought Hurley to the island because he was meant to become the next caretaker.
i actually just binged lost for the first time last month :D
I wasn't planning on having an existential crisis today, but here we are.
Wrote a novel where a bunch of people die on-screen but, later, appear alive. I was pantsing the writing of the book, only having the final scene in mind (which doesn't solve the mystery) plus a general idea of each character's character arc. When I introduced this mystery, I actually had no idea about the conclusion. Of course I could answer it using the supernatural, and with this being the first book in a series where supernatural elements will come up, I could have easily gotten away with it. But I felt it wouldn't be satisfying to just introduce magic as the twist in the end, so I decided to go balls to the walls massive conspiracy (sth I always wanted the book to have but not to that degree) and answer it in what is, in my opinion, a decently satisfying non-supernatural answer that only implies supernatural elements to come. Haven't finished the editing of the book yet, so I won't spoil anything. Also, not going to even try publishing it, it was just for my own amusement.
Mystery Box™
Also that's a really nice way of putting it "can't outthink your own writing"
Go Shaelin! :D love to see your videos!
a story that i think brilliantly overcame this problem was the podcast The Magnus Archives, even though it made it extra hard for itself by being both a mystery and a horror. normally things get less scary once you know whats going on, but in this show every time you got an answer it either introduced more mystery or expanded on the horror aspect and put more pressure on the characters. I think a common thread of the story is that the protagonist keeps seeking knowledge but every answer just makes things worse. Big revelations are hard fought, propel the story into it‘s next stage and add new layers/genres of horror. There are also a lot of smaller mysteries/connections that don‘t necessarily mean much to the characters, but the listener can pick up on them to get a fuller picture. I think the most important part in the solution to a mystery is not the answer itself, but what it means to the characters, wether there is an obvious „right“ reaction or wether the suspense carries over into the question of what to do with it and thus pushes the character arc. without any spoilers, it think the last season of Magnus Archives really does that incredibly well.
I agree! I love how the Magnus Archives approached both the horror and the mystery!
The sugar bowl reminds me of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction. You don't need to know the answer about it.
Man, your mind is gonna be blown when you read the explanation for the brief case.