: Opening statement doesn't match conclusion. Is this count as plot loophole? I wrote a story that starts like this: My girlfriend, Hitomi, is in love with my elder brother. But refuses

Vote Up Vote Down

The important thing isn't who the narrator is, it is what tense you use.

If you use the past tense, the narrator is looking back to something that already happened and the narration needs to reflect later events unless the narrator is unreliable and hides them on purpose that the reader can understand.

If you use the present tense the narration follows the timeline of the story and not only do you not need to account for future events and future knowledge, you really shouldn't.

That said, you are correct that having the narrator say things that turn out to be untrue makes the story weaker. There are two ways to deal with this.

You can use unreliable narrator. I am guessing this mostly involves making explicit that the narrator has some reason for telling this story, an agenda of his own. Your story doesn't seem like there is actual need to deceive the reader, so just mentioning that he is telling the story as he saw it at the time it happened should be enough to warn the reader he might be wrong.

Alternately, you can show not tell. Instead of the narrator saying his girlfriend is in love with his brother, narrate what the girlfriend does to make him think that and how he reacts to it.

For your story the first option is probably easier.

And for the record, if someone is convinced of something, they believe it to be a fact and would narrate it as such. The word "convinced" would be used if the narrator knew he was wrong, in which case past tense would be used, or if the focus was on the feelings of the narrator not on what the girlfriend feels.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

I wonder if this [opening statement doesn't match conclusion] is permissible in first-person narration where the MC doesn't know what is going to happen at the end of his tale? (Or at least, wants the reader to think that?)

I'd say that it's where it would be the most permissible.

In first-person narration, the POV is biased, since it depends on one character's opinions and ideas. It's perfectly acceptable for the tale to open with the character/narrator believing something only to reach the end and discover they were wrong in their initial belief. Or, at least, weren't quite right about it. In fact, it's a great twist and allows the character-narrator to evolve.

Obviously, the same can be said of other types of narration (which means that opening and closing statements at odds are permissible everywhere). Any character, or even an ironic narrator, can make a statement that turns out to be wrong at the end.

The way I see it, this change (or, better yet, evolution) mimics an important aspect of real life: one draws conclusions about others based on the actions one sees, but are our conclusions accurate?

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Unlike other forms of writing fiction deals with 'thoughts' and 'opinions' as opposed to 'facts'. Thought and opinions can change - facts do not.

Your story starts with a statement of fact. All your problems would be solved with a point of view.

I'm convinced, my girlfriend, Hitomi, is in love with my elder brother. But refuses to accept it. Not in the sense that she doesn't want to reveal the truth, maybe she doesn't know the truth herself.

All Fixed. More natural sounding. Improved voice.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

Some advice that Ayn Rand offered was to start character with a false philosophy and to openly state it. By the end of the book, their arc should gracefully have delivered them to a true philosophy - these are the "book ends" that readers look for and which help them find satisfaction. Think Frodo between meeting Gandalf and throwing the ring away; each of the characters in Guardians of the Galaxy; etc. It's the conflict between these two points which delivers the storyline.

Rephrase your prose so that these opening and closing parantheses reflect each other in substance but not belief. Remember - the closing statement should contradict the original situation.

(0)