![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
May. 21st, 2020 02:53 pmI'm thinking some more about Worth the Candle, compared to most other fiction with a first-person narrator and dramatic irony.
The typical approach is to have the character clearly observe all the elements, then fail to put them together, e.g. Adrian Mole being told about an illicit love affair, but thinking the speaker just made a grammar error. I always found that excruciating. If the character can't put two and two together, how did they notice all those details in the first place?
Worth the Candle is more subtle. Juniper is uninterested in something, barely notices it, and only mentions it in passing. Then later, someone else calls him out on it and it turns out it was important. It turns out this is also excruciating. How did I not realize what was being implied there? If Juniper didn't notice how he was ruining his relationships, and I didn't notice it either from the clues that were presented, then does that mean I wouldn't notice if I ruined my relationships?
The typical approach is to have the character clearly observe all the elements, then fail to put them together, e.g. Adrian Mole being told about an illicit love affair, but thinking the speaker just made a grammar error. I always found that excruciating. If the character can't put two and two together, how did they notice all those details in the first place?
Worth the Candle is more subtle. Juniper is uninterested in something, barely notices it, and only mentions it in passing. Then later, someone else calls him out on it and it turns out it was important. It turns out this is also excruciating. How did I not realize what was being implied there? If Juniper didn't notice how he was ruining his relationships, and I didn't notice it either from the clues that were presented, then does that mean I wouldn't notice if I ruined my relationships?
