During one morning writing session, I caught my main character wanting to lie to the reader about a critical plot point. By lie I mean deliberately withhold information during an internalization. He obviously would know the information, but chose not to “think” about it because it might give a clue away too soon. I’ve seen this situation recently while performing critics in my writing group. It’s a form of lying by omission. A POV character keeps the reader in the dark even though the character has the information and the viewpoint 1st person . By definition, the reader should know what the POV character knows.
My main character (MC) had very good reasons for not wanting the reader to know this particular piece of information. So, we discussed our options.
I could rewrite the previous chapter to ensure that my MC didn’t know the information. That would mean a fair amount of work and would change the plot arc dramatically. Not my favorite choice, even during a first draft.
I could let him lie and have an editor call me out on it. Or worse the editor might let it go through and readers would feel cheated that they were not privy to a critical clue. Improbable, but not impossible.
Or, I could force the MC to tell the truth during the internalization. Thus, providing the clue to the reader and force the MC to react accordingly, perhaps giving away too much, too soon.
In this case I did not let the MC dictate to me. Instead I chose option three. In the end this worked well because the resulting MC actions, as usual, drove the story in a slightly different direction which created a better story, in the long run.
My question for my followers is this: Can you think of a time when writing first person when withholding information from the reader, that the MC obviously knows, works?
I’m looking forward to seeing what you all think.
Tales From The Hare 
A.R. Grimes
March 4, 2023 at 9:39 pm
It may work in the case of an unreliable narrator – so long as the reader is aware that the narrator is unreliable. You would need to give clues that the narrator is unreliable. Nabokov’s narrator in Lolita comes to mind.
Dennis Langley
March 6, 2023 at 8:17 am
Ah yes. That makes sense. Thank you for commenting.
Mick Canning
March 5, 2023 at 3:02 am
I think it happens quite often, and for very good reasons. One example would be in a detective story written in the first person (to avoid spoilers I’m not saying which one I’m thinking of) when the entire solution would be revealed far too early. And, of course, people lie to themselves frequently, which is another reason to do this.
Dennis Langley
March 6, 2023 at 8:31 am
Funny you should mention a detective story. That’s exactly what I’m working with. The issue is, if the first person knows the solution, how can you in good conscious, keep that knowledge from the reader?
Mick Canning
March 6, 2023 at 10:19 am
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd?
Matthew Wright
March 5, 2023 at 7:08 pm
Something broadly similar happens in my writing quite a bit – I do non-fiction, usually history. And today we know, from our vantage point in time, what happened. But the participants of the day do not. The question is how to deal with it, particularly when even the first-person accounts by participants, which I use for sources, fall into that very same issue of having post-fact knowledge when they wrote their escapades down. I have to keep that point consciously in mind all the time when assessing sources because – certainly when writing history – the most powerful way to engage a reader is to present events as seen in the moment, as they unfolded for participants. It’s a slightly different issue from that of the fiction writer withholding character-knowledge for dramatic purpose, but to me the practical solution for the author is the same.
Dennis Langley
March 6, 2023 at 8:27 am
That’s an interesting point on historical first-hand accounts. I can see where this could affect how the story is told. I guess that’s why eyewitness accounts are not always as accurate as one would think. They’ve had a chance to process the events and “interpret” it. Thanks for your comments, Matt.