Hacker News Reader

Comment by bambax | Hacker News Reader

Surprise is overrated. Suspense is superior. The best explanation of the difference is given by Hitchcock in an interview with Truffaut.

We see two characters talking for 45 seconds. Then a bomb goes off, that was under the table. The audience didn't know there was a bomb: big surprise; but the dialogue between the characters is completely irrelevant and eclipsed by the explosion.

Now imagine the same scene, but before, we see a terrorist placing the bomb under the table. Now the scene is totally different, and every word that comes out of one of the characters' mouth is fascinating. Does either one of them know about the bomb? Will they find out in time? Will they survive? Etc.

Suspense > surprise.

View on HN

You see a man putting a bag under a table. Two man arrive, sitting at the table, you wait for the bomb to explode because the bag must have a meaning. The meeting ends, the men stand up, one is killed by headshot.

And your scene depends on the characters. Is one the main character? Highly unlikely he get killed.

It's even worse if it's a TV series. Main character is strapped to a bomb? No problem. Guest star is strapped to a bomb? Might get killed. Unknown supporting role strapped to a bomb? Sure death. I think that was part of GoT's success. Surprise deaths. And nudity of course.

If everything has a meaning even the chosen actor is important. Known actor in a minor role? Surely gets important.

>I think that was part of GoT's success.

At the beginning of the show. A few seasons in, lots of people developed plot armor.

By that point the show was popular enough for them not to need a compelling story or nudity; fans would watch either way.

That is interesting, I hadn’t thought of that before.

I think a recent series which bucked this trend was For All Mankind. Rather than building suspense, bad stuff just happened with no warning. And it wasn’t a jump scare, it just happened. The entertainment for me then came from the characters reactions and how the plot then unfolded.

I actually class it as one of the best shows I’ve seen. I feel it managed to be very wholesome while also having some major emotional highs and lows. In particular, it didn’t build drama just for the sake of keeping the audience engaged.

I could talk about that show for ages.

Inglorious Basterds does this very well, its opening scene is very close to what you describe, as well as a number of other scenes in the film.

A great example of this is a scene in the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy. Before the scene starts the narrator explains, in detail, what exactly will happen in the scene, and what the end result will be. None of this makes the scene itself any less thrilling.

What's interesting about this example in particular is when the theory building occurs: before or after.

Nobody is surprised, then subsequently asks no questions. The questions simply come after.

And so I imagine the sequence of when you want the viewer to ask their questions can be used as a literary device (famously, in media res).

I don't but that one is better than the other: you surely need both for a good story.

yet in OPs example, the "surprise" consists of a threat not being enactioned, therefore it is an instrument of suspense

Reply on news.ycombinator.com