Basically, writing an absurdist scifi novel, and have toyed with the idea of spoiling the plot for the readers. So, basically, novel is about Lou, an average guy that turns out to be The Chosen One. He's supposed to save the planet from a demonic tyrant, but it turns out, the timing of the prophecy and The Chosen One was a little off, and he died centuries ago. The planet is actually a utopia. About 40 pages in (of a 250 page book), I have a scene where the reader is made privy to this. Later on, towards the end, the MC meets with an omnipotent being, who explains this all to him. It's a revelation to Lou, but the readers were made aware long ago. Would something like this just piss you off, even if done in a comedic setting? I definitely thought about it simply as a comedic device, but I still do want a compelling story. The more I think about it, the less I want to spoil it, and I'd rather just save it for when the characters find out.
I was thinking people would still read on because the narrator is interesting. But even if that were the case, that's a lazy way of writing. Yes, I can make it a narrator-centered story, but reading books and seeing shows like Dirk Gently, Good Omens, and Guardians of the Galaxy, I know that my story can be that much better by simply putting some effort into things like plot and character development. I want my story to be incredibly funny, but still have a pretty damn good plot, like Dirk Gently (at least the show. Haven't read the book yet).
When you say spoil the ending, do you mean giving away the idea that the end does not involve a typical "good guy vs bad guy fight"? Your story can still have a good plot without the fight but it can not close without a resolution of some sort (assuming the fight isn't going to be the only thing that holds the book together), do you know what the alternate (non-fight) ending is yet?
Is the revelation the core concept of the story? Is it why your readers are reading? If so, don't spoil it. If it is a backdrop and isn't as important then feel free to spoil it because readers often like knowing more than characters do as long as that knowledge isn't frustrating. Especially if they figured out the information on their own instead of it being blatantly told to them.
People still watched Titanic even though they all had a fairly good idea of how it ended 5 minutes in.
It can work, but it needs to have a purpose, and my suggestion is that the overall point of what you're writing needs to be a much more in depth commentary or metaphor for something else. As in, the story really doesn't need to be about the general plot, but instead use the plot as a pacing and device to encourage or enhance the overall subject matter or metaphor, or the general object in which a satire is playing upon. An example would be a downward spiral. Most of those kind of books you already assume the fate of the characters and the general plot path. But generally the plot of these isn't what they are actually talking about. Before you're concerned about this reveal business, look at you're idea, and try to figure out what you're trying to do in general. What is the point of the writing activity taking place here. Well, partially. The ship was more of a driving device in a plot that leaned harder on a love story than on a biography.
None of them are going to hang around for Titanic 2. Anyway, the knew the ship sunk, but not what happened to the main characters.
I think the point is that you are telling the reader the same thing twice in this instance. Technically that is a sin as the reader might be forgiven for asking why? However, most readers will let you away with such misdemeanours as long as they don't become a theme. I don't think it spoils the story to tell the reader what is going on, not at all. Look at 'the book thief' by Markus Zusak. The narrator (death) was always telling the reader what was about to happen. Then Zusak had the balls to deliver the story he promised and made it work. He builds a trust between himself and his readers. The poor old MC's were the last to know! I don't see why it shouldn't work but if it were me I would keep things as neat and straight forward as possible.
You should. It's one of those, "grab some friends, have a few drinks, and light a bowl," type movies. Kind of like Sharknado 3. That's kind of my point.
If it's done in a clever way, I think you can get away with it. I know T.V. is different but there are shows that do similar things. They start with showing you a scene of the end result then do the old now this is how we got here.... I don't have any tips for you, but I think it's absolutely possible to get away with this concept. You just have to give a reason for the readers stay interested, invested. You can still add shock value despite the outcome being known.
I'm fine with knowing the ending. I feel like a lot of things are obvious anyway. Romance is all about already knowing the characters get together and live happily ever after in the end. What makes it interesting is the journey to get there. Personally, I've always found the journey more interesting than the ending in almost everything I enjoy. Sometimes I'll even stop reading right before the end because the journey is over and I don't really care about the end, hah.
