
David Grann, the author and New Yorker staff writer, is profiled in this article from Slate. I read The Lost City of Z and, while I enjoyed it, especially the deep reporting and vivid scene reconstruction, I was ambivalent about Grann’s central “trick,” (and I’m sorry to call it that, but that’s what it felt like). It’s his technique of sending the reader through the narrative, as Slate puts it, with blinders on,
building up our expectations in one direction, then yanking the rug out from under us—often to reveal another rug, soon to be yanked, beneath that one.
Throughout “Z,” Grann knows something important but we don’t get the final reveal until the closing pages. I had two reactions: First, I gasped. Then, I thought — well, hell, if I had known this 200 pages ago I wouldn’t have needed to read all this. Then I thought, well, of course — that’s what a story is. The storyteller knows how it ends and the reader doesn’t. Why read a murder mystery when the author could say, on page 3, “It was the jealous husband.” The end.
So what bothered me couldn’t have been that he simply withheld information from the reader. That’s a writer’s job. What I can’t put my finger on is why it bugged me in this book. Why did the final “a-ha!” feel like a trick to me?
I like David Grann and as soon as I have some spare time I’m going to read The Devil and Sherlock Holmes. Meanwhile, any thoughts on how he handles surprising the reader?