Infodumps.

[Laeraneth]

This is actually a somewhat reassuring topic... I was worried that I had infodumped/exposition(ed) too heavily in a couple of instances now I'm getting near the end of my story as some things become more clear and events are put into context for the main characters by other people before the final chunk of story really begins to kick off.

I was getting concerned that the conversations and discussions might be a bit dull and info dumpy, but it seems I just had the wrong definition. Both from this thread and the one about exposition.

So... I'll just assume it's remotely decent plot driving and retrospective scene setting (which really needs reworking already, but I'm trying to ignore that urge), and get on with the final few chapters

 

[Ursa major]

There's lots of research around learning styles. Activists,reflectors, therists etc all who learn in different ways. So yes and no.


What were really talking about here is enjoyment though. As I say it's subjective and I love em. As I acknowledged in my original post though I ackowledge I'm in the minority though but I'm merely letting the original poster know that there are a bunch of us out there who don't view it as a mortal sin. And considering some of the major authors in SF are terrible for it I would suggest there might be more secret infodump addicts that you think out there

I read quite a lot of non-fiction, so I too am not immune to the allure of an interesting infodump. However, given that

• there are many readers who don't like them, and
• those of us who like (or don't mind) them will read a book even if none of the information is dumped,

it would seem that it would be best to avoid them whenever possible**. And it rather puts a premium on making one's infodumps enjoyable to read. (Not all infodumps are.)



** - That is, without jumping through hoops, such as "You know..." dialogue or interminably long passages of showing (when a sentence or two of telling might be better).

 

[ralphkern]

One mans poison is another mans tipple. I don't like soap operas but I wouldn't tell the producers not to make them.

Bottom line is up to you how much and how many you put in. If you put in a lot ursa won't read you but I might. If you don't put any in then it may well be vice versa.

 

[Overread]

I think that the whole "don't info dump" is writing advice best viewed as being a reminder to writers not to put everything of their background into a book. A good writer in fantasy or sci-fi typically has to world build outside the scope of their book - in fact the more they do the better it can be especially if it matures into a series*. However they have to avoid putting all of it down into a book and drowning the story in a sea of world building.

Of course its all rather like the Pirates Code - its more guidelines than actual rules. Understand the theory, understand the background of the theory and then one can make a choice as to how to apply that theory or when not to apply it.


* Robin Hobb had to do a little creative writing at the start of her second Fitz and Fool series to account for some differences in how Fitz experienced the Rainwald River at the end of the first series to what the river actually became in her Liveships series. An example of where wider world building earlier might have avoided a minor laps.