Exposition - a thought or two.

[Perpetual Man]

While working on my current little project Time Rogues from Strip to Prose I've had a run in with the old chestnut of exposition. Obviously at some points when telling a tory there are going to points where the characters and readers are going to need to know about the past.

This can lead to a sudden infodump, or a mass of exposition as a character drops all relevant info in a manner that not only breaks the story up, but is probably done in a manner that is totally unnatural for people having a conversation.

In the comic strip version there is mass of exposition that fills two parts (16 pages), in it the characters explain to their new recruit just what they are and how they got to the position they are in.

It works to a degree because there are four of them telling the story, they are explaining something to another, and there are pictures that distract the reader from the ongoing infodump.

It is one thing to have a picture of a dinosaur and having to describe the same thing in prose.

Perhaps even more importantly you can get away with more in strip - if you see a picture of a group of people getting changed into uniform in a room, there is a lot that can be hidden in the background of the picture that can be used later. It makes the writer and artist look clever , but if the same information is being put it into prose it has to be described. This, of course draws out what is being written, making more to go through when reading. Slows the story more. Makes the reading harder.

When working on the Time Rogues and replotting, reworking I have already made some huge changes from the structure as it was, but I'm seriously considering the History in Reverse sequence because I do not think it would work in prose form.

Some of the information that was in there can quite easily be reused in a different manner, and will be, but there is still going to be quite a lot that night be needed and needs to be worked into the story somehow.

So when does the old infodump/exposition become too much?

 

[Ray McCarthy]

So when does the old infodump/exposition become too much?

No idea.
But someone here said if it's interesting, then it's good exposition and if it's boring and tedious, it's an infodump

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Interesting, engaging, fun = exposition.
Boring the arse off the reader = infodump.

And that appears to be the distinction.

 

[allmywires]

I think when the expo pulls you out of the action then it gets infodumpy. If you forget where you were when you started being dumped on, (most common example - goes on for too long) then that's one to avoid. Usually that's best caught by other people though - since we as the writers naturally love our worlds, we forgive a lot more waffling on than others do!

 

[Zebra Wizard]

When exposition turns me off it is when it breaks my immersion. When I read dialogue that is blatantly for my benefit (Brandon Sanderson does this alot), or when i get pulled out of the story into a lecture room and someone is going through some history I may or may not be interesting but serves no purpose to what is actually happening.

I personally think its alot better to give enough hints to let the reader wonder and develop their own theories about something than dump it all in their face. Instead of what took place in a battle, i'd just sprinkle the entire book with a few people mentioning "The Battle of the Rams" in hushed tones.

The way I decide whether to use exposition is just by imagining it as a movie, where they have to streamline and cut away exposition wherever they can (in most cases) and yet the characters still feel real without knowing their past etc. And there are many sci-fi movies don't need to explain how things got to where they are.

I'm not saying all exposition is bad, but i think the best way is to make it flow seemlessly without the reader even knowing you are infodumping them.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

For me, have the exposition close and in character and I'll forgive a lot. (voicey! Whatever that is....)

 

[JC Kang]

I totally agree with most of the posters. A big block of exposition becomes an infodump when the reader finds it boring. Of course, that is very subjective-- those of us who grew up on Lord of the Rings probably have a higher tolerance threshold than those whose first recreation reading with the Hunger Games.

That said, what will keep me engaged through a long bit of exposition is:
1. The world itself is so fleshed out, like GoT and LOTR.
2. The voice is compelling (Hitchiker's Guide)
3. I really like the character(s) (Kushiel's legacy)

 

[tinkerdan]

I'm presently reading something where one character is addressing another in dialogue.

This leads to the other character digressing into three paragraphs of convoluted backstory and world building. (In narrative thoughts.)

Then they respond to the dialogue.

By then I've forgotten the original dialogue that started it all.

Personally I think a writer should try to avoid that even though this author has some pretty interesting exposition. There has to be some way to insert it where the pacing makes sense.

 

[JC Kang]

Yes, I've critiqued several works where there was so much happening in between lines of dialog, I didn't remember the question the character answered! In this case, I feel even one line of exposition can be too much.

 

[Mad Alice]

If there is a lot of back story between the question and answer, why not have the questioner reask the question, to push it back into dialogue mode, or have the answerer rephrase the question as part of his answer? I have seen this done with moderate success to bookend a short story before.

 

[TitaniumTi]

A big block of exposition becomes an infodump when the reader finds it boring. Of course, that is very subjective-- those of us who grew up on Lord of the Rings probably have a higher tolerance threshold than those whose first recreation reading with the Hunger Games.

The Hunger Games has a surprising amount of exposition. So, how does it hold the interest of young readers? How does it hold my (not so young) interest?

The first paragraph has just a hint of exposition. Of course Prim had bad dreams; this is the day of the reaping.

The next four paragraphs have a little more exposition, hinting at the harshness of the world, introducing the narrator by showing how she moderates her pragmatism to please soft-hearted Prim, and describing the present that Prim gives to her for reaping day.

By the sixth paragraph, we're deeply into exposition. The street would normally be crawling with hunched shouldered, sore knuckled coal miners. But not today. The reaping doesn't start 'till two.

The seventh paragraph describes the electric fence that keeps the predators out. But it makes me wonder. If it's intended to keep predators out, not to keep people in, why does the narrator need to creep secretly under the wire?

And so it continues. Over the next paragraphs, we learn that the it is illegal to own weapons other than knives and that people are scared and hungry. We get a sense of the narrator, courageous beyond her years, in a frightened world.

 

[JC Kang]

The Hunger Games has a surprising amount of exposition. So, how does it hold the interest of young readers? How does it hold my (not so young) interest?

Good point. I just randomly chose a popular YA book without thinking about it... It's been a while since I read it (and even a much longer while since I read LOTR).

 

[LittleStar]

Interesting topic here

@TitaniumTi i looked over the first few pages a day or two ago, just to find how one might slot a first person narrator's name into it... Not until page 8 do we know her name.

But that's another topic.
What you have described above I don't think i found/find disengaging at all either. I've never thought about exposition vs info dump, but I think now after this thread I'd very much agree with anya's assessment a few posts up.

These first paragraphs are exploring Katniss' world, but not through lengthy discursive speeches. She is showing us the make up of her district through (loose) interaction, by passing the miners on the street. Telling us about the security/imprisonment via her sneaking under the fences. I'm not even sure I would call them exposition, rather just necessary description to build the readers pictures. These are tools I would think and hope all writers would utilise.

 

[JC Kang]

Frankly, I can't say the start of the Hunger Games really grabbed me. Most books, I'll put down after the first page or two if there isn't a compelling voice or a situation that intrigues me. In the case of the Hunger Games, however, I stuck with it since I wanted to see why it was so popular. I'm glad I did. Really, I don't recall much exposition, and what was there didn't bore me (except that first page!).

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Me neither. I hated the start so much I stopped at page 5 happily. I couldn't hear a voice, just info.

 

[Ursa major]

Perhaps one answer is to grasp the nettle tightly....

In one book I read -- and didn't write -- Chapter Five starts:

How We Got Here

The S*******, the fight for survival and the rise of g******

This is the first in a series of articles examining the impact​

of human genetic modification ahead of next month's European Conference

....​

which then continues with the content of that article (heavy with information), followed by a few paragraphs about the character who is reading the article. In one sense, it's pure infodump. However, it didn't pull me out of the story because it's not been weaved into a scene where other things are happening, or a dialogue. Perhaps other readers would not like such an approach, but the book was the first in a trilogy, of which all three were published (and all three bought be me).

(Note: the asterisks are there to make an attempt to disguise the source.)

 

[Edward M. Grant]

The Hunger Games has a surprising amount of exposition. So, how does it hold the interest of young readers? How does it hold my (not so young) interest?

Exposition is fine. Infodumps are the problem. And I could never get far into LoTR because I rapidly tired of them.

I recently watched a documentary about Back To The Future, and I hadn't even realized until one of the interviewees (director? writer?) mentioned it that pretty much the whole first act of the original movie is exposition to set things up for the story in the past. It's obvious after they said so, but done well enough that it's hidden behind the very thin plot at that point.

When you start writing 'As you well know, Jimmy, the alien whizzbang drive works by...', you know you're doing it wrong.

 

[tinkerdan]

I'm always waiting for that moment when the character who has just thought ballooned-in all that exposition to look up and say::

If there is a lot of back story between the question and answer, why not have the questioner reask the question, to push it back into dialogue mode, or have the answerer rephrase the question as part of his answer? I have seen this done with moderate success to bookend a short story before.

::"What was it again? That you just said."