Exposition : Trying to introduce a reader to your invented world w/o boring them?

[Joshua Jones]

I don't pretend to do this well yet, but I certainly understand the temptation to do so, and I think I understand the principles.

On the former, we work so hard on our universes, we want others to see how brilliant they are. In my case, I have been building the universe for my WiP longer than I have known my wife (actually, longer than I have known my wife and younger daughter combined), created a language, an alternate chromosomal pattern, entirely biological space engines and weapons, and an autonomous, self replicating terraformation engine (and that is one faction!), so the urge to explain how all this works is pretty strong.

But, this is a temptation that needs to be resisted. It is far more convincing if the protagonist interacts with his/her environment naturally, rather than have an introspective moment of analyzing everything around them. Unless a mother of toddlers is also an engineer, she is unlikely to care about the rate of rotation of the artificial gravity drum on the cruise liner; she cares that little Adeline sleeps peacefully.

One exercise I was recently introduced to is to write the section in first person to screen out irrelevant details, then rewrite it in the person you want (assuming that is different from first person). It has helped me a bit, so I hope it helps you as well, along with the sage advice of those who posted before me.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

Also - this is what editing is for. Stephen King says the first draft always sucks because it's when the writer tells the story. Put your mss to the side at some point, and come back to it a few months later - the info dumps will stand out much clearer then.
Also - consider your genre. Epic fantasy like detail in world building, try that in a sf thriller and it's more challenging. Read your genre and get to know what the norms are. For instance, elves: we know they tend to be tall with pointy ears (sorry all non tall, pointy eared elves). If your genre knows that, don't get bogged down.
I remember getting a review of Abendau by a non-Space Opera lover and they were very frustrated that I'd introduced things and never taken them further. None of the genre readers where - because they understood the norms of space opera and made the leaps I would have as a reader.

 

[tinkerdan]

I would characterize exposition in two classes.
The first is exposition that is necessary to the Author's story.
The second is exposition that is necessary for the reader.

These rarely are the same and most often the first draft suffers from too much of the first because the author is still trying to work out what's happening in the story.
When finished it's necessary to go back through and find the things that the author needed to know about the scene and or the back-story and even character development that are not necessary to the reader's enjoyment and understanding of the story.

It's a tough battle and we don't always win.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

It probably better to have the world you are building help shape the story and influence characters action as they run through the plot. That way you are not interrupting the flow. The info dump is not dead, it has been transformed from technical information to the the emotional baggage the characters are carrying. You can spend a bit of time dwelling on a character's back story without distracting the reader because that type of history has become standard boiler plate for building stories.

 

[-K2-]

Though I'm sure you folks are much better at all of this than I am, a concept which I have always believed in that applies to many things I always find worth remembering (and can apply to the positive as well as negative).

Everyone in this world knows their "worst thing." Conversely, they all know their "best thing."

We unfortunately, can often only present one thing. So when you're presenting something to an audience of more than one, you'll always miss the mark with tenfold others. More so even with one person, I can only present my worst/best thing... So what if I simply setup the situation so that they simply know it is the w/b thing, leaving them to interject that into the story?

So it goes with establishing a scene, scenario, looks of a person, or something technical.

By establishing a shift in mood or mindset of a character when encountering such, we not only explain what is going on with that character (which is missed by a flat description), yet we also allow the reader to interject what will likely touch them deepest, perhaps even filling in pieces we missed, and avoiding having them pick through our details to try and see what we didn't add to complete 'their vision.'

Part of that last being, as they fill in the blanks their way anyway, if we leave it for them to do, then they simply do it. However, if we're ultra detailed, when they fill in those spots they were expecting, then suddenly our presentation let them down.

Not that any of us ever feel that we could do things better

Naturally in the end it is all a balancing act wherein you'll never please everyone all of the time. Some folks actually enjoy exacting detail so they don't have to invent something on their own. Others prefer to design things as they see fit.

So if we can give them enough to establish the effects upon the characters, a little bit of detail to move them in the right direction and get their own gears turning... Then the reader will hopefully do a much better job, for themselves, than we ever could.

If they do, then it will come off as perfectly described, just the way 'they' envisioned it.

K2

 

[Onyx]

Though I'm sure you folks are much better at all of this than I am, a concept which I have always believed in that applies to many things I always find worth remembering (and can apply to the positive as well as negative).

Everyone in this world knows their "worst thing." Conversely, they all know their "best thing."

We unfortunately, can often only present one thing. So when you're presenting something to an audience of more than one, you'll always miss the mark with tenfold others. More so even with one person, I can only present my worst/best thing... So what if I simply setup the situation so that they simply know it is the w/b thing, leaving them to interject that into the story?

So it goes with establishing a scene, scenario, looks of a person, or something technical.

By establishing a shift in mood or mindset of a character when encountering such, we not only explain what is going on with that character (which is missed by a flat description), yet we also allow the reader to interject what will likely touch them deepest, perhaps even filling in pieces we missed, and avoiding having them pick through our details to try and see what we didn't add to complete 'their vision.'

Part of that last being, as they fill in the blanks their way anyway, if we leave it for them to do, then they simply do it. However, if we're ultra detailed, when they fill in those spots they were expecting, then suddenly our presentation let them down.

Not that any of us ever feel that we could do things better

Naturally in the end it is all a balancing act wherein you'll never please everyone all of the time. Some folks actually enjoy exacting detail so they don't have to invent something on their own. Others prefer to design things as they see fit.

So if we can give them enough to establish the effects upon the characters, a little bit of detail to move them in the right direction and get their own gears turning... Then the reader will hopefully do a much better job, for themselves, than we ever could.

If they do, then it will come off as perfectly described, just the way 'they' envisioned it.

K2

I didn't follow this, but I think that's because I'm not sure what a "best thing" means in this context, or why it is something that needs to be remembered. Could you clarify, please?

 

[-K2-]

I didn't follow this, but I think that's because I'm not sure what a "best thing" means in this context, or why it is something that needs to be remembered. Could you clarify, please?

Hehe, that shows how well I describe/explain things.

The "worst/best thing" is meant to explain that we as writers or story-tellers can never touch on a reader's emotional extremes as well as the reader can themselves. That can be applied to all things, however, let me try explaining what I meant directly.

When we imagine a place or a world (using that as an example vs. something complex like a society), in our mind it is filled with countless things, constantly evolving and growing as we need it to.

For every "singular aspect" of it that we try to describe in exacting detail, there are a thousand others we also imagine. However, we touch on the parts that inspire us most of all, that make us want to describe it in the first place.

We want to describe it because we have this amazing vision of it, good or bad, that inspires some strong emotion in us... or sets a mood. That said, keep that in mind. We're trying to describe "our reaction" to this place, that we envision fully.

Okay... So if we describe 1,000 aspects of the place, we fail to describe 1,000,000 others. However, it takes all 1,001,000 aspects of that place to describe it as clearly as we see it. An impossible and impractical task... Remember though, it's not the place, but the way the place makes us feel.

So besides boring the reader, we're only conveying 1/1,000th of what we see in our minds. What we're really wanting to do though, is convey that sense of the place, the feeling it gives us.

That said, the place exactly as 'we' see it and the feeling it inspires in 'us,' even if the reader saw it the same it very possibly will not inspire the same feeling in them.

Ex.: Just because I think a hot-pink room feels comforting, and a flat-black room feels threatening... doesn't mean that Bob will. He might find a hot-pink room threatening, and a flat black room comforting.

So the details might even very well cause our intent to be lost. Remember, we want to convey the feeling it gives us. Unfortunately, 1,000 people will all feel different about the same thing. So all we're doing is telling them how it makes us feel. Not them, the characters, etc..

Okay with all of that out of the way, what I propose is this.

Instead of describing everything in exacting detail, knowing we will fall way short of our vision and really only wanting to convey a feeling... And knowing that those details will not inspire the same feeling in others... I say convey the feeling, and let the details simply be a minimally supporting part.

I suggest giving them just a few minimal details to get their mind headed in the direction we want. It's dark, dirty, smells like a sewer, smoky, whatever. This is there and so is that (not going into detailed descriptions about those things). Then stop.

Next, work on inspiring that feeling or sense of the place we want to convey. Not by telling them they should feel X way, or we feel X way due to it, but go into how the character feels and reacts to it.

Here is where 'not knowing' another person's best/worst thing comes in.

Since people often place themselves in the character's role, they now know somewhat what the place looks like... they know how the character is reacting to it (so know they should too in the same way)... and at that point, they will begin to fill the vision of that place in their minds with the 1,001,000 aspects that make 'them' feel the way they know they're supposed to feel, being the character.

They will fill in the details, that only 'they know,' will make 'them' generate 'that' sense and feeling of the place within themselves.

I can't read their mind to know, and I certainly can't write 3 versions of the same place (for you all it might be 100,000 versions) to cover all of my readers , varied reactions to the same thing, trying to get them each to feel the same way.

So I'm suggesting that you aim to convey the feeling/sense, not the image of the place/world (again using a place vs. history, government, society as the example).

K2

 

[Bowler1]

Everything in moderation and always with an eye to keeping the plot moving and more importantly keeping your reader interested (or more likely hoped for mass market readers). I prefer to world build slowly, adding the pieces of the puzzle one at a time and letting the world unfurl as the reader goes. I also think people are interested in people, which is why characters are key in my view. More importantly, if you don't have characters, how can you populate your world? Keep your characters moving and when needed and only when needed (for you to decide of course) add detail. If done right, the reader won't notice or will soak up details when given.

Listen to your feedback, if given honestly take it on board and keep on improving.

Lastly, if your having fun writing then write for yourself and your enjoyment and this should also reflect in your writing.

Lots of conflicting advice there, but character development first for me and let the rest follow on.

 

[-K2-]

Everything in moderation and always with an eye to keeping the plot moving and more importantly keeping your reader interested (or more likely hoped for mass market readers). I prefer to world build slowly, adding the pieces of the puzzle one at a time and letting the world unfurl as the reader goes... (balance deleted by respondent)

Having a long way to go until my writing becomes even remotely passable, I'm like a sponge when it comes to absorbing literary advice... sometimes to my detriment. Relating to what you just stated, I did run across an interesting article of which I'll quote the first paragraph, and then leave you all to follow the link.

(Speaking of which, still learning the forum rules, I'm going to report this/my post for review by the moderators so this may vanish).

From: The Only Kind of Sentence You Should Use in Your Fiction, by Charlie Jane Anders
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-only-kind-of-sentence-you-should-use-in-your-fictio-1174496685

"People will advise you to write all sorts of sentences. Snappy sentences, lyrical sentences, Hemingway-esque short sentences, long Faulknerian sentences. But there's really only one kind of sentence that actually works: a sentence that carries the reader forward from the previous sentence. This is harder than it sounds."

Though perhaps elemental to some of you, for me it was an interesting read. One that I found worthwhile to keep in mind, and one that reinforces your point.

K2

 

[The Judge]

(Speaking of which, still learning the forum rules, I'm going to report this/my post for review by the moderators so this may vanish).

As long as you're not Charlie Jane Anders, you're fine!

Basic rule, no linking anywhere with fewer than 15 counted posts -- the software should stop it anyway. No linking to one's own or a friend's off-site blog/website/whatever or to Kickstarter thingummies by way of self- or friend-promotion with fewer than 100 counted posts. Links to interesting and informative sites always welcome, though if under 15 posts you'd need to give details to a mod for the link to be inserted if necessary.

That help?

 

[Onyx]

From: The Only Kind of Sentence You Should Use in Your Fiction, by Charlie Jane Anders
https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-only-kind-of-sentence-you-should-use-in-your-fictio-1174496685

"People will advise you to write all sorts of sentences. Snappy sentences, lyrical sentences, Hemingway-esque short sentences, long Faulknerian sentences. But there's really only one kind of sentence that actually works: a sentence that carries the reader forward from the previous sentence. This is harder than it sounds."

Charlie wrote that whole article on what not to do, and couldn't be troubled to give a single example of what she's suggesting?

I guess it must be a hard way to write.

 

[-K2-]

Charlie wrote that whole article on what not to do, and couldn't be troubled to give a single example of what she's suggesting?

I guess it must be a hard way to write.

Perhaps... Yet it rings a chord in me and helps keep me conscious of it.

K2

 

[Brian G Turner]

"People will advise you to write all sorts of sentences. Snappy sentences, lyrical sentences, Hemingway-esque short sentences, long Faulknerian sentences. But there's really only one kind of sentence that actually works: a sentence that carries the reader forward from the previous sentence. This is harder than it sounds."

I know what she means by this.I remember the same suggestion came up here more than a decade ago, and noticed the next book I read - Mark Robson's Assassin's Apprentice - did exactly that. It was really interesting to see it at work.

 

[-K2-]

To "me" (the author's intent or not), that reads as though you should avoid at as much as possible 'reflecting (as in thinking back), lingering (spending too much time describing the surroundings, thoughts regarding the moment, etc.), or dumping a ton of info.'

Now, that doesn't mean you can't have those aspects, yet you do not want to suddenly pause what is happening to do it. IOW, my character could reflect upon a moment, yet that reflection (ideally) from start to end 'builds upon' what is currently happening. So there is no pause as though figuratively saying 'stop, think back (and once through) okay go.'

I'm not a skilled writer, however, I would try to give an example like this:

Wrong: Kay slowly began to squeeze the trigger. The sensation of it upon her fingertip reminded her of the last time, the time when she hesitated with Bob, yet pulled it anyway. A fraction more and the report sounded.

Right: Slowly squeezing the trigger, the sensation of it upon her fingertip reminded Kay not to hesitate like she had with Bob when she pulled it anyway. A fraction more and the report sounded.

Not the best example, but I hope it shows what I get from that.

K2

 

[sknox]

The feller asked about our favorite expository passages, not the merits of exposition.

Tolkien's description of Rivendell will stick in my memory forever, so I would have to rank that one high. But that was brief compared to some.

I've recently finished reading Steinbeck's East of Eden. His entire first chapter is nothing but description of the Salinas Valley, all the way down to geology. Another favorite of mine is Joseph Conrad's description of the bay in the opening pages of Nostromo. There, Conrad moves the narrative like a camera, across the bay and its activities, to come to rest at a single house.

As I think about these and others, I think I see two significant techniques. In one, the description is enhanced by the reaction of the characters to what they are seeing (Rivendell). In the other, there is a clear line of movement within the narrative, so that despite the static nature of exposition, the reader still feels like the story is going somewhere.

A final Conrad note. In Lord Jim the exposition is mainly of the character himself. We get a very detailed description. So, exposition is not always about place.

And a final me note. The author often loses me when the early exposition is about gods and myths and ancient history. I suspect these things resonate with the author who has done much world-building and knows how all this is going to connect with the story, but it's all jibber-jabber to me. I would break that sort of thing into bite-sized, story-relevant pieces.

 

[-K2-]

Just a reminder regarding the second part of the OP's question in addition to favorite passages.

Any ideas about how to make exposition stand out as part of a story, rather than something a reader will feel they have to 'tough out'?

Any and all advice is welcome!

K2

p.s.: @sknox ; N. Fork of the Clearwater in Black Canyon is my favorite place to fish

 

[sknox]

Yeah, Idaho's famous for its fishing (though I suspect every state will make the same claim. Maybe not Delaware. <gdr>). I do most of my fishing at Albertsons.

 

[picklematrix]

Does anyone have any favorite exposition scenes they can recommend?

In Children of Time, by Adrian Tchaikovsky has some pretty interesting worldbuilding.