# Handling the Exposition



## Creed (Aug 17, 2013)

I'd like to start by saying that in this case "exposition" isn't used as the story introduction, but as the introduction to the details of a world (i.e. a magic system). Perhaps "Handling the Explanation" would be a better title.
I started reading The Way of Shadows a few days ago and I'm on page 467. I'm not about to point out all the things I dislike about it, but I'm focusing on the way Brent Weeks _explains_ things to the reader.
I maintain it is very badly done.
At one point the MC is told how magic works by a priestess and it is grossly unnatural in the conversation. She goes off for almost two pages explaining everything.
I've read three monologues explaining to the reader how this works, and how that works, and they are incredibly out of place. And don't even get me started on Count Drake's six and a half page soliloquy on his past…

Anyways, this book made me notice just how badly this form of exposition can be done. I suppose the trick is to teach the reader without them ever noticing they're being taught.
By that logic I'd guess the question posed by this thread is _How do you handle exposition? What sorts of tips/guidelines do you follow when introducing a magic system or something like that?_
I think for me I have to resist giving away too much at once, and making sure it's smooth. On the other hand I've never written a massive explanation like Mr. Weeks has.

Edit: There are many threads on info-dumps, but I think this idea- while overlapping- isn't the same. Instead of a difference between exposition and infodump, I'm concerned with handling it. Especially with the technical aspects of a magic system.
I just want to bring up Gardens of the Moon here, because I remembered Captain Ganoes Paran's first encounter with a Warren. Keeping in his PoV, he knew next to nothing about them. And even if he didn't give the reader any information about it, he shone light on the system and paved the way for more. On a side note I think Tattersall did a fantastic job explaining how Warrens work, partially because she didn't explain it at all.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 17, 2013)

One way to handle exposition without sounding like an info-dump is to have a character tell a story to another (or a group of characters). Still this has to be handled well. For example, in a scene where conflict and tension is rising, you can interrupt that build up momentarily by having the story telling character start speaking on something everyone in attendance would tune into, a special piece of information surrounded by mystery perhaps. 

Just a bit of an interesting character's backstory, placed in the right spot, can be used to tell a lot of information on histories, magic, whatever you can dream up. To use this technique well though, I think you'll need to have well-developed backgrounds for your setting and characters, and possibly some foreshadowing.

Above all, this can't feel forced. It's has to seem organic, like the natural extension of the current dialogue which maintains consistency with the story telling character as well as the opinions/reactions of the others toward that character.

Here's an example of character building using this technique from the film "Saving Private Ryan". If in literature, the effect would be similar:

Throughout the early parts of the film, the troops joke about where their Captain (Tom Hanks) came from. Was he assembled from body parts of dead GIs? Did he even have a mother? They even talked about having a pool where the wagering soldier could guess where he was from and what he did for a living before the war. It was a mystery to all...including the viewer.

About midway through the film, the well-liked medic (Wade) is killed when the captain orders the small team to assault a German machine gun nest, even though the bunker's destruction is not part of the current mission. After the action & death, the soldiers want to execute the surviving German captive. Influenced by the translator, the captain decides to let the German soldier go. They can't take prisoners, but he won't execute the man. 

As tensions rise, the Sergeant pulls his pistol on one of the other American soldiers who is about to desert the mission and disobey orders. The conflict almost reaches a peak when Captain Miller speaks. His voice interrupts the chaos by asking what the pool is up to now. $300?

"I'm a schoolteacher. I teach English composition... in this little town called Adley, Pennsylvania. The last eleven years, I've been at Thomas Alva Edison High School. I was a coach of the baseball team in the springtime. Back home, I tell people what I do for a living and they think well, now that figures. But over here, it's a big, big mystery. So, I guess I've changed some. Sometimes I wonder if I've changed so much my wife isn't even going to recognize me, whenever it is that I get back to her. And how I'll ever be able to tell her about days like today. 
Ah, Ryan. I don't know anything about Ryan. I don't care. The man means nothing to me. It's just a name. But if... You know if going to Rumelle and finding him so that he can go home. If that earns me the right to get back to my wife, then that's my mission. 
You want to leave? You want to go off and fight the war? All right. All right. I won't stop you. I'll even put in the paperwork. I just know that every man I kill the farther away from home I feel."

Now, this information, delivered in another way, at another time, could feel clumsy & forced. But here, punctuating a terrific moment with the calm leadership of Captain Miller (consistent with his character) just feels right. Further, it lends a lot of insight to his character and enables the story to continue past a moment where the mission could have fallen apart under the stress of Wade's death. Embedded within this well-placed exposition is a lot of information on the Captain, but it also gives insight on the mentality of men in war, the importance of the mission, and how the troops truly feel about their leader.


----------



## wordwalker (Aug 17, 2013)

My guideline is that, usually, people don't mention the facts. They leave the facts assumed and only say what's a step beyond them, their guess about what will happen next or what to do. That erases 95% of traditional lazy exposition, .

That leaves the trick of presenting those "proposed next steps" so that readers can understand the unstated facts behind them. Of course people have different reasons for backpedaling and giving some of the facts after all (emphasis, rambling, persuasion) or sometimes there's someone there who really doesn't know it-- the only problem with "so just tell him" is that everyone's used that method. But in any case, why and how someone steps back to clarify the facts is a chance to characterize: which person does it because he shouts, who lectures, etc.

Another rule of thumb, that works well with this or on its own: for an excuse to explain something, have it break and need fixing (or maintenance). Or, people debate doing something different with/about it, that lets them hash out its nature and why that plan would or wouldn't work. Again, these are known exposition tricks, so they shouldn't be an excuse to ramble or lose track of who'd really say how much.


----------



## Svrtnsse (Aug 17, 2013)

Another method that should probably mentioned in this context is from the other end of the scale and it's what Steven Eriksson does in the Malazan books. Essentially, he doesn't explain anything at all. Things just happen and it's up to the reader to piece things together based on actions and context.
It's interesting in that it gets you thinking and wondering about what's actually going on. The question I'm asking myself now a few years after I read those books is how well it actually worked. While reading them I eventually developed some kind of semi-instinctive feeling for how things worked, but I wouldn't for the life of me be able to explain it to anyone else.


----------



## shwabadi (Aug 17, 2013)

Fortunately for me, my MC hasn't had much exposure to the world outside the town he grew up in so I let the reader learn about the world as he learns about it. Mostly through stories and the MC seeing things first hand.


----------



## Creed (Aug 17, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> Another method that should probably mentioned in this context is from the other end of the scale and it's what Steven Eriksson does in the Malazan books. Essentially, he doesn't explain anything at all. Things just happen and it's up to the reader to piece things together based on actions and context.
> It's interesting in that it gets you thinking and wondering about what's actually going on. The question I'm asking myself now a few years after I read those books is how well it actually worked. While reading them I eventually developed some kind of semi-instinctive feeling for how things worked, but I wouldn't for the life of me be able to explain it to anyone else.



I couldn't agree more with this. For the most part there's no explanation at all, and the reader just gets emersed in it. The only awkward explanation I can think of is with Quru Kan in Midnight Tides- but that was after we knew everything about the system. A piece of brilliant explanation is when Quick Ben is sneaking into Bauchelain and Korbald Broach's estate in Memories of Ice- he uses a variety of warrens and literally showcases how they can be used.
On the other hand it's a simplistic- but still very nice- magic system. Many books have more technical aspects that need to be reviewed, and it's these that are often left hanging loose and awkward in the book. Wordwalker said that we don't really need to "mention the facts". But there are some facts that do need to be mentioned, and can't (or maybe shouldn't) be left out.


----------



## ThinkerX (Aug 17, 2013)

> By that logic I'd guess the question posed by this thread is How do you handle exposition? What sorts of tips/guidelines do you follow when introducing a magic system or something like that?



Ok...first off, left to my own devices, I have a tendency to infodump.  I'm working on it, but I still have relapses (witness the last 'Toki/Hodk-Nar' tale).

Things I try:

'Written Visual Aids': At one point in 'Labyrinth', the MC is shown a series of murals outside an estate.  Each comes with a one or two sentence description of what he's seeing, and another sentence or two of dialogue/explanation by the person with the MC, along with a bit of internal monologue. Collectively, they depict events from the past of the MC's family.  By the time the MC's companion finishes explaining, it is real clear to the MC he is walking a path dangerous in ways he hadn't anticipated.

'Stoytelling':  Later in 'Labyrinth', the MC is an uneasy 'guest' of a friendly, yet unstable barbarian chieftan.  Said barbarian and MC take a walk.  Along the way, the barbarian describes how his people came to be in their current situation BUT he's also explaining/apologizing in advance for what he's about to do to the MC.  'This is what happened before, so I must do this'

'Example and analogy': In another tale, I have a wizard attempting to show a 'untalented' the rudiments of how magic works.  At one point he does this literally: both throw pebbles at a difficult target.  The 'untalenteds' stone misses, but the wizard hits, and this gets into a discussion of 'odds' and using magic to 'cheat' (not real thrilled with that).

And sometimes, I'll have a character whose just plane nosy: Toki flat out quizzed Hock-Nar about his race (hobgoblins) during their first meeting.  Theodora, in 'Empire' is a bit of a snoop (in a refined way).

What I try to shy away from, save in rare one or two sentence doses is description/exposition that is NOT part of a dialogue, or something that a character see's or hears or maybe reads.  

If a character is looking at a map attempting to plot a course for a ship at sea, then a bit of muttering about possible landfalls is in order: 'can't go north, thats pirate country.' Jabs finger on eastern coast. 'This city would be a good bet, if the wind is favorable...but whose in charge now?  Wasn't there a coup a few years ago?' Traces another section of coast that turns into a dotted line. 'Hmm...not well charted.  But whats this city here?  Didn't the old empire have an outpost in the region?'


----------



## Feo Takahari (Aug 18, 2013)

A good rule of thumb is that where possible, you should use the feel of the setting or the situation to aid in your exposition. Take this, at the very beginning of the manual for the video game _Myth_:



> "It can't be hopeless."
> 
> Two nights ago half a dozen men and I crouched around a campfire, trying to stay warm, and one of them said those words. He'd joined the Legion only three weeks earlier, and started talking to himself after a GhÃ´l's cleaver removed three fingers from his left hand. He squatted there in the dirt, repeating that sentence. If he was looking for reassurance or sympathy, he came up empty-handed, for no one else said a word.
> 
> ...



This is actually exposition! From the very first lines, we understand that humans are fighting against some kind of monsters, that the monsters are capable of using weapons and tactics, and that the humans are losing badly--and because it's not presented flatly, but made a part of the setting's "hopeless" feeling, it doesn't make the reader's eyes glaze over.

Edit: Just noticed that Creed said that "exposition" in this thread refers to fine details, not more basic facts about the world. Still, I think the example can often be extrapolated to smaller facts--say, revealing that a nonhuman is herbivorous by having him react with shock when seeing one of his travelling companions cooking meat.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 18, 2013)

> How do you handle exposition? What sorts of tips/guidelines do you follow when introducing a magic system or something like that?



My first tip is: the reader probably doesn't need to know as much as you think they do.

My second tip is: the reader probably doesn't want to know as much as you want to tell them.

I think the key to good exposition is twofold: 

1. There has to be a story reason for the character to be doing the explaining.
2. The author needs to give serious consideration to how much exposition is needed.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 18, 2013)

When building your character, also define his awareness. A soldier isn't going to notice the fine quality of a painting, unless he was an apprentice to a master artist but was enlisted in the army. 

I sell wireless phones. It's one of the first things I notice when I meet people. I also evaluate what kind of case they have on their phone, the condition of both items, and the carrier they use. I'm also a child of immigrants. I try to attach a country to any accent I hear, I look for signs of their well being, compare it to what I commonly believe to be the average level of happiness of Americans, to see if other countries are doing it better than us.

Writing from the character's PoV determines what you will share with the reader. It also reveals facets of your character that would require pages of infodumping anyway, so why not use exposition, in this case the things your character notices, to do that. As an added bonus, you get a more fleshed out world.


----------



## Chessie (Aug 18, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> Another method that should probably mentioned in this context is from the other end of the scale and it's what Steven Eriksson does in the Malazan books. Essentially, he doesn't explain anything at all. Things just happen and it's up to the reader to piece things together based on actions and context.
> It's interesting in that it gets you thinking and wondering about what's actually going on. The question I'm asking myself now a few years after I read those books is how well it actually worked. While reading them I eventually developed some kind of semi-instinctive feeling for how things worked, but I wouldn't for the life of me be able to explain it to anyone else.



Oh, I love this. This is how I do it in my writing--so maybe one day I'll be able to tell you if it works, ok?  But I prefer being allowed to guess. If its done well, there will usually be evidence throughout the story letting me know whether my guesses are being backed up or not. I think its all part of the mystery and wonder of fantasy. Like all things, there must be balance. But I detest info dumps and in fact, I might just get enraged enough to put the book down. I'm not here for a lecture, I'm here for a story.

Granted, in my own writing, I think sometimes I could explain things a bit deeper. When I get that feeling, I know its time to open up to the reader more. Mystery, yes, but not leaving them in the dark either.


----------



## Ankari (Aug 18, 2013)

Svrtnsse said:


> Another method that should probably mentioned in this context is from the other end of the scale and it's what Steven Eriksson does in the Malazan books. Essentially, he doesn't explain anything at all. Things just happen and it's up to the reader to piece things together based on actions and context.
> It's interesting in that it gets you thinking and wondering about what's actually going on. The question I'm asking myself now a few years after I read those books is how well it actually worked. While reading them I eventually developed some kind of semi-instinctive feeling for how things worked, but I wouldn't for the life of me be able to explain it to anyone else.



I loved how Steven Erickson did that, but your summary is only partially true. What he does is write from the tightest character PoV I've ever seen. He spaces out the events from the people that know about the events, often times having these characters refer to the events in cryptic sentences.

If someone where to dissect the entire book, isolate events and characters, than string them back together again in chronological order, or by logical order, you would have 75% more understanding of the twisted mind residing in Erikson.

My opinion, the guy is a master at the trade.


----------



## ThinkerX (Aug 18, 2013)

I have to disagree to an extent about Erikson.  He DOES have long expositions/infodumps.

Example that sticks in mind is the female prisoner who spends a page and a half reciting a history lecture.

And Karsa Orlong and company, on their way out of their homeland, who spend several pages puzzling over a runic inscription of their peoples history.

And quite a few others


----------



## Daichungak (Aug 19, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> My first tip is: the reader probably doesn't need to know as much as you think they do.
> 
> My second tip is: the reader probably doesn't want to know as much as you want to tell them.
> 
> ...



Right on the nose!


----------



## Creed (Aug 19, 2013)

ThinkerX said:


> I have to disagree to an extent about Erikson.  He DOES have long expositions/infodumps.
> 
> Example that sticks in mind is the female prisoner who spends a page and a half reciting a history lecture.
> 
> ...



There were definitely parts like that, but when I read them they were few and far between- he had me engrossed in the story and I was happy when I learned more, and I read right through it. They're my kind of book, but I guess those things stick out for others. Anyways, it's explanation and not Erikson this thread's for (though I do appreciate the examples because I think he's good at it).
The problem with his use of magic vs others is, as Feo said, the "finer details".
A magic system like Erikson's is painted with very broad strokes and is general. Now I liked Warrens a lot more than Allomancy from Mistborn, but that's a system with nitty gritty details. For the most part Brandon Sanderson keeps his explanation nice. It's not too technical.

I like ThinkerX's examples. They're tactics which can't work for every situation, but they're no doubt useful. I especially appreciate the use of analogies for explaining- that's how I understand physics and bits of the quantum world, and it would certainly work for the metaphysical too.



> My first tip is: the reader probably doesn't need to know as much as you think they do.
> 
> My second tip is: the reader probably doesn't want to know as much as you want to tell them.
> 
> ...



This seems like pretty good advice, although I'm certain those first two tips will have a plethora of exceptions. The two numbered points are much closer to the sort of prerequisites for explanation, and are the basic things we should keep in mind, even if we forget them and go off on wild tangents.


----------



## skip.knox (Aug 20, 2013)

There are plenty of examples of how to do exposition well. One is the brilliant novel "The Sand Pebbles". It concerns an engineer on a gunboat going up a river in China. We get very detailed explanations of how a ship's engine works. I recommend a read (it's a great novel anyway).

Closer to our field, there are any number of science fiction books that have to do exactly this. Especially books from the 1940s and 1950s, or really any hard SF.  I would go to the masters (Asimov, Clark), but I'm sure any of you could find others. In these cases, the infodump is crucial to the story. Rather than trying to hide it off stage, authors generally bring it front and center. If your exposition won't bear up under that weight, chances are the information's not all that important anyway.

I mention these examples simply to point out that it's not always necessary or even right to try to avoid or to hide exposition. It's all about what's right for the story, which means it's really up to you, which means this advice isn't all that helpful. When I was learning to be a programmer I would ask more experienced programmers how to code a particular task (write to a db, instantiate an object, whatever) and their answer--invariably, and from many different programmers-- was: there are lots of ways to do that. Just give me *one*!!!  Well, it depends.  Augh.  

I'm finding it's much the same when asking for specific guidance in this business of writing.  Augh here, too.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 20, 2013)

> I mention these examples simply to point out that it's not always necessary or even right to try to avoid or to hide exposition.



I think that the modern standard is that such a method constitutes an infodump.  If you choose not to follow this standard, as with the decision to adhere to any guideline, that is up to you.  I think it's important, however, to understand that a) it's not the standard and b) there are consequences for not following the standard.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 20, 2013)

ThinkerX said:


> I have to disagree to an extent about Erikson.  He DOES have long expositions/infodumps.



I tend not to think of them as infodumps. Many novels, particularly in fantasy, use a good deal of exposition at times. If they're handled skillfully, that's fine. To me, they become 'infodumps' when they aren't handled well. Maybe the negative connotation only exist in my mind - do any of the rest of you view that word as implying something negative in and of itself?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith (Aug 20, 2013)

The key here is "necessity" & "handled skillfully". An info-dump is only an info-dump if it feels forced, like the reader is being spoon fed great blocks of information instead of being allowed to discover. 

Discovery is almost always a better option. It enhances the experience by allowing the reader to be an active participant. However, I do believe there are occasions where some exposition is, not only the right choice, but adds to the reader's enjoyment. Chances are, everyone involved in this thread has read a decent amount of exposition that could qualify as info-dumps, yet they went unnoticed. Why? Because they were delivered with skill, in the right way, at the right time. The exposition seemed natural.

So yes, the term info-dump carries a negative connotation because it implies a forced unloading of information the reader should've been allowed to uncover and piece together over time. Exposition, on the other hand, doesn't have to be one and the same.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 20, 2013)

Steerpike said:


> I tend not to think of them as infodumps. Many novels, particularly in fantasy, use a good deal of exposition at times. If they're handled skillfully, that's fine. To me, they become 'infodumps' when they aren't handled well. Maybe the negative connotation only exist in my mind - do any of the rest of you view that word as implying something negative in and of itself?



The word has a negative connotation for me.  In my mind, it implies that the author went outside the story to tell the reader something.

Is it the worst thing that a writer can ever possibly do?  No.  In most cases, most readers won't know or care.

Is it something to be proud of?  Probably not.


----------



## Daichungak (Aug 20, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I think that the modern standard is that such a method constitutes an infodump.  If you choose not to follow this standard, as with the decision to adhere to any guideline, that is up to you.  I think it's important, however, to understand that a) it's not the standard and b) there are consequences for not following the standard.



When is the last time you heard someone say, “I love this book, it is so standard!” or “I would have liked that book more, had it been more standard.”  Never let yourself forget that writing is, before it is anything else, ART.  Standard practice is a fickle trend, good art can last forever.

Don’t let the norm dictate your style, if it works, it works.  No one ever succeeded because they were the Most Standard.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 20, 2013)

Daichungak said:


> When is the last time you heard someone say, “I love this book, it is so standard!” or “I would have liked that book more, had it been more standard.”  Never let yourself forget that writing is, before it is anything else, ART.  Standard practice is a fickle trend, good art can last forever.
> 
> Don’t let the norm dictate your style, if it works, it works.  No one ever succeeded because they were the Most Standard.



In my industry, we have standards and practice.  If you're going to call yourself a professional, it's required that you follow them.

Like it or not, there are standards and practice in the writing industry.  They're admittedly less rigid than in construction, but they do exist.  If you want to be a professional writer, you need to know what those standards are.

I have no issue with an author making a conscious decision to write contrary to a rule.  I have a major problem with those who don't care enough to learn.


----------



## Daichungak (Aug 20, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> I have no issue with an author making a conscious decision to write contrary to a rule.  I have a major problem with those who don't care enough to learn.



How would you know why a writer is breaking a rule unless they told you?  I cant speak for the rest of the forum, obviously, but right now I am more of an aspiring author than professional author.

And again, writing is ART.  There are no rules in art beyond creating something people like.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Aug 20, 2013)

Daichungak said:


> And again, writing is ART.  There are no rules in art beyond creating something people like.



I feel like I need to bold this:

*beyond creating something people like*

I'll make a separate thread about this if we stray too far afield, but the short version is that most of the "rules" of writing exist because someone, somewhere read a book that "broke the rules" and realized, "This is boring!" or "This is repetitive!" or "This is hard to understand!" If you can avoid boring, repetitive, hard to understand, etc., there's no problem with "breaking the rules," but that doesn't mean I'm going to finish reading your story if it's too tedious to get through.

To return to the topic at hand, the most pertinent issue with the standard "infodump" is "boring," whereas the threat the infodump is intended to avoid is "hard to understand." I personally try to hone this to a razor's edge, consulting with beta readers to determine exactly how little I can explain while still retaining reader comprehension. This is relatively extreme, though--the more common approach is to lean towards dumping, since lack of comprehension can create a problem throughout the story, whereas boredom is just a problem for a little while.

(On the subject of the giant dumps that initially got this tangent started, I'd like to note that skip.nox mentioned realistic fiction and hard science fiction, both of which by definition rely on information about real things. I don't know about the general reader, but I have more patience when I'm learning something factual than when I'm being told the details of an entirely fictional magic system--it feels more relevant.)


----------



## Creed (Aug 20, 2013)

ThinkerX said:


> 'Storytelling':  Later in 'Labyrinth', the MC is an uneasy 'guest' of a friendly, yet unstable barbarian chieftan.  Said barbarian and MC take a walk.  Along the way, the barbarian describes how his people came to be in their current situation BUT he's also explaining/apologizing in advance for what he's about to do to the MC.  'This is what happened before, so I must do this'



I know I'm backtracking but I just realised a very nice piece of explanation (though not of something with details like a magic system) in Game of Thrones, from A Storm of Swords (and also A Clash of Kings).
The Rains of Castomere is a nice little song about the ruthlessness of Lannisters and in the TV show Cercei explains the story to Margaery. The use of storytelling there and song work well as exposition.
Not that I'm saying a song could really explain how Allomancy works, or the Anogogics of the Three Seas. I just remembered it and thought "Oh, that's fun."


----------



## Lord Ben (Aug 20, 2013)

T.Allen.Smith said:


> The key here is "necessity" & "handled skillfully". An info-dump is only an info-dump if it feels forced, like the reader is being spoon fed great blocks of information instead of being allowed to discover.



Speaking as a reader, even spoon fed isn't bad if handled correctly.  The opening chapter of Hobbit had me hooked right from the start but it was pretty much just to get you thinking that furry footed people lived in comfortable holes in the ground.  But it's charmingly written and necessary, it's not "Ages ago Krom'ol'an'gorah'ak created the world of Namralazthagor for the benefits of his servants the Talumus.  Have I ever told you about the Talumus?  Well, they're <3 pages>, and that about sums it up."   Then 4 pages later we see a Talumus.  

So I say bring them on as long as it's interesting info.  To use another example from The Hobbit he had all the chapters and chapters of Middle Earth lore in the appendix and the fun info dumps in the book itself.   The appendix is very underused currently IMHO.


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 21, 2013)

I like the way your mind works Feo, you make many fine points.

As others have said, info dump is only a problem if it's unnecessary. Sometimes it simply is necessary, especially when the story has jumped forward in time. Some devices I've used to disguise it are: newspaper reports (even had a url referred to in a newspaper report in my first book, and if the reader looked up that url they found a short film of an incident referred to in the book); the archived reports of undercover agents; diary entries and even poems.

If you get creative, the readers don't even notice they're being dumped on.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 21, 2013)

Daichungak said:


> How would you know why a writer is breaking a rule unless they told you?  I cant speak for the rest of the forum, obviously, but right now I am more of an aspiring author than professional author.
> 
> And again, writing is ART.  There are no rules in art beyond creating something people like.



Here's what I've noticed about forums like this one: it's populated mainly by aspiring authors rather than by people making a living in the industry.  There's nothing wrong with that; I fall into the same category.

However, the message I hear repeated over and over again on forums like this one is that "rules don't matter" and "writing is ART."

In contrast, go to any source written by people actually making their living by editing and publishing books.  They, almost universally say, to even be considered for publication, your book needs to meet minimum standards of quality.

Since my goal is to one day become a professional, I try to follow what I see the vast majority of the people who are making a living from it say.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 21, 2013)

A "standard of quality" isn't the same thing as following a set of technical standards, or following certain stylistic standards, and so on. This is empirically provable by browsing through the bookstore and looking at the diverse range of books on the shelves.

Further, the people making a living in writing don't present a uniform front on the subject of how to write or what constituted good writing.

And I think you would admit, BWFoster, that you don't always follow that route. For example, the negative feeling toward italics for thoughts is something that crops up quite a bit, and is something a lot of professional writers have argued against (often citing the fact that the CMS doesn't call for it). Many readers don't like it either. So, on par, if you look at it as a pure cost/benefit analysis, it doesn't make sense to do it, because while I've never heard of anyone being put off by the lack of them, a certain segment of the population appears to have a strong negative reaction to them. But you include them anyway, and that's an example of a stylistic choice that goes against the conventional wisdom.

You can name just about any so-called 'rule' of writing you like, and I can provide you with an example of a successful work of fiction that doesn't follow it, probably from my own shelf of books. The main exception to that would be a rule against boring the reader


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 21, 2013)

> A "standard of quality" isn't the same thing as following a set of technical standards, or following certain stylistic standards, and so on. This is empirically provable by browsing through the bookstore and looking at the diverse range of books on the shelves.
> 
> Further, the people making a living in writing don't present a uniform front on the subject of how to write or what constituted good writing.



If you read anything written by people who edit for a living, their advice is remarkably consistent and includes plenty of details on what to do and what not to do.



> And I think you would admit, BWFoster, that you don't always follow that route. For example, the negative feeling toward italics for thoughts is something that crops up quite a bit, and is something a lot of professional writers have argued against



As I've stated before, the practice is common in the epic fantasy genre.  In other genres, such as YA, it's not so accepted.  In my epic fantasy novel, I'm using italics.  In my YA, I'm not.  Not saying that I don't sometimes break the rules, but I'm not seeing how this example is a good one of such.

Also, I've been remarkably consistent, in my view, of saying, it's okay to break a rule if you understand the consequences of doing so and feel the benefit outweighs the cost.  I feel that any editor would tell you the same.

An example of me breaking a rule:

I want to achieve a deep POV with my writing because I feel it accomplishes my primary goal of making my writing more engaging.  Not infodumping helps me achieve a deep POV.

In the first chapter of _Power of the Mages_, I write:



> Though young for a journeyman apothecary at seventeen, Xan...



"At seventeen" is an infodump.  There is no story reason for Xan to be thinking of himself as seventeen.  However, I feel it is important for the reader to know this information, and I think the benefit of telling the reader the information in a quick, straightforward way outweighs the slight break in POV.



> You can name just about any so-called 'rule' of writing you like, and I can provide you with an example of a successful work of fiction that doesn't follow it, probably from my own shelf of books.



And I'd counter with the fact that an established author can get by with anything they like.  That doesn't make what they do an example to be followed.  

Writing is tough.  The modern marketplace is freaking tough.  You need every advantage you can get.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 21, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> And I'd counter with the fact that an established author can get by with anything they like.  That doesn't make what they do an example to be followed.
> 
> Writing is tough.  The modern marketplace is freaking tough.  You need every advantage you can get.



And then I'll show you first novels by unestablished writers that break all the rules.

The truth is, you can do whatever you like so long as you do it effectively. You're right, the marketplace is tough, and so there is a certain allure or comfort in the idea that if you just follow a formula you'll be doing it right and be successful. Unfortunately, that's not true, and I don't agree with deceiving new writers by telling them such things.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 21, 2013)

> there is a certain allure or comfort in the idea that if you just follow a formula you'll be doing it right and be successful. Unfortunately, that's not true, and I don't agree with deceiving new writers by telling them such things.



I have not said, and do not advocate, that "if you follow this formula, you will succeed."  What I say is that the rules are there for a reason.  They've been established by people who know what they're doing and were established as examples of how best to craft your work so that you can become successful.

An intelligent man learns from his mistakes.  A wise man learns from the mistakes of others.

Following the rules is simply a wise idea.

No matter how much you follow the rules, however, it does not guarantee success.  If I knew what guaranteed success, I wouldn't be on this forum right now; I'd be out accomplishing success.

As for what I don't agree with:

I think that telling aspiring authors that they can do whatever they like without any consideration of what experts say is atrocious advice that I feel is much more damaging to someone trying to start a career than is the advice of "start off by understanding the rules."

If an author wants their work to be engaging, they quickest way to achieve that is to:

Be clear
Show more than tell
Include plenty of tension

Perhaps some writer in some book somewhere once achieved engagement by a lot of tensionless telling and incomprehensible description, but I wouldn't want to try to accomplish it.  I think most aspiring authors would give up well before they achieved it.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 21, 2013)

I think the problem is that you're misreading the advice of the editors and authors who give out these 'rules.' For example, I think you've read Noah Lukeman, who provides any number of such rules in his book on writing that I read. However, Lukeman himself says to be leery of anyone who offers up rules as absolutes.

The rules that are handed out are really guidelines for what a given person thinks leads, in general, to a stronger story. They are particularly useful for new writers, because they address common problems that weaken the writing of new writers.

They aren't intended to be absolutes, and in fact they shouldn't be absolutes. Treating them as such is detrimental to the writer and to the craft as a whole. 

It seems to me that when people present 'rules' on writing forums and characterize them properly as guidelines, you don't see much strong reaction against it. When people take those same guidelines and state them as absolute, inviolate rules, then you see a reaction against them as well you should.

The statement made above that ultimately the only thing matters is what works is self-evident, in my view. It's such a basic, fundamental, and obvious idea that I don't see how anyone can argue against it.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 21, 2013)

> I think the problem is that you're misreading the advice of the editors and authors who give out these 'rules.' For example, I think you've read Noah Lukeman, who provides any number of such rules in his book on writing that I read. However, Lukeman himself says to be leery of anyone who offers up rules as absolutes.



Maybe you're misreading me or I've done an atrocious job of making my point.  I don't see the rules as an absolute as much as the starting point.

Following the rules is much less important than understanding the rules.

Breaking the rules without understanding them is what I find to be a super inefficient process.



> They are particularly useful for new writers, because they address common problems that weaken the writing of new writers.



Exactly!

New writers share a lot of common problems that the rules fix.  In the vast majority of cases, new writers would be much better off simply learning the rule and following it.

That message gets lost on these boards because you have the following exchange:

A couple of more experienced amateurs (MEA): I think you should handle it this way.  No, I think this way is better.  Perhaps try this way.
Newb: Just do whatever you want.
MEA: Newb, this is the rule.  You should do it.
Newb: Writing is art.
MEA: Rules are important.
Others: Don't stress rules.

In my view, simply telling the newbie to follow the freaking rule is the most efficient, fastest path for him to get better.  I struggled for a decade trying to figure it out on my own.  After a couple of writing group meetings where I was told, "Follow the rules," my writing increased exponentially in quality in a relatively tiny amount of time.

Start with the rule.  Use it.  Study it.  Understand why it's used, what it accomplishes, and what the consequences are of not using it.

Once you've got it down, experiment.  See what happens when you don't use it.

You'll get much better, much faster that way.



> It seems to me that when people present 'rules' on writing forums and characterize them properly as guidelines, you don't see much strong reaction against it. When people take those same guidelines and state them as absolute, inviolate rules, then you see a reaction against them as well you should.



When someone says "writing is ART; no technique is needed," I feel it is entirely appropriate to tell them in no uncertain terms that they're hurting themselves by not following the rules.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 21, 2013)

Brian:

I don't think I disagree with anything you just wrote, above, except that I think even when dealing with a new writer it is important to be clear on why the rules are there and that they can be broken if you want to (and I agree completely that understanding them is the most important thing; if you understand them and break them consciously, you're much more likely to end up with writing that works than you are if you break them out of ignorance or inexperience).

I wouldn't say someone is hurting themselves by not following the rules (outside of a specific critique of their work), because that to me sounds like an absolute statement again - follow the rules or your writing will be worse. What I'd tell them is that the rules provide good guidelines in general, and when they are starting out they are likely to hurt themselves more than help themselves by not following them. 

The reason I can't go all-out with the "you're hurting yourself if you don't follow them" comes from reading plenty of novels, including first novels, that don't follow them at all and are great.

In reality we're not very far apart in thinking, but maybe it is more of an issue of semantics. I'm reading your posts a certain way, and it may well differ from your intent, and vice versa.


----------



## BWFoster78 (Aug 21, 2013)

> In reality we're not very far apart in thinking, but maybe it is more of an issue of semantics. I'm reading your posts a certain way, and it may well differ from your intent, and vice versa.



True enough.

I also think that we're both motivated by the same thing: to help aspiring authors in the best way possible.  I would not be where I am now without a lot of help.


----------



## Steerpike (Aug 21, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> True enough.
> 
> I also think that we're both motivated by the same thing: to help aspiring authors in the best way possible.  I would not be where I am now without a lot of help.



Same here. Can't argue with that (and if there is a way to argue with something, I usually find it ).


----------



## Chessie (Aug 21, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> When someone says "writing is ART; no technique is needed," I feel it is entirely appropriate to tell them in no uncertain terms that they're hurting themselves by not following the rules.


That's why artists take drawing classes, and pottery classes, and watercolor classes. To gain better technique that will improve their art making. Same applies to writing.

I think rules can bog down people, but its important to remember that they're mostly there for structure. Can't build the house without a good foundation.


----------



## Feo Takahari (Aug 21, 2013)

Sorry for adding this in late to the conversation, but it took me a while to put it together. I saw a mention on another site of how great the exposition in _The Matrix_ is, and that got me thinking: Morpheus's whole speech about humans used as batteries is pretty much straight infodump. It works because the viewer needs some explanation, any explanation, after the horrific image of all those people trapped in those pods. It's probably risky, but could this be another way to set up infodump--trying to give the reader a reason to be interested in it?


----------



## Lord Ben (Aug 21, 2013)

They also have the benefit of visual aids.  It's not just merely a speech.


----------



## Chessie (Aug 21, 2013)

True. That would make things much easier, huh?


----------



## The Dark One (Aug 22, 2013)

BWFoster78 said:


> Perhaps some writer in some book somewhere once achieved engagement by a lot of tensionless telling and incomprehensible description, but I wouldn't want to try to accomplish it.  I think most aspiring authors would give up well before they achieved it.



This book exists. It is called Gormenghast.


----------

