Exposition vs. Infodump

[Ireth]

I know the two can overlap, but to me they're distinct. I've always defined exposition as "repeating what the reader already knows", whereas infodumping is just "giving information in huge chunks of text". But I've also seen "exposition" used as a synonym for "backstory that's important to the present plot", which kind of confused me, since the reader wouldn't necessarily know that backstory beforehand. How do you guys define each of them?

 

[Penpilot]

I define exposition as info the reader needs to know in order to understand something about the story. I'd say all stories need some sort of exposition.

I define infodumping as exposition done poorly.

Exposition handled right should be seamless, meshing in with the flow of the story, the prose, and fit the context of when it's dropped in.

Expostion turns into infodumping when you get blatantly obvious "as you know Bob" parts in the text or chunks of info that don't fit the context either in length or in content.

 

[BWFoster78]

From dictionary.com:

writing or speech primarily intended to convey information or to explain; a detailed statement or explanation; explanatory treatise: The students prepared expositions on familiar essay topics. Synonyms: elucidation, commentary; critique, interpretation, exegesis, explication.

I agree with Penpilot. Exposition is simply information that the reader needs to know. Ideally, the author accomplishes exposition in a manner that's not intrusive.

Information that the reader doesn't need to know, I tend to refer to as "extraneous crap that needs to be deleted."

 

[advait98]

To me, exposition simply means an explanation of something. Its degree and measure would decide whether it's information that the reader needs to know or needs to be reminded of, or information that is extremely extensive and that the reader wouldn't want to know, aka, my definition of infodump.

This is basically what I think of the two words and they might be a little off-centre, but... it's what I think of them.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't know that I'd limit it strictly on a 'need to know' basis. There are plenty of reasons you might include information the reader doesn't need, just don't overdo it.

For example, in many a fantasy if the characters enter a wood, the author might point out the type of trees. They're entering a pine forest or whatever. Does the reader need to know they're pines? Probably not. Probably has no bearing on the story whatsoever. In any novel there are probably hundreds of unimportant details to add some depth to the world. I don't have a problem with that even if the reader doesn't technically "need" the information to make sense of the story.

But when background or other information is handled clumsily or overdone, it becomes a drag on the reader. I was recently reading Ian Flemming's Casino Royale (the first James Bond novel), and was surprised to see that this book starts off very badly due precisely to infodumping. Though in fairness I have to admit it didn't seem to do Flemming any harm in terms of success.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I'd define exposition as necessary prose which serves as an account that sets forth the meaning or intent of writing.

Info-dumping, on the other hand, is a release of information in ways that feel contrived or artificial, and whose purpose is to provide insight on details that should be revealed throughout the course of the story & by a natural-feeling means & pace.

 

[BWFoster78]

I don't know that I'd limit it strictly on a 'need to know' basis. There are plenty of reasons you might include information the reader doesn't need, just don't overdo it.

For example, in many a fantasy if the characters enter a wood, the author might point out the type of trees. They're entering a pine forest or whatever. Does the reader need to know they're pines? Probably not. Probably has no bearing on the story whatsoever. In any novel there are probably hundreds of unimportant details to add some depth to the world. I don't have a problem with that even if the reader doesn't technically "need" the information to make sense of the story.

But when background or other information is handled clumsily or overdone, it becomes a drag on the reader. I was recently reading Ian Flemming's Casino Royale (the first James Bond novel), and was surprised to see that this book starts off very badly due precisely to infodumping. Though in fairness I have to admit it didn't seem to do Flemming any harm in terms of success.

I think it depends on how you define "need to know." The case could be made that some level of detail is needed to set the scene in order to immerse the reader. It's up to the author to make that determination. I do think an author needs to pay extra attention to beta reader and editor comments on this issue, though.

 

[BWFoster78]

I think what we're all saying is that we don't know why the OP has a negative connotation associated with the word "exposition." It's a necessary part of writing.

"Info-dumping," on the other hand, is considered a bad thing regardless.

 

[Ireth]

I think what we're all saying is that we don't know why the OP has a negative connotation associated with the word "exposition." It's a necessary part of writing.

When it gets to be a bad thing is when something happens to certain characters that the reader gets to see in full detail, and then they meet other characters elsewhere who ask "what happened?" Then the first characters explain what the readers just read. I used to do this a LOT, with the explanations being highly detailed, but lately I've been trying to cut back and simply summarize with "Character A explained to character B about events X, Y and Z", except when reactions to certain key details are necessary.

 

[Anders Ämting]

I would say that all infodumping is exposition, but not all exposition is infodumping. Sometimes you simply need to hand out information to your readers so that the narrative makes sense to them, and that's not a bad thing as long as you do it skillfully.

Infodumping, to me, implies that the author needs to establish a lot of details ahead of time in order to tell the story, rather than establishing those things along the way as part of the story.

 

[BWFoster78]

When it gets to be a bad thing is when something happens to certain characters that the reader gets to see in full detail, and then they meet other characters elsewhere who ask "what happened?" Then the first characters explain what the readers just read. I used to do this a LOT, with the explanations being highly detailed, but lately I've been trying to cut back and simply summarize with "Character A explained to character B about events X, Y and Z", except when reactions to certain key details are necessary.

Ireth,

This is the definition of "exposition that you stated at the beginning:

I've always defined exposition as "repeating what the reader already knows"

That definition, to me, implies that exposition is a negative thing because I believe repeating information is, for the most part, negative.

I think that most of the rest of us do not define exposition as you do. It's simply relating information to the reader, not necessarily information that the reader already knows. Exposition can be done well where the reader hardly notices or it can be done poorly where you infodump or repeat information.

 

[Rjames112]

Best advice for that? Is to do neither. Very few authors can info dump well, and fewer can set up exposition that isn't painfully obvious that it's exposition. I say just drop the reader in, Dune did this really well and if there was a point that needed explaining it was done though character interaction. So find what you need to show the reader and have two characters argue about it.