Info Dumping: Dialogue vs Description

[Ankari]

Greetings All,

I have a question concerning info dumping. Its generally stated that an info dump can be explained through dialogue to help the reader "see" rather than "hearing." Why is a dialogue not considered "telling?" Also, do all of you believe that info dumping is something that should be completely avoided?

Thanks. I'll take my answer off the air. (Public radio anyone?)

 

[Steerpike]

Depends on what you mean by "info dump." To me, that term denotes a poorly-handled attempt to get information to the reader. By that definition, it is inherently bad.

If it is well done, then I think you can do it effectively through dialogue or exposition. Info dumping in dialogue isn't any better than info dumping in exposition.

And yes, I listen to State radio

 

[ArielFingolfin]

Having a character give a long explanation can be just as obnoxious to get through as just putting it in a description. I don't like having big chunks of description at all, though if I do have to guve information I try to relay it through dialogue just because I feel more comfortable writing dialogue than not. Usually I avoid great chunks alltogether. I like Hemmingways' iceburg theory: give the reader one tenth of what they need to know and let them figure the rest out for themselves. I think weaving descriptions and information together with thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. is the best way to go, especially because a lot of that information can be gleaned through those said thoughts, feelings, actions, etc. For example, instead of describing something as frightening, show the character crapping their pants in terror.

 

[MatthewCEarls]

Readers, the majority of the time, have to get the information at some point, somehow. The most efficient way varies story to story. The most important word in the phrase info dump is dump. By doing this, authors bog down readers and hammer them over the head with information that isn't needed at that very moment.

And dumping to me usually tells more than it shows. Follow the basic rules of creative writing and place it where and when the reader really needs to know it and all should be well.

Disclaimer: I'm no professional novelist. Just a 7th Grade English Teacher.

 

[The Din]

I find dialogue better for getting information out. Having characters discuss the relevant topics wins out every time when compared to the writer telling the reader through exposition. It gives you different perspectives on the info and allow speakers to inject witty anecdotes, etc if things start getting boring.

Dumping during dialogue can be telling too, if done poorly (writing a paragraph of exposition and then simply putting quotation marks on it, or having the characters explain it to the reader, rather than each other.). In general, the only info dumps allowed should be the ones you can't tell are info dumps. Dialogue is simply easier to disguise.

 

[BWFoster78]

The concept is to get the information to the reader in a way the feels natural to the flow of the story. An info dump typically feels like "hey, the writer needed for me to know that." Dialogue can be an info dump as well. If the character is saying it in a way that makes the reader feel it isn't natural to the conversation.

I do not feel that an info dump is always a completely bad thing. It is, however, worse at the start of a story. If the reader isn't yet engaged and doesn't care about your story, telling him a bunch of facts is going to make him pull back instead of immersing himself. If you're in the fifth chapter and you need to explain a little backstory about the history of the land to add flavor for a couple of paragraphs, it's probably not going to hurt anything. Note that I said two paragraphs and not two pages.

 

[Steerpike]

Having characters discuss the relevant topics wins out every time when compared to the writer telling the reader through exposition.

I don't know. If that were true, then the best thing to do would be to only tell the reader anything relevant through dialogue. I don't see that working so well outside of a play.

 

[Devor]

The best way to mask an info-dump is to dump in different ways and in different places. A paragraph of straight narration to explain one thing, a few sentences of dialogue to explain another, a character reflecting on another, hints and bobbles of insight littered about. If you info-dump in a single straightforward manner, it might eventually be transparent and get old.

Of course you can employ just a single-style of info-dump in a way that works, but whenever you use a single strategy for anything, you have to do it really well to pull it off.

 

[Ophiucha]

As is, quite truly, always the case: it depends on the situation.

One, as Devor said, I think it is best to mix it up. Don't always tell important information through narration, and don't always tell it through dialogue. If you only use either, neither is going to be good.

Two, it depends on who your narrator/main character is. Fantasy is fond of the fish out of water. A character who, for one reason or another, is uninformed or unaware of something essential to the story or world. Sometimes you have dimension hoppers who arrived from Earth into Esalianara, sometimes you have a poor farmer boy who was uneducated and untravelled. It doesn't matter which, but if you have that sort of character, you can get away with more direct info dumps, with a character explaining to your MC how magic, currency, dragons, whathaveyou works. Otherwise, it comes across as rather silly. The classic example: "As you well know, dragons are winged reptiles that breathe fire." You'd never define a dragon to someone who lives in a world with them and has likely encountered them.

Three, common sense. There really is no way you can 'observe' mathematics, and if you need a character to learn how to do math in your world, you'll likely have to have another character tell them. Similarly, your main character is - in all likelihood - going to see that grass in your world is blue, as opposed to green, long before anyone thinks to point it out. Also consider the voice of the narrator. Is the narrator writing the book, or just thinking in their head, to themselves? If the former, they are more likely to address us - the readers - directly and write in some details as an aside, or even a footnote. If the latter, they might contemplate some oddities or deduce certain things, but they won't be writing a thesis on it or address anything that isn't out of the ordinary.

 

[Penpilot]

Can't really argue with what's been already said. Echoing a bit of it, it doesn't matter if it's in dialogue or narrative. An info dump is dropping a bunch of info where it doesn't feel natural to the present situation.

To me, getting info out has to do with putting character in a valid situation where it's makes sense that specific info would be talked about and/or it would make sense info would come up in the character's thoughts through narrative. Here's a link to someone explaining info dumps with a couple of nice examples. Info Dumping | As you know bob - www.fiction-writers-mentor.com

 

[TWErvin2]

Bringing in the necessary information (I'll stress the word necessary) within the context of the storyline is often best, although exposition has it's place. Dialogue is one method to do this. Observation by the characters, would be another, for example. So would an experience had by a character.

One major thing to watch out for is to have character's 'discuss' things which would naturally be obvious to them and not need to be discussed. A physicist and his assistant who've worked for years on a project, would not sit down and discuss how and why it works. Maybe if something went wrong, bits and pieces can be used as they attempt to solve what happened. It's tricky but far more interesting to the reader, in addition to being realistic.

That's why with fantasy novels, often someone young or new to a situation is in the story. So that the reader can 'learn' along with the character.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I think the underlying reason why infodumps are frowned upon in general is because they are not storytelling.

Humans crave story and drama and conflict. Part of enjoying them means identifying with a character. If you're telling a story, interrupting that story to relay a bunch of information breaks the flow of the story.

More directly, humans have trouble absorbing a lot of new pieces of information all at once. Give several names, dates, places, or events all in a row and they'll blur together. There's virtually nothing you can do about this except to not do it.

One misconception is that if the reader doesn't know all the background, they can't enjoy or won't understand what's going on. This isn't remotely true. It's possible, with a few deft touches, to introduce a character and situation and make the audience care about them, even if they don't know the whole history of the nation they're in, or even a significant amount of backstory about the character themselves.

I forget who coined the term "info-littering" but it's an apt way to describe what's usually the best method for conveying backstory: dropping bits of detail here and there amidst the foreground action. It's easier to absorb that way, especially if the details provided are relevant to what's going on.

Another good technique is to have a character thinking about this backstory, and showing their reaction to thinking about it. Okay, so King Blah overthrew King Foo, so what? Oh, but the POV character thinking about this is King Foo's long-lost daughter, and she's angry about it? That's better.

 

[Ivan]

I think that info dumping through dialogue can be far worse than doing it through narration. Some authors have their characters telling each other wads of information they should already know and it drives me nuts. I'd rather have a few paragraphs of dry narration than a string of implausible dialogue.

 

[Steerpike]

I think that info dumping through dialogue can be far worse than doing it through narration. Some authors have their characters telling each other wads of information they should already know and it drives me nuts. I'd rather have a few paragraphs of dry narration than a string of implausible dialogue.

I do think dialogue provides the greater opportunity for abuse, particularly among newer writers. The reason being that they've read or been told that info-dumps are bad, and think the problem is solved by moving it into dialogue. So you get horrible dialogue between two characters, telling each other things that the characters would clearly already know in a transparent attempt to feed it all to the reader.

 

[Penpilot]

"As you know Bob, the matter-anti-matter engine was invented by I.P. Freely and has three coils and must..... zzzzzzzzzzzz." Do this and it's a guaranteed toss across the room.

 

[Ghost]

One misconception is that if the reader doesn't know all the background, they can't enjoy or won't understand what's going on.

I agree with your whole post, but this part is what gets me. There are times when the information isn't as necessary as the author believes. There are some readers who want to know the details of every little thing, but most people want the story. Readers can also figure out a lot through context.

I think too much information is like eating a handful of salt. It overpowers the narrative and you can't taste anything else because you've only got salt. Sprinkle it into the story and let the information enhance the narrative without making the reader taste only salt. Of course, that's probably true of any element of storytelling.

The idea of getting information across in the dialogue is probably meant for normal conversations to illuminate the reader. I don't interpret it to mean you should take the entire infodump and put quotation marks around it. Even if speeches like that were in character, and they may not be, it's still the same problem: too much information all at once, but now you have the added hurdle of making sure it's in character (for one to talk that much and the other to listen to it all) and sounds like natural speech.

I think the information should be scattered around in dialogue, exposition, action, etc. Putting it all in one area is usually awkward. For me, it's useful to have the new information come from some sort of interaction between the viewpoint character and his world (other characters, objects, surroundings, ideas).

I don't worry about info-dumping because of my writing style. It's more likely that I don't give enough information. I can tolerate infodumps from other writers given a character with the right voice and powers of observation. It's rare, but it happens.

 

[Devor]

When I think of an info-dump told in dialogue, I think immediately of a chapter in the third Harry Potter book where Harry overhears a conversation he's not supposed to about the story behind that book of the series. It's a compelling story which tells us everything that's going on, even though it's told at length in dialogue. It's a very well-done chapter.

If you absolutely have that much which needs to be told at once, there's no sense in avoiding it. I think, boring is boring and good is good. Be a story teller. Find a way to package your dumps and sell them. And if you can't figure out how to do that, then they probably aren't worth including.

 

[Kelise]

I agree with Devor.

Informing the reader at the same time a character finds out information he or she generally needs is a way to avoiding info-dumping. Be succinct and articulate and let the character assume or work some things out for themselves also.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

I agree with your whole post, but this part is what gets me. There are times when the information isn't as necessary as the author believes. There are some readers who want to know the details of every little thing, but most people want the story. Readers can also figure out a lot through context.

I think too much information is like eating a handful of salt. It overpowers the narrative and you can't taste anything else because you've only got salt. Sprinkle it into the story and let the information enhance the narrative without making the reader taste only salt. Of course, that's probably true of any element of storytelling.

Hot damn, I'm using that metaphor every time I talk about infodumps from now on.

"Do you like salt? A little, sure. An infodump is like eating an entire handful of salt all at once."

 

[Caged Maiden]

I think thinly-veiled infodumps are more offensive than blatant concise passages where an author needs to inform a reader of background. A conversation between two characters where one is asking loads of questions while the other is telling them to hold on and let them finish their story might as well just be an author telling me to wait until they're done telling me stuff. I get edgy, impatient, and uninterested very quickly.

In my own case, I have a novel which begins with a whole lot of information and seeking the balance of how to present it is a high priority for me. While I want to eliminate tedious paragraphs, I think switching viewpoints to present the information naturally might be just as disjointed and confusing. It's a difficult balance when you have two groups of characters who begin with different goals and ultimately come together later on.