Is this a good way of handling exposition?

[Archon of Cringe]

I used to believe in the show-don't-tell idea until I tried removing as much exposition as possible, and people could not follow my world or story.
At all.
Someone I read in an article said using heavy exposition is like not trusting the reader to pick up on the information.
Well, they can't, from my experience, especially in fantasy, where the mechanics of the world have to be explained and understood to get what's going on. It's what in previous drafts, my anti-heroic protagonist ended up unlikeable and an idiot as I never delved into her head and why she was doing this nor the alternatives she tried, just implying everything.
I don't think entire pages of exposition are needed. I've recently found breaking it up with action towards the beginning of the story and then feeding it in as it becomes relevant is much cleaner and lets the audience know the necessary exposition for the scene. These moments of exposition are broken up by dialogue and story content and then disappear entirely towards the middle and end of my short story or chapter. I also plan on having the first page of the next draft be a 4-5 sentence paragraph of contextual exposition containing the basic concepts for my world.
What do you think of this process, and how do you guys handle it?

 

[pmmg]

There are many phrases we say in writing, show dont tell, is one of them, but all of these are not absolutes. They are more like guidelines All stories have some of each. Too much of one, and you'll get called out on it, or run into problems. All of this, is an art. There wont be any hard rules, so much of this, and then so much of that. You have to write what you believe conveys and keeps interest....then edit when you find out its off.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Regardless of whether you've written the beginning or not, the true test of how successful any piece of writing is how it plays out on the page. Only you can answer this question at this point. Get it all on the page where we can see it and poke holes in it. There are no new ideas, just new writers and new voices.

Bit of advice from someone who's been here before: don't shoot for fancy. Not at this stage. Right now you should be shooting for wordcounts and character development, world building and maps. Where are we, who are we, and why should we care? You can't move forward until you can answer these questions three... and then we get to the hard stuff.

I also plan on having the first page of the next draft be a 4-5 sentence paragraph of contextual exposition containing the basic concepts for my world.

This? I wouldn't recommend trying this until you have a few more stories under your belt. This isn't a bad technique, but it is a bit advanced and hard to make work if you're coming right out of the gate. (Assuming so, anyway.)

I'm the drafter on a 3-woman collab. How I handle exposition is... I tend to not. I don't like it. I hate "As you know, Bob," conversations. And we're chewing our way through a long-running Urban Fantasy series. Readers are either caught up or they're not. The books have the numbers on them, there's a ton of intermediate material available on our blogs, and we don't give the reader many chances to pause and think, anyway. So, have fun reading. Just make sure you have the books in order.

 

[Archon of Cringe]

Regardless of whether you've written the beginning or not, the true test of how successful any piece of writing is how it plays out on the page. Only you can answer this question at this point. Get it all on the page where we can see it and poke holes in it. There are no new ideas, just new writers and new voices.

Bit of advice from someone who's been here before: don't shoot for fancy. Not at this stage. Right now you should be shooting for wordcounts and character development, world building and maps. Where are we, who are we, and why should we care? You can't move forward until you can answer these questions three... and then we get to the hard stuff.

I don't know what you mean by "shoot for fancy." I am trying to establish those three things you mentioned. I haven't ironed out the exact details but that doesn't matter. It's not like I can communicate all those details without boring or overwhelming the audience.
I want to know what an effective method for establishing these concepts are, one that retains understanding and entertainment because I have tried in the past and wasn't able to communicate.

 

[Mad Swede]

I often write this in discussions on these pages, but... You must think your setting through. Usually I argue thgis because it's a way of getting the story going in a plausible way, and a way of adding depth, detail, background incidents and kicking off small sub-plots without it being obvious.

BUT, it is also a way of doing exposition without it being boring. To take an example, if your setting has a town with some form of judicial court then you can explain the basics of the legal system by having some small wide eyed child ask their parent (or even the hero) why some person is being put into the stocks or led to the gallows. It's a way of explaining and adding background detail which in is plausible and readable in the context of the story. The same is true of bigger concepts. Listening to a storyteller in an inn, hearing some priest drone on about something at the temple, reading some paper nailed to a notice board, these are all ways of getting those concepts and details across. But for it to work it has to fit into your setting.

For an example, read David Eddings' The Belgariad. The scene in the third book, where Garion has the basics of sorcery explained to him, is a brilliant example. Based on that scene there then follow several later scenes which develop the concepts of sorcery, and which even link back to earlier scenes where Garion has done things without realising how or why he did them.

 

[Archon of Cringe]

I guess that also comes into how much exposition is necessary and fitting it all into a beginning, shifting what is necessary and unnecessary. This is hard when I've tried to *show* the fantasy world's magic system without explaining it, it's technology without expositing, and the governmental system, but it's not enough. People get confused that way.
You guys are more experienced than me, but from what I've seen, a little bit of boring exposition here and there can't hurt, especially when you need to communicate something explicit so the audience doesn't get confused.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I often write this in discussions on these pages, but... You must think your setting through. Usually I argue thgis because it's a way of getting the story going in a plausible way, and a way of adding depth, detail, background incidents and kicking off small sub-plots without it being obvious.

BUT, it is also a way of doing exposition without it being boring. To take an example, if your setting has a town with some form of judicial court then you can explain the basics of the legal system by having some small wide eyed child ask their parent (or even the hero) why some person is being put into the stocks or led to the gallows. It's a way of explaining and adding background detail which in is plausible and readable in the context of the story. The same is true of bigger concepts. Listening to a storyteller in an inn, hearing some priest drone on about something at the temple, reading some paper nailed to a notice board, these are all ways of getting those concepts and details across. But for it to work it has to fit into your setting.

For an example, read David Eddings' The Belgariad. The scene in the third book, where Garion has the basics of sorcery explained to him, is a brilliant example. Based on that scene there then follow several later scenes which develop the concepts of sorcery, and which even link back to earlier scenes where Garion has done things without realising how or why he did them.

Yup! This is called using an exposition character, and they are a great shortcut around the Land of Infodumps. Plus, they're relatively easy to write!

 

[A. E. Lowan]

I guess that also comes into how much exposition is necessary and fitting it all into a beginning, shifting what is necessary and unnecessary. This is hard when I've tried to *show* the fantasy world's magic system without explaining it, it's technology without expositing, and the governmental system, but it's not enough. People get confused that way.
You guys are more experienced than me, but from what I've seen, a little bit of boring exposition here and there can't hurt, especially when you need to communicate something explicit so the audience doesn't get confused.

One thing to remember as you wade into exposition that even you are describing as "boring," is this: if you're bored, the reader is bored. Conflict = Story. If you find yourself bored, you've probably left the conflict at home. Bring it.

 

[ThinkerX]

In my writing, much exposition comes into play when the characters are trying to make a decision or learn something relevant to it. For example., Kyle, a petty wizard in my 'Empire' series, has a scene where he reflects on the places he studied magic at, and the characters of the students attending those institutions. In another scene, Tia, attempting to unravel a long past intrigue, cracks open a history book in her search for answers. I didn't quote entire passages in this section, just paraphrased the highlights.

 

[Mad Swede]

Yup! This is called using an exposition character, and they are a great shortcut around the Land of Infodumps. Plus, they're relatively easy to write!

Yes, but they can be so much more if you do it right. This is one of the reasons I so often use David Eddings as an example. He was very good at having some of the main characters act as exposition characters as part of their role in the story. It works brilliantly because it is so enjoyable and so readable.

 

[A. E. Lowan]

Yes, but they can be so much more if you do it right. This is one of the reasons I so often use David Eddings as an example. He was very good at having some of the main characters act as exposition characters as part of their role in the story. It works brilliantly because it is so enjoyable and so readable.

I think we have, like, 10 or 15 of them lying around whose entire purpose is to come up with variously creative ways to ask, "What the fu...?"

 

[Archon of Cringe]

I've read books where characters would sometimes monologue and reminisce about where they are and who they are meeting to add context to a scene. That's what I'm talking about.

In my writing, much exposition comes into play when the characters are trying to make a decision or learn something relevant to it. For example., Kyle, a petty wizard in my 'Empire' series, has a scene where he reflects on the places he studied magic at, and the characters of the students attending those institutions. In another scene, Tia, attempting to unravel a long past intrigue, cracks open a history book in her search for answers. I didn't quote entire passages in this section, just paraphrased the highlights.

This especially.

 

[skip.knox]

There are multiple kinds of exposition. Maybe the simplest (except it isn't) would be the physical setting. We get questions here regularly about how much description to put into a scene.

Then there's the mental and emotional setting. What are the characters feeling? How much needs to be described and for how many of the players on the stage? That can be difficult to suss out, and under-describing can be as fatal as over-describing.

The Archon mention things like governmental systems. It's nearly impossible to envision an novel without physical setting and character setting, but there are plenty of examples of very good novels that don't go into magic systems or government systems or economies or social structures. Also plenty of examples of novels that do.

The critical point is this statement: "the mechanics of the world have to be explained and understood to get what's going on"

Have to be? Says who? Guessing from additional posts, your beta readers, or maybe reviewers or editors. Presumably you yourself find the amount of explanation to be delivered at the right time and in the right amounts. Or is there some self-criticism here as well? It''s worthwhile to sort that out. If it's external, does the feedback come from readers in your genre? Because that matters as well.

But let's assume from discerning readers in the genre. Have you asked what, exactly, they're having trouble with? Is it with certain scenes? Certain characters? Are they making explicit comments about magic systems? Because right now, it''s close to "how do I fix everything?" And I know that's not what you mean.

 

[skip.knox]

A second post, trying to be more helpful.

When it comes to description of setting, I sometimes try to picture it like a stage. What does the audience see? What does the audience need to see, to make sense of the action? I know others like to reference a camera, but that moves too easily for my taste, but choose one. Either way, the focus is very much on the here and now. This doesn't mean other factors don't enter. For example, if I'm trying for mood, I'll pay attention to lighting, point of view, sounds or smells--secondary stuff to act somewhat like background music to set tone. It's not always about a minimalist prescript of what the audience *needs* to know.

Characters are more subtle. As is often point out here, a fight is almost always more compelling if we know what the characters are feeling as well as what they are doing. I'm always looking for ways to show how this or that character is changing, or at least reacting to the most recent action. I try to make the character arc as smooth as possible. In addition, I try to pay attention to secondary characters on the stage. We don't need to know the backstory of the butler, but that he is standing respectfully might be worth noting. Or not. This is the sort of thing that gets revisited during edit.

As for the worldbuilding, that's been discussed often here. Maybe some browsing through threads, then a return here for specifics and elaboration?

 

[Demesnedenoir]

Show don't tell really isn't exposition; two different animals, albeit they could be considered related. Like showing, exposition is necessary, it's the dosage that matters and its delivery. With a what the F— character it's all about organic or it gets sloppy, a bit like in tv and movies where a chracter suddenly develops a skill they need so they don't have to pay another actor, heh heh. In fact, most exposition is best organic. The how is the skill or art. if you don't get into the character's head, then you're taking a step toward a screenplay and that isn't fun reading either.

Expo and SdT are all about balance, not total elimination.

Without reading it, there's no way to give an opinion on effectiveness.

 

[Prince of Spires]

I agree with Demesnedenoir that it sounds like you've misunderstood Show don't Tell. Showing and telling are two ways of making the story happen, where when you tell, you write exactly what the reader should be thinking and feeling and seeing. With show, you describe what happens which lets the reader experience what's going on.

Telling is shorter than showing, and both have their place. A transition is usually a tell, and there's nothing wrong with that. "They rode for a week, through dreadful fall rain, which soaked everything to the point where Bob couldn't even remember what dry felt like." That's a tell. Very useful to quickly get Bob from point A to B. Now, if something interesting happens on that journey, you want to show it. Describe the wet feeling, get inside Bob's head. that sort of thing. It will take a lot more words (you could fill a whole novel with just that one journey, if enough interesting stuff happens).

Exposition is simply explaining to the reader what's actually happening in terms of setting. In general, you will want to give the reader enough to understand what's going on in a specific scene, but no more than that. Especially not at the start of your novel. A paragraph isn't too bad or too much. However, it will put some people off. The purpose of the first sentence is to get people to read the next one. Exposition rarely achieves that. Though if the exposition is good enough it will of course.

Each book needs exposition in some form. Of course, the best way to do it is to either have a character who gets stuff explained to him because he doesn't know the world. Think Harry Potter. He doesn't understand the wizarding world, so any time the reader needs to know something, some random character can explain it to him. The other option is to weave it into your story, with a sentence here and a paragraph there. A bit harder, but definitely manageable. As long as readers understand the bits you want them to understand at that point in the story you're fine.

For instance, if you want your magic system to be mysterious and unknown, because your characters have no clue how it works, then don't spend a chapter explaining to your reader what's happening and how it works.

 

[Archon of Cringe]

I thank everyone who kindly shared their advice in this thread and have read them all.
Writing is hard, and I've been frustrated I've been struggling to communicate what I want on the page. In my head everything makes sense, and I want to piece by piece reveal things. But when I've received feedback from people in workshops and friends many expressed they didn't know what was going on and that character's actions would've made more sense.
Then I read some more books where characters sometimes take a few extra sentences to narrate the context around a particular moment. It makes thing easier for me to read on edit as well.
You are right, everything has a time and place. But learning those times and places isn't easy. Only practice will tell.