Too much information, or not enough information - that is the quesiton

[The Unseemly]

I've always wondered: when or where do you draw a line between information about a world and infodump? If a new concept or character is introduced, is taking half to a whole page (around 5-6 solid paragraphs) to explain about that concept or character while it is still relevant to the story "providing information" or "infodumping"?
If it is "providing information", then what exactly could be a "dictionary" definition for infodumping?

 

[claras]

In my opinion, your first attempt at providing information should be through action or interaction or dialogue (but only if the dialogue doesn't feel forced). If there is really no way that you can provide background information using these, perhaps indulging in a brief paragraph that is interesting to read may be ok? Providing half a page of information whenever a new character or place or concept comes around is, well, not ok. I typically scan over any information paragraphs (especially the weather or long descriptions of the place that has come into focus!) and if it goes on for more than a page or two, the book becomes one of those with the bookmark in it and just sits there on the shelf. Even if I want to read it, it becomes a tedious exercise and I end up reading other things.

Also, part of the magic of writing is making the reader wonder about a new person or place. If you dump the info all there for them to read before they go on with the story, the mystery is gone. And the mystery is the glue, after all.

 

[The Unseemly]

Hmm... I think I see what you mean. They're valid points, but I'm talking more so about information that is directly, in that place, relevant to the story.

Perhaps I should rephrase my question: if it is necessary to explain a certain bit of information about someone/something to further the "mystery" or otherwise interest in the story, where is the line drawn between giving information (an acceptable amount of information) and infodumping (too much information).

 

[wordwalker]

It's tricky to define-- the real test is if a given reader thinks it's slowing down the story or not, so it'll always vary. But here are a couple of tests:

• Is a character (or narrator) talking about what a thing is [more likely to infodump], or is it a character mostly leaving that "is" unsaid and talking about what that means for him (how it'll hurt/help him, what he'll do about it).
• Is there something important that depends on what those facts are-- or better yet, the current form of those facts is being treated like plot and leaving us in suspense until we learn the last bit of it? It's easier to care about how a Council of Elders is formed when the MC is bringing an important plea to them right now, and even more so if one of their rules is key to how one seat is being filled at the last minute.

 

[Steerpike]

I'd also provide it through the action of the story itself. Can you think of a situation where providing the information requires you to simply write half a page giving it to the reader, and where doing it through the action of the story wouldn't work?

 

[Penpilot]

How much information to dole out and when, as said above, is tricky. To me, it ends up being a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. Sometimes in the first draft I put in some seemingly irrelevant information that I realize is a key part of the story later. Other times, I find that after I've finished the first draft I need to insert a bunch of information and need to find the right place to insert it. I usually don't worry about info dumping until the second draft. That's when I have a better feel of what's needed and what isn't, so I try to dump away in the first draft. But still, I usually end up with a sparse draft. That's just the way things roll with me.

If I need to insert some important information, I look at the train of thought of my POV character in various scenes. I find logical spots for the important information to come up in conversation or narrative and let the momentum of things push the information out. (I know that's kind of vague. Sorry) Once the momentum runs out, if there's more that needs to be pushed out, I either try to direct the conversation and narrative back to that subject or find another logical spot in the story to bring the info up.

The trick is making the flow of narrative and dialogue natural, unforced, and most important of all, interesting. The easiest way to see this in action is pick one of your favorite books and read a few pages. Look at how the author is pushing out the information and how they're making it interesting.

I used this example in a different post but any way... Take for example this youtube clip from a TV show called Bones. It splices important plot info in with important personal info and spices it up with a tiny bit of conflict. Poking Around from "The Party In The Pants" | BONES | FOX BROADCASTING - YouTube

I know it's TV and we're talking books and stuff but it totally applies. If someone were to write that scene out as narrative and dialogue it would still work.

 

[The Unseemly]

Mhmm, I see, I see, so let me give an example:

Say that there's a scene where people are discussing what is going to happen in the story ahead. However, in the past, they came to hate a specific organisation. So, would it be "infodumping" to explain why these people hate the specific organisation? Or is it more "relevant information given?"

 

[advait98]

Listen, The Unseemly, it would be better to not do it in a narrative and more in dialogue.
Reading your writing, I hope I have a better understanding of what you're trying to do. So what I mean by doing it in a dialogue, is that someone asks the people why they hate this org. so much, after observing their, um, hatred.
When the people answer, try to make it into a story in itself. Make their responses interesting and absorbing and coherent, because I know it would become monotonous and boring in a narrative.

The biggest part of writing (to me) is channeling the story through the characters as much as you can, and cutting down on too much or exhausting narrative. The way you write, from what I have seen so far, is a long narrative, and you should try to cut down as many useless and redundant words and phrases as you can. Have more dialogue and friendly narrative or something like that.

Anyway, getting back to your question, it all depends on how you write it. It may be relevant information given if you want the reader to feel what the org. has done to these people or if it has a relevant cause to the story. It may be infodump if you dump it all without regard for the enjoyment of the reader or progression of the plot.

If you can, try to space it out in the story. Just as you space out relevant info all across a chapter without piling it all in one paragraph at the start, or middle, or end.

Once again, it all depends on how you write it. In a dialogue, narrative, both, in a story form, in snippets across the pages, etc. Work on it, you're fine.

 

[The Unseemly]

Thank's for that advait. Exactly what I was looking for.

 

[Penpilot]

Listen, The Unseemly, it would be better to not do it in a narrative and more in dialogue.

It doesn't matter if information is conveyed through narrative or dialogue. Both can be engaging and both can be a huge boring info dump. All that counts IMHO is that you make it entertaining and relevant regardless if it's narrative or dialogue.

 

[advait98]

It doesn't matter if information is conveyed through narrative or dialogue. Both can be engaging and both can be a huge boring info dump. All that counts IMHO is that you make it entertaining and relevant regardless if it's narrative or dialogue.

I assumed what I said after reading one of The Unseemly's pieces, and figured that would be the best way to go.
Regardless, I agree with what you said. Entertainment is a necessity, and can be made or broken in either narrative or dialogue.

 

[wordwalker]

The biggest part of writing (to me) is channeling the story through the characters as much as you can, and cutting down on too much or exhausting narrative. The way you write, from what I have seen so far, is a long narrative, and you should try to cut down as many useless and redundant words and phrases as you can. Have more dialogue and friendly narrative or something like that.

Anyway, getting back to your question, it all depends on how you write it. It may be relevant information given if you want the reader to feel what the org. has done to these people or if it has a relevant cause to the story. It may be infodump if you dump it all without regard for the enjoyment of the reader or progression of the plot.

This can be key. We writers can spend a lot of time contemplating the background of our stories, savoring why things have to be one way or another and the small connections between them. A reader may enjoy it too, but they're more likely to be interested in what's about to change in that plot, such as which facts are most vital or how the characters worry and plan about what's coming. Or else, the characters (that embody plot and background too, after all) become at least as fun as anything else.

Which isn't to say that dialogue's simply better than narrative; it can have its own biases. But anything that keeps part (not all) of the story trimmed and focused on the plot, or else the characters that are dealing with it, is a good tool.

 

[Velka]

It is a hard balance to achieve, especially in fantasy or sci-fi writing. We're creating worlds and the reader isn't coming into our story with the same schema as they would a story set in the 'real world'. If you're writing a story and say the police are investigating a murder you don't have to explain what the police are; everyone has countless life, media, etc experiences to draw from. If your murder is being investigated by the Department of Untimely Deaths whose members are all underwater clairvoyant werewolves... well, you have some 'splainin to do.

I always admire how writers can incorporate such info into the flow of their writing - sneaking in bits and pieces in dialogue and narrative to give you the info you need while still building on character development and plot. I've been doing a lot of rereading lately purely for that purpose.

From what I've been gathering so far I personally enjoy when information is revealed organically; let the reader discover it alongside the characters.

 

[Nameback]

You can certainly provide it in either narrative or dialogue format, but in either case I think the key factor is to make it flow normally.

If it's a jarring break from the scene, then it's not working. You can have little asides throughout scenes--things that give context or history--but they should be broken up and as economical as possible. If you're stopping in the middle of action (whatever that action may be, including dialogue) for more than a couple sentences of asides, then you're probably straying too far from what is actually taking place. When something is happening, you want to avoid "leaving the room."

Now, if you're introducing a setting, then I personally think it's OK to describe in more detail. Give me a picture of the place. But don't just spell out its history point-blank like I'm reading a textbook. Tell me what the place is, not what it was. But in telling me what it is, give me clues, inferences, and context. Best of all, tell me something about the character and the place at the same time--instead of telling me just about the setting, tell me how the character views the setting. Not only does this do double-duty and therefore work economically, it also gives us a reason to explore the character's knowledge, which may include the history we need to know!

 

[wordwalker]

If it's a jarring break from the scene, then it's not working. You can have little asides throughout scenes--things that give context or history--but they should be broken up and as economical as possible. If you're stopping in the middle of action (whatever that action may be, including dialogue) for more than a couple sentences of asides, then you're probably straying too far from what is actually taking place. When something is happening, you want to avoid "leaving the room."

Now, if you're introducing a setting, then I personally think it's OK to describe in more detail. Give me a picture of the place. But don't just spell out its history point-blank like I'm reading a textbook. Tell me what the place is, not what it was. But in telling me what it is, give me clues, inferences, and context. Best of all, tell me something about the character and the place at the same time--instead of telling me just about the setting, tell me how the character views the setting. Not only does this do double-duty and therefore work economically, it also gives us a reason to explore the character's knowledge, which may include the history we need to know!

So: Don't break from the sense of the scene, especially from action or pulling away for long at once.

Give details of a new place, but less its past than its present, plus some clues more.

Use characters' knowledge/ignorance and desires to shade both the place and the person, maybe leading to them searching for the key facts.

That's a great checklist. :balanced: