Tumgik
#Exposition
bizarreauhavre · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
Philippe Rousseau, 1816-1887 - The rat who withdrew from the world
3K notes · View notes
writingwithfolklore · 8 months
Text
When to Info Dump
                I was taught as a young writer to never ever ‘info dump’. An info dump is a paragraph (or several) that just runs the readers through info they need to know. While avoiding info dumps is typically a good practice—lots of information at once can be overwhelming, boring, or ‘cheap’—as with most things in writing, never say never. Recently, I finished a book that info dumps often, and with intention, and it worked.
                To info dump well, you actually have to do it often (or relatively often). Just one info dump somewhere in the middle or beginning of the story is going to seem like a mistake. Using it as a literary technique however, and it adds a sort of intrigue, whimsy, or discordant tone to your story.
                In this way, it becomes a quirk of your narrator’s voice. It should match or make sense with the character you are following. A super serious, meticulous character may info dump in the way they would list off the information they know. A more bubbly character may info dump out of excitement to share their interests.
                Which brings us to the type of information you can reasonably info dump without getting in trouble. Of course, the information shared should be stuff that your character would know, but also, information that they would care to share.
                For example, that serious character would info dump only pertinent, personally important information, whereas the bubbly character probably wouldn’t info dump about real estate or politics—unless of course it’s part of their special interests. A detail oriented character may only info dump about things they are noticing in the moment. A history buff would definitely info dump about culture and the past.
                Essentially, use the right amount, for the right character, with the right information, and you can pull off an intentional and well-done info dump. Otherwise, avoid it!
                What are your thoughts on exposition or info-dumping?
1K notes · View notes
vangoghcore · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
by melodyinsoko
2K notes · View notes
onejellyfishplease · 7 months
Text
Part 11
(Prev) (First)
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
Leo your ADHD is showing
(Next)
914 notes · View notes
dailyadventureprompts · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
Homebrew Mechanic: Meaningful Research
Being careful about when you deliver information to your party is one of the most difficult challenges a dungeonmaster may face, a balancing act that we constantly have to tweak as it affects the pacing of our campaigns.
That said, unlike a novel or movie or videogame where the writers can carefully mete out exposition at just the right time, we dungeonmasters have to deal with the fact that at any time (though usually not without prompting) our players are going to want answers about what's ACTUALLY going on, and they're going to take steps to find out.
To that end I'm going to offer up a few solutions to a problem I've seen pop up time and time again, where the heroes have gone to all the trouble to get themselves into a great repository of knowledge and end up rolling what seems like endless knowledge checks to find out what they probably already know. This has been largely inspired by my own experience but may have been influenced by watching what felt like several episodes worth of the critical role gang hitting the books and getting nothing in return.
I've got a whole write up on loredumps, and the best way to dripfeed information to the party, but this post is specifically for the point where a party has gained access to a supposed repository of lore and are then left twiddling their thumbs while the dm decides how much of the metaplot they're going to parcel out.
When the party gets to the library you need to ask yourself: Is the information there to be found?
No, I don't want them to know yet: Welcome them into the library and then save everyone some time by saying that after a few days of searching it’s become obvious the answers they seek aren’t here. Most vitally, you then either need to give them a new lead on where the information might be found, or present the development of another plot thread (new or old) so they can jump on something else without losing momentum.
No, I want them to have to work for it:  your players have suddenly given you a free “insert plothook here” opportunity. Send them in whichever direction you like, so long as they have to overcome great challenge to get there. This is technically just kicking the can down the road, but you can use that time to have important plot/character beats happen.
Yes, but I don’t want to give away the whole picture just yet:  The great thing about libraries is that they’re full of books, which are written by people,  who are famously bad at keeping their facts straight. Today we live in a world of objective or at least peer reviewed information but the facts in any texts your party are going to stumble across are going to be distorted by bias. This gives you the chance to give them the awnsers they want mixed in with a bunch of red herrings and misdirections. ( See the section below for ideas)
Yes, they just need to dig for it:  This is the option to pick if you're willing to give your party information upfront while at the same time making it SEEM like they're overcoming the odds . Consider having an encounter, or using my minigame system to represent their efforts at looking for needles in the lithographic haystack. Failure at this system results in one of the previous two options ( mixed information, or the need to go elsewhere), where as success gets them the info dump they so clearly crave.
The Art of obscuring knowledge AKA Plato’s allegory of the cave, but in reverse
One of the handiest tools in learning to deliver the right information at the right time is a sort of “slow release exposition” where you wrap a fragment lore the party vitally needs to know in a coating of irrelevant information,  which forces them to conjecture on possibilities and draw their own conclusions.  Once they have two or more pieces on the same subject they can begin to compare and contrast, forming an understanding that is merely the shadow of the truth but strong enough to operate off of. 
As someone who majored in history let me share some of my favourite ways I’ve had to dig for information, in the hopes that you’ll be able to use it to function your players.
A highly personal record in the relevant information is interpreted through a personal lens to the point where they can only see the information in question 
Important information cameos in the background of an unrelated historical account
The information can only be inferred from dry as hell accounts or census information. Cross reference with accounts of major historical events to get a better picture, but everything we need to know has been flattened into datapoints useful to the bureaucracy and needs to be re-extrapolated.
The original work was lost, and we only have this work alluding to it. Bonus points if the existent work is notably parodying the original, or is an attempt to discredit it.
Part of a larger chain of correspondence, referring to something the writers both experienced first hand and so had no reason to describe in detail. 
The storage medium (scroll, tablet, arcane data crystal) is damaged in some way, leading to only bits of information being known. 
Original witnesses Didn’t have the words to describe the thing or events in question and so used references from their own environment and culture. Alternatively, they had specific words but those have been bastardized by rough translations. 
Tremendously based towards a historical figure/ideology/religion to the point that all facts in the piece are questionable.  Bonus points if its part of a treatise on an observably untrue fact IE the flatness of earth
443 notes · View notes
tangledinink · 8 months
Note
Here's the piece of Swanatello lore I can't make fit: why did the lake call him Othello? Why that name?
Tumblr media Tumblr media
[ prev ]
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
swanatello.
[ start ] [ prev ] [ next ]
1K notes · View notes
physalian · 3 months
Text
Humanizing Your Characters (And Why You Should)
To humanize a character is not to contort an irredeemable villain into the warped funhouse mirror reflection of a hero in the last 30 seconds to gain “narrative subversion” points. To humanize is not to give said villain a tragic backstory that validates every bad choice they make in attempt to provide nuance where it does not deserve to be.
To humanize a character, villain or otherwise, is to make them flawed. Scuff them up, give them narrative birthmarks and scars and imperfections. Whether it’s your hero, their love interest, the comic relief, the mentor, the villain, the rival, these little narrative details serve to make all your literary babies better.
Why should you humanize your characters?
To do this means to write in details beyond those that service the plot, or the themes, or the motifs, morals, foreshadowing, or story. These might be (and usually are) entirely unimportant in the grand scheme of things. So, if I wrote lengthy diatribes on pacing and why every detail must matter, and character descriptions and thematic importance, why am I now suggesting go free-for-all on the fluff?
Just like real people have quirks and tics and beliefs and pet peeves that serve our no greater purpose, so should fictional people. Your average reader doesn’t have the foggiest idea what literary devices are beyond metaphor, simile foreshadowing, and anecdote, but they can tell when the author is using motif and theme and all the syntactical marvels because it reads that much richer, even if they can’t pinpoint why.
And, for shipping fodder, these tiny little details are what help your audience fall in love with the character. It doesn’t even have to be in a book – Taylor Swift (whether you like her or not) never fills her music with sexual innuendo or going clubbing. She tells stories filled with human details like dancing in the refrigerator light. People can simultaneously relate to these very specific and vivid experiences, and say “not that exactly, but man this reminds me of…” and that’s (part of) the reason her music is so popular.
What kinds of narratives need these details?
All of them. Visual media, audio, written, stage play. Now, to what degree and excess you apply these details depends on your tone, intended audience, and writing style. If your style of writing is introspection heavy, noir character drama, you might go pretty heavy on the character design.
But even if you’re writing a kids book with a scant few paragraphs of setting descriptors and internal narration, or you’re drawing a comic book – if you have characters you want people to care about, do this.
Animators, particularly, are very adept at humanizing non-human characters, because, unlike live acting, every single stroke of the pen is there with intent. They use their own reflections for facial references, record their own movements to draw a dance, and insert little bits of themselves into signature character poses so you know that *that* animator did this one.
How to humanize your characters.
I’m going to break this down into a couple sections: Costume/wardrobe, personality, beliefs/behavior/superstitions, haptics/proxemics/kinesics, and voice. They will all overlap and the sheer variety and possibilities are way too broad for me to capture every facet.
Costumes and Wardrobe
In the film Fellowship of the Ring, there’s a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment where, after Boromir is slain by the Uruk-Hai, Aragorn takes Boromir’s Gondorian vambraces to wear in his honor, and in honor of their shared country. He wears them the rest of the trilogy. The editing pays no extra attention to them beyond a split second of Aragorn tightening the straps, it never lingers on them, never reminds you that they’re there, but they kept it in nonetheless. His actor also included a hunting bow that didn't exist in the book because he's a roamer, a ranger, and needs to be able to feed himself, along with a couple other survival tools.
Aragorn wears plenty of other symbolic bits of costume – the light of the Evenstar we see constantly from Arwen, the Lothlorien green cloaks shared by the entire Fellowship, his re-forged sword and eventual full Gondorian regalia, but all those are Epic Movie Moments that serve a thematic purpose.
Taking the vambraces is just a small, otherwise insignificant character moment, a choice made for no other reason than that’s what this character would do. That’s what makes him human, not an archetype.
When you’re writing these details and can’t rely on sneaking them into films, you have to work a little harder to remind your audience that they exist, but not too often. A detail shifts from “human” to “plot point” when it starts to serve a purpose to the themes and story.
Inconsequentiality might be how a character ties, or doesn’t tie their shoelaces, because they just can’t be bothered so they remain permanent knots and tripping hazards. It might be a throw-away line about how they refuse to wear shorts and strictly stick to long pants because they don’t like showing off their legs. It might be perpetually greasy hair from constantly running their fingers through it with stress, or self-soothing. A necklace they fidget with, or a ring, a belt they never bother to replace even though they should, a pair of lucky socks.
Resist the urge to make it more meaningful than “this is just how they are”. If I’m using the untied shoelaces example – in Spiderverse, this became a part of the story’s themes, motifs, and foreshadowing, and doesn’t count. Which isn’t bad! It’s just not what I’m talking about.
Personality
In How to Train Your Dragon, Toothless does not speak. All his personality comes from how he moves, the noises he makes, and the expressions on his face. There’s moments, like in the finale, when his prosthetic has burned off and Hiccup tells him to hold on for a little bit longer, and you can clearly see on his face that he’s deeply uncertain about his ability to do so. It’s almost off the screen, another blink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment. Or the beat of hesitation before he lets Hiccup touch him in the Forbidden Friendship scene. Or the irritated noise he makes when he’s impatiently waiting for Hiccup to stop chatting with his dad because they have a giant dragon to murder. Or when he slaps Hiccup with his ear fin for flying them into a rock spire.
None of those details *needed* to exist to endear you to his character or to serve the scenes they’re in. The scenes would carry on just fine without them. He’s a fictional dragon, yes, but these details make him real.
Other personality tics you could include might be a character who gets frustrated with tedious things very quickly and starts making little inteligible curses under their breath. Or how they giggle when they’re excited and start bouncing on their toes. Maybe they have a tic where they snap their fingers when they’re concentrating, trying to will an idea into existence. Or they stick their tongue out while they work and get embarrassed when another character calls them on it. They roll around in their sleep, steal blankets, drool, leave dishes in the sink or are neurotic with how things must be organized. They have one CD in their car, and actually use that CD player instead of the phone jack or Bluetooth. They sing in the shower, while they cook, or while they do homework, no matter how grating their voice.
They like the smell of new shoes or Sharpies. They hate the texture of suede or velvet or sticky residues. They never pick their socks up. They hate the overhead light in their room and use 50 lamps instead. They hate turning into oncoming traffic or don’t trust their backup camera. They collect Funko Pops and insist there’s always room for more.
And about a million others.
Beliefs, Behaviors, and Superstitions
*If you happen to be writing a story where superstitions have merit, maybe skip this one.* Usually, inevitably, these evolve into character centerpieces and I can’t actually think of one off the top of my head that doesn’t become this beyond the ones we all know. A few comedic examples do come to mind:
The Magic Conch in “Club Spongebob” and the sea-bear-proof dirt circle in “The Camping Episode”
Dean Winchester’s fear and panic-driven actions in “Yellow Fever” and “Sam, Interrupted”
The references to the trolls that steal left-foot socks in How to Train Your Dragon
I’m not a fan of wasting time writing a religious character doing their religious thing when Plot Is Happening, but smaller things are what I’m talking about. Like them wearing a cross/rosary and touching it when they’re nervous. Having a specific off-beat prayer, saying, or expression because they don’t believe in cursing.
The classic ones like black cats, ladders, broken mirrors, salt, sidewalk cracks can all be funny. Athletes have plenty, too, and some of them, particularly in baseball culture, are a bit ridiculous. Not washing socks or uniforms, having a team idol they donate Double Bubble to and also rub their toes. A specific workout routine, diet, team morale dance.
Other things, too. A character who’s afraid to go back downstairs once the lights are off, or fear the basement or the backyard shed. Or they’re really put-off by this old family photo for no reason other than how glassy their eyes look and it’s creepy. They like crystals, dreamcatchers, star signs, tarot, or they absolutely do not under any circumstances.
They believe in all the tried and true ways of predicting the weather like a grizzled old sailor. They believe in ghosts, vampires, werewolves, witches, skinwalkers, doppelgangers, fairies. They talk to the cat statue in their kitchen and named it Fudge Pop. They whisper to the spirit that possessed the fridge so it stops making all that racket, and half the time, it works every time. They wear yellow for good luck or carry a rabbit’s foot. They’re not religious at all but still throw prayers out to whoever’s listening because, you know, just in case. They sit by their window sill and talk to the moon and the stars and pretend like they’re in a music video when they’re driving through the city in the rain.
Haptics, Proxemics, and Kinesics
These are, for all you non-communication and psych majors out there, touch and physical contact, how they move, and how they move around other people.
Behold, your shipping fodder.
Two shining examples of proxemics in action are the famous “close talker” episode of Seinfeld (of which every communication major has been subjected to) and Castiel’s not understanding of personal space (and human chronemic habits) in Supernatural.
These are how a character walks, if they’re flat-footed, clumsy, or tip-toers. If they make a racket or constantly spook the other characters. If they fidget or can’t sit still in a seat for five seconds, if they like to sit backwards or upside down. How they touch themselves, if they do a lot of self-soothing maneuvers (hugging themselves, rubbing their arms, touching their face, drawing their knees up, holding their neck, etc) or if they don’t do any self-soothing at all.
This is how they shake hands, if they dance while they cook or work. It’s how much space they let themselves take up, if they man-spread or keep their limbs in closer. How close they stand to others or how far. If they let themselves be touched at all, or if they always have their skin covered. If they always have their back to a wall,  or are always making sure they know where the nearest exit is. If they make grand gestures when they talk and give directions. If they flinch from pats on the back or raised hands. If they lean away from loud voices or project their own. If they use their height to their advantage when arguing, puff their chest, square their shoulders, put their hands on their hips, or point fingers in accusation.
If they touch other characters as they pass by. If they’re huggers or victims of falling asleep on or near their comrades. If they must sleep facing the door, or with something solid behind them. If they can sleep in the middle of a party wholly uncaring. If they sleepwalk, sleeptalk, migrate across the bed to cuddle whoever’s nearest with no idea they’re doing it.
If they like to be held or like to hold others. If they hate being picked up and slung around or are touch-starved for it. If they like their space and stick to it or are more than happy to share.
Do they walk with grace, head held high and back straight? Or are they hunched over, head hung, watching their feet? Are they meanderers or speed-walkers? Do they cross their arms in front or lace their hands behind them? Do they bow to authority or meet that gaze head on?
I have heard that Prince Zuko, in Last Airbender, is usually drawn sleeping with his bad ear down when he doesn’t feel safe, like on his warship or anywhere in the Fire Nation, or on the road. He’s drawn on his other side once he joins the Gaang. In Dead Man’s Chest, just before Davy Jones drives the Flying Dutchman under the waves, two tentacles curl up and around the brim of his hat to keep it from blowing off in the water.
When they fight, do they attack first, or defend first? Do they touch other characters’ hair? Share makeup, share clothes? Touch their faces with boops or bonks or nuzzles and eskimo kisses? Do they crack their knuckles and necks and knees?
Do they stare in baffled curiosity at all the other characters wholly comfortable in each other's spaces because they can’t, won’t, or don’t see the point in all this nonsense? Do they say they’re happy on the outside, but are betrayed by their body language?
Voice
Whether or not to write an accent is entirely up to you. Books like Their Eyes Were Watching God writes dialogue in a vernacular specific to its characters. Westerners and southerners tend to be written with the southern drawl or dialect, ripe with stereotypical contractions. Be advised, however, that in attempt to write an accent to give your character depth, you could be instead turning off your audience who doesn’t have energy to decipher what they’re saying, or you went and wrote a racist stereotype.
Voice isn’t just accent and dialect, nor is it how it sounds, which falls more solidly under useful character descriptions. Voice for the sake of humanizing your characters concerns how they talk, how they convey their thoughts, and how they become distinct from other characters in dialogue and narration.
If you’re writing a narrative that hops heads and don’t want to include a big banner to indicate who’s talking at any given time, this is where voice matters. It is, I think, the least appreciated of all the possible traits to pay attention to.
First person narrators have the most flexibility here because the audience is zero degrees removed from their first-hand experiences. Their personality comes through sharply in how they describe things and what they pay attention to.
But it’s also in what similes and metaphors they use. I read a book that had an average (allegedly straight) male narrator going off and describing colors with types of flowers, some I had to look up because I just don’t know those off the top of my head. My immediate thought was either this character is a poorly written gay, or he’s a florist. Neither (allegedly), the writer was just being too specific.
Do they have crutch words they use? like, um, actually, so…, uh
Or repeat exclamations specific to them? yikes, yowzers, jeepers, jinkies, zoinks, balls, beans, d’oh!
Or idioms they’re fond of? Like a bat out of hell. Snowball’s chance.
Do they stutter when they’re nervous? Do they lose their train of thought and bounce around, losing other characters in the process? Do they have a non-Christian god they pray to and say something other than “thank God”? Are they from another country, culture, time period, realm, or planet with their own gods, beliefs, and idioms?
When they describe settings, how flowery is the language? Would this grizzled war hero use flowery language? How would he or she describe the color pink, versus a PTA mom? Do they use only a generic “blue, green, red” or do they really pay attention with “aquamarine, teal, emerald, viridian, vermillion, rose, ruby”?
How do this character’s hobbies affect how well they can describe dance moves, painting styles, car models, music genres?
This mostly matters when you’re head-hopping and the voice of the narrator serves to be more distinct, otherwise, what’s the point of head-hopping? Just use third-person omniscient.
If you really want to go wild, give a specific narrator unique syntax. Maybe one character is the ghost of Oscar Wild with never-ending run-on sentences. Just be sure to not go too overboard and compromise the integrity of your story.
In the book A Lesson Before Dying, a somewhat illiterate, underprivileged and undereducated minor has been given a mentor, a teacher, before they face the death penalty. At the end of the book, you read all of the letters they wrote to their teacher. There’s misspellings everywhere, almost no punctuation, and long, rambling sentences.
It’s heartbreaking. The subject matter is heavy and horrible, yes, but it’s the choice to write with such poor English that has a much bigger impact than perfect MLA format.
How to implement these details
Most of these, in the written medium, need only show up once or twice before your audience notices and wonders why they’re there. Most fall squarely under character design, which falls under exposition, and should follow all the exposition guidelines.
These details exist to be random and fluffy, but they can’t exist randomly within the narrative. If you want to have your character be superstitious, pick a relevant time to include that superstition.
Others, like ongoing speech habits or movements, still don’t overuse, especially if they’re unique. A character might like to sit backwards in a chair, but if you mention that they’re doing it every single time they sit down, your audience will wonder what’s so important and if the character is unwell.
And, of course, you can let these traits become thematically important, like a superstition being central to their personality or backstory or motivation. These all serve the same purpose of making your character feel like a real person instead of just a “character”.
Just think about tossing in a few random details every now and then and see what happens. One tiny sentence can take a background character and make them candidates for the eventual fandom’s fan favorite. Details like these turn your work from “This a story, and these are the characters who tell it” into “these are my characters, and this is their story.”
180 notes · View notes
yondra · 26 days
Text
Tumblr media
Lexová & Smetana, Moravská galerie Brno
127 notes · View notes
em-dash-press · 1 year
Text
Is Exposition Ever Good? 4 Pros and Cons of Catching Your Readers Up to Speed
People often mention exposition as a bad thing. Can it ever work in a story? Here are a few things you need to know about writing exposition so you can use it purposefully or avoid it in your upcoming work.
What Is Exposition?
Exposition is any dialogue or part of a story that catches the reader up on what already happened. It’s received a bad reputation in the writing community, but it can serve a few purposes if done well.
Basically, imagine starting a chapter with the summary on the book’s jacket. Except sometimes that summary fits in other parts of the story.
Pros and Cons of Exposition
Pro: Readers Get a Recap
When you’re six books deep in a 10-book series, a little recap in the first chapter is very much needed. It’s even good when you’re starting a sequel. Readers aren’t going to remember every plot detail, rivalry, and moment of character development.
You’ll likely read it in the first chapter something like this:
Chapter One I couldn’t believe I made it off that mountain, even weeks after scaring residents in the valley village of Straw Hollow. The blackened chunks of my face I nearly lost to frostbite would have been scary enough, but they also had to rush me to their physician with a bear trap around my ankle. It was all worth it though. I’d left my hometown six months prior to find my sister on the top of that mountain. I’d rescued her and pulled her back with me on a makeshift sled of pine branches. She was alive. That was all that mattered. Until I woke up in the physician’s cabin and saw a poster hanging across the room. It had my face on it, along with a bounty of $5 million.
That summary doesn’t include every detail from the first book, but it includes the major points so readers remember why the protagonist left on their quest, what matters most to them (aka, their motivation), and what they’re up against now.
Con: They Don’t Always Need It
Sometimes writers include exposition that summarizes something from a previous chapter. Readers don’t always need that! Unless your last chapter was longer than ~10 pages, they may read your exposition and feel as though you’re talking down to them. The storytelling starts to baby the reader instead of entertaining them.
Even in the case of starting a new book in a series, lengthy exposition might not be necessary. A few quick sentences could summarize your first book and get the reader back in your world if the first book was a mega-hit that people can’t stop talking about.
Pro: Exposition Can Set the Scene
If you’re writing a fast-paced, high-stakes story right from the start, it’s important to set the scene quickly. Your exposition could look like the example above and lead into a fight scene. As soon as the protagonist sees the bounty poster, the physician walks into the room held at knifepoint. The attacker fights the protagonist, who wins—but barely.
It wouldn’t make sense to weave your exposition throughout the first chapter because your reader would quickly get left behind. They wouldn’t enjoy the action or fast pace because they don’t remember what’s at stake for the protagonist or why they’re doing what they’re doing.
Con: It Can Feel Like Page Filler Content
Imagine the first chapter from the example. The writing is exactly the same, but after the protagonist successfully escapes the attacker in the physician’s cabin, they find their sister and hide in a nearby forest. As they’re crouching in the shadows, they start whispering to each other.
“What happened in there?” my sister asked.  "I just woke up in that physician's cabin," I replied. "I remembered walking into the village and even checked for the bear trap. My ankle is in this hard cast now, so it's okay. But then I saw a poster with a bounty of $5 million. Whoever turns me in to the king gets the money. So an assassin held the doctor at knifepoint and I had to fight them off. They landed a few punches, but I think I'm all right. " “A bounty?” she hissed. We waited for villagers with torches to pass by us before she spoke again. “For $5 million?” “Yeah,” I confirmed. “I’m really glad you found me at the top of that mountain and brought me back down on a sled of pine branches, but this is dangerous.” “I’d do anything for you.” “And it looks like those villagers would do anything for $5 million.”
That part of the chapter repeats everything the reader just read. The specific bounty price is even mentioned a few times as if the reader's going to forget how much it is between paragraphs. They know all of this information already, so this example of expository dialogue slows the pacing. Even more critically, it bores the reader.
You can also accidentally bore the reader if you’re repeating information that isn’t vital to the story. The next part of that chapter could describe how the sisters wander through the forest. The protagonist watches the stars pass by through the tree branches above and recalls a memory of watching stars with their mother in great detail.
The sister asks what the protagonist is thinking, who describes the memory a second time in exactly the same level of detail.
These situations often create the books we read where we go, “I liked it, but it could have been 100 pages shorter.” That’s likely because there was expository information scattered throughout, either in dialogue, internal monologue, or the storytelling itself.
-----
Don’t be afraid to use exposition when it’s to your reader’s advantage, but remember that it can be easily overdone. Beta readers are a great resource for catching those moments. You can also read the story out loud to hear what you’re repeating.
408 notes · View notes
lady-fey · 1 year
Text
How to handle info dumps that are rehashes for the audience, but needed for the characters
It’s incredibly common to tell a story where character A goes through something that deeply affects them. However, no one but character A and the audience know about this thing. A good portion of the story’s tension will come from the audience waiting to see character A confess the truth of The Thing to another character or even to a larger cast.
However, such info dumps often take a long time to write out in dialogue format and that presents a conundrum for the writer: you need to let character A tell their story in full, but the audience will be bored if you do that. Because the audience already knows the full story and they don’t really want to read a summary of it.
So what do you do?
You use one of my favorite writing techniques! I’ve never seen a name for this thing, so I’m going to call it “emotional exposition”. You can call it whatever you like. The basic idea is this: you skip the dialogue and focus on summarizing the events in an extremely short fashion that evokes the right emotions in the audience.
For example, say Alice saw someone get murdered and she’s kept that secret for a long time. This scene was the book’s opening, though, so the audience knows the full details. Alice is now confessing what happened to her friend, Sarah. Sarah gets the full dialogue and detailed information. The audience gets this:
Sarah watched in silence as Alice rose to her feet and crossed the room, coming to a stop beside the window. For a long while, the young woman didn’t say a word. She just stared out into the night. Finally, just as Sarah was considering saying something, Alice started to talk.
Her voice never rose above a whisper and yet Sarah could hear every word with perfect clarity. She sat there, horror growing, as her best friend spoke of a little girl hiding in a closet, smothering her sobs as a villain took away the only family she’d ever known.
Because the audience already knows what happened, they don’t need to know exactly what Alice is saying. What they need to know is how Sarah is reacting to what she’s being told. That’s why you can do this dialogue skipping thing and just give a brief callback to the events that are being discussed. It’s enough to remind the audience of what happened, but you trust them to remember the important stuff. Then you can move straight to the fallout of Sarah’s reaction to Alice’s confession without bogging the story down by rehashing things the audience already knows.
I use this technique and similar stuff all the time when I’m writing and I highly, highly recommend it. It allows for these emotional moments to be far more impactful because they’re not bogged down in unnecessary details. It also lets you skip over explaining the same thing 10 times even though the characters might need to.
1K notes · View notes
wopfedra · 2 months
Text
Please stop telling us what shit is and let us discover 😭
I get that the limited time is annoying, but too much exposition is just told :(
Last week a friend and I were talking about how easy the Lotus Hotel bit would be. Take out the 3min exposition at the beginning where they just tell you "Oh no, it's the Lotus Hotel" and put it to the end, there would literally be NO change in the time of the episode, just let them discover "Oh shit, we keep forgetting -WAIT THERE WAS THIS THING ABOUT LOTUS IN MYTHOLOGY WE NEED TO LEAVE!" Like:
We literally have the same thing going on: they enter the Hotel, need to find Hermes, split up. P&A meet with Hermes, Grover meets Augustus and is like "Huh, what's going on -WAIT" but he dismisses/forgets his line of thought. Back to A&P who had the conversation w/Hermes, then we get the "Let's get Grover - wait, who's Grover" convo, they look at each other, realise sth is wrong, find Grover, leave Hotel. THEN we get the explanation on wtf happened. See, no extra time needed, just some rearranging.
Now this episode again, what WAS this opening. You could've just left him out completely, if you just dump all the exposition on us about the dude anyway and he literally plays NO relevance to the plot of the episode.
I liked the rest of the episode, I really did. (Like, the flashbacks to Young!Percy and Sally? Sooo good. Sally's struggle feels so real, so AUTHENTIC! And not just that! The confrontation with Hades? Sooo well done. It happens too often in Movies or Shows that a Misunderstanding just. Isn't explained at all: One party gets angry, doesn't believe the other, it gets loud ... But this. Is was calm. The confusion was so real. The understanding was so real. The entire confrontation regarding this just. It felt so REALISTIC! Aah. Loved the episode over all) But. Just stoooopp with the tell don't show thing you've got going on😭
61 notes · View notes
bizarreauhavre · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
Nadia Lee Cohen, (Carole), 2022.
305 notes · View notes
writingwithfolklore · 3 months
Text
Backstory is Revealed When You Need It, Not Before
                Recently I shared my first 30 pages with my writing mentor, and now I'm sharing her advice with all of you (This is part 2! Find part 1 here). She told me my beginning read very slowly because I was giving backstory before it was relevant in the story, rather than intertwining it with the action.
                What I mean by that is, I was giving a lot of exposition on my world just through my character noting it to herself. I worried that if I didn’t lay down the basics right away, when I did mention it later it would come as a bad shock to readers.
While that might have a logic to it, it's very slow to read just exposition on the world. To get these details through naturally and when they're relevant, while still conveying them in the beginning, we needed to create a conflict for my main character to react to right away.
This way, I could spend the first couple pages revealing the essentials of my world and main character without halting the pacing to a stop.
                Okay, consider these two examples:
Character A avoided the alleyways as they travelled to the store. The city was overrun by gangs who liked to lurk in their dark corners, jumping out at unaware passerby’s for coin or favours.
                Vs.
The back of Character A’s neck prickled as they passed an alleyway that swallowed all light. They were steps away when they heard a raspy voice, “don’t you know you gotta pay the fee to pass through our turf?”
                How this character resolves this conflict will betray who they are as a person. Do they cower? Do they fight back? Do they reveal they have connections to another gang, or the police?
                This little conflict, as well as establishing a vital part of your world and character, should in some small way connect to the bigger conflict up ahead, aka the inciting incident.
                In this example, this specific gang would probably be where the main antagonist is from—or the consequences of how they deal with this follow them into the inciting incident in some way.
                Backstory only when it’s most relevant, not to anticipate when it will be important later.
                Good luck!
869 notes · View notes
jeanfrancoisrey · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media
Bustier de Madonna par Jean-Paul Gaultier…
89 notes · View notes
libraryofva · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
Recent Acquisition - Ephemera Collection
World's Fair 1940. New York. Your World's Fair, From May 11, 1940
420 notes · View notes
Text
Dinkclump Linkdump
Tumblr media
I'm on tour with my new novel The Bezzle! Catch me TONIGHT in LA (Saturday night, with Adam Conover), Seattle (Monday, with Neal Stephenson), then Portland, Phoenix and more!
Tumblr media
Some Saturday mornings, I look at the week's blogging and realize I have a lot more links saved up than I managed to write about this week, and then I do a linkdump. There've been 14 of these, and this is number 15:
https://pluralistic.net/tag/linkdump/
Attentive readers will note that this isn't Saturday. You're right. But I'm on a book tour and every day is shatterday, because damn, it's grueling and I'm not the spry manchild who took Little Brother on the road in 2008 – I'm a 52 year old with two artificial hips. Hence: an out-of-cycle linkdump. Come see me on tour and marvel at my verticality!
https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/16/narrative-capitalism/#bezzle-tour
Best thing I read this week, hands down, was Ryan Broderick's Garbage Day piece, "AI search is a doomsday cult":
https://www.garbageday.email/p/ai-search-doomsday-cult
Broderick makes so many excellent points in this piece. First among them: AI search sucks, but that's OK, because no one is asking for AI search. This only got more true later in the week when everyone's favorite spicy autocomplete accidentally loaded the James Joyce module:
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2024/02/chatgpt-alarms-users-by-spitting-out-shakespearean-nonsense-and-rambling/
(As Matt Webb noted, Chatbots have slid rapidly from Star Trek (computers give you useful information in a timely fashion) to Douglas Adams (computers spout hostile, impenetrable nonsense at you):
https://interconnected.org/home/2024/02/21/adams
But beyond the unsuitability of AI for search results and beyond the public's yawning indifference to AI-infused search, Broderick makes a more important point: AI search is about summarizing web results so you don't have to click links and read the pages yourself.
If that's the future of the web, who the fuck is going to write those pages that the summarizer summarizes? What is the incentive, the business-model, the rational explanation for predicting a world in which millions of us go on writing web-pages, when the gatekeepers to the web have promised to rig the game so that no one will ever visit those pages, or read what we've written there, or even know it was us who wrote the underlying material the summarizer just summarized?
If we stop writing the web, AIs will have to summarize each other, forming an inhuman centipede of botshit-ingestion. This is bad news, because there's pretty solid mathematical evidence that training a bot on botshit makes it absolutely useless. Or, as the authors of the paper – including the eminent cryptographer Ross Anderson – put it, "using model-generated content in training causes irreversible defects":
https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.17493
This is the mathematical evidence for Jathan Sadowski's "Hapsburg AI," or, as the mathematicians call it, "The Curse of Recursion" (new band-name just dropped).
Tumblr media
But if you really have your heart set on living in a ruined dystopia dominated by hostile artificial life-forms, have no fear. As Hamilton Nolan writes in "Radical Capital," a rogues gallery of worker-maiming corporations have asked a court to rule that the NLRB can't punish them for violating labor law:
https://www.hamiltonnolan.com/p/radical-capital
Trader Joe’s, Amazon, Starbucks and SpaceX have all made this argument to various courts. If they prevail, then there will be no one in charge of enforcing federal labor law. Yes, this will let these companies go on ruining their workers' lives, but more importantly, it will give carte blanche to every other employer in the land. At one end of this process is a boss who doesn't want to recognize a union – and at the other end are farmers dying of heat-stroke.
The right wing coalition that has put this demand before the court has all sorts of demands, from forced birth to (I kid you not), the end of recreational sex:
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2024/02/getting-rid-of-birth-control-is-a-key-gop-agenda-item-for-the-second-trump-term
That coalition is backed by ultra-rich monopolists who want wreck the nation that their rank-and-file useful idiots want to wreck your body. These are the monopoly cheerleaders who gave us the abomination that is the Pharmacy Benefit Manager – a useless intermediary that gets to screw patients and pharmacists – and then let PBMs consolidate and merge with pharmacy monopolists.
One such inbred colossus is Change Healthcare, a giant PBM that is, in turn, a mere tendril of United Healthcare, which merged the company with Optum. The resulting system – held together with spit and wishful thinking – has access to the health records of a third of Americans and processes 15 billion prescriptions per day.
Or rather, it did process that amount – until the all-your-eggs-in-one-badly-maintained basket strategy failed on Wednesday, and Change's systems went down due to an unspecified "cybersecurity incident." In the short term, this meant that tens of millions of Americans who tried to refill their prescriptions were told to either pay cash or come back later (if you don't die first). That was the first shoe dropping. The second shoe is the medical records of a third of the country.
Don't worry, I'm sure those records are fine. After all, nothing says security like "merging several disparate legacy IT systems together while simultaneously laying off half your IT staff as surplus to requirements and an impediment to extracting a special dividend for the private equity owners who are, of course, widely recognized as the world's greatest information security practitioners."
Look, not everything is terrible. Some computers are actually getting better. Framework's user-serviceable, super-rugged, easy-to-repair, powerful laptops are the most exciting computers I've ever owned – or broken:
https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/13/graceful-failure/#frame
Now you can get one for $500!
https://frame.work/blog/first-framework-laptop-16-shipments-and-a-499-framework
And the next generation is turning our surprisingly well, despite all our worst efforts. My kid – now 16! – and I just launched our latest joint project, "The Sushi Chronicles," a small website recording our idiosyncratic scores for nearly every sushi restaurant in Burbank, Glendale, Studio City and North Hollywood:
https://sushichronicles.org/
This is the record of two years' worth of Daughter-Daddy sushi nights that started as a way to get my picky eater to try new things and has turned into the highlight of my week. If you're in the area and looking for a nice piece of fish, give it a spin (also, we belatedly realized that we've never reviewed our favorite place, Kuru Kuru in the CVS Plaza on North Hollywood Way – we'll be rectifying that soon).
And yes, we have a lavishly corrupt Supreme Court, but at least now everyone knows it. Glenn Haumann's even set up a Gofundme to raise money to bribe Clarence Thomas (now deleted, alas):
https://www.gofundme.com/f/pzhj4q-the-clarence-thomas-signing-bonus-fund-give-now
The funds are intended as a "signing bonus" in the event that Thomas takes up John Oliver on his offer of a $2.4m luxury RV and $1m/year for life if he'll resign from the court:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE-VJrdHMug
This is truly one of Oliver's greatest bits, showcasing his mastery over the increasingly vital art of turning abstruse technical issues into entertainment that negates the performative complexity used by today's greatest villains to hide their misdeeds behind a Shield of Boringness (h/t Dana Clare).
The Bezzle is my contribution to turning abstruse scams into a high-impact technothriller that pierces that Shield of Boringness. The key to this is to master exposition, ignoring the (vastly overrated) rule that one must "show, not tell." Good exposition is hard to do, but when it works, it's amazing (as anyone who's read Neal Stephenson's 1,600-word explanation of how to eat Cap'n Crunch cereal in Cryptonomicon can attest). I wrote about this for Mary Robinette Kowal's "My Favorite Bit" this week:
https://maryrobinettekowal.com/journal/my-favorite-bit/my-favorite-bit-cory-doctorow-talks-about-the-bezzle/
Of course, an undisputed master of this form is Adam Conover, whose Adam Ruins Everything show helped invent it. Adam is joining me on stage in LA tomorrow night at Vroman's at 5:30PM, to host me in a book-tour event for my novel The Bezzle:
https://www.vromansbookstore.com/Cory-Doctorow-discusses-The-Bezzle
Tumblr media
If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/23/gazeteer/#out-of-cycle
Tumblr media
Image: Peter Craven (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aggregate_output_%287637833962%29.jpg
CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/deed.en
38 notes · View notes