exposition: the art of it

[VerbalAbuse]

nowadays it's common for a novel to start in the middle of a shooting scene.

it gets me frustrated. who are these characters? why do I have to care for them? I have to follow them for thirty, fifty pages, and I don't know the first thing about them. who are they? what are their goals? why are they shooting at each other? what are the stakes? why the fuck am I reading this shit?

when I was in school, they were teaching us that a story has five parts, the first of which was called "exposition."

later, I've learned on the internet that exposition is evil. worse than the nazis.

now granted, there's good exposition and bad exposition.

but there's also the epoch. back then, when you picked a book, you kept at it, even if the first few pages were kinda boring. what else where you going to do? nowadays, you start reading a story online, if it does not "hook" you in the first paragraph, you move on. you close the page, look for something else. try a different story.

the question is: how do you do exposition? what is the good way to do it?

 

[SimonDoom]

The right way to do exposition, in my humble opinion, is to work it into the story in pieces, artfully, as economically as possible, and only to the degree necessary to tell the story.

If you HAVE TO do significant exposition, try to do it in the form of a dialogue, or multiple dialogues, where one character is telling the other something he doesn't know.

Example: Fellowship of the Ring. It does not start out with a long background about the ring. It starts with Bilbo's birthday party, and what will be his farewell from the Shire. The exposition doesn't happen until after a time jump of many years, when Gandalf visits Frodo and finally reveals to him the identity of the Ring. That chapter really stretched things, because it was a long exposition, but it was an interesting enough story, and it was told as one character telling the main character what was going on. There was more exposition later during the Council of Elrond chapter, which, once again, consisted of some characters telling other characters things that they did not know. If you've seen the movie, you'll know that the scene was reduced even further, without, I think, hurting the drama. Readers don't need as much exposition as some might think they do.

Or think about Raiders of the Lost Ark. It started with an action scene that brilliantly established the character of Indiana Jones. Only in the NEXT scene was the exposition provided, and it was cleverly done by having 2 separate sets of 2 characters revealing to the other set of 2 things that they did not know. If the movie had started with an exposition about the Ark of the Covenant, it would have fallen flat.

I think it's rare in an erotic story that you need to start with much exposition. I rarely read erotic stories that begin well with a lot of exposition. You should start with a sexy scene, or idea, or most probably, a character that needs to be established. Weave in the exposition after you've done that.

 

[ElectricBlue]

The right way to do exposition, in my humble opinion, is to work it into the story in pieces, artfully, as economically as possible, and only to the degree necessary to tell the story.

This.

If you start a story with a truck load of exposition, you probably didn't start the story early enough.

A great big infodump at the beginning of a story is almost always back click and out, for me. It's nearly always irrelevant anyway (those times that you do, for some daft reason, continue on).

 

[TheRedChamber]

Example: Fellowship of the Ring. It does not start out with a long background about the ring. It starts with Bilbo's birthday party, and what will be his farewell from the Shire.

Kind of. I think your memory plays tricks with you. Tolkien actually has a multi-page (28 in my e-copy) introduction to hobbits, their appearance, their customs and their history and the finding of the ring. It the info-dumpiest thing ever, but also kind of interesting - especially as he was one of the first people to just flat out make up a whole new fantasy race. You probably can't do that these days with your newly created Dobbit race. Then in the first chapter, while the party is mention straight away in the first paragraph, it then goes on into a multipage explaination of how Bilbo is regarded in Hobbiton and how is nephew Frodo came to live with him. Then there is a long discussion in the pub lead by Sam's father, not about the party, but about why the Baggins are so, ahem, 'queer'. It's only on page 8 that Gandalf turns up and on page 9 he says "So you mean to go through with your plan then?" that the story, as most of us remember it, actually begins.

The film of course begins thousands of years prior with a big battle which is the very definition of 'what the fuck is going on?' - even with the Galadrial voice over to guide us.

Put side by side it's a pretty neat example of old and new styles of writing.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'll give an example that's very common at Literotica.

A guy writing a story about his hot wife. He starts with a long exposition about all her body statistics and how they met and blah blah blah. No, absolutely not. This is almost never the best way to do it.

Start, instead, with a scene or a dialogue between the man and his wife that reveals something about the husband and wife that the reader will find interesting and hook them and make them think: "I want to read more about this sexy, interesting couple." Weave in the exposition later, as naturally as possible, and if it isn't absolutely necessary for the story cut it out.

 

[NotWise]

I used to start stories with more exposition than I use now. My earlier Lit stories use a little exposition to set the opening scene. This can be done in first person, with the character talking more-or-less directly to the reader or in third with the narrator going on.

How would you judge the readers' acceptance of the technique? As near as I can tell, the readers were fine with a little opening exposition. Personally, I tend to get bored. As a reader, I often don't need the exposition as much as the author needs it.

Over time and with experience, I've started using less exposition and mixing it with dialogue. It's more dynamic. It's more fun to write. On the downside, it can require a more extended opening. The readers may not care at all.

 

[KeithD]

nowadays it's common for a novel to start in the middle of a shooting scene.

it gets me frustrated. who are these characters? why do I have to care for them? I have to follow them for thirty, fifty pages, and I don't know the first thing about them. who are they? what are their goals? why are they shooting at each other? what are the stakes? why the fuck am I reading this shit?

Yep, they do. It's been shown (through the thriller genre) that starting in confusion like this engages the participation in the story by the reader. It's certainly how I do it.

They taught you how to do a story in what level of schooling? They don't normally teach fiction writing until creative writing courses in college. The high school level is usually teaching essay writing. And what you say you were taught to write isn't commercial fiction. Different genres can start in different ways, but you are absolutely right that most commercial fiction genres these days start with trying to engage readers in the plot and encourage the reader to commit to the plot immediately. This writing is for the thinking/engaged reader rather one requiring spoon feeding.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Yep, they do. It's been shown (through the thriller genre) that starting in confusion like this engages the participation in the story by the reader. It's certainly how I do it.

They taught you how to do a story in what level of schooling? They don't normally teach fiction writing until creative writing courses in college. The high school level is usually teaching essay writing. And what you say you were taught to write isn't commercial fiction. Different genres can start in different ways, but you are absolutely right that most commercial fiction genres these days start with trying to engage readers in the plot and encourage the reader to commit to the plot immediately. This writing is for the thinking/engaged reader rather one requiring spoon feeding.

movies are a different medium. images convey lot more than words. you put one of the most popular actors in your film, and the audience knows right away who should they care about.

I read books starting with shooting scenes and I don't know why I should care about the MC. I can't put a face on him, an age, a motivation -- anything.

also, a lot of thrillers start slowly. a nice family scene. maybe a father-daughter bonding scene. only later gets the daughter kidnapped, and father, revealed to be a secret operative and world class weapons expert, jumps into action.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Yep, they do. It's been shown (through the thriller genre) that starting in confusion like this engages the participation in the story by the reader. It's certainly how I do it.

They taught you how to do a story in what level of schooling? They don't normally teach fiction writing until creative writing courses in college. The high school level is usually teaching essay writing. And what you say you were taught to write isn't commercial fiction. Different genres can start in different ways, but you are absolutely right that most commercial fiction genres these days start with trying to engage readers in the plot and encourage the reader to commit to the plot immediately. This writing is for the thinking/engaged reader rather one requiring spoon feeding.

movies, thrillers especially, cater for an ever dumber audience. it's a race to the bottom to reach the widest audience possible. you can't leave the dumbos out when you want to sell all the tickets.

 

[TheRedChamber]

One way to think of it is that the start of your story should be a series of promises to the reader. They need to get a feeling for what the story is going to be about in terms of characters, tone, kinks and so on. You also want to grab their interest early. And, as noted before, attention spans aren't what they once were - you used to have to spend a good chunk of change on a book or at least on the bus to the library, so you tended to stick with a story at least for a few pages. These days and on Lit, there's always the back button and the other 200 stories published today.

(I wrote a How To that kind of covers this recently if you're interested.)

One rule I tend to follow is to always start stories with an action. Give the character something to do for the first few paragraphs and a lot of the exposition will fall out anyway. And maybe 1k words in you can stop and hover up any background you haven't mentioned yet.

Consider this extract from a story called 'A Day with Miss May' that I've finished but haven't posted yet (it's going in the Nude Day event next month). Description is 'He encounters a real beach bunny in the wild'

I first see her standing just outside the beach shop. It’s no more than a wooden shack with a bunch of buckets and spades arranged around the roof. There’s a humming electric generator powering the cooler, and a miniature TV showing some overblown Italian soap opera. She’s talking in a broad American accent, something southern, and the owner is talking back in broken English. They’re not arguing exactly, but she’s loudly making it clear that she still doesn’t understand him.

The strings of a black bikini disappear under a towel she has wrapped around her like a shawl. Lower down is a pair of tight denim shorts with a Discman hooked into them. She’s waving around a pair of sunglasses in one hand and a bottle of sun-tan lotion in the other as she attempts to communicate. That’s more or less all that is visible from the back, except the bright golden hair spilling from under a broad sun hat all the way down her shoulders and some very long legs which end in a disappointingly ordinary pair of flip-flops.

Suddenly, I decide that what I need most in all the world is a Coke.

I step up from the pebble beach onto the concrete and wander into the shop. I listen more as I pick out a glass bottle. Pulling out some Lira out from my pocket, I approach the counter, such as it is.

I get the first proper look at her face and I’m suddenly struck by lightning.

How is she here? How is she in real life?

It takes me a second to find my tongue. “Can I help?”

“I don’t suppose you speak Italian?” she says.

“Travel only,” I say. “But this situation looks like it’s straight from Linguaphone stage one.”

“I’m trying to see if they have any stronger factor. This is only ten.”

This is 310 words. It establishes that the two MCs are on holiday in Italy (later confirmed as Amalfi), eagled eyed readers will assume that the story is taking place in the 90s (not overly important if they don't), we've got a brief but tantalizing description of the female MC (who will confirmed to be a Playboy model after a brief converstation in a moment, but readers should guess it from the title) and Playboy model is kind of the fetish/unique selling point here, the male MC has been just a little proactive in making things happen (which is generally good for your PoV character). The basic premise of the story is close to be established - ordinary bloke has a chance to shoot his shot at a centrefold model. The first and very minor 'quest' is established - he needs to find her a bottle of suntan lotion and has until that's completed to find a way to extend the encounter.

It will later be revealed that the MC is on holiday because he's just broken up with his girlfriend who cheated on him. He was going to ask her to marry him and he was planning on Amalfi as the honeymoon destination. But none of that is important on page one. It will be 6k words in, but the reader will learn about it at the same time as the female MC.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

One way to think of it is that the start of your story should be a series of promises to the reader. They need to get a feeling for what the story is going to be about in terms of characters, tone, kinks and so on. You also want to grab their interest early. And, as noted before, attention spans aren't what they once were - you used to have to spend a good chunk of change on a book or at least on the bus to the library, so you tended to stick with a story at least for a few pages. These days and on Lit, there's always the back button and the other 200 stories published today.

(I wrote a How To that kind of covers this recently if you're interested.)

One rule I tend to follow is to always start stories with an action. Give the character something to do for the first few paragraphs and a lot of the exposition will fall out anyway. And maybe 1k words in you can stop and hover up any background you haven't mentioned yet.

Consider this extract from a story called 'A Day with Miss May' that I've finished but haven't posted yet (it's going in the Nude Day event next month). Description is 'He encounters a real beach bunny in the wild'


This is 310 words. It establishes that the two MCs are on holiday in Italy (later confirmed as Amalfi), eagled eyed readers will assume that the story is taking place in the 90s (not overly important if they don't), we've got a brief but tantalizing description of the female MC (who will confirmed to be a Playboy model after a brief converstation in a moment, but readers should guess it from the title) and Playboy model is kind of the fetish/unique selling point here, the male MC has been just a little proactive in making things happen (which is generally good for your PoV character). The basic premise of the story is close to be established - ordinary bloke has a chance to shoot his shot at a centrefold model. The first and very minor 'quest' is established - he needs to find her a bottle of suntan lotion and has until that's completed to find a way to extend the encounter.

It will later be revealed that the MC is on holiday because he's just broken up with his girlfriend who cheated on him. He was going to ask her to marry him and he was planning on Amalfi as the honeymoon destination. But none of that is important on page one. It will be 6k words in, but the reader will learn about it at the same time as the female MC.

I agree that the story should establish very early on -- pretty much at start -- what it's about. That's the thing.

Starting a story with a shooting scene fails, IMO, to do that.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I agree that the story should establish very early on -- pretty much at start -- what it's about. That's the thing.

Starting a story with a shooting scene fails, IMO, to do that.

Well it depends on the story. Star War (the first one) starts with a shoot out which establishes nicely that there is in fact a War amongst the Stars on. It's perfectly reasonable to start a Cop movie with the police officer main character involved in a shoot out (bank robbery say) to kick the story off with a bang. People understand what police officers are and what bank robbers are so you probably don't need a whole bunch of exposition. If you start a movie and your audience is thinking who is this, why is this happening, then you've written(/directed) it wrongly. But even with a good shoot-out you probably don't want it to go on to long before you slow down and actually introduce everyone.

 

[Britva415]

Shooting scenes in media res which go on for "thirty to fifty pages" without providing any reasons, stakes, characterization, goals or feels - really, really bad writing. Allow me to point out that this describes an exaggeration and not anything OP ever really read.

On the other hand, bad-writing also describes novels which fail to have anything happen in the first thirty to fifty pages. That's a lot of exposition for nothing to happen which is a plot point or a dramatic scene. However: This is more realistic, in the sense that there are novels out there like this, or, there would be if someone didn't decide to make it start with some action.

Basically what I'm saying is that sometimes that opening action scene is not the problem, but a band-aid on a real problem.

 

[Thanatos_X13]

My question is, what novels are you reading that they're commonly starting with a shootout? Maybe that's a genre convention. Romance is the biggest genre in the US publishing market, and without stats to back me up, I'm 99% certain that those aren't commonly starting with a gun battle. I think it's fairly uncommon for novels to jump right into an action scene like that.

But more to your point, there is nothing wrong with exposition, but writing it well is a skill you have to cultivate, like everything else. Don't bother listening to "the internet" b/c "the internet" hears a word or phrase and suddenly becomes an expert. (see: "death of the author" is when creator of thing I love turns out to be <insert something awful/criminal>, but it's fine for me to still buy their work and support them). Also, if you're listening to the opinion of anyone who says exposition is as bad or worse than Nazism, you've already taken a wrong turn several miles back. Echoing what SimonDoom and other have said, I would argue that good novels start in motion and pull in exposition as needed to flesh out the events of the story. How a story does this comes down to skill and style and even genre conventions. In general, I consider exposition to exist to support the events of the story and all stories should begin with a critical event. For example, Jeff VanderMeer's Annihilation starts with

The tower, which was not supposed to be there, plunges into the earth in a place just before the black pine forest begins to give way to swamp and then the reeds and wind-gnarled trees of the marsh flats. Beyond the marsh flats and the natural canals lies the ocean and, a little farther down the coast, a derelict lighthouse. All of this part of the country had been abandoned for decades, for reasons that are not easy to relate. Our expedition was the first to enter Area X for more than two years, and much of our predecessors' equipment had rusted, their tents and sheds little more than husks. Looking out over that untroubled landscape, I do not believe any of us could yet see the threat.

One of my favorite opening paragraphs to a novel ever. Your tastes may vary, but what I think makes it so good is it plants us in the middle of a scene with the story already in motion - the expedition is in Area X surveying the land but there is a threat they are unaware of. The following pages include tons of exposition, but it's well-written and interesting. Some things are explained, a lot isn't. There's "action" interspersed, not gunfights, but things like setting up camp and replacing damaged gear. Descriptions of weird animal sounds in the woods. Etc. Etc. I hope you get my point. We're getting immersed in the setting slowly, being given just enough information to understand what's going on, but keeping enough back to create intrigue. Also, not explaining too much, or things that don't need explaining. A well-written story doesn't need to start with a high-octane set-piece to grab a reader. Instead, it can spend an entire paragraph describing the landscape and then end with "oh, btw, there's something dangerous out there and no one knows it's coming." IMO, it's a pretty good hook.

As you say, there's good and bad exposition. Unfortunately, there's no simple formula for getting it right. You learn by doing. If there's any golden rule for it, I'd say "Use sparingly, and only as needed." If we're talking about beginnings specifically, begin as close to your inciting incident as possible, and begin with the cart already in motion, off the rails if possible. For example, N.K. Jemisen starts The Fifth Season with the MC's son being murdered by his father on the same day the apocalyptic, titular 5th season begins.

Well it depends on the story. Star War (the first one) starts with a shoot out which establishes nicely that there is in fact a War amongst the Stars on. It's perfectly reasonable to start a Cop movie with the police officer main character involved in a shoot out (bank robbery say) to kick the story off with a bang. People understand what police officers are and what bank robbers are so you probably don't need a whole bunch of exposition. If you start a movie and your audience is thinking who is this, why is this happening, then you've written(/directed) it wrongly. But even with a good shoot-out you probably don't want it to go on to long before you slow down and actually introduce everyone.

But the thing is, Star Wars doesn't begin with a shoot out. It begins with a text crawl that establishes the stakes of the film and the context of the shoot out. Also, movies are a vastly different medium. The audiovisual nature of film allows directors and screenwriters to do things a novelist could never do. But otherwise, I agree with you.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Well it depends on the story. Star War (the first one) starts with a shoot out which establishes nicely that there is in fact a War amongst the Stars on. It's perfectly reasonable to start a Cop movie with the police officer main character involved in a shoot out (bank robbery say) to kick the story off with a bang. People understand what police officers are and what bank robbers are so you probably don't need a whole bunch of exposition. If you start a movie and your audience is thinking who is this, why is this happening, then you've written(/directed) it wrongly. But even with a good shoot-out you probably don't want it to go on to long before you slow down and actually introduce everyone.

Properly, Star Wars starts with text exposition. In a movie, there no more conspicuous way to dump info. It undoes the very concept of a movie.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I think Simon's first post in the thread summed it perfectly. Nothing further to add.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

My question is, what novels are you reading that they're commonly starting with a shootout? Maybe that's a genre convention. Romance is the biggest genre in the US publishing market, and without stats to back me up, I'm 99% certain that those aren't commonly starting with a gun battle. I think it's fairly uncommon for novels to jump right into an action scene like that.

But more to your point, there is nothing wrong with exposition, but writing it well is a skill you have to cultivate, like everything else. Don't bother listening to "the internet" b/c "the internet" hears a word or phrase and suddenly becomes an expert. (see: "death of the author" is when creator of thing I love turns out to be <insert something awful/criminal>, but it's fine for me to still buy their work and support them). Also, if you're listening to the opinion of anyone who says exposition is as bad or worse than Nazism, you've already taken a wrong turn several miles back. Echoing what SimonDoom and other have said, I would argue that good novels start in motion and pull in exposition as needed to flesh out the events of the story. How a story does this comes down to skill and style and even genre conventions. In general, I consider exposition to exist to support the events of the story and all stories should begin with a critical event. For example, Jeff VanderMeer's Annihilation starts with



One of my favorite opening paragraphs to a novel ever. Your tastes may vary, but what I think makes it so good is it plants us in the middle of a scene with the story already in motion - the expedition is in Area X surveying the land but there is a threat they are unaware of. The following pages include tons of exposition, but it's well-written and interesting. Some things are explained, a lot isn't. There's "action" interspersed, not gunfights, but things like setting up camp and replacing damaged gear. Descriptions of weird animal sounds in the woods. Etc. Etc. I hope you get my point. We're getting immersed in the setting slowly, being given just enough information to understand what's going on, but keeping enough back to create intrigue. Also, not explaining too much, or things that don't need explaining. A well-written story doesn't need to start with a high-octane set-piece to grab a reader. Instead, it can spend an entire paragraph describing the landscape and then end with "oh, btw, there's something dangerous out there and no one knows it's coming." IMO, it's a pretty good hook.

As you say, there's good and bad exposition. Unfortunately, there's no simple formula for getting it right. You learn by doing. If there's any golden rule for it, I'd say "Use sparingly, and only as needed." If we're talking about beginnings specifically, begin as close to your inciting incident as possible, and begin with the cart already in motion, off the rails if possible. For example, N.K. Jemisen starts The Fifth Season with the MC's son being murdered by his father on the same day the apocalyptic, titular 5th season begins.



But the thing is, Star Wars doesn't begin with a shoot out. It begins with a text crawl that establishes the stakes of the film and the context of the shoot out. Also, movies are a vastly different medium. The audiovisual nature of film allows directors and screenwriters to do things a novelist could never do. But otherwise, I agree with you.

to answer your first question: I was talking about modern sci-fi novels. Stuff written and published in the last twenty years.

Annihilation is probably a bad example. Its merits are, well, dubious.

 

[ronde]

nowadays it's common for a novel to start in the middle of a shooting scene.

it gets me frustrated. who are these characters? why do I have to care for them? I have to follow them for thirty, fifty pages, and I don't know the first thing about them. who are they? what are their goals? why are they shooting at each other? what are the stakes? why the fuck am I reading this shit?

when I was in school, they were teaching us that a story has five parts, the first of which was called "exposition."

later, I've learned on the internet that exposition is evil. worse than the nazis.

now granted, there's good exposition and bad exposition.

but there's also the epoch. back then, when you picked a book, you kept at it, even if the first few pages were kinda boring. what else where you going to do? nowadays, you start reading a story online, if it does not "hook" you in the first paragraph, you move on. you close the page, look for something else. try a different story.

the question is: how do you do exposition? what is the good way to do it?

Just my opinion, but the opening paragraphs need to give the reader a reason to keep on reading. If that means the main character is dodging bullets and that fits with the genre, there's nothing wrong with that. If it's a romance, I'd write some reasons for the main characters to be where they are and leave the reader wondering what they were going to do next. In my sci-fi stories, I tend to start with a scene that sets the stage for what is coming next. Any descriptions would come later when they meet for the first time.

I wouldn't keep reading a story that started with just a physical description of the characters and their personalities. That would read to me at least like a primary school reader.

"See Jane with her red hair. See Dave hugging his puppy. See Jane tell Dave she likes his puppy. See Dave tell Jame he likes her red hair."

Of course, it's a given that everything on the internet is absolutely true and unquestionable, so perhaps I'm in error.

 

[Bamagan]

I think those questions are ones any reader is likely to have when they start a book, regardless of what kind of opening scene or chapter it provides. Neither a shoot-out, an info dump, nor a sex scene will necessarily convey much about why the reader should be invested in the characters, except maybe when the reader is the kind of person who latches on to a single 'relatable' detail obsessively.

But, kind of following on from what a couple of others alluded to above, the choice of opening scene can (hopefully) convey the tone of the work, and something of its style and use of language, which will often be more important to reader enjoyment than the actual events (in the sense that certain types of writing, while being technically correct, can draw some readers in but also drive others away or distract them from the narrative). So it's a way of showing the people who pick up the book whether they can expect purple prose, something 'high-minded' or 'literary', or something that relies on pretty plain language, all of which have their fans and detractors.

 

[Thanatos_X13]

to answer your first question: I was talking about modern sci-fi novels. Stuff written and published in the last twenty years.

Annihilation is probably a bad example. Its merits are, well, dubious.

Are you trolling? Annihilation is an award-winning novel that was generally well-received by critics. It may not be to your tastes, but I fail to see how its merits could be dubious.

I don't read sci-fi, so I'll have to take your word for it that a lot of them begin with out-of-context gun battles, or whatever. Perhaps that's also why I don't read sci-fi, b/c I wouldn't like that.

 

[VerbalAbuse]

Are you trolling? Annihilation is an award-winning novel that was generally well-received by critics. It may not be to your tastes, but I fail to see how its merits could be dubious.

I don't read sci-fi, so I'll have to take your word for it that a lot of them begin with out-of-context gun battles, or whatever. Perhaps that's also why I don't read sci-fi, b/c I wouldn't like that.

See the reviews on goodreads. You don't need me to tell you that a lot of people have found it lacking.
The entire series has a poor score. Like here, the scale is 1 to 5. A score of below 4 indicates a pretty poor reception, considering that those who rate it tend to like the genre.

https://adamfontenot.com/post/looking_at_the_distribution_of_ratings_on_goodreads

Scores tend to improve with subsequent books in a series, as only fans keep reading -- and thus the number of votes decreases. With this series, the score for the subsequent books are worse than that of the first.

According to some analyses, the average rating on GR is around 3.9 (see linked article). Annihilation comes below the average.

 

[StillStunned]

In my opinion:

Readers engage with characters. This is determined by what they do, and how they feel, not by their backstory. Similarly, readers only care about the world you've built in so far as it impacts the characters that they've engaged with.

An action sequence, done properly, shows your character in action. We get to know the real person, to quote Firefly, better than any amount of exposition can give us.

Once your character has taken shape in your reader's mind, that's when you can broaden their gaze to show the rest of the world. Don't do it too soon, and do it in small bites.

I see it like this. Characters are what you give your readers. Sitting through your exposition is what they give you. They'll be more willing to give it to you if you've already given them something, otherwise it's all on credit. So you have to balance what you give and what you ask in return. A bit of this, then a bit of that.

 

[Yarglenurp]

I'm a huge fan of writing in an "action" scene upfront. It's not called "expositionotica."

 

[nice90sguy]

I'm a huge fan of writing in an "action" scene upfront. It's not called "expositionotica."

I like that too, but it's not always appropriate. Sometimes it can come off as desperate, like you're worried the reader will get bored. I'm surprised at how patient some readers here are, happy to take the longer ride.

 

[HeyAll]

At minimum, the very worst kind of exposition is starting a story with, "Jeff was a talented lawyer."

Those kinds of declarative statements about a character are the worst, though I must admit, I used to do things similar.

The best way, generally speaking, is to reveal things when they need to be revealed.

You have to pre-empt the reader also. Example, if looks are important to a character, then you have to mention that right away, or else readers will imagine it differently. If the woman having red hair is central to the story, then mention that right away, or else readers will imagine it one way, then you're pulling a different way.