Writing interesting exposition

[Softouch911]

Since so many of the AH folk are writers at least parttime, maybe this will be a good place to get a new approach to a writing problem.

How do you make exposition interesting? I mean all of the background details that set a story and its situation and, perhaps, motivate its characters.

It's not a problem in a story in a familiar setting (Times Square, the Old West), with flat/stereotyped characters (the kind you see on commercials), and no ideas to speak of that challenge the reader.

In the "canned" (stereotype) story, a clue or mention can be made in dialogue. A sentence or two of scenery suffices. Abstract ideas are on the order of "love your mother." So exposition can be woven into the natural flow of the narration.

But I tend to write about specific locations and round characters and sometimes think I need an idea or two in the background. Sometimes all of these needs for exposition combine, as they are for me presently, in a BDSM story -- full of protocol and jargon that is best clarified for readers.

In the "round" story, where one or more of the back-story factors actually have to be developed or clarified, exposition can suffocate the drama. Most of us have run into it at one point or another .... the story is progressing just fine, suspense perhaps is building toward the climax, and Boom .... we're hit with something that sounds like the fine print on a wireless advert.

I've developed some strategies with mixed success: the Tom Clancy babble, in which characters argue or lecture one another; the Herman Melville Voice of God, in which the omniscient narrator looks wistfully out over the back of the white whale which is about to beat the crap out of Capt. Ahab to explain in a godlike voice some fact of cetacean anatomy; the Joyce Carole Oates internal monologue in which a character who is normally incapable of much in the way of a sentence undergoes an epiphany of sorts and lyricizes to herself about fate and destiny .... there are others but I hope it's clear that I'm not terribly happy with the way I'm using them.

Have you found a strategy for this part of writing that, maybe even with practice, is worth learning? Any examples you'd recommend?

TIA. ST

 

[kendo1]

Recommendations?

How about the Gor books, ie. how not to.
They do make wonderful reading though.

Ken

 

[Liar]

It's not a problem in a story in a familiar setting (Times Square, the Old West), with flat/stereotyped characters (the kind you see on commercials), and no ideas to speak of that challenge the reader.

In the "canned" (stereotype) story, a clue or mention can be made in dialogue. A sentence or two of scenery suffices. Abstract ideas are on the order of "love your mother." So exposition can be woven into the natural flow of the narration.

But I tend to write about specific locations and round characters and sometimes think I need an idea or two in the background. Sometimes all of these needs for exposition combine, as they are for me presently, in a BDSM story -- full of protocol and jargon that is best clarified for readers.

In the "round" story, where one or more of the back-story factors actually have to be developed or clarified, exposition can suffocate the drama. Most of us have run into it at one point or another .... the story is progressing just fine, suspense perhaps is building toward the climax, and Boom .... we're hit with something that sounds like the fine print on a wireless advert.

I'm sure that anyone who writes, with some success, stories that have more depth than "And then they fucked. The end." apply some sort of strategy to get the reader to the place where the situation she is put in makes sense. But I'm not sure that most are aware of what they to to succeed. Personally, I just write, until I get a gut-feeling that there is enough background and explanation for actions. Then I read it two times, and delete about half of it.

I kind of tend to use a rule for telling storied that I've borrowed from marketing narration. I think it's Stephen Denning, corporate storytelling guru, that said it: If you worry about explaining enough for the listener (the context here is mainy for verbally told stories, but I think it applies to writing) to get it, you are probably already explaining too much. It's not your story. The moment somebody listens to it (or reads), it's their story. It has to fit in their universe. And if it doesn't, they can most often make it fit, unless they are force-fed your entire universe.

The human imagination is a wonderful thing. If you tell it "a forest", the reader paints a forest. You don't have to describe every aspect of it. Because frankly, when it gets down to it, even if it's noy exactly your forest, most any forest will work. The same thing I think goes for emotions and motivations for characters. If you give your story a handful of actions that hints towards a state of mind, the reader will put your character in that state of mind. Or one similar enough, if your reader can't relate to that specific state, due to different experiences. You can never fully safeguard against that a reader won't experience when she reads, what you experienced when you wrote. So fretting too much on that is IMO a waste of energy. Fret a little, try to make sure the risk of steering in entirely the wrong direction is small, but don't overdo it.

But I think it's impoirtant to give the reader the benefit of doubt. Joining dots are what dem brains are for. And some of the best books and short stories I've read let me fill in a whole lot of blanks on my own.

 

[Carnevil9]

I think the old rule "show them, don't tell them" applies here as well.....Carney

 

[gauchecritic]

I agree with ELP. Show rather than expose.

He only hit her because he was angry that his mother was dead.

or

The sight of a slow trickle of blood from her lip inrushed to the vacuum which was his heart, making him gasp at his own loss, his fury and the welling tears he had refused since the age of seven.

Background is for suckers.

 

[scheherazade_79]

At the moment, I'm favouring the sudden spotlight approach. I begin by placing my main character in an interesting situation. I'm off long expositions, and want my characters to just explode onto the scene. Sure, I'll reveals bits and pieces of information as I go along, but the trick is not to give away too much - otherwise it interrupts the flow of the action.

I started doing it when I realised my expositions were getting too long-winded. I want my reader there from the first paragraph.

 

[Softouch911]

Thanks for the thoughtful responses --

Liar, I couldn't agree more that the power of suggestion is key. And that is why the description that Carnevil spoke of is so powerful. But description is not exposition --

You can avoid exposition only by using stereotypes, or by letting the reader's experience fill in the blanks (as you pointed out). It works insofar as the reader shares an experience with your characters .... but when that experience is different, exposition is needed.

I'm not sure background is for suckers, gauche, but many pretty pictures have been spectacular because of it.

Setting up the background is exactly the point I'm trying to figure out some new ways to accomplish. Sure, Carnevil, show vs. tell always works ... can you give me some non-boring examples of how to use it for purposes of exposition?

As Kendo says, the Gor series is an excellent example of how not to do it. Gor survives and grows because of the power of the ideas and the compelling fantasy, but not because of the quality of the fiction writing. What do you do in realistic fiction?

In a suspense/adventure book I like ("Absolute Power") Baldacci often does it by having his character's thoughts interrupted by outside influences that require some action, then return later to a couple more sentences of exposition. It works well, but the exposition is pretty simple and mostly character oriented and easy to dramatize. The others I mentioned in the OP were better examples -- all masters of fiction who constantly have people skipping over long passages the authors felt were vital because the exposition "feels" boring. Melville, Oates, even Clancy ... maybe there's no answer?

ST

 

[Softouch911]

At the moment, I'm favouring the sudden spotlight approach. I begin by placing my main character in an interesting situation. I'm off long expositions, and want my characters to just explode onto the scene. Sure, I'll reveals bits and pieces of information as I go along, but the trick is not to give away too much - otherwise it interrupts the flow of the action.

I started doing it when I realised my expositions were getting too long-winded. I want my reader there from the first paragraph.

Thanks. That sounds promising. Mind sharing an example? Any authors you like who use that technique? Have you ever seen it used for relatively complex ideas or background?

I'd like to know more on "spotlight" exposition.

ST

 

[scheherazade_79]

Thanks. That sounds promising. Mind sharing an example? Any authors you like who use that technique? Have you ever seen it used for relatively complex ideas or background?

I'd like to know more on "spotlight" exposition.

ST

I could try, but I'm slightly wrecked at the moment!

Here goes...

A spotlight exposition (which is a total 'Zadism') is when you begin with action. Screw the birds singing in the trees, screw what happened last Christmas, screw what your character ate for breakfast and what kind of childhood they had.

The action you involve them in has to be something out of the ordinary. I always consider the true mark of a person to be the way they behave when their back is up against the wall. If you describe them crossing the road, or making a sandwich, readers aren't going to be that interested - people cross the road and make sandwiches all the time. What's interesting in that?

Be bold. Have them being nabbed as they walk out of a shop and accused of shoplifting, have them running down the streets from an assailant, taking a spot kick in a game of soccer with only two minutes left, feeling really nauseous in an important situation. Make the reader want to know what happens next.

How your character responds tells the reader far more than any life history.

There's an wormhole exposition - the porthole exposition. You start with a scene that transports the reader back into an earlier time, and then returns to its original starting point. Hard to describe, but this

Wormhole exposition

is an example.

Any authors I can think of that use either of those techniques? I don't know. Big Brother will have to get back to you on that one in a more sober frame of mind

 

[Liar]

You can avoid exposition only by using stereotypes, or by letting the reader's experience fill in the blanks (as you pointed out). It works insofar as the reader shares an experience with your characters .... but when that experience is different, exposition is needed.

If so, shouldn't exposition be almost mandatory? Because everyone's experience differs.

Question: If your reader is so alien to the concept behind a character's motivation that an intricate explanation is the only way to make them understand it...will they? I mean, will they get emotionally involved with the character, feel what they feel (sympathize) or will they just academically understand the emotions and motivations involved (sympathize)? And if so, is that good enough?

 

[AchtungNight]

I'm somewhere between Clancy, Oates, and Baldacci. I like to use lecture, internal monologue, and reaction to events. I also often plug the RL movies, TV shows, and so on my celebrities have been in, so readers can know what influenced me to use these characters and what they can check out to see the "other" versions of them. That latter bit sometimes gets difficult when readers haven't seen the movie, of course.

 

[Carnevil9]

Sure, Carnevil, show vs. tell always works ... can you give me some non-boring examples of how to use it for purposes of exposition?

One example would be through a flashback. Instead of "Nevada Smith had nine black-belts in various martial arts, and had spent thirteen years fighting with the Israeli special forces. Therefore, he was able to dispatch the muggers without breaking a sweat," we would fade to an earlier time and place:

"As the muggers approached, Nevada Smith remembered his training. His mind returned to that day in the Gobi desert, when Grand Master Gnosh had ambushed him while he was taking a leak. He remembered the humilation of his utter defeat, and the months of training that Gnosh had put him through to correct his deficiencies. He remembered watching his muscles grow, his reflexes tighten, and his skills hone to a fine edge, until none of the other members of the Dojo could stand against him. As he watched the muggers advance, his mind's eye morphed them into the two training dummies of his days in the Gobi, and his body clicked into action with a will of its own."

Or something (hopefully not quite so florid) like that.......Carney

 

[Weird Harold]

But I tend to write about specific locations and round characters and sometimes think I need an idea or two in the background. Sometimes all of these needs for exposition combine, as they are for me presently, in a BDSM story -- full of protocol and jargon that is best clarified for readers.

For Jargon, I follow the "define it the first time you use it" rule. Although I do try to fit any jargon into a context where the definition is as much in the context of use as it is a literal dictionary-style definition.

For backstory of characters or the history behind a fictional culture, I try very hard to do the explanations in small bites of incomplete exposition -- rarely more than a (short) paragraph at any one point in the narration.

The nature of the necessary exposition basically determines how you present it. But do NOT underestimate the intelligence of your readers! Exposition is at its most boring when it covers information the typical reader doesn't need to know.

The typical reader of a BDSM story is likely to be someone who already knows the relevant protocols and jargon. Context and the occassional definition of terms is usually sufficient to keep you and the reader speaking the same language.

In the "round" story, where one or more of the back-story factors actually have to be developed or clarified, exposition can suffocate the drama. Most of us have run into it at one point or another .... the story is progressing just fine, suspense perhaps is building toward the climax, and Boom .... we're hit with something that sounds like the fine print on a wireless advert.

I think the question to ask in your own work about exposition is, "Is all of this really necessary?"

When you go back and begin editing your first draft into a real story, the sections that read like the fine print or a doctoral thesis should stand out as slow points in the story where nothing is happening. If the exposition doesn't advance the story in some way, it's probably not really necessary.

 

[Softouch911]

There's an wormhole exposition - the porthole exposition. You start with a scene that transports the reader back into an earlier time, and then returns to its original starting point. Hard to describe, but this

Wormhole exposition

is an example.

Any authors I can think of that use either of those techniques? I don't know. Big Brother will have to get back to you on that one in a more sober frame of mind

Thanks, I understand. And yes, it's a great technique, really popular in the jazz age with writers like Fitzgerald and Steinbeck. Steinbeck uses it a lot in Grapes of Wrath to explain communism in a sympathetic way to his American readership, and it works.

My own story-telling habits don't lead me to think of it often enough, but now you've jogged my memory! Much appreciated.

ST

 

[Softouch911]

For Jargon, I follow the "define it the first time you use it" rule. Although I do try to fit any jargon into a context where the definition is as much in the context of use as it is a literal dictionary-style definition.

For backstory of characters or the history behind a fictional culture, I try very hard to do the explanations in small bites of incomplete exposition -- rarely more than a (short) paragraph at any one point in the narration.

The nature of the necessary exposition basically determines how you present it. But do NOT underestimate the intelligence of your readers! Exposition is at its most boring when it covers information the typical reader doesn't need to know.

The typical reader of a BDSM story is likely to be someone who already knows the relevant protocols and jargon. Context and the occassional definition of terms is usually sufficient to keep you and the reader speaking the same language.



I think the question to ask in your own work about exposition is, "Is all of this really necessary?"

When you go back and begin editing your first draft into a real story, the sections that read like the fine print or a doctoral thesis should stand out as slow points in the story where nothing is happening. If the exposition doesn't advance the story in some way, it's probably not really necessary.

You're reading my mind! These are precisely the habits I have developed for handling jargon, backstory, and reader awareness and they usually work well enough.

Still, the slow points exist. One of the problems with dealing with any idea at all is that, assuming it carries a clear value with it, in America many people will understand it differently than you mean it. This is especially true in BDSM where there is huge diversity and very little common ground.

For the ordinary "character" or "action"-based story, contextual exposition works great. Like Liar said above, exposition is necessary in every story -- it's just a matter of degree as to how much is needed.

Usually, as you point out, it's just me listening to my jaws flap. I've learned to get rid of pounds of verbiage by reading with a raised eyebrow .... still, you reach a point where, because of the nature of the tale, the bone is showing and yet the motion periodically slows.

I like Sheherezade's reminder of hiding it behind surprise or shock moments.

Allusion (Achtung Night) also works terrifically well if you get it just right ... so does simile ... but if you hit the note just slightly off, it's laughable rather than useful.

Thanks. Glad some others are interested in this and have grappled with it. I wouldn't have asked, as I'm sure it seems obvious to some, but have been finding it frustrating for the past several months.

ST

 

[3113]

I think that "front loading" is perhaps one of the WORST ways to offer exposition. That's giving the reader everything upfront:

He was 6'3 with black hair, blue eyes and and I.Q. 143. By age four he could play the piano and speak seven languages. His parents, diplomats from Hong Kong, were very rich. At the age of five they were killed in a bloody gangland shooting, leaving him very wealth, but very alone. And vowing vengence. Sent to live with his grandmother in France, he learned of the secret ways of the French Ninja. This gave him an appreciation for good food and wine as well as teaching him a thousand ways to secretly kill his enemies.

Frontloading is rarely a good thing to do in a story. It's all tell, no show.

On the other hand, expository broken up by dialogue and action can be useful if introducing the reader to an alien landscape (literally or figuratively). I wrote up a bunch of stories about a leather bar and I felt that it was an unique enough enviornment that it required an intoduction. The pov was first person, so I just made him break that 3rd wall and talk to the reader as if they were there, sitting at the bar, and he was playing tour guide--giving them the history of the bar, insights into the regulars, etc.

Some readers found this expository beginning slow going, but I felt it important to set the stage before diving into the action. In other stories, it was better to dive into the action and sprinkle the exposition through it. You have action, conversation (all telling you about the characters) and now and then you stop to mention something like:

"No cheese on the spaghetti!" Rosa said to the waitress. She was allergic to parmesan.

Now, of course, if I'm going to mention that allergy it has to serve a purpose--either characterization, or she'd going to get sick later on--but it's just a quick mention during the dialogue. On the dialogue goes till we reach another exposition:

"Dessert?" He was watching his weight, but he didn't want the evening to end. He hadn't felt this at ease with a woman in years. Not since he dated Cynthia in college, truth to tell.

And so it goes. I think sprinkling exposition throughout it often the best way, unless your enviornment and characters are so unique/exotic that the reader needs to be introduced to them. Like when, as in a Clancy novel, you step onto that submarine and the reader needs to know how it works and who's working what controls before the story gets underway.

Is any of this making sense?

 

[Softouch911]

Yeah, 3113, it's exactly what I'm talking about. Thanks for your response.

It's the Clancy-type bog down at the point the sub needs to be blueprinted that I'm trying to figure some new way around.

The dang sub needs to be explored, explained, and detailed ... but it's only exposition and, like a sci-fi writer who stops to explain how some stellar phenomenon works, whole hordes of readers (notice, I'm an optimist ) skip over it for the "good parts."

I really favor the style you example:

"Dessert?" He was watching his weight, but he didn't want the evening to end. He hadn't felt this at ease with a woman in years. Not since he dated Cynthia in college, truth to tell.

but you can't do that all up and down the whole dang sub.

Another technique that Clancy uses that I like better, but even it stalls, is to have two characters disagree over the way to accomplish something and, in the course of the argument, they mention all of the pertinent parts of the sub. The problem is that the "spoken" paras tend to get awfully long and lecturish.

It does seem unavoidable I suppose ... except for Sheherezade's notion of using the "sudden crisis" to set up a hook that will keep reader's involved while they wade through the explanation hoping for a resolution to the action. That works well, and I'm going to practice that a bit more.

Thanks again.
ST

 

[sophia jane]

I have nothing to add, which is kind of embarassing as your editor. But I'm hoping you'll find the answers you need.

 

[Stella_Omega]

first of all, and it's very important that I say this- Sophia Jane, your picture is melting my heart

"No cheese on the spaghetti!" Rosa said to the waitress. She was allergic to parmesan.

Now, of course, if I'm going to mention that allergy it has to serve a purpose--either characterization, or she'd going to get sick later on--but it's just a quick mention during the dialogue. On the dialogue goes till we reach another exposition:

I like this one. A sentence like this could be developed a little differently, via the Tom Clancy method;

"No cheese on the spaghetti!" Rosa said to the waitress. "I'm allergic to parmesan."

"That's good to know." Her date grinned.

"I have an allergy, so?"

"You got a weak spot- makes you more loveable." Geoffrey looked earnestly at her through his hornrimmed glasses. She realised that his eyes were not magnified in any way by them- his astigmatism was a pretense.


uh-oh, a plot bunny- shoot it quick!

 

[3113]

"You got a weak spot- makes you more loveable." Geoffrey looked earnestly at her through his hornrimmed glasses. She realised that his eyes were not magnified in any way by them- his astigmatism was a pretense.

Oh, that's excellent! Three-for-one:
1) Rosa is good at noticing such things--things which most people wouldn't notice! We've just been SHOWN how sharp she is.

2) The guy across from her is playing at needing glasses--so now we know something about him as well.

3) So why is he pretending he needs glasses? Plot point.

Nice.

 

[Aurora Black]

I have no idea what type of exposition I use. I just write, period.

 

[CharleyH]

Since so many of the AH folk are writers at least parttime, maybe this will be a good place to get a new approach to a writing problem.

How do you make exposition interesting? I mean all of the background details that set a story and its situation and, perhaps, motivate its characters.

It's not a problem in a story in a familiar setting (Times Square, the Old West), with flat/stereotyped characters (the kind you see on commercials), and no ideas to speak of that challenge the reader.

In the "canned" (stereotype) story, a clue or mention can be made in dialogue. A sentence or two of scenery suffices. Abstract ideas are on the order of "love your mother." So exposition can be woven into the natural flow of the narration.

But I tend to write about specific locations and round characters and sometimes think I need an idea or two in the background. Sometimes all of these needs for exposition combine, as they are for me presently, in a BDSM story -- full of protocol and jargon that is best clarified for readers.

In the "round" story, where one or more of the back-story factors actually have to be developed or clarified, exposition can suffocate the drama. Most of us have run into it at one point or another .... the story is progressing just fine, suspense perhaps is building toward the climax, and Boom .... we're hit with something that sounds like the fine print on a wireless advert.

I've developed some strategies with mixed success: the Tom Clancy babble, in which characters argue or lecture one another; the Herman Melville Voice of God, in which the omniscient narrator looks wistfully out over the back of the white whale which is about to beat the crap out of Capt. Ahab to explain in a godlike voice some fact of cetacean anatomy; the Joyce Carole Oates internal monologue in which a character who is normally incapable of much in the way of a sentence undergoes an epiphany of sorts and lyricizes to herself about fate and destiny .... there are others but I hope it's clear that I'm not terribly happy with the way I'm using them.

Have you found a strategy for this part of writing that, maybe even with practice, is worth learning? Any examples you'd recommend?

TIA. ST

Mise-en-scene does wonders for a narrative.

 

[3113]

The Submarine Tour: Let me count the ways....

It's the Clancy-type bog down at the point the sub needs to be blueprinted that I'm trying to figure some new way around.

The dang sub needs to be explored, explained, and detailed ... but it's only exposition and, like a sci-fi writer who stops to explain how some stellar phenomenon works, whole hordes of readers (notice, I'm an optimist ) skip over it for the "good parts."

AH, I see.

The thing is, most folk who love such Sci-Fi also love the exposition. They love to dive into a good, hard sci-fi as if they're diving into a good textbook. They WANT someone to say, "Gosh, professor, how does it work?" and then the professor to launch into this long-assed explaination of matter and anti-matter, etc.

Because people who read that kind of sci-fi (or Tom Clancy) want to hear all about those hard science and technological details. It's like auto fans talking about carburetors. They hear about the latest tech on a submarine and they say, "COOL!" not..."this is boring me to tears, I'm skipping it...."

Which give us the usual three ways to introduce the sub:

1) God method--already mentioned--front-loading method. The book just launches into it: "The sub resembled nothing so much as black dildo. It was _______ meters X _______, and could maintain a crew of fifty underwater for six-months. Powered by a nuclear engine, it had seven deadly warheads...."

Which can work if it's short and sweet, but can bog down the story if it rambles on. The writer needs to ask, "How much of this DOES the reader need to know?"

2) The Tour-Guide method wonderfully used in the movie The Taking of Pellham 123. Also the "gosh, professor, how does it work?" method. You get someone who knows nothing and they get to be given a tour by the person who knows everything. This can work really well if there's some sort of gimmic to the two people or the relationship--or one is bored, or one is sarcastic. This method was used to introduce us to a sub and its crew in Das Boot.

Alternative method of the tour-guide is the "professor" where some guy puts up a blueprint and explains; "Our sub will be the biggest and fastest in the world. The warhead will be located here, at the very back, and here, at the nose...."

But this only works well in movies where you can switch between blueprint and the actual sub being built. Also goes for crew: "Our crew will be the finest in the land. We've already hired retired bomb expert Joe Kawalski to handle the warheads..." Image of tough old guy chomping on a cigar as he futzes with wires on a missle, etc.

3) The argument which you pointed out. Put people right into the action. You're on the sub, and it's trying to aim it's missles, and two people are arguing: "You can do that! The missles only have a range of ___ miles!" and the other guys argues back, "We can do it if we leech power off the nuclear engine and funnel it into the launch...." etc.

I'm trying to think if there's any other option--but really, I don't think so. Unless you want to make the Sub sentient.

4) Aware sub: "She dove down into the deepest waters, her nuclear engines on high power and her crew of fifty safe within her...."

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm trying to think if there's any other option--but really, I don't think so. Unless you want to make the Sub sentient.

I think this is probably a variant of your "gosh, professor, how does it work?" and "argument" methods -- call it the "Investigative Reporter" approach.

It's much the way Star Trek Fans learned about how the starship Enterprise works.

Rather than give all of the details of the setting at once from a single source, give the rough details of overall dimensions, class, crew complement, as part of a "welcome aboard" speech. Then let your main character engage various department heads and/or crewmen about specifics as the need for more information arises.

Unless you have the genious who designed the sub around to answer questions, the reality is that each crewmember of the sub will know something different about it. To realisticly teach your reader about the sub, you need multiple sources of information.

The Captain knows a little bit about everything -- He knows it's got the latest Mk MMI reactor for a power-plant but you have to go to the chief engineer to learn that the MK MMI is just an automated version of the MkVII power-plant

As far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly normal for readers and even characters to learn the setting and plot details in very small bites. If I tell them everything up-front, I don't have anything left to tell them later.

Even something as foreign to my personal experience as a "Leather Club" doesn't need to be explained to me in any more detail that the character I'm visiting it through can see or think about at any one moment. I can learn about what a "leather club" is like the same way that I would learn about it in real-life -- by experiencing it one moment at a time; with or without a guide or mentor.

Anne McCaffrey took nearly forty years to explain just exactly what Thread was and how it really got to Pern. Each book in the series added just a bit more information about the world of Pern.

AM did include a prologue to summarize the universe in all but the first book, but it wasn't really intended to explain anything to fans, just to catch up new readers with the basic premise and set the time-frame for the fans.

 

[Softouch911]

I have nothing to add, which is kind of embarassing as your editor. But I'm hoping you'll find the answers you need.

You save your "additions" for my drafts, which you bloody unmercifully (and correctly ) when I sink too deeply into exposition, SJ.

Yeah, a really nice AV (as always).

ST