Writing interesting exposition

[Softouch911]

give the rough details of overall dimensions, class, crew complement, as part of a "welcome aboard" speech.

[\QUOTE]

cf: Genesis -- 50 cubits by 30 cubits and so on.

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.

There's an axiom that you don't have to be a __________ to write or read about a _____________.

To the point here. A lot of good ideas worth practicing here.

ST

 

[Stella_Omega]

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.

AND-
4) he is uncomfortable with her if he thinks she's too perfect. Or, he assumes someone else is.

 

[elsol]

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."

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.

I found that part of the problem I had with this was that I didn't actually understand the mechanics of what Clancy and others like him were doing.

The "Impact" Character

Another dynamic in literature is the relationship between what's generally known as the "impact character" and the point-of-view character.

The Point-of-View character is the eyes through which we see the story, as we discussed earlier. Whether he or she is the protagonist (the character most active in pursuing the story's goal) or not is irrelevant.

The Impact Character is some other person in the story who works throughout the story to "impact" the point-of-view character concerning the story's main issue. They have little discussions and/or arguments throughout the story, or perhaps the impact character says nothing, and just actively influences our hero by example. The impact character could be anyone, even an enemy. The purpose he or she has in the story is to help convince the point-of-view character of an opposite side of the story issue, to try and win him over, as it were.

The point of creating an impact character dynamic is drama, of course, and conflict and tension. On a more macroscopic level, the impact character could be used by the author to express the very theme of the story. He could argue on behalf of the author himself, indirectly of course, trying to convince the point of view character (the reader, indirectly) of his thoughts on the overall theme. Once again, this must be done ever-so-subtly, or you risk sounding preachy or obnoxious.

The most common example of the impact character in erotic fiction is perhaps the seducer/seducee relationship. One character is trying to persuade the other as to the benefits of surrendering to their baser urges and indulging in whatever pleasures ensue as a result. They argue perhaps over guilt, morality, consequences, etc., and eventually one of them gives in, and convinces the other of their point of view, or else there's a stand off, wherein the debate itself was the point, rather than the winning. This dynamic is of course impossible in stories where the seducee gives it up without the slightest fight, unless of course you set the "passionate argument" after the sex scene: "How could you have taken advantage of me like that?" or something along those lines. You risk losing your readers that way though, who have already "gotten what they came for".

Pretty much anyone can be an Impact Character in erotic fiction however, especially when the story's issue is not necessarily related to sex. The issue could be self-worth perhaps, and whoever the main character's main influence is in regard to this issue would be the Impact character - his mom, an ex-girlfriend, his fairy godmother, his alternate personality. The impact character should be active in trying to persuade the main character of the issue though, and not be simply some unknowing bystander who the character happened to observe in passing one day.

I found that once I actually read the above explanation, I UNDERSTOOD what I was doing at a mechanical level.

Once I understood what I was actually doing, it became much easier to actually manipulate the system.

Since I write MFF+ stories, I immediately stumbled upon the concept of moving the 'role' of the Impact character from female to female. It's actually a very easy technique in erotica because of the discovery element of seduction. People in the midst of a seduction are very exploratory... trying to discover each other... !TADA! ways of passing information to the reader in dialogue that is embedded in the story action.

It's actually a very good technique to use with a character that has been 'growing' through several chapters... the reader is following the character's storyline so when the character begins to spew exposition it can be very hard for a reader to pick it up because the character has been setup for the role of Impact Character slowly.

Mix this with the suggestion of releasing exposition slowly and it can almost completely camouflage exposition.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[3113]

Beware the Cipher!

Since I write MFF+ stories, I immediately stumbled upon the concept of moving the 'role' of the Impact character from female to female. It's actually a very easy technique in erotica because of the discovery element of seduction. People in the midst of a seduction are very exploratory... trying to discover each other... !TADA! ways of passing information to the reader in dialogue that is embedded in the story action.

That's a nice point.

It's actually a very good technique to use with a character that has been 'growing' through several chapters... the reader is following the character's storyline so when the character begins to spew exposition it can be very hard for a reader to pick it up because the character has been setup for the role of Impact Character slowly.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but it does make me think of one problem and pet peeve that comes about when a writer becomes Mr. Exposition rather than Mr. Storyteller...that being the making of the "impact" or "learning" character (yes? That is what we mean by impact?) into a cipher.

In a lot of stories, especially those where we need to present exposition, we have as the main character someone who knows nothing. The virgin in erotica or the diplomat who's going to be spending six weeks on the submarine. This character is GREAT for two purposes:

1) They allow for exposition in a dozen different ways from being lectured, to exploring and finding out, to hands on demonstrations (Mr. Diplomat pulls the wrong leaver and sets off an alarm. The virgin discovers erogenous zones he didn't know existed--on himself and his partner).

2) They allow for character growth and change--a big arc of one. The Diplomat starts out stand-offish--but slowly becomes part of the crew, accepted and able to help out when danger strikes. He matures, etc. The virgin learns how to be a lover, etc.

But there is a danger, I think, in this sort of character being too obvious in his/her purpose. That happens when the character is protrayed as a cipher. When the Diplomat could be any know-nothing-about-subs person. He comes aboard and the whole story seems to be "Let's teach Mr. Know-Nothing about subs and help him join our tribe." Which totally ignores the fact that he is a Diplomat and DOES know something. He DOES or should have talents, personality, a history, opinions.

I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine, but I get tired of the "cipher" type characters who come onto the stage as blank pages. It seems all they're there for is to look stupid (make stupid mistakes in the beginning), get lectured (by the wise old whomever), and act as a sounding board for propaganda (showing how brave and stoic are the men and women who work on submarines, for example).

It's a problem that happens most often when writers want to present exposition, tell a story of how things work and are, rather than tell a story about characters interacting.

 

[Oblimo]

One clever trick of exposition is: don't expound. Science fiction, for example, is a genre that pretty much demands massive exposition. Authors like Ursula LeGuin, Philip K. Dick, Dan Simmons, and (before they let him write w/o an editor) Neil Stephenson treat their imaginary world's background like it is a character unto itself (in scifi, the background is often just as important as the characters running around in it)--the reader is just as interested in puzzling out the background as s/he is in understanding the lives of the characters. The best example I can think of is LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness, where the eccentricities of her world are simply introduced in a context wild enough to make the reader want work it out over the course of the book.

 

[elsol]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this, but it does make me think of one problem and pet peeve that comes about when a writer becomes Mr. Exposition rather than Mr. Storyteller...that being the making of the "impact" or "learning" character (yes? That is what we mean by impact?) into a cipher.

At the beginning of a story, using an dialoguing Impact Character can be very awkward, because they can come accross to the reader as a talking head. The biggest reason for this is that the reader doesn't know enough about the character yet, hasn't gotten involved in their particular story enough for the 'Impact conversations' to be camouflaged.

The reader's eye hasn't been misdirected yet.

But if you transfer the Impact role to a character that has grown through the story... let's say one of the females of FF+ who's been seduced and now wants an exclusive MF situation to happen.

What is the reader's eye following?


Everytime that particular female opens her mouth in the story, the reader is looking for 'her story'... easy to sneak some exposition past them.

Sincerely,
ElSol

 

[Softouch911]

The "impact character" is an intriguing and vivid way of describing the mechanics of what I've always thought of as just plain ol' "character conflict," the soul of fiction -- you don't have a story w/o conflict, right?

Now that you say it out loud, I think some of the best fiction (imo!) is that in which the impact character keeps changing back and forth. In a plain ol' two-character story this features Character A challenging Character B ... if that continues, the focus probably remains on character B's reaction to the challenges (e.g., "The Story of O") But if Character A challenges Character B, then B reacts by challenging Chracter A ... you have a relationship that is truly intriguing and perhaps even allows for various points of view. (e.g., "The Secretary.")

And if the story is MFF+ you probably spawn an epic!!! lol

Thanks, Elsol, it's a great way to look at it. And yes, the exposition mixes with pov especially since what each character thinks about, finds important, and reveals about the background (i.e., exposition) is going to gradually fill out a complete picture for the reader. In the earlier discussion, someone pointed out how the different characters on the submarine would know, and need to know, different things about it. Same diff, I suppose ... but if you add challenge and character development, this device alone could control the story.

Pretty complicated, but certainly it will be effective (I am an optimist.)

ST

 

[Softouch911]

One clever trick of exposition is: don't expound. Science fiction, for example, is a genre that pretty much demands massive exposition. Authors like Ursula LeGuin, Philip K. Dick, Dan Simmons, and (before they let him write w/o an editor) Neil Stephenson treat their imaginary world's background like it is a character unto itself (in scifi, the background is often just as important as the characters running around in it)--the reader is just as interested in puzzling out the background as s/he is in understanding the lives of the characters. The best example I can think of is LeGuin's Left Hand of Darkness, where the eccentricities of her world are simply introduced in a context wild enough to make the reader want work it out over the course of the book.

In the "classics" wouldn't much of Heinlein, and "I, Robot," and "Dune" work this way?

ST

 

[Softouch911]

I guess it's just a pet peeve of mine, but I get tired of the "cipher" type characters who come onto the stage as blank pages. It seems all they're there for is to look stupid (make stupid mistakes in the beginning), get lectured (by the wise old whomever), and act as a sounding board for propaganda (showing how brave and stoic are the men and women who work on submarines, for example).

It's a problem that happens most often when writers want to present exposition, tell a story of how things work and are, rather than tell a story about characters interacting.

More useful insights for me throughout, 3113, and thanks again. I wanted to mention that the device of the "cipher," and the problem you mention that it can easily create in klutzy hands, was invented (or so I've been told) by Arthur Conan Doyle -- who can forget the dumb questions asked by Dr. Watson! Ever since, every detective story has had to feature a "straight man" to show off the brilliance of the detective's insights.

For me, the most entertaining of these "ciphers" was honed to a sharp edge by "Columbo" of TV fame -- the writers had the suspects themselves ask the stupid questions! And in one of my favorite shows Columbo spent considerable time talking to his floppy-eared basset hound!

ST

 

[impressive]

Fascinating thread. Having never studied creative writing, I'm learning on the job. And each time I learn something new, it slows me down even further. Soon, I'll be lucky to crank out 100 qualilty words/day.

 

[Weird Harold]

Fascinating thread. Having never studied creative writing, I'm learning on the job. And each time I learn something new, it slows me down even further. Soon, I'll be lucky to crank out 100 qualilty words/day.

I think most of what we've talked about here applies more to the editing process than the creative process -- i.e. we're talking how to fix the slow spots and keep the story flowing.

Of course if you can write without the slow-spots and spread the exposition and character development out in the first draft, it makes editing easier because there is less to "fix" when you get to the editing.

The best advice I ever got about writing was, "sit down and let the words flow through your fingers until you run out of words. Then go back and delete the two-thirds that are absolute garbage and edit the rest into an coherent story."