Exposition vs. dialogue

[LaRascasse]

As a writer, you want to get X amount of backstory and other information about your character through to the reader. How best to do this? One option is to give some introductory paragraphs before any action takes place (or very little action takes place). The other is to contrive a situation where the protag talks about themselves and their life experiences, in which case we get their emotions attached to it as well.

Which is better?

Note- this is different from show vs tell, because both are essentially different kids of "tell". Only in case, the reader gets it from the author and in the other, from the character.

 

[txblush]

I've been wondering about this one myself because I have a story that I put a lot of work into showing through dialogue, and what I really think the story might need is more composition. However, I'm not sure how to do that so I'll be interested to know what others have to say.

 

[PennLady]

I'll have to give my usual answer which is that it depends on the writer and the story. Different situations call for different treatments of information. And those aren't the only ways. There are plenty of stories that begin in the middle of the action, and any back story is filled in in various ways -- discussions between characters, plain old exposition, thoughts of the protagonist (or antagonist), flashbacks, etc. I don't think any way is "better" if you don't have a context, and what is "better" will depend on the author, the story and what the author is trying to achieve in it.

 

[LaRascasse]

In this case, it's about a "happily married" closet lesbian who has extra-marital affairs with other woman on the down-low while keeping her domestic life intact. I need to write her backstory - her discovery of her sexuality, circumstances behind keeping it closeted, eventual marriage and a few notable female lovers.

She's taking a train ride from her home in the suburbs to the city while her husband is out of town and kids are with her sister. So far, a long and contemplative train ride seems to be my best solution. My idea is to give hints of the backstory here and fill in the details in conversation with her clandestine lover later.

 

[Weird Harold]

One option is to give some introductory paragraphs before any action takes place (or very little action takes place). The other is to contrive a situation where the protag talks about themselves and their life experiences, in which case we get their emotions attached to it as well.

Which is better?

Neither.

Revealing back story in a single block of text, whether enclosed in quote marks or not, disrupts the story you're trying t tell. "Back story" should be revealed as it becomes relevant and only revealed as much as is relevant at that point of the story.

Often when I see introductory exposition or a character vomiting forth a life history, I see only information that isn't relevant to the story or information that winds up long forgotten by the time it does become relevant.

 

[SamScribble]

I'm with Harold. Tell the reader what she needs to know when she needs to know it.

 

[Weird Harold]

She's taking a train ride from her home in the suburbs to the city while her husband is out of town and kids are with her sister. So far, a long and contemplative train ride seems to be my best solution. My idea is to give hints of the backstory here and fill in the details in conversation with her clandestine lover later.

This scenario sounds like a setup for a series of flashbacks; tell several stories within your main story so you can show the backstories instead of telling them.

 

[Handley_Page]

I'm not sure I agree with quite so blunt a view. I think it depends upon the story.

I have two women in one (incomplete) discussing their mutual problems, and each tells the story as part of their conversation.
I have another where the Narrator explains things in easy bites.

 

[Bramblethorn]

As a writer, you want to get X amount of backstory and other information about your character through to the reader. How best to do this? One option is to give some introductory paragraphs before any action takes place (or very little action takes place). The other is to contrive a situation where the protag talks about themselves and their life experiences, in which case we get their emotions attached to it as well.

Which is better?

To crush your enemies, see them driven before you - oops, wrong thread.

As you say, both of these are forms of "tell" and usually I'd try not to lean heavily on that. Sometimes it's unavoidable but there are other ways to get some of that info across.

IME, if I start out with a strong knowledge of my characters' backstory, a lot of that will end up in the story naturally when it's needed without me actively trying to inject it. One trick is to start by pretending your reader already knows the backstory, write the story with that backstory as assumed knowledge, then go back and see how much you really need to add in order to make it work. When you do get to something that they need to know, add that when and where it's needed.

Some bits of the backstory might never make it into the story explicitly. But IME, it's not wasted; just having it in my head helps strengthen what I do write.

 

[Weird Harold]

I'm not sure I agree with quite so blunt a view. I think it depends upon the story.

As with almost any question about writing, the answer could be "whatever the story requires." Still, a single block of back story is probably the most difficult to find a story that requires it.

I have two women in one (incomplete) discussing their mutual problems, and each tells the story as part of their conversation.

Depending on how long each back story is, I think I'd prefer a flashback to a block of exposition or extended dialogue. Using a flashback removes the restrictions and problems of writing a long block of dialogue while permitting an author to use the full range of storytelling techniques to make the flashback interesting.

 

[sr71plt]

No formula exists for the one right way to tell a story. At some point writers realize this and stop looking for that one formula. And then they also stop asking for the formula.

 

[HeyAll]

My philosophy with writing stories is, if I want to say something, I just say it. I try not to over think anything, and I want it to be simple so that the reader can understand it right away.

There are two ways that I way reveal important backstory:

1) Have a quick prologue.

2) In the middle of the story, during a conversation, the character tells another character about his/her past.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

How I do it with my historical masterworks is gently ease into the story with some descriptive narrative that reveals plenty about the principal character, and I like to draw the reader into the characters private soul.

A brief example: The principal character is thinking to himself as he pays a visit to his childhood home, now ruins.

The dead have the better part. I think of my grandfather, the adventurous man who built these walls and planted these groves. His life was full of toil, full of journeys, and full of fights. Now he is dead a long time, and his works do follow him into the land of forgetfulness. Blessed are the dead.

 

[RichardBacula]

As a writer, you want to get X amount of backstory and other information about your character through to the reader. How best to do this? One option is to give some introductory paragraphs before any action takes place (or very little action takes place). The other is to contrive a situation where the protag talks about themselves and their life experiences, in which case we get their emotions attached to it as well.

Which is better?

Note- this is different from show vs tell, because both are essentially different kids of "tell". Only in case, the reader gets it from the author and in the other, from the character.

I try to give as much information during the action as possible.
Appositives can be good for that, although they can be overused.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

In this case, it's about a "happily married" closet lesbian who has extra-marital affairs with other woman on the down-low while keeping her domestic life intact. I need to write her backstory - her discovery of her sexuality, circumstances behind keeping it closeted, eventual marriage and a few notable female lovers.

She's taking a train ride from her home in the suburbs to the city while her husband is out of town and kids are with her sister. So far, a long and contemplative train ride seems to be my best solution. My idea is to give hints of the backstory here and fill in the details in conversation with her clandestine lover later.

I feel strongly a story starts as close to the action as possible. Maybe I read too much "Writer's Digest" back in the day, but I feel it's important opening sentences and paragraphs suck a reader deep into the story as soon as possible. If the reader senses they are wading through tons of exposition, I believe we risk losing the reader.

In the example you give, the first sentence is the story and I believe where you should start. The rest of her back story is discovered, not told. Start close to action - she's almost caught, she's at the end of a great session with her lover and interrupted with a phone call from her hubby or the sudden realization that she forgot to pack her daughter's favorite teddy bear before packing off the kids to her sisters.

She's living her life and she's knee-deep in her life when we meet her. The rest will get sorted out as you tell the story that will build to a climax.

Hope that helps!

 

[3113]

Write it up exposition—then leave it out and see

I need to write her backstory - her discovery of her sexuality, circumstances behind keeping it closeted, eventual marriage and a few notable female lovers.

Why? That should always be the first question you ask yourself. Why do you need all this backstory? Will it play an important role in the plot? Because an affair is an affair and there's no need to explain why someone would keep this a secret from their spouse. And women attracted to other women, like men attracted to other men, do marry because of reasons that readers can easily fill in for themselves.

So why is THIS reason for her keeping closeted and marrying so important and compelling to the story that it needs to be told? If you come up with the answer to that, the way to present that backstory may well come clear as well. Of course, You may find that there is no compelling reason to give this backstory—that the real reason you want to tell it is so that you, the writer, can solidify this character. Make them come alive for you, so you can better tell their story.

Here a little trick I recommend (and I say this as queen of the backstory writing—meaning I do way too much of it myself ): write it up as exposition. Then don't put it in the story. Write the story up without any of it. If you find that it's really missing and needed, then you've got it and you can put it in, here, there, anywhere as needed, and in ways that work. Like maybe after some hot sex, she's lying back thinking of the first girl she ever kissed. Or, later, after her husband has found out he asks, "Why did you marry me?"

If you find, after writing up the story without it, that you didn't need any of it, then it was still of use, as you got to know the character

 

[trace_ekies]

... "Back story" should be revealed as it becomes relevant and only revealed as much as is relevant at that point of the story...

In my opinion, "Back Story" is an aid to the proper understanding of a story, but not really a part of the story. (Otherwise it wouldn't be called "Back Story".) It should be woven into the story, a bit at a time, and as WH recommends - only when relevant, and only as much as is relevant.

 

[StrangeLife]

It should be woven into the story, a bit at a time, and as WH recommends - only when relevant, and only as much as is relevant.

Exactly.

Exposition is the gonorrhea of stories - it's always a bad thing. And it's not hard to avoid.

 

[sr71plt]

No, it's not always bad. If you take it away, all you've got is dialogue. "Always" dictums are almost "always" off base (and anal retentive).

 

[StrangeLife]

No, it's not always bad. If you take it away, all you've got is dialogue. "Always" dictums are almost "always" off base (and anal retentive).

It's not only Sith Lords who deals in absolutes Pilot - writers do too. And while there are exceptions to every rule (in a scientific novel for instance exposition can enhance the feeling of reading a technical paper - Michael Crichton used this often to great effect), I can't imagine an erotic novel where exposition doesn't diminish the experience.

And it's simple to avoid:

Wrong way: "My wife is a readhead, 35 years old and has big boobs. I have an 8 inch cock."

Right way: "As I watched my wife slowly walking towards me, her flaming red hair flowing in the summer breeze, I felt like the luckiest guy in the world. She didn't look anywhere near her thirty-five years and the way her ample chest fought to escape the confinement of the skimpy dress made me swell with pride. I looked down at the front of my pants. Yep - eight inches of pride right there."

 

[hoo_hoo_boo]

Why? That should always be the first question you ask yourself. Why do you need all this backstory? Will it play an important role in the plot? Because an affair is an affair and there's no need to explain why someone would keep this a secret from their spouse. And women attracted to other women, like men attracted to other men, do marry because of reasons that readers can easily fill in for themselves.

So why is THIS reason for her keeping closeted and marrying so important and compelling to the story that it needs to be told? If you come up with the answer to that, the way to present that backstory may well come clear as well. Of course, You may find that there is no compelling reason to give this backstory—that the real reason you want to tell it is so that you, the writer, can solidify this character. Make them come alive for you, so you can better tell their story.

Here a little trick I recommend (and I say this as queen of the backstory writing—meaning I do way too much of it myself ): write it up as exposition. Then don't put it in the story. Write the story up without any of it. If you find that it's really missing and needed, then you've got it and you can put it in, here, there, anywhere as needed, and in ways that work. Like maybe after some hot sex, she's lying back thinking of the first girl she ever kissed. Or, later, after her husband has found out he asks, "Why did you marry me?"

If you find, after writing up the story without it, that you didn't need any of it, then it was still of use, as you got to know the character

I often leave out the first paragraph. It's usually the most pretentious part of the story and my second paragraph often repeats it anyway. I some times find the second paragraph is best gone too. Leaving them out seems to do no harm The story flows much better without them. They seem to set a standard for the rest of the story and it's impossible to sustain.

 

[sr71plt]

It's not only Sith Lords who deals in absolutes Pilot - writers do too.

Not any good writers that I know of. You backed off of "always," though, I see.

 

[trace_ekies]

... Wrong way: "My wife is a readhead, 35 years old and has big boobs. I have an 8 inch cock." ...

I think you left out a few important items from your "Wrong way" example. Should be:

"My wife is a shy redhead, 35 years old, but could pass for a high-school cheerleader, has big boobs, (GG) and a 24" waist. I have an 8 inch cock, when it's soft, but like two beer cans end to end when it's hard.

Oh yeah, and the story itself is about how they go to a party where she takes off all of her clothes and blows every guy at the party. But like the wonderful, gorgeous, sexy, shy, submissive wife she is, will only fuck her hubby and only in the privacy of their bedroom.

Unfortunately, that's pretty close to some postings I've seen on Literotica.

As for SL's example of the "Right Way", yeah, sounds like the beginning of a story I'd like to read!

 

[StrangeLife]

You backed off of "always," though, I see.

Consider that I have a scientific background - have been conditioned through many years to define "absolute" in the term of probabilities.

For instance, if you were to ask me whether you can pass unharmed through a brick wall I'd say "absolutely not" despite the fact that the probability for you to succeed is higher than zero (though not by much).

 

[sr71plt]

Not that that has much of anything to do with writing fiction.