Exposition vs. dialogue

[Squeeze_Tight]

One could argue that the fact it’s jargonish actually does communicate details of the character to the readers. The impression it gave me is that this character is experienced and confident in their profession, as this lingo rolls of their tongue effortlessly.

 

[Squeeze_Tight]

Also this was a very interesting thread to read through, so I’m glad you resurrected it. The different views on exposition and physical description are juicy.

 

[TadOverdon]

I prefer the second. But if "The first ad we run like this," were to become "The first time we run an ad like this," then I think it would work even better.

Better phrasing, yeah. Thanks.

One could argue that the fact it’s jargonish actually does communicate details of the character to the readers. The impression it gave me is that this character is experienced and confident in their profession, as this lingo rolls of their tongue effortlessly.

Yes, this is a consideration, and the real argument for keeping it. My sense is that it might be bit too much "look at this," like when a writer sticks a Latin phrase into a conversation between two lawyers as if to say "Hey, I did a tiny bit of research!"

 

[LAHomedog]

You are asking a question about craft, technique and dexterity.

You are talking about an art. Writing is an art, and unlike what others might be saying there are no absolutes in art. What was an absolute for Rembrandt was not an absolute for Picasso and vice versa. The same is true for writers. What is an absolute for Tom Clancy and his technically detailed writing style compared to Robert Parker's sparse story telling. Speilberg tells a story differently than Scorsese, and Brian De Palma tells a story way differently than both of them.

Most of the answers on this thread are filled with absolutes based on that writer's style and what works for them in their story telling. It might work for you. It might not. A lot of people like to spout rules about writing. I suppose most of them might be true. Me? I hate rules in art, but again, that's me.

I'm going to self-servingly post the link to my Nude Day story, "Flipping More Than Real Estate." I'm doing this because there are at least four-five different forms of exposition in it from a "prologue" that gives the protagonist's backstory, weaving it in within the narrative, and a lunchtime conversation where one of the characters reveals her backstory. Read it if you want to. If it helps great! If you don't like it, sorry for wasting your time with it.

Here is my one true absolute: If you know your characters and they are real, three-dimensional people in your mind's eye, they will tell your story for you if you follow their true and authentic path and narrative. Here's the link:

https://www.literotica.com/s/flipping-more-than-real-estate

 

[TadOverdon]

I think it will be something like this:

"It's just awful marketing boilerplate, okay, and completely useless to us domestically. They're making efficacy claims, and the first time we run an ad like this, half the government will dogpile us—FTC, FDA, the works. We sell supplements, dear. Not drugs."

 

[NotWise]

I think it will be something like this:

Should there be a question mark after "okay?" Without it, I can read it different ways. Otherwise, I think this reads better than either original.

I never did get what the jargon was. O'course, folks outside the US might not know what FTC and FDA are, but that doesn't make it jargon.

 

[TadOverdon]

Should there be a question mark after "okay?" Without it, I can read it different ways. Otherwise, I think this reads better than either original.

I never did get what the jargon was. O'course, folks outside the US might not know what FTC and FDA are, but that doesn't make it jargon.

Yeah, there should be a question mark. Thanks.

"It's just awful marketing boilerplate, okay? And it's completely useless to us domestically. They're making efficacy claims, and the first time we run an ad like this, half the government will dogpile us—FTC, FDA, the works. We sell supplements, dear. Not drugs."

The "structure/function claim" was the jargon that I was tripping over. I wasn't even confident the usage fit the context, myself, which was a real bad sign of faking it. I realized a little while ago that "efficacy claim" was somewhat colloquial and might even have a familiar ring, in this context, to at least some readers.

 

[NotWise]

Yeah, there should be a question mark. Thanks.



The "structure/function claim" was the jargon that I was tripping over. I wasn't even confident the usage fit the context, myself, which was a real bad sign of faking it. I realized a little while ago that "efficacy claim" was colloquial and might even have a familiar ring, in this context, to at least some readers.

My two bits. I've been fighting a 20-year war against jargon in my company's output. I hate it. For people who understand it, it's like a secret sign that you're part of their gang. For people who don't understand it--your readers--it's either gibberish or, if it sounds like it might mean something else, it's easily misunderstood.

 

[TadOverdon]

My two bits. I've been fighting a 20-year war against jargon in my company's output. I hate it. For people who understand it, it's like a secret sign that you're part of their gang. For people who don't understand it--your readers--it's either gibberish or, if it sounds like it might mean something else, it's easily misunderstood.

And yet, professionals and people in diverse businesses and endeavors - doctors, scientists, engineers - employ specialized vocabularies that enable them to communicate, and without some flavor of that they're not entirely credible as characters.

The trick is suggesting something without using much, and the problem with that is choosing the right bit so that it doesn't sound forced. Because there's just going to be that occasional word, rather than the sentences-long tech-speak that would really be used, and it can really stick out. That was half the little problem I was trying to work out.

We watched an old disaster movie with Tommy Lee Jones in it last week. A lot of exposition in some scenes, a fair amount of engineer and geology jargon, but they handled it well. Didn't make the movie any better than fair but the problems with it weren't vocabulary-related.

Speaking of fictional credibility, the other half of my problem is the ridiculous conceit that a GNC-style outfit could get by with marketing a powerful and effective hypnotic drug in the U.S. The long and short of it is (spoiler): they couldn't. So I'm using this scene to just hang a lantern on that, and move on.

 

[NotWise]

And yet, professionals and people in diverse businesses and endeavors - doctors, scientists, engineers - employ specialized vocabularies that enable them to communicate, and without some flavor of that they're not entirely credible as characters.

To me, technical vocabulary widely accepted within a field of science or engineering is not jargon. It can often be looked up in a standard dictionary. Jargon is a form of slang unique to a specific, insular community.

I have a scene in an in-progress story in which a Geologist says "We're about to climb out of a cirque and over an arete, and there aren't many people who know what that means who would want to follow us."

So the line uses 200-year old technical terms that most people wouldn't know, but using them is consistent with the situation and her character, and the implications are clear. "there aren't many people who know what that means who would want to follow us," gets the essential idea across that it will be difficult, without requiring readers to understand what a cirque or an arete are.

 

[yowser]

To me, technical vocabulary widely accepted within a field of science or engineering is not jargon. It can often be looked up in a standard dictionary. Jargon is a form of slang unique to a specific, insular community.

I have a scene in an in-progress story in which a Geologist says "We're about to climb out of a cirque and over an arete, and there aren't many people who know what that means who would want to follow us."

So the line uses 200-year old technical terms that most people wouldn't know, but using them is consistent with the situation and her character, and the implications are clear. "there aren't many people who know what that means who would want to follow us," gets the essential idea across that it will be difficult, without requiring readers to understand what a cirque or an arete are.

Oh, lovely! I'd read any story, with pleasure, that employed the word 'cirque' or 'arete.'

 

[8letters]

She ignored his baiting and pressed on. "It's just awful marketing boilerplate, and completely useless to us domestically. The first ad we run like this, the whole regulatory apparatus will dogpile us—FTC, FDA, the works. We sell supplements, dear. Not drugs."

This is one paragraph, so I may be completely off here. But here are my comments on that paragraph.
She ignored his baiting and pressed on. - A tell, which adds nothing to the story

It's just awful marketing boilerplate, and completely useless to us domestically - this should explain why the ad is something that will bring down the FTC, FDA, etc. down on the company. It doesn't achieve that.

The first ad we run like this, the whole regulatory apparatus will dogpile us—FTC, FDA, the works. - As this is the conclusion, I'd prefer it at the end.

We sell supplements, dear. Not drugs. - Doesn't the other person already know this?

My suggestion:
>>>>>>>>>
"The claims in this ad imply medical studies that haven't been done. The first time we run an ad like this, the whole regulatory apparatus will dogpile us—FTC, FDA, the works.
<<<<<<<<<

 

[TadOverdon]

We sell supplements, dear. Not drugs. - Doesn't the other person already know this?

Ah, that bit...

She's patronizing him.

He's the protagonist's husband, and therefore will not be having a terribly good time in this book.

"Jesus Christ. Jon, can't you see what preposterous nonsense this is? To top it off, they're making efficacy claims. Never mind being laughed out of business, the first time we run an ad like this, half the government will dogpile us—FTC, FDA, the works. We sell supplements, dear. Not drugs."

 

[TadOverdon]

More expository dialogue. So this is a company attorney:

"Well then…my sense is that Novak proposes to market the pill as a food supplement instead of as a drug largely to avoid just that kind of regulatory scrutiny, at least initially. Mr. Chase, I don't have to remind you that we sell many products about which we cannot make specific health claims but which people believe in. If the Novaks think that word of mouth will make the drug—uh, the supplement—a success, in my opinion that's a sign that they really believe in it. It's not just a hustle to them.

"And they seem set on controlling the product supply chain, right down the line. They own a manufacturing plant in Manila. They want to own a stake in their distributor as well."

"Let's back up to the part where they threaten and sabotage their competitors." Lauren waved Bradley off and focused on her husband. "No way the board will approve a merger with hoodlums. I won't go along, and neither will Ethan or Janet."

"Uh, Mom, hold on a minute," Ethan interrupted.

"You wouldn't."

"No, of course not. But if we just turn them down flat, what happens next? Lew's bringing up manufacturing got me thinking—we have a supply chain of our own in that region. Manufacturers, wholesalers…maybe Novak doesn't just take their offer somewhere else. Maybe they turn around and knock us on our asses."

"Kid's got a point." Jon couldn't hide his satisfaction at having Ethan take his side, however briefly. It didn't happen often.

"I don't have to remind you" read as an example of "as you know," granted, but again there's context - everyone around Jon Chase seems to expend some effort managing the fact that he's less bright than he thinks he is.

 

[ElectricBlue]

More expository dialogue. So this is a company attorney...

"I don't have to remind you" read as an example of "as you know," granted, but again there's context - everyone around Jon Chase seems to expend some effort managing the fact that he's less bright than he thinks he is.

This story's going to grind your readers into the ground. I deal with contractual shit everyday in my paying job, I don't want to read it in my erotica; you're killing me here, Tad .

 

[TadOverdon]

Revising the first chapter is grinding me into the ground. There's a lot of setup. It has to get easier from here.

I have the next book half outlined. Back to plain ol' wall-to-wall sex, page two.

 

[NotWise]

If you have to do the exposition this way, then maybe you should give the characters a sense of humor. Give them sarcasm. Put a wry edge on what they say. Maybe with more context, they have all that now, but I can't tell. If not, then you're missing an opportunity.

 

[TadOverdon]

Backstory is one use for exposition, and not one i like. Reason being that people learn about other people mostly through their behavior at the present moment. We get little bits of their past in conversation, occasionally, and if we get to know someone well they may tell us longer stories about their past. These are always filtered through their intent and point of view at the present time.

We don't go back and reexperience the past. We remember it and talk about it.

In porn, I like flashbacks and backstory for working brief sexual scenarios into the book in summary or as half-scenes.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think it's very common for authors to make two errors, on this subject. One is that they fall in love with their characters, and they're so interested in them that they want their readers to know everything about them that they do. The other is that they overestimate what readers need to know to make the story work. The reality is that a little goes a long way. Less is more, usually. I think it's a good idea to reveal only as much as is needed for that part of the story. More can be revealed later.

I think it's great to use dialogue in place of narrative to reveal things -- whether it's to reveal character, or backstory, or to explain the situation, or whatever. But the trick is to make sure the dialogue still sounds like dialogue and keeps the reader in the story.

One of the best examples I can think of in a movie is Quint's "Indianapolis" monologue in the movie Jaws. It happens about three-quarters of the way through the movie, on the boat, at night, and it lasts for a couple of minutes. It's one of the best scenes in the movie. It explains a lot about Quint's character and his attitude about sharks. It's written with a good ear for real dialogue (I think the actor Robert Shaw had a role in revising the words, and it seems like it, because you feel like you're listening to a real character telling a real story). It's also suspenseful and fits with the movie because it makes the viewer dread sharks even more than before.

If you're writing a scene where you use dialogue to do some exposition, read it out loud to yourself and ask yourself if you'd want to sit through it if watching it in a movie.

 

[TadOverdon]

"You heard Lew. Mr. Novak likes the ladies. You're still pretty hot, Laur. Go do your thing."

"My 'thing?'"

"Charm him, string him along. See if there's a way to keep them off our backs while we figure this all out."

Lauren was pretty sure that Ethan would lie for her if she beat Jon senseless with her laptop, but none too confident that attorney-client privilege would prevent Bradley from talking to the cops.

"Do you want me to put out, or do you think maybe just giving him a hand-job will do?"

"Lauren!"

She struggled to keep her voice calm and even. "I guess I could forgive you for getting lost in your own myth. You're the Visionary Founder, after all. No, what I can't stand is that you can't make room for the rest of us in that story. So, Frank's okay because he always agrees that you're the smartest guy in the room. But Janet? Well, she's an airhead with suspect credentials. Your son's a glorified IT nerd who gets too much credit for our success. And me? Well, I play hardball with wholesalers and deal with the banks. I do the media stuff, which you know I hate. But you think the best use of my abilities right now is for me to drop everything and fly three thousand miles to shake my ass for some Polynesian huckster who you're afraid is going to eat your lunch."

Her husband sat open-mouthed and uncomprehending. He'd probably blanked just after "visionary."

Bradley looked like he wanted to sink into the floor; Ethan, like he was about to applaud.

"Fine." Jon let out an exasperated sigh. "Will you go talk to this guy, darling?"

"Of course, darling. Oh, and fuck you."

Later, she would wonder what life might have been had she refused to meet Stefan Novak. But there was no going back.

Had to get at least a line about sex in there. LOL

 

[TadOverdon]

"You have no regrets?" Stefan asked.

"Like I said before. My choice. You didn't seduce me, kiddo. Disappointed?"

"I meant…your marriage."

Lauren looked into his eyes and exhaled slowly, touched by his naivete. She remembered how Lew Bradley had painted him "a bit of a jet-setter," a ne'er-do-well kid spending the family money. Her previously low opinion of the lawyer's judgment was not improving tonight.

Her pride, and something dearer than pride, would not allow the possibility Stefan Novak might be playing her.

"The first time I was unfaithful to Jon was with—it doesn't matter. I was gutted afterward. I was not who I'd thought I was; I was not a good woman. The second time was different. Maybe that's a line you can only cross once.

"We've been together a very long time. We don't get along. I travel a lot. It's multiple-choice, my dear; choose any or all of the above. It's happened three times, before tonight. I'm not proud of myself." She rolled toward Stefan, walking her fingers up his chest. "Which has nothing at all to do with you, sweet monster."

_____

 

[NotWise]

That reads well.

 

[Djmac1031]

Just wanted to say this is a very educational thread. I've struggled with this dilemma myself.

I did write an entire chapter of a character telling her back story because it did need to be told to advance the plot, but I do wonder if it could have been done a better way.

 

[TadOverdon]

That reads well.

You've made my day. Thanks.

 

[NotWise]

Just wanted to say this is a very educational thread. I've struggled with this dilemma myself.

I did write an entire chapter of a character telling her back story because it did need to be told to advance the plot, but I do wonder if it could have been done a better way.

Authors may overestimate the importance of backstories. In real life, you don't usually need to know someone's life story to have an idea where they've been and where they're going.

I tend to develop backstories in my head to understand my characters, but the readers shouldn't need all that detail to understand a well-done character. You should be able to understand them largely through their voice, mannerisms, actions, and reactions.

I try to fold backstory into dialog when and if it's needed, rather like TadOverdone did in the example above.