Things you should maybe avoid

[Writer61]

Would someone explain "laundering" as it's being used in this thread?

If I understand correctly, it means working details into the story piecemeal rather than as an info dump. Am ready to be wrong.

 

[SimonDoom]

Would someone explain "laundering" as it's being used in this thread? Is it a known term among authors?

I've never heard the term before in this context, but I understand the concept. It means introducing background facts only as needed, filtered through the narrative over time, rather than all at once in an obvious and often clumsy infodump. I think it is usually the right way to do it.

 

[AG31]

If I understand correctly, it means working details into the story piecemeal rather than as an info dump. Am ready to be wrong.

What's the connection to the activity of laundering? Don't you stuff all the close into the washing machine at once?

 

[AG31]

I've never heard the term before in this context, but I understand the concept. It means introducing background facts only as needed, filtered through the narrative over time, rather than all at once in an obvious and often clumsy infodump. I think it is usually the right way to do it.

See my reply to Writer61 above.

 

[TheLobster]

What's the connection to the activity of laundering? Don't you stuff all the close into the washing machine at once?

Not that kind of laundering. Think of money instead.

What we're referring to here is the activity of taking something that's "bad" (here, excessive world building) and turning it into something "licit" (the same world building but drip-fed slowly, so as to not bore the reader).

 

[Writer61]

What's the connection to the activity of laundering? Don't you stuff all the close into the washing machine at once?

I agree, but I think the usage owes something to the practice of money laundering, introducing things gradually. It is not something that I would use.

 

[SimonDoom]

See my reply to Writer61 above.

It's an analogy to money laundering, which is a method that criminals use to make large amounts of "dirty" money earned from criminal activity "clean" by filtering it over time through a legitimate business enterprise. In this context the infodump is dirty, and it's made clean by introducing the info bit by bit over the course of the story rather than all at once.

That said, I've never heard the term laundering used this way before.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

Would someone explain "laundering" as it's being used in this thread? Is it a known term among authors?

It's a reference to "money laundering", hiding the provenance of money earned in a criminal enterprise, or at least that's how I read it. The idea is, you hide your exposition in something that feels more like part of the story, say dialogue in a lover's spat.

 

[Britva415]

I like the "laundering" idea. I agree that not every bit has to be, but, to me, every worldbuilding element that IS in the story somehow should be laundered into it. That's the "somehow." Not just spammed in a big, story-interrupting and unnecessary slab.

Huge amounts of illicit cash are dubious. A stream of legitimate-looking cash is not. Laundering is how it's made to look legitimate - as if it's there for a reason and serving a purpose other than just accumulating unlikely amounts of cash.

Laundering the world-building - I like the concept. One can generate a large amount of world-building, ideally in the form of notes, but to get it into the story, a bit at a time and for good reasons is my favorite method. Paced and justified.

 

[Britva415]

It's an analogy to money laundering, which is a method that criminals use to make large amounts of "dirty" money earned from criminal activity "clean" by filtering it over time through a legitimate business enterprise. In this context the infodump is dirty, and it's made clean by introducing the info bit by bit over the course of the story rather than all at once.

That said, I've never heard the term laundering used this way before.

I wouldn't necessarily say "dirty" vs. "clean," as I wouldn't want to malign the noble craft of worldbuilding.

I'd put it more in terms of "licit" or "illicit," or in terms of "justified" or "unjustified."

Worldbuilding is a two stage process, as is the process of ill-gotten gains: There's an accumulation process, which in worldbuilding happens in notes or "off the page," with regard to the pages of the actual story, and in ill-gotten gains, happens in cash, again, with the apropos expression of "off the books." Then after the accumulation phase, the laundering turns worldbuilding into the justified, timely, effective inclusion of certain details at certain times to lend import, context and meaning to plot events and to characterization, and the laundering turns money into unsuspicious cash flows which one can draw upon and pay taxes on and avoid the skeptical attention of jealous neighbors, law enforcement and government revenue agencies.

Think of readers as cops, snitches and taxmans. If you flash your goods too conspicuously, they're going to be unhappy and punish you. So you launder it until all they see is a credible seamless flow of riches. It isn't even about hiding the money or the information: It's just about hiding its raw, unrefined source so that it's believable and not cringey.

And, yes, there's some overhead. It might cost you 20% off the top, but it's hubris to believe that every word in your worldbuilding notebook deserves to end up in your compellingly paced story, or that every dollar of your ill gotten gains deserves to appear on your income statement.

 

[TheLobster]

That said, I've never heard the term laundering used this way before.

It's a bit unusual, but in this context it essentially means "smuggling" (bits of worldbuilding into the narrative), so we're firmly in the realm of things shady and suspect

 

[Britva415]

The idea is, you hide your exposition in something that feels more like part of the story, say dialogue in a lover's spat.

It's not even about hiding the exposition. It's merely about making it look like storytelling instead of like a slab of infodump. "Legitimate income you can freely spend" instead of "suspicious bales of cash you can't easily do anything with."

 

[Britva415]

Or another way to look at it, if the "laundering" analogy is failing, is just accumulating (legitimate!) money in a (worldbuilding) account, and spending it as you write. When you live your life, you don't show your savings statement to everyone you buy shit from (that would be weird! And risky), you just give them the money they need at the time they need it.

 

[Stanfield2025]

If I understand correctly, it means working details into the story piecemeal rather than as an info dump. Am ready to be wrong.

You're correct. I've never heard the term, but it's been in my head for a while now so I'll coin it. It's personally helpful for me to think of exposition/worldbuilding this way.

 

[Britva415]

if the "laundering" analogy is failing, is just accumulating (legitimate!) money in a (worldbuilding) account, and spending it as you write. When you live your life, you don't show your savings statement to everyone you buy shit from (that would be weird! And risky), you just give them the money they need at the time they need it.

Hell, that could be a writing challenge: Worldbuilding "on credit." Don't give them the background at the time it's needed.

Reveal it later on, after the events it would otherwise have enhanced and illuminated. The "interest" on that deferred payment would be using the unclear context and the obscured ramifications to create a specific, and necessary, dramatic effect.

 

[Stanfield2025]

The details can be relevant to your understanding of a character, not necessarily the plot.

Sure, but it is possible for those details to come at the cost of parts of the overall narrative.

If I'm writing an unsympathetic villain character, for example, and I launder details about how they had a rough childhood, that could make their defeat just a little less impactful. Furthermore, some characters benefit from a cloak of mystery.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Hell, that could be a writing challenge: Worldbuilding "on credit." Don't give them the background at the time it's needed.

Reveal it later on, after the events it would otherwise have enhanced and illuminated. The "interest" on that deferred payment would be using the unclear context and the obscured ramifications to create a specific, and necessary, dramatic effect.

I've tried this a few times before, where the information toward the end recontextualizes the rest of the story. Momento is a great example of this. It's difficult to pull of satisfactorily, and is easier to do with a shorter story where it can be consumed in short order, as opposed to over days or weeks, where key details are potentially forgotten and you lose the effect. But when it's done well, it's a thing of beauty, and I'm always impressed at a successful recontextualization.

 

[AG31]

Don't over use tags and other modifiers. I finally gave up on a book at page 19 because of dialogue like this:

"How's it been?" she asked.
Jenny paused before she answered. "Not a walk in the park," she said finally.
"Hazing?" Joanna asked.
"Some," Jenny agreed with a nod. "How did you know?"
"Been there done that," Joanna replied.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Don't over use tags and other modifiers. I finally gave up on a book at page 19 because of dialogue like this:

"How's it been?" she asked.
Jenny paused before she answered. "Not a walk in the park," she said finally.
"Hazing?" Joanna asked.
"Some," Jenny agreed with a nod. "How did you know?"
"Been there done that," Joanna replied.

Yeah. I often write my dialogue without any tags, then read it again to put tags and a little description in as needed.

And then edit out some of it later, having still put too much in...

 

[TheWritingGroup]

I've been criticized in this very topic for having too few tags, of course.

 

[Stanfield2025]

Don't over use tags and other modifiers. I finally gave up on a book at page 19 because of dialogue like this:

"How's it been?" she asked.
Jenny paused before she answered. "Not a walk in the park," she said finally.
"Hazing?" Joanna asked.
"Some," Jenny agreed with a nod. "How did you know?"
"Been there done that," Joanna replied.

This doesn't strike me as terrible, but if the entire book was written that way it would be a different story.

 

[TheLobster]

This doesn't strike me as terrible, but if the entire book was written that way it would be a different story.

This is pretty terrible, though. There is redundancy in literally every dialogue, sometimes more than one ("agreed with a nod"? Really?), and the whole thing is incredibly stuttery.

You might say that speech tags are to be glossed over, and I agree, but if they are so superfluous so as to be skippable completely, they shouldn't be included at all.

 

[StillStunned]

Don't over use tags and other modifiers.

I've been criticized in this very topic for having too few tags, of course.

Tags are mechanical components of storytelling. They're the exposed parts of the framework, so to speak. The cables and wires holding the décor in place. They draw the reader out of their immersion. So it's best if there are as few as possible.

But you also don't want to break the reader's immersion by making them wonder who's speaking. That's probably even worse than having unnecessary tags.

It's a balancing act, but this is probably a good place to start.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Yes, as a once-off it's just careless, but you couldn't keep on reading style like that.

'paused before she answered' already covers 'said finally', and you could then turn that full stop into a comma:

Jenny paused before she answered, "Not a walk in the park."

In two others there's a question mark so we know she's asking, so don't say 'asked' in this short interchange.

But at the other extreme, I'll repeat what I've said before that you do need a few speech tags, even when there's only two people and it should be obvious from what is said, who is saying it. When I look back at what I wrote a year or two ago (not here), in situations like this, I read such conversations and have to stop, count up, make sure I do know who's speaking, and then insert tags at about every fourth speech.

 

[Stanfield2025]

This is pretty terrible, though. There is redundancy in literally every dialogue, sometimes more than one ("agreed with a nod"? Really?), and the whole thing is incredibly stuttery.

You might say that speech tags are to be glossed over, and I agree, but if they are so superfluous so as to be skippable completely, they shouldn't be included at all.

I'd hesitate to call it terrible. Yeah, it's redundant, but I'd easily gloss over this if i read it in an actual story.