Infodumping through a "past vs. present" perspective?

I think a lot of it will depend on how interesting the character telling the story is. If you think of it, Interview with a Vampire was entirely what you're describing.

The main things to watch out for, I'd say, is to make certain that the character needs to know the information and that it's not just a case of needing to inform the reader, and to keep it simple, shorter, and use an interesting voice.

A beta reader can always tell you if there's a problem. As for the technique itself, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. As with most things, if done well it can be effective.

The information you might present this way can be sorted into three categories. 1) Information about the past. 2) Information about the present. 3) Information about how the present came to be as it is--how things changed and why.

3 is fairly easy to transition into: "Why don't we have books anymore?" (Of course you still have to frame everything such that this conversation's occurrence seems plausible. And in response to this question, a back-and-forth debate might be preferable to a soliloquy.)

Getting into 2 requires more subtlety but shouldn't be prohibitively difficult. Something like, "I kind of prefer [technology that has replaced books] to books" --> conversation in which characters disagree with each other, one preferring TTHRP and the other books, naturally touching upon many properties of TTHRP as they argue. Or something like, "That seems like a bad thing" --> one character prefers the world as it is, another prefers the world as it was, both touching upon many details of the current wold as they argue.

(Arguments can be a good way to make infodump seem natural.)

As for 1, I mean, we already know what books are. So such info would be useless unless you describe books in a warped way, which could serve as 1) social commentary (Kurt Vonnegut does this sort of thing a lot) and/or 2) a means of dramatizing the nature of your world's characters' attitude--the way your world's philosophies differ from ours. For example, they might view books as a grand evil, a la Fahrenheit 451.

I'll go into this assuming the situation in your last (pre-edit) paragraph: that you're describing something that we, as readers, already know about, but the POV character doesn't.

I'll echo SomethingOrOther and say it basically depends upon how you can approach describing something we readers already know either in a new, unique light. The new-ness and unique-ness can come from two sources: either your character describes books in a way that is totally familiar to us, from the POV of a culture that is familiar to us, but puts a totally brand new spin on the way one might view books, or your character describes books in a way that is totally unfamiliar to us, from the POV of a culture that is totally alien to us, and puts a totally alien spin on the way a totally different culture might view books.

One comes down to your character having a totally unique view of books (or whatever) that is unique to himself, which gives insight into his character and his POV. The other comes down to having created a culture that has a totally different view of books (or whatever), which gives insight into that culture and its POV through his description of the book (or whatever).

Labtech said:

How do y'all feel about infodumping through a past vs. present perspective?

Click to expand...

in-fo-dump v. i. see fail.

Blacbird's Unabridged Dictionary, 2012 ed.


Do not "info-dump". Find another way to convey what you need to convey.

caw

blacbird said:

in-fo-dump v. i. see fail.

Blacbird's Unabridged Dictionary, 2012 ed.


Do not "info-dump". Find another way to convey what you need to convey.

caw

Click to expand...

That.

For example:

As John swiped his hand across the reader screen, he realized how much he missed the feel of physically flipping a page.

"You know, son, there's something to be said for the physical presence of a book."

"Dad, you've got four thousand of them on the screen there."

"No, son. A real book."

Click to expand...

And so on...

I think an info-dump is an info-dump, doesn't matter what form it takes.

Sometimes you have to expose concepts and backstory without writing an entire chapter for it - do it in an entertaining and easy to digest manner ( which is a skill ) - nothing wrong with that at all, IMO.

Try finding ways to weave the information into the story rather than infodumping. Regardless of 'how' the infodump is done, it will probably be recognized for what it is.

It's like trying to disguise a gorilla by dressing it up.

The information should be information that is needed by one character and preferably information he has to squeeze out from someone who is reluctant to give it - not information that the other character simply wishes to spout.

If you're asking the question, you probably already know the answer and are looking for support. We've all been there. It's bad. Compromise: What could be two pages of dialogue, turn into one or two lines by paraphrasing in narration. You've given the information and cut down the chance of boring the reader.

Bufty said:

The information should be information that is needed by one character and preferably information he has to squeeze out from someone who is reluctant to give it - not information that the other character simply wishes to spout.

Click to expand...

This!

Everything that conveys information is not an infodump. I've learned to despise that word. It isn't in my dictionary. I learned it here. New writers, myself included, get the idea that it's a writerly sin to give (even) necessary information to readers. Yes, we, the readers, know what a book is. We know what a tree is, too, but it would be a good idea to let us know if, in the story, they no longer exist.

Labtech said:

How do y'all feel about infodumping through a past vs. present perspective?

Click to expand...

It's common in the movies, and I've seen it in books. But it's rarely in the first chapter. Once a reader is well and truly hooked, s/he's more likely to sit still for a history lesson.

I've never seen anyone says it's a writerly sin to give necessary information to readers.

'Necessary information' doesn't equate with 'infodump'.

Exposition, which is the definition of narrative information, converts to 'infodump' when the information ceases to become interesting and instead becomes a 'dump' of unnecessary and usually boring information that the writer feels they have to unload simply because they know it.

The existence of an infodump is usually a reader perception because most writers don't consider what they have written to be an infodump until a reader points it out.

WriteMinded said:

Everything that conveys information is not an infodump. I've learned to despise that word. It isn't in my dictionary. I learned it here. New writers, myself included, get the idea that it's a writerly sin to give (even) necessary information to readers. Yes, we, the readers, know what a book is. We know what a tree is, too, but it would be a good idea to let us know if, in the story, they no longer exist.

Click to expand...

WriteMinded said:

Everything that conveys information is not an infodump. I've learned to despise that word. It isn't in my dictionary. I learned it here. New writers, myself included, get the idea that it's a writerly sin to give (even) necessary information to readers. Yes, we, the readers, know what a book is. We know what a tree is, too, but it would be a good idea to let us know if, in the story, they no longer exist.

Click to expand...

To an extent, it is. At least for me as a reader.

Yes, the information can be necessary. Does that mean that it should be presented in a manner little better than a lecture? Especially in a novel, an author at his/her peak can pepper this into some storytelling.

No one should oppose presenting information that advances the story. But it doesn't have to interrupt the story to give it, either. When that happens, that's an infodump.

Every scene should have some story action at the core. Somebody does something, makes a decision, plans, reacts to a challenge, changes as a person, shows intention. That's the action of the scene.

Do not write scenes to convey information.

BAD: A Talking Head explains stuff.
"In my day, we read from books. These were made of paper and etc."
"Oh wow, Grandpa. Tell me more about the old days."


GOOD: George and Susie find a mysterious cloth-like thing and bring it to their teacher. This will eventually tell where the treasure is hidden.

Susan ran her finger along the design. "It's like bird feet on sand. It's not even pretty."
"Those are letters." He turned it over. "Writing. There used to be books full of it."
"Books?"
"Not important. We don't have them any more. I have to find somebody who can read this."

That said, sometimes you just have to do Talking Heads. I have nattered on, at length, with all kinds of advice on how to do Talking Heads well, if you really feel you must. Talking Heads 1 is Here and Talking Heads 2 is Here.

In Talking Heads 1, I say:

At heart, the structure of the search-Jess's-bedroom scene is Talking Heads Exchange Information. Sebastian and Adrian are -- I hope -- interesting Talking Heads, exchanging vital information and doing nifty stage business while they're at it.
But they're still Talking Heads.

This is a weak structure for a scene. An easy, self-indulgent structure.
You have to ration yourself to maybe one or two Talking Head scenes per manuscript.
This kinda scene is the first to get chopped if your pacing is slow or you need to lose words. Rightly so.