Info dumping and show versus tell

You make valid points. Authors who are successful many times have more leeway. The difference? Does it rip the reader out of the story? Does it make you stop reading? Is is a part of the author's style.
All these writing "rules" are merely generalities (IMHO). There are situations in which they can be useful and other situations in which they detract.
As you go over each successive draft of your novel as a writer YOU make the decision whether to stick with TELL or alter so you SHOW.
Some times I use info dumps as a place keeper and then ultimately change to a flashback or immediate scene.
Writing is not all or nothing IMHO-- it has shades of gray.

A good writer friend recently told me to not make conversations go over two pages or to have info dumping go longer then two pages and I am aiming for that as I am revising my works. I don't have any WIP now, as I have finished six books and those are what I am working on. Three children's stories will come after I get the memoir and two novels into polished shape. I can agree with the principal of not wanting to lose the reader by going on and on for longer then two pages of info dumping, and only in a couple of places did I find there was no way to chop or to add dialogue to the story, so info dumping went to three pages between comversational dialogue.

I think it's a good idea to try to follow that line of thinking, that you should aim to keep action moving between the two devices, dialogue and info dumping. As long as it forwards the story things are good.

aspiringwriter said:

Why is it that no one likes what's called info dumping? Why do some authors do it and get away with it? Is it because they're good at it? I recently read The Funhouse by Dean Koontz...and he put a slathering of information, yet it was integral to the main character, Amy.

Click to expand...

Well, Dean Koontz can do it because it's Dean Koontz. Dan Brown could do it because he had a killer high concept story that people will want to read anyway...

The question you want to ask is, when you're reading it, does it feel forced? Does it feel like you've just been yanked out of the story? Did you feel you were being lectured, or the author was trying to show off? If any of these happen, I think you know the answer, whether or not the author can "get away" with it is inconsequential. You are not Dean Koontz.

Sorry if you feel offended, but the point is: saying so-and-so did it, too, means little because so-and-so is a brand. They can write a phone book and someone will publish it.

My point is: Does it work? Did it work for you? Whether it's Dean Koontz or Joe Smoe, it doesn't matter. What matters is: Does it work? The info dump in the Da Vinci Code did not work for me at all -- it irritated me to no end, and I ended up skipping. It could have been written by Hemingway or Toni Morrison and I would still say it didn't work.

If the information is integral to the story and the plot and the characters then I'd say it has a place. If it takes me out of the story (as Dan Brown did with his two-page history on the Louvre), then it's not very good.

You phased the questions in such a way that it sounded to me like: "You people keep saying tell is bad but I like it." Well, then, write it that way. Don't buy into these best practices? That's fine. It is your book.

But these best practices are best practices because many writers have been through them. Tell is generally a weak way of telling a story because you're TELLING the readers how to get the story instead of letting them EXPERIENCE it. Same with info dump -- instead of letting them get the information organically through the unfolding of the story, you're forcing it on them in big chunks.

Does it mean you can NEVER do it? Of course not. Many writers do it. But again, does it work?

A good book has a good mix of show and tell, flashbacks, exposition, etc. that are "done well." I don't think anyone ever say "NEVER tell." Of course you can tell. We're just saying in a lot of cases, show is more interesting. Spices are more interesting than salt, but no one ever say don't use salt in cooking at all. It has its place.

No problem.

What exactly is the difference between exposition and info dumping? Maybe I am thinking of the wrong concept when I think of ID's, could be I am actually writing expositionally and not recognizing it. What I love about AW here is that I learn so much from the other members here.

I always thought exposition was exciting, info dumping was dull.

Say if a paragraph pops out and says, "James walked into the room and saw Alice. They had had an adulterous relationship a few years ago and he was still hiding it from his wife, Lucy."

That's an info dump, as it's clumped and boring and dull dull dull. However, if instead James walks into the room and is really nervous about Alice, trying to not talk to her and generally acting like there's something going on, then the reader will think "Hmmm...there's something about James and Alice."

Then later, it is revealed through either dialog or a short sentence, or flashback or whatever, that James and Alice had a one night stand in an alleyway after one too many drinks.

That, as it's evenly spread out, adds to characterization and makes for an interesting story, is exposition.

Dong ma?

Zoombie said:

I always thought exposition was exciting, info dumping was dull.

Say if a paragraph pops out and says, "James walked into the room and saw Alice. They had had an adulterous relationship a few years ago and he was still hiding it from his wife, Lucy."

That's an info dump, as it's clumped and boring and dull dull dull. However, if instead James walks into the room and is really nervous about Alice, trying to not talk to her and generally acting like there's something going on, then the reader will think "Hmmm...there's something about James and Alice."

Then later, it is revealed through either dialog or a short sentence, or flashback or whatever, that James and Alice had a one night stand in an alleyway after one too many drinks.

That, as it's evenly spread out, adds to characterization and makes for an interesting story, is exposition.

Dong ma?

Click to expand...

Boy's got a point.

It's not an info dump if the reader cares about the explanation. I have some information about my character's bulimia after we see him throwing up. Nobody would care about it if we hadn't already seen how it affects the plot.

As you go back and revise, you'll find that your clumps of information are usually too big (at least that is the way it works for me). You have to determine which pieces of information are pertinent to the scene you have going on and go from there. Then, you look for a different way to relate that information (see Zoombie's post above) in order to make it more interesting.

Nothing but nuts and bolts.

It's all in how it's presented. Your information may be great and important, but if it isn't fed to us properly.....imagine that you've got a steak to feed us. Only bites sized pieces please or we may choke. It's best if you can weave the information into the story like Zoombie and Shady mentioned.

Zoombie said:

That's an info dump, as it's clumped and boring and dull dull dull. However, if instead James walks into the room and is really nervous about Alice, trying to not talk to her and generally acting like there's something going on, then the reader will think "Hmmm...there's something about James and Alice."

Click to expand...

I don't think that's exposition, though.

Then what is, pray tell?

I always believed 'info dump' was just another term for exposition.

Yet, if there is a difference, I think both of them can be dealt with in the same way. Wherever possible convert them into 'showing' and in the places where that just doesn't work, I always think back to a comment I heard in a movie commentary. Can't remember the movie or who was involved, but when an actor complained to the director that his scene was just exposition and wasn't sure how to make it exciting enough to keep the viewers awake, the director replied "It's not exposition, it's SEXPOSITION." In other words, make the info dump seductive to the reader.

Cheers, Lisa.

Pamster said:

A good writer friend recently told me to not make conversations go over two pages

Click to expand...

I can understand exposition, but conversations? Isn't that what "showing" is, in part?

I have tried to keep conversations as short as possible, but I've been questioning this lately. I mean, what's the alternative? Narrative summary, which is a big no-no most of the time?

I'm reading a book at the moment called How to read as a writer. It's a good read, and the author makes a great point about the OP's original question. She cites the Show and tell mantra as only useful to a degree; a rule that novice writers always take as literal so that all the writing becomes a painful exercise in 'acting out' every single detail. I think even Uncle Jim says it too. Essentially good writers tell when they need to insert a rhythm in their writing; a break after an intense scene, for example. Alice Munro is given as an example of an author who includes expositions regularly but manages, through sheer genius, to have us read on. A successful writer does not just tell a good story. A successful writer also knows how to make the right choices--show here, tell there--in order to create a piece of fiction that flows. Now, if only I could do that!

I definitely agree with licity-lieu that there is a rhythm to telling a story. Sometimes you have to get more "show" out there to pick up the pace, and then sometimes you have to put in some "tell" to slow it down.

I've found some places in my story, as I'm re-reading it, where I need to slow down the action. It's too difficult to absorb all the necessary information. So I'm dumping a little bit of exposition there.

All these writing rules are not strict. I think that, like critiques, they're to be taken with a grain of salt.

Does it work? If the exposition keeps your attention, doesn't take you out of the story, and it wouldn't make the story better to show it instead of telling it, then leave it. It's fine.

AndreaGS said:

I
All these writing rules are not strict. I think that, like critiques, they're to be taken with a grain of salt.

.

Click to expand...

I agree 100%.

BUT: novices probably have to learn the rules first before they can break them.

RG570 said:

I can understand exposition, but conversations? Isn't that what "showing" is, in part?

I have tried to keep conversations as short as possible, but I've been questioning this lately. I mean, what's the alternative? Narrative summary, which is a big no-no most of the time?

Click to expand...

I don't know what the alternative is, but most of my dialogue doesn't go over two pages. And my expositional passages don't go longer then two to three pages. I think it takes a nice mixture of those elements to create your style and hon your voice, you know?

And for exposition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exposition

I looked it up and figured it's the same as info dumping like we'd thought.

The difference between info dumping and exposition, as I've always understood it, is time.

Exposition pertains to description. It can be the description of a memory, or a past event -- but normally it is general description that moves the story forward.

Info dumping is a derogative term that is usually applied to a past event -- an event that occurred before the reader came into the story -- that the writer is trying to fit into the narrative somehow. The dump is usually a transparent act, in that you can see the writer thinking, "This happened before, and that is happening now, so let me try to fuse this and that to make the reader understand."

Exposition is necessary. Info dumping can be disastrous.

That makes a lot of sense Will, thanks for your reply. I really appreciate hearing your opinion on the subject. Especially since I got to read it before I had to go to bed.

Time to recharge the spirit/soul and hit the hay.