The Historical Info-Dump

I have less faith in the readers of Historical Fiction because, as an example, those who wallow exclusively in Tudorism may be both historically and geographically illiterate in other areas in which many of us write.

When I was a student at the big U, a study showed students forgot 90% of what they learned/crammed after 6 months. Unless one teaches or researches in depth any period of history, much is forgotten or never learned including flora, fauna, clothing, food, etc.

Personally, I do not mind reading a moderate amount of info-dumping because I enjoy History. It bothers me only when it slows the narrative/action. Even then, I can be forgiving if I enjoy the novel. I prefer reading and writing meaty HF that both entertains and educates.

I believe we writers of HF do our best to impart the info painlessly. As always it is up to the reader to decide.

I agree with Donroc and don't mind a moderate amount of info dumping, providing it is accurate and is at an appropriate part of the novel. I do mind huge amounts of info dump when I feel the author is just showing off their knowledge. To me that is unprofessional and patronising.

As a reader, I will often pick up a HF book about a period I know nothing about in order to learn more about it. If it interests me enough, then I'll get a non-fiction book and learn more. So I don't mind a little info-dump as long as it is done well.

I think in my writing, I will be really paranoid about info-dumps. So far though, I think I can weave whatever I need to directly into the story, no dumping. Fingers crossed.

Sat Nam! (Literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

If you're writing a story with some obscure practice, I like to learn something about that practice. On the other hand, pages and pages of this-happened-and-then-that-happened without showing the story might cause me to skip to more interesting parts of the story...or to skip the story entirely.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

gothicangel said:

Info-dumping is A Bad Thing [just like as-you-know-bob dialogue], right? So why when I read so many historical novels I find the authors dumping pages upon pages of history lectures.

Personally, when I see this I jump the info dump and get on with the action.

When I write my Roman thrillers, I have an expectation that my readers will have already read a lot of historical fiction, and non-fiction. A good recent example was being given a lecture on the cursus honorem - I study Classical Studies/Ancient History, I know this very basic Roman prinicpal, thank you.

So, what are others personal feelings?

Click to expand...

I sometimes enjoy a good info-dump, if the info is interesting, and doesn't interfere with the story too much. But most of it, I suspect, is showing off: "I know all this stuff, see? This book may have flaws, but I've done my research!"
And, why info-dump the cursus honorum? It's basic form is simple enough: working your way up the ladder. That should be enough to hold a reader until a little more info is inserted at each step.
Just as you can show a chariot race without describing the 'dolphins' or the intricacies of the colour factions.

donroc said:

I have less faith in the readers of Historical Fiction because, as an example, those who wallow exclusively in Tudorism may be both historically and geographically illiterate in other areas in which many of us write.

Click to expand...

This. Never assume too much specific knowledge. Someone may have picked your book based on convenience or desperation, with no more knowledge of Roman times than could be gained from watching 'Ben-Hur'.

gothicangel said:

You see, I don't info dump. I work it into dialogue, or drip information through my character's narrative. I look at writers like Rosemary Sutcliff, Robyn Young, Manda Scott and Rose Tremain who don't info-dump; then I read Bernard Cornwall who spends pages, info-dumping.



I don't know. I spend a lot of time reading reviews and comments on Amazon, Goodreads and IMDB and fans of the Roman genre at least are pretty shit-hot for spotting inaccuracies, and calling authors out on them.

Click to expand...

Yes, there will always be "experts" who can and will nit-pick historical veracity based on their knowledge of the era, but I am thinking more of lesser trod paths of HF. I have read in the NOVEL section many AW contributors complaining about dialogue info-dumping as well. So, if we eliminate both narrative and dialogue imparting info, what is left? How well it is done, aka good writing, it seems. That is always left for the reader to decide, not our colleagues on AW who have yet to read our books and theorize about a gazillion rules what never to do.

The most recent truckloads of info-dumping I have read occurred in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo -- about 5 consecutive pages about the inner working of the Swedish "secret police" aside from many other descriptions. I still enjoyed the novel as did millions world wide.

Unfortunately, given the U.S. education system, it seems a pebble of historical knowledge sinks to the bottom of a vast sea for even college grads because they are ignorant of the context.

gothicangel said:

You see, I don't info dump. I work it into dialogue, or drip information through my character's narrative.

Click to expand...

I think that is the best way to go about it. The magic of reading a novel is experiencing the world through the perspective of characters we care about.

In my ms I have a lengthy description of the Roman forum, but only because my character is new to Rome and he is experiencing it for the first time. If he were a lawyer at the Basilica Julia, I would take an entirely different approach to that section.

Just now I'm reading The Warlord, a big ol' paperback historical epic. Malcolm Bosse is the author and it's about China in the Warlord era. Not very much familiar here to the average reader I suppose.

I am impressed with how well Bosse gets the info out there. I just read a very well done passage where a German gunrunner is explaining the politics & social situation to his White Russian mistress. In turn the man's words trigger memories in her of life in Russia, escaping through Siberia, etc. Bosse is a real pro at balancing exposition & characterization.

The problem with info dumps is that they are the same as getting a class of kids to 'sit and read a text book' and expecting them to know all the information that is in there... information is actually not very well learned by reading. Some people learn loads from it but the majority get bored and turn off their brain and so learn nothing. Info dumping therefore risks falling into the category of 'boring you until you ignore it and skip to the interesting bits'. This is why most people consider it better to do exposition in little bits interspersed with 'stuff happening' and to seed in some info in a more interactive way (for example, dropping hints and clues about other events that are going on and expecting the readers to think about it to get that information).

A good example of this I saw was in the Morganville series of books. There was a character (a vampire) called Oliver. He had no other name and his past was shrouded in mystery. About all you knew about him was that he was (possibly) English. Later in the series, you find out his birth place and date as part of the plot. Nothing is made of this information, it is just thrown in as an aside and would likely be no more than random information to most people (as in the author needed a date and place of birth and just picked some out of the air). However, if you take the name and the above information and do a quick check on wikipedia (as I did... having had a vague suspicion) or already know your history you find out who he actually is (and I won't spoil it...).

What I am saying there is that you can make your readers work to find something out. Some of the best historic fiction I have read doesn't necessarily give you any explicit dates or events but seeds in clues about stuff that is happening and expects you to do some of the work.

Another point I would make about info dumps is that you should make the distinction between 'infodumps' (bad) and exposition (good if done well, if done bad they become infodumps).

I have also heard it said by many that Bernard Cornwell is not necessarily a good historic fiction writer. No idea about his use of infodumps (not read him) but a friend of mine who is a fairly good Napoleonic expert (particularly military history) has a lot to say about his lack of knowledge of the period...

I'm writing an alternate historical where, I feel, it's even more important to give the reader an idea of where this alternate diverged from reality.

Near the beginning of the first chapter, when my characters are all in a carriage going up to London, the eldest brother asks the youngest brother what he's studying with his tutor.

And we get a few small paragraphs of burble from this very effervescent twelve year old boy enthusiastically telling his parents, brothers and sister about King Edgar the Great, which is approximately the divergent point in my history. That gives the reader enough to go on with.

The story takes place over 700 years after my divergence point so I felt it was important to give the reader that information early on. Later there's an outside character who doesn't understand English culture, so there's some dialogue there.

I've got a few thoughts dropped here and there about terms the reader wouldn't understand without them.

I've also got an entry in "Hardane's" Peerage for the Main Character's father at the beginning (don't know if I'll leave it or not yet) which tells a bit about the backstory of the family, gives a list of the siblings, and tells the reader approximately what year this story is set in.

Even for the straight historical and story bits, I'm dropping small anchors here and there to help the reader. There's the alternate history, the real history and the backstory all to get across. Every once in a while I'll give the reader a small paragraph of narrative explaining something. But I'm trying to keep most of it to the dialogue or the main character's thoughts.

The infodumping goes into a separate research file if I cannot resist the urge.

One person's info-dump is another person's world-building--and I'm including both authors and readers in this equation. I read a recent HF that I personally found full of info-dumping, but so many other readers were fascinated by the history, and I realized it was info-dump to me because I knew the time period well and wanted the author to get back to the story. On that note, the majority of readers pick up a historical novel because of the plot and the setting, and not because they want to reaffirm their personal knowledge of the time period. In my case, if I begin nit-picking, I know it's because I'm not enjoying any other aspect of the book.

I'm a little bit luckier in my last one, I think. I know some people are silent movie fanatics, but others might not be, and might not know a lot of the technical procedures etc.

My character is very curious. It's part of her nature. Those who knew her talked about how annoying it was that she asked so many questions all the time. So I was able to info dump surreptitiously by having my character ask for the answers to some of those questions. Since she was a movie star, she was also interviewed by reporters, and I managed to address some of those issues in the interviews.

areteus said:

I have also heard it said by many that Bernard Cornwell is not necessarily a good historic fiction writer. No idea about his use of infodumps (not read him) but a friend of mine who is a fairly good Napoleonic expert (particularly military history) has a lot to say about his lack of knowledge of the period...

Click to expand...

I'm interested in this.

I read Bernard Cornwell and I'm told that he is pretty good on his history. It's certainly convincing in a way that many other writers aren't. I'm guessing he's pretty sharp - but your friend is, according to you, an expert - so he finds fault.

I've written two historical novels. One was based on James Brooke, the first White Rajah of Sarawak. I got really interested in this guy and did a lot of original research up to the point where I could spot the errors in scholarly biographies. I easily picked up the mistakes in the Flashman book (though I don't go round telling people that MacDonald Fraser doesn't really know his stuff). But all this factual info got in the way of the story. It was only many years later, when I had forgotten the detail, that I was able to write the work of historical fiction that I wanted to. And people straight away start picking up on errors. (Apparently there is a reference to a hansom cab that is out by a decade or two.) In fact, because I was still reading round the subject after the book was in print, I found the odd mistake myself. And I didn't care all that much - but I worried that I should care. But you've put my mind at rest. If an expert is picking at Bernard Cornwell, I think it is safe to say that there aren't many historical authors who aren't making mistakes.

The second book was set in the Indian Mutiny. I wrote it because it was a period that interested me and then I did a lot of reading specifically to research the novel. But there are forums on the Net where people try to identify by name every single one of the hundreds of soldiers killed in some of the actions there. There are whole libraries archiving all the papers that Victorian soldiers, civil servants and politicians wrote about the Mutiny. There are survivors' accounts, Indian prisoners' accounts and, in some cases, the accounts of the victims, written before they died and discovered posthumously. No one could read them all. So someone, somewhere, is feeling smug that they have read something that shows one of the mistakes in Cawnpore.

You have to remember that the historical background is there in the service of the story. Cawnpore is probably a better book because I used my imagination more. It's difficult to avoid info dumping (I know I do it) but it's worth making the effort because it's not only boring for readers but you do it most when the desire to show off about your historical knowledge is greater than your desire to write a good book. It's a symptom that you have, literally, lost the plot.

One way to avoid info-dumping is to write from the perspective of a commoner. He has no way of knowing what's going on except from his own experiences. "How was the coliseum built?" "I dunno. It was there when I got up this morning."

Myself, I never write from the perspective of a famous person. It would take much more study and still leave me open to real experts. No generals for me, only privates who don't have any idea of tactics or high-level decisions. The centurion hands him a spear and points him north. "Go," and he goes.

Charlie

It's tricky...

as people have said one reader's info dump is another's fascinating discovery!

We have to do it in dialogue too which is being called info dumping on other AW boards.

All we can do is drip feed what is needed to the reader in small droplets over several pages or chapters and hope we've done enough!

The trick of having someone be the stranger to be explained to gets a bit wearing in book after book although it is a useful practise. Perhaps we should be using it more sparingly and carefully?

Tom from UK said:

I'm interested in this.

I read Bernard Cornwell and I'm told that he is pretty good on his history. It's certainly convincing in a way that many other writers aren't. I'm guessing he's pretty sharp - but your friend is, according to you, an expert - so he finds fault.

Click to expand...

Part of the problem (from his point of view) is that a lot of current Napoleonic history is based on very few primary sources and a lot of it comes from one secondary source which everyone seems to assume is 'fine'. This is despite there being a lot of primary sources around that are barely touched on. The main problems he sees in the Sharpe series of novels are issues with military structure and training and so on.

I can ask him for more precise details if you like but I don't know enough about the period to question him on his points. He is currently in the process of writing a thesis on French military logistics of the time and is despairing at the lack of sources from that side of the conflict that are available to him in the UK.

With my latest two WIP's, I really haven't felt the need or found a place to impart historical knowledge to my readers.

Because of the times and places, most reasonably educated people have some familiarity with the periods. People know, for instance, that Marie Antoinette wore fancy dresses and then there was a Revolution, and that Southerners had slaves and then there was a Civil War. There are a lot of myths and assumptions associated with each time period, but the setting should be more or less familiar. Some settings require a lot more groundwork since the average reader might not be familiar with dress, institutions, transportation, prominent people, etc.

areteus said:

Part of the problem (from his point of view) is that a lot of current Napoleonic history is based on very few primary sources and a lot of it comes from one secondary source which everyone seems to assume is 'fine'. This is despite there being a lot of primary sources around that are barely touched on. The main problems he sees in the Sharpe series of novels are issues with military structure and training and so on.

I can ask him for more precise details if you like but I don't know enough about the period to question him on his points. He is currently in the process of writing a thesis on French military logistics of the time and is despairing at the lack of sources from that side of the conflict that are available to him in the UK.

Click to expand...

My point isn't that your friend is wrong. It's that if you are an expert on the field, you will always be able to pick up mistakes that authors make. So trying to make your stories absolutely accurate is pointless - they just have to be good enough to carry a reader with a basic understanding of the period. MacDonald Fraser (who I admire hugely) is a good example of this.

A separate point is that, when you are truly expert and confident in your expertise, you no longer feel the need to show off by putting down other people. Once your friend's thesis is published, he'll likely be more tolerant of other peoples' errors. But that's a secondary issue.

angeliz2k said:

With my latest two WIP's, I really haven't felt the need or found a place to impart historical knowledge to my readers.

Because of the times and places, most reasonably educated people have some familiarity with the periods. People know, for instance, that Marie Antoinette wore fancy dresses and then there was a Revolution, and that Southerners had slaves and then there was a Civil War. There are a lot of myths and assumptions associated with each time period, but the setting should be more or less familiar. Some settings require a lot more groundwork since the average reader might not be familiar with dress, institutions, transportation, prominent people, etc.

Click to expand...

Apparently, a large proportion of young people in England are unaware that Churchill was our war-time leader. Many Americans don't know that the Soviets were our allies in 1944. You can't really assume anyone knows anything these days. I'm not sure what you do about it, though.

Tom from UK said:

Apparently, a large proportion of young people in England are unaware that Churchill was our war-time leader. Many Americans don't know that the Soviets were our allies in 1944. You can't really assume anyone knows anything these days. I'm not sure what you do about it, though.

Click to expand...

Most likely they are not readers of HF or anything else of value. In fact, having taught, I never undrestimate lack of contemporary knowledge. They may not be aware of who your PM is but can tell you all about Lady Gaga. More pupils (cannot call them students) in the 1980s knew who Johny Holmes was than VP George H.W. Bush and could not name the Governor of California as well.