3rd person prose expo? or Dialogue?

Wolf Coven · May 24, 2013

I write in 3rd person prose, so the story that I'm writing is told from a rather omniscient point of view.

I am starting to find, while editing my own work re-reading my work I am starting to wonder, should I have used dialogue to explain something, or have it done by the use of 3rd person, sort of, in the mind of the character, prose, thinking, to explain it?

Dialogue or exposition, is the battle that I'm fighting right now, should I have the character explain something, or put the reader into their mind? And since most of the time, the character has someone to interact with, the opportunity for dialogue is there but I am not entirely sure if I should use dialogue or have an internal exposition instead.

Its always a battle, especially while reading and editing my own work.

Honest Bill · May 24, 2013

Well i suppose this just depends. Ideally you want to mix it up a bit, and remember, that the way we think about something, may not be exactly how we would speak about it. So really it depends how you want to present the info. do you want to attach an honest subjective opinion to it, or do you want to consider how the info is revealed in dialogue and put that kind of spin on it.

Also, whatever you do present in dialogue, be careful to make it natural. you don't want people saying things that they probably wouldn't just to get some exposition across.

I believe they call that 'Maid and butler dialogue'

Bufty · May 24, 2013

To start with, either you write using Omniscience, where you are the narrator and your's is the only POV or you write in Third person limited where you are still the narator but the POV position is not with you but with a chosen POV character.

Exposition- be it internal or external - is the slowest means of conveying information whereas dialogue is the fastest.

Use whichever or whatever narrative/dialogue/internal thought mix you feel gets any particular scene or information across to the reader with most interest, flow and clarity. Don't elaborate on anything if it serves no purpose other than to show how much you know about whatever it is.

The whole objective in using third person limited POV is to create and maintain the illusion that the reader is experiencing unfolding events through the senses of the POV character and anything that detracts from that is not serving you well.

And, as Honest Bill says, avoid what is also referred to as 'As you know, Bob' dialogue. Maid and butler dialogue is a new one on me - maybe the butler's called Bob.

Do browse more.

=Wolf Coven;8195374]I write in 3rd person prose, so the story that I'm writing is told from a rather omniscient point of view.

I am starting to find, while editing my own work re-reading my work I am starting to wonder, should I have used dialogue to explain something, or have it done by the use of 3rd person, sort of, in the mind of the character, prose, thinking, to explain it?

Dialogue or exposition, is the battle that I'm fighting right now, should I have the character explain something, or put the reader into their mind? And since most of the time, the character has someone to interact with, the opportunity for dialogue is there but I am not entirely sure if I should use dialogue or have an internal exposition instead.

Its always a battle, especially while reading and editing my own work.

Wolf Coven · May 24, 2013

Its sometimes tough because I don't want to make my characters seem like they're lecturing too much through dialogue and they're saying what has to be said instead of what they're needing to say.

I mean characters still have to talk like they're real, not to suddenly jump into lecture mode when the character has never had that purpose before.

the again I guess if you have a character who's primary purpose is exposition I guess that's acceptable.

I guess my main struggle right now is, how do I explain something to the reader, without it seeming like I'm going out of my way to explain it?

Bufty · May 24, 2013

Simple answer- don't explain things - approach it from a different angle.

Let the reader experience what happens and let the reader work out any explanation or 'why?' based upon his reading of what happened.

Give your reader credit.

Wolf Coven said:
Its sometimes tough because I don't want to make my characters seem like they're lecturing too much through dialogue and they're saying what has to be said instead of what they're needing to say.

I mean characters still have to talk like they're real, not to suddenly jump into lecture mode when the character has never had that purpose before.

the again I guess if you have a character who's primary purpose is exposition I guess that's acceptable.

I guess my main struggle right now is, how do I explain something to the reader, without it seeming like I'm going out of my way to explain it?

Honest Bill · May 24, 2013

I agree. The best way is to wait until you have a good reason to expose it naturally. your reader will pick up on it as long as it is in the right context. That is to say they will be much more interested to read about things as they become relevant to the plot and characters. you need to keep them engaged so that they will actually care enough to notice things.

It never feels natural to me when a character is there for exposition's sake alone. That is to say it's fine to insert a character for that purpose, but there's no reason you can't also make them relevant to the plot and give them a good deal of characterisation of their own.

Ideally you want everything to serve multiple purposes. If you have a charater whose primary purpose is exposition, there's a good chance that character isn't interesting enough. Give them some weight in the plot and make them a rich and interesting character. That way when he gives a 'lecture' the reader is more likely to be interested.

jeffo20 · May 24, 2013

Wolf Coven said:
should I have used dialogue to explain something, or have it done by the use of 3rd person, sort of, in the mind of the character, prose, thinking, to explain it?

Dialogue or exposition, is the battle that I'm fighting right now, should I have the character explain something, or put the reader into their mind?

These are questions that are hard to answer out of context. Sometimes the best answer is dialogue, sometimes it's inner monologue, etc., etc. If someone says, "You should always use dialogue," they're wrong. If someone says, "You should always use your narrator to explain this," they're wrong. Each story, each situation within a story, calls for its own solution.

And, quoting Bufty, because Bufty is right on:

Use whichever or whatever narrative/dialogue/internal thought mix you feel gets any particular scene or information across to the reader with most interest, flow and clarity. Don't elaborate on anything if it serves no purpose other than to show how much you know about whatever it is.

Layla Nahar · May 24, 2013

Exposition is so tricky! Dialogue or narrative, its still a challenge. What worked best for me is observing how it's done in those books that I have really enjoyed.

kuwisdelu · May 24, 2013

Bufty said:
Exposition- be it internal or external - is the slowest means of conveying information whereas dialogue is the fastest.

What? It seems the opposite to me. With exposition, you can cut straight to the chase. With dialogue, you can rarely do that, since you have to bring it up more naturally, and reveal information in a more roundabout way if you don't want to make it sound like an "as you know, Bob" infodump. I find that dialogue is the slowest way to convey information, and exposition is the fastest.

BethS · May 24, 2013

Wolf Coven said:
Dialogue or exposition, is the battle that I'm fighting right now, should I have the character explain something, or put the reader into their mind? And since most of the time, the character has someone to interact with, the opportunity for dialogue is there but I am not entirely sure if I should use dialogue or have an internal exposition instead.

Dialogue-as-exposition runs the risk of sounding artificial, so if you do use dialogue for that purpose, make sure the character has a good reason for passing the information along to another character. Otherwise, put exposition into the narrative.

Susan Coffin · May 24, 2013

kuwisdelu said:
What? It seems the opposite to me. With exposition, you can cut straight to the chase. With dialogue, you can rarely do that, since you have to bring it up more naturally, and reveal information in a more roundabout way if you don't want to make it sound like an "as you know, Bob" infodump. I find that dialogue is the slowest way to convey information, and exposition is the fastest.

Dialogue is often about what is not being said. It's about the information between the lines.

I don't know whether dialogue or exposition provides faster information. It depends on how you write the story.

Bufty · May 24, 2013

Pure exposition is the relating of historical information that aids the understanding of present information and usually slows things down simply because of its nature.

Plodding through exposition can feel slower than reading carefully constructed dialogue.

I'm not meaning to be categoric here - that wasn't my intention.

Everything depends upon execution, as usual.

kuwisdelu said:
What? It seems the opposite to me. With exposition, you can cut straight to the chase. With dialogue, you can rarely do that, since you have to bring it up more naturally, and reveal information in a more roundabout way if you don't want to make it sound like an "as you know, Bob" infodump. I find that dialogue is the slowest way to convey information, and exposition is the fastest.

BethS · May 24, 2013

Going all pedantic here, but I keep seeing people talk about exposition and dialogue as if they're mutually exclusive. They aren't.

Exposition is explanation. It can be the history of someone's childhood trauma or it can be about the workings of a trebuchet. Exposition can be put anywhere--in the narrative, in internal monologue, in dialogue.

Exposition in the narrative can be done as a block (hopefully short, interesting, and relevant). Exposition in dialogue may be done in a block (if it's natural for the character to give a quick speech on something), or it may be more drawn out, a back-and-forth conversation. Which will probably take longer to read but can be more involving if the writer sees to it that other things are going on in the scene at the same time.

Wolf Coven · May 24, 2013

Bufty said:
Pure exposition is the relating of historical information that aids the understanding of present information and usually slows things down simply because of its nature.

Plodding through exposition can feel slower than reading carefully constructed dialogue.

I'm not meaning to be categoric here - that wasn't my intention.

Everything depends upon execution, as usual.

Yeah sometimes I do feel when I'm reading through what I wrote..."wow I did drag a bit" and then I reduce or cut it down, usually rewording it.

But at the time of writing it seemed right to do it, but when reading it didnt' seem to work. Funny how things are like that.

Chekurtab · May 24, 2013

Bufty said:
To start with, either you write using Omniscience, where you are the narrator and your's is the only POV or you write in Third person limited where you are still the narator but the POV position is not with you but with a chosen POV character.

The whole objective in using third person limited POV is to create and maintain the illusion that the reader is experiencing unfolding events through the senses of the POV character and anything that detracts from that is not serving you well.

Do browse more.

I know we talk about beat-up subject, but may I ask:
If you write in 3rd person POV limited to one character and narrate as an omnipresent narrator with no POV of your own, that's the proper name for it? What if you add your own omnipresent POV to 3rd limited?
Thanks.

Bufty · May 25, 2013

You seem to be trying to complicate something where there is no complication.

The narrator is you- you are simply the writer of the linking narrative - someone has to link everything together and add tags and set scenes and so forth.

The POV is that of the chosen POV character.

The narrator is not the POV character.

If you start adding your own opinions and explanations and making your presence as narrator obvious and intrusive you are risking breaking POV and ruining the reader's sense of involvement with the character.

That what you mean?

And you can have as many POV characters as you wish in Third person limited. The 'limited' in Third person limited simply means you are limited to one POV at any given time/scene/chapter or whatever.

Chekurtab said:
I know we talk about beat-up subject, but may I ask:
If you write in 3rd person POV limited to one character and narrate as an omnipresent narrator with no POV of your own, that's the proper name for it? What if you add your own omnipresent POV to 3rd limited?
Thanks.

Chekurtab · May 25, 2013

Bufty said:
You seem to be trying to complicate something where there is no complication.

The narrator is you- you are simply the writer of the linking narrative - someone has to link everything together and add tags and set scenes and so forth.

The POV is that of the chosen POV character.

The narrator is not the POV character.

If you start adding your own opinions and explanations and making your presence as narrator obvious and intrusive you are risking breaking POV and ruining the reader's sense of involvement with the character.

That what you mean?

And you can have as many POV characters as you wish in Third person limited. The 'limited' in Third person limited simply means you are limited to one POV at any given time/scene/chapter or whatever.

I don't narrate in omni, but others do. Orson Scott Card writes in 3rd POV, the author narrative is omnipresent. "War and Peace" is written in 3rd POV with omnipresent Leo Tolstoy's ramblings.

bonitakale · May 25, 2013

I get a little nervous about the word "explain." If you really, really must explain something, it's often best to shorten it as much as you can and put it into a narrative paragraph. "Ever since the destruction of Earth, the Orphaned Fleet had been roaming space, searching for a new home..."

But ideally, you assume things and let the reader catch on.

"She pulled up her horse and surveyed the fields before her. Not much cover. It might be best to wait till night to leave the forest."

"Damn, was there ever a parking space when you needed one? If Marilyn didn't get out here pretty soon, he was just going to drive away. He should have known better than to expect his flaky sister-in-law to be on time."

I've read series books in which the author seemed to feel a need to give us too much info about the past books. "Ever since Mary and Sue had saved Peter from the wolf, they'd felt a bond." To me, that's TMI. All I need to know is that Mary and Sue are friends.

Bufty · May 25, 2013

Are you talking about when using Third person Limited or Omniscience because you seem to be confusing the two.

Chekurtab said:
I don't narrate in omni, but others do. Orson Scott Card writes in 3rd POV, the author narrative is omnipresent. "War and Peace" is written in 3rd POV with omnipresent Leo Tolstoy's ramblings.

rainsmom · May 25, 2013

Chekurtab, both Omniscient and Third Person Limited are written in third person (as opposed to first or second). They are, however, completely different techniques.

Chekurtab said:
If you write in 3rd person POV limited to one character and narrate as an omnipresent narrator with no POV of your own, that's the proper name for it? What if you add your own omnipresent POV to 3rd limited?

If there's an omniscient narrator (whether it's you or someone else), then you're writing in Omniscient, and the POV is the narrator's. You're NOT writing from a character's POV. The narrator may choose to make you privy to what the character thinks, but it's still the narrator's POV.

Third Limited has no narrator. In Third Limited the POV is strictly a character in the story. More than one character can serve as the POV character, but only one per scene.

What's a combination of the two called? Sloppy, probably.

Bufty · May 25, 2013

posted by Rainsmom: Chekurtab, both Omniscient and Third Person Limited are written in third person (as opposed to first or second). They are, however, completely different techniques.

If there's an omniscient narrator (whether it's you or someone else), then you're writing in Omniscient, and the POV is the narrator's. You're NOT writing from a character's POV. The narrator may choose to make you privy to what the character thinks, but it's still the narrator's POV.

Third Limited has no narrator. In Third Limited the POV is strictly a character in the story. More than one character can serve as the POV character, but only one per scene.

What's a combination of the two called? Sloppy, probably.

Have you slipped here, Rainsmom?

Third limited definitely does have a narrator, as I'm sure you know - it's the writer.

The POV in Third person Limited at any given time is that of the chosen POV character but that POV character is not the narrator and the POV is not that of the narrator - which is the distinction from Omniscient.

rainsmom · May 25, 2013

Bufty said:
Have you slipped here, Rainsmom?

Third limited definitely does have a narrator, as I'm sure you know - it's the writer.

I'll defer to your definition. I don't especially like it though. I think it muddies the water for people who are trying to differentiate between omniscient and third limited to think about the writer as narrator.

Bufty · May 25, 2013

I'm not sure I see how it muddies the water.

The following is not intended as anything other than my version of the distinction between the two POVs.

In Omniscient the writer is the narrator and holder of the POV. As such, and because we know everything by virtue of our omniscience, we are free within the narrative to express our own view and interpretation on whatever we choose no matter how we may from time to time focus in and out on characters. We don't need to go in and out of heads to see what anybody is thinking because our omniscience means we know what's inside everybody's head all the time. We simply say what X or Y is thinking or how he feels or reacts or wants to act or whatever.

In Third Limited we, the writer, are still the narrator insofar as someone has to write the darned story but this time the POV is not ours - the POV is that of the chosen POV character and that's where the trickiness comes in for the beginner. Everything is viewed through the POV camera on the chosen POV character's shoulder and events are narrated as seen through the camera lens. If the POV character can't see something or doesn't know about it we cannot mention it until he does. It's part of the craft to learn to narrate what is seen through the lens in a manner that creates and maintains for the reader the illusion that the reader is experiencing the unfolding events through the eyes and senses of the POV character. To that end we, the writer/narrator, keep our own presence and opinions as narrator to ourself and maintain a low profile - unlike in omniscience.

rainsmom said:
I'll defer to your definition. I don't especially like it though. I think it muddies the water for people who are trying to differentiate between omniscient and third limited to think about the writer as narrator.

bearilou · May 25, 2013

bonitakale said:
I get a little nervous about the word "explain." If you really, really must explain something, it's often best to shorten it as much as you can and put it into a narrative paragraph. "Ever since the destruction of Earth, the Orphaned Fleet had been roaming space, searching for a new home..."

This hits it square on the nail for me. I think my issue is with the use of the word 'explain. If the writer has to explain anything to me, then I'm not being trusted as the reader to infer the information for the story.

Tell me where I need telling, show me where I need showing but don't explain it to me. I can get it.

rainsmom · May 25, 2013

I guess this is how I see it...

The writer is the writer. That makes him the narrator, no matter what's happening on the page. So it's not really worth bringing into the equation. There's no way for the writer not to be there, no matter what POV you're in.

How the story is told is separate from the writer, no matter what. The omniscient narrator *could* be the writer-as-narrator or it could be an unseen character, an older version of one of the characters in the book, God, or someone else. The voice and style of the narrator are the voice and style of that narrator, not the voice and style of the writer himself, unless the writer chooses to make himself the narrator.

In third limited, the voice and style are that of the POV character.

3rd person prose expo? or Dialogue?

practical experience, FTW

Where have the last ten years gone?

Where have the last ten years gone?

practical experience, FTW

Tyrant King

Seashell Seller

Revolutionize the World

Tell it like it Is

Where have the last ten years gone?

Smart donkey. Please don't call me-

Where have the last ten years gone?

Smart donkey. Please don't call me-

Where have the last ten years gone?

Feeling like an old timer

Where have the last ten years gone?

Feeling like an old timer

Where have the last ten years gone?

DenturePunk writer

Feeling like an old timer