Cryptic background references Vs. Narrative filigree

I'd say a decent middle ground between the two extremes. I feel like the world grows in the readers mind if you name drop a little, especially by mentioning dead religions, political powers, songs, legends, etc. Patrick Rothfuss does this in dare I say it the most "perfect" way that I have seen to date. I'd suggest reading his work if you haven't already to give you an idea of what I really mean.

I think it is critically important to drop tidbits of background info that have absolutely nothing to do with the story, in stories that are supposed to be about big things in a vast world. The mere mention of an empire beyond the mountains, where rivers flow upwards creates a sense of wonder about the world. What else could there be? Will something interesting present itself later on in the story?

You can also use it to broaden the scope of some info that is meaningful to the story. In the book Guin Saga, a character laments that he lacks any sort of innate special ability of the sort his sister has, who is a prophet. As the thoughts race through his mind, he thinks about the fact that in the wide world some rare people are also gifted by the gods, but with different, lesser abilities, like the ability to speak any language and a few other things, and is sad that he doesn't have even minor powers such as those. The additional information about these other sorts of abilities is meaningless to the story at large, but creates a very nice sense of scope to the world, that there exist many wondrous things even beyond the story itself.

On the other hand, it isn't too important, and indeed can be harmful, in stories that are very focused. If they're only about a specific character doing specific things in a specific place, it's fairly pointless, since it adds nothing to the story, due to its inherent limited scope. But if the world is an important part of the story(like it should be in epic scope sagas), then it's vital.

It also depends greatly on the scene you're writing at the moment. If it is an action packed scene, then background info disrupts the flow, but if it's a more contemplative scene, it does wonders for the reader's enjoyment and sense of the world.

My current mms is one slice of a much larger story. When I pruned it back from 160K to 138K, I made certain that most of the references were for things important to that first storyline. I buried hints and clues, and occasionally hit readers with a two-by-four, but not so much yet about the big picture. If I'm lucky enough to be published, I'll reserve that for book 2.

I read with the idea that the writer put something in there for a reason. I love stumbling back across hints later, and finally realizing 'Oh, that makes sense!'

it depends on the story you want to tell, really. if you want to write hardcore hard sf space opera or map opera you can assume an audience that can take it and, actually, embrace with. with YA, typically, not so much.

you could, I suppose, supply a glossary and/or appendix.

someone, maybe even here, talked about starting off in a relatively mundane place and then going off to a more exotic one. then you get into more of the background. seemed sound to me.

Ria13 said:

you could, I suppose, supply a glossary and/or appendix.

Click to expand...

I detest this idea. It is nothing but an open admission of failure of storytelling on the part of the author. If I want a glossary or appendix, I'll read academic non-fiction.

I know that the U.S. edition of A Clockwork Orange, by Anthony Burgess, contains a glossary of the mostly Russian-based slang terms (e.g., "horrorshow") he used. I also know, because I met him personally and he told me this, that he hated this idea, and protested it, and lost out to the publisher's insistence.

And I also know, from having read the book years ago, without needing to reference that glossary, that it's completely unnecessary to understanding that great novel.

Every writer should endeavor to make meaning clear, without needing to resort to such a clumsy device.

caw

OTOH, sprawling epics like Martin's or Jordan's stories require a glossary and appendix, even for confirmed encyclopedia whores like myself. But now that we have Wiki, I can see why publishers would prefer outsourcing that information to fan and expert-generated content.

Of course in some books, such as Danielewski's 'House of Leaves,' the appendix is actually part of the story.

Not in the book, but famously applicable:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."

Would you want to see Blade Runner without this speech? Me neither.

Alan_Often said:

Not in the book, but famously applicable:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."

Would you want to see Blade Runner without this speech? Me neither.

Click to expand...

+ 1

Interesting factiod! The line "all these moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain" wasn't scripted, but rather improvised on the spot by the actor. And now it's impossible to imagine the film without it!

megan_d said:

...The line "all these moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain" wasn't scripted, but rather improvised on the spot by the actor...

Click to expand...

No kidding!

Well, Max M - my thoughts on worldbuilding is that the only reason world building elements exist is to advance the story. Putting a this or a that in the narrative just because the author thinks it's keen is out. A world building element should be put in the narrative because somehow it is crucial to the story, including understanding of character. Otherwise it's a distraction and a drag on the story. I submit that the Tannhauser Gates bit is crucial to our understanding of the replicant's life and makes the pathos of Roy Baty's situation really vivid.

I abuse it. I confess. I will slam on the brakes of a narrative to recount how the mc once left his shoe on a carriage headed for Drosville, the shoe was found by the carriage's next passenger, and blithely thrown out the window by the careless bending of a perfumed wrist while the carriage crossed over the Routhain canal.
Why? Because that's the way I think, so that's the way I write.
IMO, it might not be trying to find what works for other people, since everyone is going to have a preference, but what works for you as the writer.
Your own writing style might be the best guide with how much name-dropping you decide to do.

If it's your first draft, go nuts with it. Get it out of your system if it helps you establish the rhythm of your story. It wets your mind I think. You'll notice where it goes overboard as you read back through, and at that point you can clearly see which bits are crap and which should be left in. Then it's good you have all of them there before you. Easier to delete, move about, rearrange and whatnot.

I like this to a degree because it does add interest and flavor. There is always more going on we don't understand, but I do feel most readers get frustrated if there are too many loose ends whipping about by that final page. Even if you know there will be a sequel, it's never a great idea to leave a reader irritable.

Alan_Often said:

Not in the book, but famously applicable:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."

Would you want to see Blade Runner without this speech? Me neither.

Click to expand...

this has nothing, IMO, to do with the topic under discussion. the speech happens at the end of the film, by which time presumably the audience has properly digested the world of the film or else they haven't. the speech has to do with emotion, not with telling you how the fictional world works.

actually, the movie has some basic worldbuilding errors in the early part. the Vogt-Kampf (sp.?) depends on people giving socially normative responses when, in terms of the movie, we don't know the socially normative responses.

perhaps in this version of the year 2019, westerners happily eat dog meat. we just don't know.

Ria13 said:

this has nothing, IMO, to do with the topic under discussion. the speech happens at the end of the film, by which time presumably the audience has properly digested the world of the film or else they haven't. the speech has to do with emotion, not with telling you how the fictional world works.

Click to expand...

But they're still memories about the world - or universe, which gives it some depth. In the movie, we never got to see any cool space stuff, but that doesn't mean it's not happening.

actually, the movie has some basic worldbuilding errors in the early part. the Vogt-Kampf (sp.?) depends on people giving socially normative responses when, in terms of the movie, we don't know the socially normative responses.

Click to expand...

Clearly, shooting someone is NOT a socially normative response. What else did you need to know?

perhaps in this version of the year 2019, westerners happily eat dog meat. we just don't know.

Click to expand...

What, did North Korea take over LA in 2019???

defcon6000 said:

Clearly, shooting someone is NOT a socially normative response. What else did you need to know?

Click to expand...

I didn't mean the shooting. I meant the questions asked during the test.

What, did North Korea take over LA in 2019???

Click to expand...

I mean that in a movie set in a pretty radically changed setting, forty years in the future (of the original audience), I don't think that they could assume that westerners wouldn't have taken to eaten dog meat by that point.

not a major thing that ruins the movie, though.

Like everyone else, I think there's a middle point to be found. However, I think it falls closer to the side of including details but not explaining them.

Unless your story has a small or unusual scope, it's going to intersect the culture/places/history of your world. There are some times when the characters would naturally say names and getting around it leaves the world feeling bland at best. So long as these things aren't overwhelming, I think they're a good part of a novel. Whereas I strongly dislike it when the story stops to say "Blibble Castle was built by Lord Blibble in 48953 KX..."

However, you want your reader oriented in the narrative. Though you want to use this lightly, one common technique is to have a character who isn't familiar with something and thus needs an explanation. Or better yet, someone with popular misconceptions about it - that way you get both the truth and a culture's view.

There are also times you can give the reader information without having "As you already know..." dialogue. If Lord Blibble is relevant enough to be mentioned, the characters will probably bring up the important facts in conversation. Sometimes the POV character can naturally think about things as well, if they have opinions that cast more light on your world.

I really enjoy the extras that are included in a world. Just like real life not every conversation you have is important. People will talk about things completely irrellevant at the strangest times. I think adding a little of this to a story give a sense of realism to your world no matter how different from this one it is.

It also helps hide the exposition that you need to put in the narrative to help people connect to and follow your story.

JMHO

Ah, you know what I like sometimes? When multiple characters will note something significant about a location, from their point of view. It can be as large as a paragraph, or a small as an "aside" murmur to another character, but it really pins down a spot when different people express different opinions about it.

"Torchwood keep was a grand edifice of gigantic, sky-piercing spires ...." and then later on, some dude goes "Torchwood? Oh yeah, been there. S'ok if you like your castles small...like your manparts..."

Eh, you know what I mean.

I love these little bits. To me they make the world come alive. Even if it's a person/place/thing that's not directly affecting the plot, they make the world bigger than the story.

Also, personally, dropping the names of places or characters makes me curious. These details make me more interested in what is going on in the world and what the author has in mind.

Hope I'm not out of line here, but here's a little example from my current WIP:

“You can't be certain.” Crassus said plainly. “But I can tell you that Velasier Massaire saved my life at the battle of Trois Pistoles. I owe him a debt I cannot repay.”

“That is true.” Bradleigh said. “I was there. Velasier does not choose his friends lightly. For what it's worth L'issa, I trust the Prætorian with your life, and I would trust him with any of ours.”

What I did here was intended to do several things:
1. Establish a past event (The battle) as well as a place (Trois Pistoles). Thus making the world bigger.
2. Create curiosity for the reader- Is Trois Pistoles a place, or was the battle so named because three pistols (It is french for three pistols) were significant in some way?
3. Establish, in a quick, efficient way, an intriguing background that ties a few of the current characters together without creating the need for a lot of exposition.
4. Add depth to the characters. We now know that three of them are veterans of the same war, and had worked together during it, giving the protagonist (Larissa) a reason to trust the Praetorian (Crassus), something she would not have done on her own.

I'bve just really started a dystopian/doft scifi project and do plan on name dropping (it's in a future USA btw) but also want to use a few flashbacks of the main characters when applicable to give the reader a frame of reference.

It's good to mention places and phenomena without immediate explaining them. I think the key is to:

1) Trickle these unknown references into the story slowly
2) Make sure your readers are grounded in the here-and-now so they're still attached to the story even if a few references go over their heads
3) Make the references easily understood in context without explanation.

A good example of this last one would be the Bladerunner quote Alan mentioned:

Alan_Often said:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."

Click to expand...

"Orion" is familiar to me if not intimately known. I can imagine attack ships without knowing their details. I don't know what "c-beams" are, but I know they glitter and with "attack ships" just before, I can glean that they're weapons. I don't know what the Tannhauser Gate is, but in context I can gather that it must be the location of an important historic event/battle.

It works as long as it can be at least fundamentally understood in context.

I've put down at least ten books within the first 25 pages, however, when they couldn't stop dumping more and more alien references on me. There were so many unfamiliar words, places, and social phenomena without explanation, I felt completely detatched from the story.

I'll patiently wait for answers to come as long as I have one character I connect with intimately and one main plot thread I can clearly understand. As long as the author has me on board that much, there can be a lot of unknowns. But after pages of unknowns with no explanation, I have no emotional attachment and that's when I tend to quit a story.

I'm a fan of dropping tidbits, since we do it every day. Whatever the character might reference - stories or people that are known to all, spoken w/ the sort of shorthand we use when speaking of Tom Cruise jumping on a couch, gives a story verisimilitude. That said, I think different TYPES of stories want different LEVELS of tid-bittery. It's a question of style and taste and not being...coy...with one's readers, I think.

ALSO! My favourite things are when the tidbits dropped seem to have an air of instant-understanding about them. Can I think of a single example now? Of course not....