January 31st, 2004

bear by san

(no subject)

misia on Stopping. She does it the same way I do--if I have to stop mid-thought, I find it maddeningly hard to start up again. I like to end with the end of a scene if at all possibly. And, if at all possible, knowing where the next scene will start.

chancewrites on Why First Person Is Evil, mostly.

She's right, I think. And I happen to love first person narration. But then, I write a lot of, um, moderately unreliable narrators.

And that distancing thing happens in third person too, and it took me fifteen years to learn to spot it and eradicate it, except when I meant it to be there.
  • Current Music
    NPR: Weekend edition
bear by san

So we're scared of exposition

Show don't tell, right?

I'm thinking about a whole complex of problems, and about buymeaclue's frequent and absolutely correct assertion that the correct answer to any question on writing is 'it depends.'

And the fact that many writers (not all) follow a course in their development where, at first, we tell too much. We explain and exposit everything. And then we get told 'show don't tell' and 'exposition is the very devil' and we stop explaining.

And become incomprehensible.

(There's an associated complex of problems that is writer coyness--inexperienced writers who think the appropriate way to tell a story is to conceal as much from the reader as possible, and then either reveal it in a twist ending, or leave it to the reader to figure out what the story is about. Often, I think, this second issue is because the writer doesn't actually know what the story is about, and is hoping the reader will make something up.)

In any case, I'm going to go on record as saying that, in my opinion, exposition is an art. And good exposition is so integral to the structure of story as to be almost indispensable. There are writers who can get away with a story that is almost all expo, and there are writers who can tell a story almost entirely without it, but we mere mortals in the trenches must compromise.)

And in side notes, today in Neil Gaiman's Blog we get this article of discussion:

Well, you're writing to communicate. Unless part of what's important about the story is that the reader not understand something, if you're using a word or term that you know most people reading won't understand, then explaining it somewhere, somehow, not necessarily the first time you use it, is a wise idea.

As for how you do it, that's your call. If you do it with enough assurance, you can simply tell people things. Or you can have your characters tell people things. Or you can footnote. Or have a dancing paperclip leap in and explain, then fly out of the story never again to be seen. As you say, do what you think best: that's the joy of being a writer. You get to make your own rules and build your own worlds, and things happen the way you want, because you say so.

Go there and read for more.

Also for your delectation: Charles Coleman Finlay on The Artful Infodump.

Moderation in all things. Including moderation.

(papersky's concept of 'incluing' and my own beloved 'infobolus' would also come in for discussion here, in a rational world, but I'm working on a short story. Which has a lot of exposition in it, come to think of it.)
  • Current Music
    Robert Plant - I'm in the Mood
bear by san


~2500 words.

I wrote a science fiction short story today after four days of not even wanting to think about writing a word. I'm obviously in recovery.

It's still very rough because I wanted to get it on paper before it got away, and I cut two scenes that may go back in, and I think I probably rushed the ending and it's not set up adequately, but it has my official favourite title I've ever given a short story. It's called

"When You Visit the Magoebaskloof Hotel Be Certain

Not to Miss the Samango Monkeys."

I've never written a short story with a period in the title before.
  • Current Music
    Enigma - Out From The Deep