Exposition: An Introduction

I've been reading a manuscript my friend is working on. He's an experienced technical writer, but doesn't have experience writing fiction. When I gave him feedback I mentioned exposition. He had no idea what I was talking about. So I'm posting this in the hopes that I can give a basic explanation of what exposition is and perhaps give a few tips on how to avoid some common pitfalls.

What is exposition?

Exposition is information that you give to the reader so that they can take part in your story. More precisely, it is information about setting, characters, and relationships that your reader needs to understand the actions, ideas, conflicts, and events as your story moves forward.

Think of the phrase, "Once upon a time..." This phrase is a cue that the narrator will now explain where/when the story takes place, and who is involved. It may help to look at events without exposition.

Example: The man shot the gun three times.

In order to understand this sentence, we need more information. That information is called exposition. It's information that sets up the story-it sets the stage.

What is not exposition?

Although everything you share with your reader should inform them, it's not all always exposition. Dialogue is not always exposition. Descriptions are not always exposition. Events are not always exposition. Action sequences are not always exposition. Good news though. Each one of these tools can be used to make exposition more palatable.

Problems with exposition.

In many traditional models of plot, exposition comes first. Next comes rising action, which leads to the climax, and then the denouement (the resolution).

One complaint with this model is that exposition is placed at the beginning. When exposition is clumped together in one large block of text it's called an exposition dump. When exposition is poorly explained through dialogue, it's called "maid and butler".

The goal is to have a balance between telling your audience information they will need to understand the story, and actually telling the story.

Solutions

So how can you share exposition without boring your audience? Here are a few ideas:

1. Spread it out - Instead of explaining your setting, characters, and conflict all up front, share it as you tell the story. Just make sure that your reader has time to absorb the info before they need it to understand the story.
2. Dialogue - Let your characters say something (or think if your writing gets into your characters' heads). But be careful to make sure it is something the character would actually say. As a rule, you could probably avoid starting sentences with "As you know..."
3. Action Scenes - Have something exciting happen and tell the reader little details on the way.
4. Description - As you describe the scene, you can easily include details that set up the story. When you describe your characters, talk about that scar they got because they're excitable and can never turn down a good fight.

You might get the gist here that exposition can be told just about anywhere. It can also be told after the fact, depending on the type of story you're telling (e.g. a mystery where a murder takes place and then we find out who dunnit later). Just make sure that the exposition flows with the rest of the story. It should always compel the reader forward. If it doesn't, then you should find another way to let the reader know.

Here are a couple more links:

Brandon Sanderson Talks about Dialogue

A definition of Exposition

Wikipedia

Old Stories and Cliches

I often read criticism about a book, movie, or a game that includes a jab at ideas that we've seen before. The hero's journey arc, the love triangle, a destined hero. These are cliches, or tropes. Something in a story that has been used over and over again. If they're so bad, why do they even exist. Because once they were new. Once they worked. But here's the secret. They still do work.

A story is only derivative or cliche if you've read the same kind of story over and over again. If your favorite food is macaroni and cheese it's very possible that eating macaroni and cheese every day you'll get tired of it. Familiarity breeds contempt. But that doesn't mean that there's necessarily something wrong with macaroni and cheese. It hasn't changed. You have. The novelty has worn off, and now you can see the flaws that you missed before.

Critics are especially prone to cliche overload because their job is to watch everything under the sun and then point out what's wrong. Some critics can appreciate the fact that their tastes are going to be skewed. They realize that even though they've seen a certain theme played out, not everyone has. They can criticize the weaknesses of the work (prose, concept, execution, etc.) and still see the value the work provides especially for someone outside of the business.

Everyone's a critic. We all expose ourselves to a certain kind of story. Some of us seek out the familiar. Some of us want something different. All of us have our own preferences. And when we see something that we've seen before, it necessarily has less impact than it did the first time.

But here's what gets me. Cliches worked. They were new and novel once. The first time I saw bullet time in The Matrix, all of the right emotions fired. I thought it was cool. But most of the subsequent movies that use bullet time are less impressive...at least less impressive in the novelty factor. Sometimes I still see bullet time and I enjoy it. I realize that I'm enjoying something old in an interesting way.

Don't worry so much about avoiding cliches. Blue is a color that has been used in millions of paintings. That doesn't mean Blue is cliche. If you have an idea that someone else has used, present it in the best way you can. Explore cliches and see what made them interesting in the first place. If it was just the novelty, then you can probably skip it. But if there's any basis there that touched your imagination, then you can use it again. Tell that story your way. We're a society that thrives and celebrates novelty. But some of the best stories never die. They are repeated and retold with hundreds of small variations. Be wise about cliches, but worry about telling a a good story first.

Fates Worse Than Death

For my birthday I got a computer game called Darkest Dungeon. I've been watching this game for a while because it suggested a different approach to adventuring.

See, in most games or stories a hero or adventurer will get stronger or "level up" as they go along so the game becomes easier. It's a power fantasy. In this game, the heroes are traveling through dark dungeons (you could probably have guessed that from the title) and constantly coming face to face with their own mortality and weaknesses. While they do learn and "level up", they also have to cope with the difficulties and horrors of their situation.

These heroes become paranoid, claustrophobic, grumpy, short tempered with each other, and sometimes lose hope all together.

The idea intrigued me, but I don't think that Darkest Dungeon delivers on what I was expecting. Here's why. Though the characters get angry with each other, it doesn't really effect how they interact. Everything is done through a stress score. If one character is grumpy and muttering abusive comments to everyone around them, everyone becomes more stressed. If they get stressed enough, they get their own malady. But they don't really change interaction outside of a few lines of dialogue...and dialogue is one way that this game fails to deliver.

The characters "talk" to each other by little word bubble popping up all the time. Their snippets are great, and I think they do a lot to add to the game. But when I say dialogue, it's a misnomer. These are adventurers with starry eyed goals that get crushed every step of the way. But they aren't talking with each other. They just spout their lines about how they feel. But they never connect with each other beyond their abilities in combat. In tough situations, groups form strong bonds. They grow together, or they fight amongst themselves. Often both. If the characters had some sort of relationships, or if they talked to each other (rather than at each other), it would give the impression that these characters were more real. Here are three examples:

Example 1
Character 1 - I can't go through another door.
Character 2 is more stressed.

Example 2
Character 1 - I can't go through another door.
Character 2 - Just one more door. We'll rest in the next room.
Character 1 is less stressed.

Example 3
Character 1 - I can't go through another door.
Character 2 - Why did you come with us at all? Your constant whining is insufferable.
Character 1 and 2 are more stressed.

So in the first example character 2's reaction is a simple increase in stress. It's easy to calculate, and it does have a result, but as a spectator or player I'm not drawn in because the reaction is just a bunch of numbers. In the second example the character interaction shows some empathy and immediately the two characters are more human because they interacted. Example three shows a different interaction that also builds character depth, but has the negative effect the game is going for. The outcome of each example is the same. A change in character stress. The numbers can track what that mean in terms of the game. But examples 2 and 3 draw me in because the characters seem more human simply by talking to each other.

Now, dialogue and interaction would help strengthen the game. But there is one more way that this game fails to meet my expectations. The characters die all the time. You've got heroes that you're dragging through the dungeon, but you don't care too much about them because they can easily die. I found myself getting attached to a character's abilities, but the character was empty. And what compounds this weakness is that you can recruit a brand new character who looks the same, has the exact same abilities, and you can even change their name to be the same.

I didn't want the characters to die, but I didn't really care when they did. It wasn't really permanent because they could be replaced, and I didn't get attached because death was easy. No. It wasn't just easy, it was the most likely outcome.

You see, since death was so common, it meant less and less each time it happened. It didn't mean nothing, but it wasn't the worst thing that could happen.

What I wanted from this game was real characters who were going on this grand adventure. They would be off in search of glory, fame, love, redemption, whatever. But they'd grow and change because of the trials they faced. Not only getting better super moves, but having to cope with the suffering of life as well. If these characters persisted, then we could feel these changes with them. I'd grow more connected to each of them as the game went on. I'd really be able to see the humanity and feel the losses as they forced themselves to give up some sanity in order to achieve their goals.

You see, when telling a story, death is the end. Sure we can feel bad for characters who die, but the worst things that happen are the things that we have to live with. The choices we look back on and wish we could change. I remember playing Superbrothers: Sword and Sworcery and realizing half way through that the main character was dying. She was saving the world, but every time I beat a boss she would actually lose some of her life and the game was more difficult because of that. And I loved it. I became emotionally attached to the story because I felt like I was losing something, I was losing a friend.

Another game that captures this same sense of loss is Shadow of the Colossus. You guide the main character around, finding and fighting these bosses. You get stronger as you go, but you also become aware that the character is losing himself and at the end of the game he has to sacrifice himself in order to achieve his goal (saving the life of someone he loves).

Darkest Dungeon never quite captured the same sense of connection. Not all games need to tell that story. There are plenty of reasons that it's a good game. But it didn't quite capture what I had hoped it would. We all know that death is a terrible thing. But it is an end. Real suffering comes by living with our weaknesses and still having to reach our goals. We don't know enough about what happens after death. We can't relate to it.

So the Darkest Dungeon is a good game. A really good game for what it is. But by giving us connected characters, who had to live with their weaknesses and mistakes, it could draw me in and make me care. It could be an unforgettable game.

EDIT: 2/15/2015 - Just as a note, I should say that I'm playing this game in an early access state which means that some things will change and I've been pretty impressed with the responsiveness of the developers in making those changes. I will either edit this or write another post if there are significant changes that address my own personal preferences.