I've been agonizing about writing something of a decent standard, and length for a couple of years now. Clearing out my room last night, I found, written in two old school workbooks from my high school English, a 66-page complete story, which averages out at probably 11,000 words in total. It's absolutely backed with exposition and the action is slight, which is good for two reasons; written up properly, with all the "telling" turned into "showing," all the action draw out appropriately, and with all the exposition dealt with, the book will be at least twice as long on a second draft. And secondly, the exposition is such that everything I need, plot-wise, is there, written down for me, so I don't have to wrack my brains trying to remember all the twists, turns and themes in the story! Winner! Just thought I'd share this with you because I'm very excited about this!
i'm happy for you... but keep in mind that a novel for the adult market will have to be 80-100k, not 22k... and even if it's for YA readers, should be around 40k... have fun!
This reminds me, when I started writing my first novel (of course, I never finished it) I had to force myself to write more than a thousand words per chapter, and this also happened to me with short stories. Now, I barely think of it and I can write better and lengthier pieces. What I'm trying to say is, don't write only for the sake of the piece being long enough. Let it come naturally, and you'll probably see the word count increasing past the 22,000 words. Good luck!
I was going to Netflix myself to sleep then decided on audiobook. YouTube found this Then I was like "that's a bunch of fuckin TELLING what IS THIS." Then I realized it was exposition. THEN, I realized I'm shit as exposition and can't really distinguish between it and telling. Probably depends on function. And so now I wanna look at more examples of when -- beginning, middle, end? -- it is good. And, how it is good. Because it should probably flow and not feel forced, like "oh look the author needed to tell me some shit because they were too uncreative to show me the backstory or context through something more interesting." Help, WF. Enlighten me and the others who don't get it.
It really is about finding your voice. Tell the reader what you want them to know; show them what you want them to see.
Telling is not opposite to or different from exposition, nor is it the same as or aligned with. Exposition can easily contain both tell and show. Think of it as levels of magnitude: Tell vs. show is a concept that comes into play at the very small level, at the level of individual words and the structure of a sentence. Exposition vs. Dialogue and/or play-by-play development of the story is at a higher, larger level. There is aways confusion with show v. tell - what it is, what it isn't, what it encompasses, what it doesn't - because these terms have specific meaning as literary devices and also common general meanings and there is overlap that blurs the edges.
Nonetheless, showing is just applied telling. "His eyes widened, and his hands shook." I'm telling you what he is doing, but by reading in between the lines you infer that he is scared, and that's the difference.
And this is what I mean by common use of these terms. From this take on the meaning of telling, everything between the covers of every novel is telling, thus all terms of reference lose meaning and function.
Exactly. Showing is just a means of description by telling, and that's what I imply by saying that you should tell the reader what you want them to know, and show them what you want them to see. It is a crucial narrative difference, but making showing out to be something other than what it is intellectually dishonest.
I don't think anyone is attempting to be "intellectually dishonest", least of all me as regards the use and meaning of signifiers. Showing vs. telling is a function of syntax. Exposition vs everything that's not exposition is a function of larger structures. The OP is asking to understand the differences between these terms when they are come across. Brushing the OP's question aside as a non sequitur is dismissive.
I'm more of a screenwriter so I look for examples of good exposition in screenplays themselves, and one of the best examples that I always praise and explain to aspiring writers is from the "The Terminator", whereas the director of the film in James Cameron who also wrote the script, mixed the exposition with the action. In other words, if anyone remembers the character of Kyle Reese, a soldier from the future who is sent back through time to protect Sarah Conner, he is the one who has to tell both Sarah and the audience about everything that's to come -- the nuclear war, her unborn son's leadership among the resistance, Skynet, the Terminator and it's mission to end her life, etc < This is a motherload of exposition, and exposition usually kills a movie/story in it's tracks, but Cameron mixed the exposition with the action. Reese's story is told while on the move, during car chases, shootouts, while hiding in a parking lot, screeching around corners, then another car chase, and so on. < This allows for him to not sit around in say a ten minute dialogue scene and become boring, but to effectively tell the audience what they need to know while so much is happening around them. This keeps us engaged all the way through. Very clever on Cameron's part and this is something that could apply to any form of writing -- short stories, novellas, etc.. > Mix the exposition with the action <
There's nothing wrong with telling - it's pretty powerful when used appropriately. As always, it's about finding out when it's appropriate to use, and that comes with experience. Telling is harder to write well, so I suppose partly it's also to do with skill. In general it's good for summaries - think of lines like, "It's better to have loved and lost than to never love at all." Famous line, powerful, packs a punch - and there's no showing at all. I find telling most poignant when used at the end to sum up or express a particularly intricate point that's already partly been shown - perhaps voicing the very thing that you've already put into your reader's mind and not given them the words to express, and then in the "telling" right at the end, you give them the words, the exact, perfect words to express that emotion or thought you've planted in your reader. It's something to mull over, for your reader to taste and think about, and it's like a release from silence. The same way how some people who aren't good at expressing themselves are grateful when someone voices their feelings for them and gives them the words they need, to finally be understood. Or something like that anyway
It depends what you consider exposition, but here's a paragraph near the beginning of George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four: The Ministry of Truth contained, as it was said, three thousand rooms above the ground level, and corresponding ramifications below. Scattered about London there were just three other buildings of similar appearance and size. So completely did they dwarf the surrounding architecture that from the roof of Victory Mansions you could see all four of them simultaneously. They were the homes of the four Ministries between which the entire apparatus of government was divided. The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and fine arts. The Ministry of Peace,which concerned itself with war. The Ministry of Love, which maintained law and order. And the Ministry of Plenty, which was responsible for economic affairs. Their names, in Newspeak: Minitrue, Minipax, Miniluv, and Miniplenty.
Sorry got no examples. But that H.G. Wells' story is over 197 years old. Writing has come along way since then. To me the difference between good exposition and telling is pretty simple. It's technique, skill and what suits the story. Telling is not letting the reader figure anything out as a scene is occurring. Exposition is setting the reader up with information they need to know so that certain scenes will make sense. For instance if a forty-five year old woman comes home and finds her husband in bed with another woman at the beginning of a story it's a surprise. But if there is exposition beforehand to show that this forty-five year old woman is about to lose her job as anchor woman because she's considered too old, and has no idea how she'll compete to find a new job - then finding her husband in bed with another woman takes a whole new angle. Especially if the woman is young. For me exposition is a quick way of shaping perception of events.
My favorite exposition of all time would have to be Chapter 2 of John Scalzi's Old Man's War. The protagonist has just signed up for the space military, is riding a space elevator up from Earth, and his interaction with other recruits shows: 1) There has been a nuclear war that India lost. One of the recruits is angry that the "brownies" and "dot heads" have the easiest time getting permission to colonize other planets while the American "winners" are only allowed to leave the Earth if they join the military and put their lives on the line to protect the Indian "losers." 2) The space elevator violates the known laws of physics and engineering. One of the recruits is a former high school physics teacher who explains all of the technical reasons why the "Beanstalk" shouldn't be safe to use, but that it has nonetheless worked for over a century without explanation. The teacher believes that the Beanstalk is supposed to be as much a symbol of intimidation as anything else: the space-colonizing organization that built it must have used technology learned from aliens, and since Earth scientists can't replicate the technology yet, therefor Earth governments have to do what the Colonial Union tell them to do instead of the other way around.
Exposition is just stuff for authors who don't know their characters yet. Everything an author wants to say or do can be done in a simple house with simple characters and nothing to explain other than, "they were in an apartment" or "he was his best friend." The deepest and most moving parts of a story are what the characters do and say. Any exposition should be right to the point and should be said and done so quick that the reader forgets it immediately after they've read, heard or seen it.
"The Stolen Body" is a science fiction short story by H. G. Wells that was originally published in The Strand Magazine (November 1898) I make that 117 years.
This is obviously nonsense. I don't feel like wasting my time explaining to @drifter265, but if anyone else is actually thinking about believing this silliness, let me know and we can have a more in-depth discussion.
I disagree with what you're responding to, but I disagree with this, too. It sounds like you're saying that character dialogue, actions, and thoughts have no contribution to character depth and empathy.
Okay, you got me - math isn't my best subject. Either way it's pretty old. Not to stay it's not good for a discussion but for contrast I'd rather something more currently written be brought up.
