How do you avoid "as you know" exposition?

"Let's take my automobile," said Jones.

"Sure," said Smith. Both men got in the automobile and fastened their seatbelts, Jones in the driver's seat, Smith in the passenger seat.

"As you know, Smith," said Jones. "This is a key to the ignition." He stuck the key in the ignition. "When I turn the key, an electrical current from the battery will ignite a spark plug in the engine block, causing the gasoline to combust."

"I see," said Smith, "perhaps that is why an automobile's engine is called an 'internal combustion engine.'"

 

@Gary Wed, ouchy but good advice. I am thrice guilty, but I remain in the sneaking phase. Or blatant. What do you say to the idea of a machine (a co-MC) responding to a direct request (from the MC) for information? I need some kind of pause in the action, anyway. I do try to keep my sins under a page in length. *shrug*

 

Jones picked up a hammer. "What intrigues me about this device," he said. "Is that despite it's simplicity, it is very effective at doing the job for which it was designed."

"Do tell," said Smith. "How does it work?"

Jones picked up a slender piece of steel, with a round flat head on one end, a sharp point on the other. He held it over a a piece of wood, point down. "See how this device, the nail, is cleverly designed on this end to receive the blow of this device, the hammer."

"I think you'll have to demonstrate," said Smith.

 

I remain a walking parody of myself. One of the hallmarks of writing is to make anything sound stupid. Sarcasm is my favorite!


How about an AI validating the existence of God? Lot's of potentially heavy dialog for that one.

 

Sorry for the late reply, hadn't been longed in this site for a few weeks now. Haven't put much thought into the issue, but I would say in this vaguely medieval world, theoretically males are favored more in inheritance than females, regardless of their legitimacy. With the bastard daughters (which was what I envisioned as being the other bastard children), they're not seen as potential candidates on the count of their gender and birth status, unless out of desperation.

I don't know if this really makes any sense, but I imagine that quietly pushing illegitimate sons into low ranking occupations is just the duke's method of withholding prestige and titles that would otherwise make them candidates for succession. That way, they're not placed in a position to challenge the legitimate heirs. In other words, the bastard sons are officially being treated as peasants to circumvent inheritance laws favoring them over the intended heirs.

 

How I read your idea in the original post:

If the bastard son is illegitimate he's illegitimate, and no legal threat the daughters' inheritance. That's what the word means.

The Duke's actions make sense because it is common for female inheritances in feudal states to be regarded as less secure and more prone to being overthrown. An illegitimate son is often either leading the coup or used by conspirators as a figurehead. ("Treason doth never prosper. Why? For if it prospers, none dare call it treason!")

The Duke therefore gives his bastard son a job that, A) means he can keep his eye on him (I assume there are others in the Guard whose job it is to report on the son to the Duke, any ambitious noble men whispering in his ear etc), and B) gives him enough of a purpose and the good life that he doesn't feel resentful, but not so much that he gets ideas above his station.

Back on track for your question about exposition: With (A) in mind a natural outsider to get the exposition ladled all over him would be a new recruit to the Guard, starting at the same level as the bastard, told by his superiors to befriend the bastard and report anything untoward to this one Captain. "Why? Well I shouldn't tell you much, you don't need to know, but lets just say the Duke hasn't always kept it in his pants and wants to see good by the lad, and make sure he doesn't fall in with any inappropriate elements. Keep your ear to the ground, boy, and you'll go far."

 

I sort of agree.
Whatever needs explaining, should be flowing organically. Then again, when part of the story takes place in a 20's office building shaped hell, some exposition will need to happen.

Either way, I like to lean into it. Especially with bits of as-you-know that you're definitely not expected to know: "As you know, some cars have souls."

 

There's also the mantra "Resist the urge to explain." Writers often feel the need to explain things when an explanation is necessary or desirable.

 

Which makes this a "do as I say, not as I do" situation, because I can't seem to stop myself from it either.

More often than not I'll punch in a whole page to explain something, only to realize the story works just as well without it. Of course, that's only after "THE END" and it decimates my word count if I take all the nonsense out.

 

Exposition through conflict is an easy disguise -- it shows character and can be dealt with briefly. Perhaps two of the guards are taking the piss in his earshot and the guy goes, "Yeah, I'm a bastard, not deaf," as a precursor to action. But all three ideas seem solid.

As for the trope itself, sometimes there's simply no avoiding one character saying something to another character that they both already know. Like if a producer gives you thirty seconds to tee-up a scene, and the info can ONLY be conveyed via two characters who should by all rights already know exactly what's going on. When that happens, I've a few tips...

1. For a start, absolutely never say, "As you know." Whenever I hear this it makes me want to swallow my thumbs.
2. Find some way of presenting it as a formality or necessary evil. A recorded interview is a good way of stating job titles or recapping events, for example.
3. Have the second character interject. "The PM's coming for the..." "Annual state dinner. Saw the sign." It breaks up the exposition, adds character and feels like a conversation rather than an info dump.
4. In fact, any way of having the second character do the heavy lifting will be a plus. Maybe the first is testing them on the details.

As long as it's presented in an entertaining way and the overall pace doesn't suffer, the audience will let it slide. Side note, but the amount of ADR in the first GoT episode is fantastic -- where they clearly needed to reinforce key relationships and plot points in post. In one instance, Arya says, off camera, "That's Jamie Lanister, the Queen's brother," and Sansa reponds, "Shut up!" It's nicely handled.