Imagine a book about a computer hacker who has to overcome his fear of relying on others to build a team and take down a corrupt bank before they collapse the economy. Whatever, it doesn't matter. I want to have a scene in it that doesn't move the plot forward, but instead is used strictly to deliver exposition. For example, I want to show how the bank's board of directors collapsed another country's economy and made off with billions. This is related to the main character's backstory, because he fled from said country twenty years ago, though nothing that happened during that time is relevant to the plot of the novel. What are the tips and tricks for making this sort of scene work? The scene should not move the plot forward or change a character, though it can give information about a character.
Is it essential that the scene be prevented from moving the plot forward? Could it instead have two purposes?
Hmm. That's problematic, because that's how I would solve this problem--I'd find a way to nudge the information into other scenes. A scene that has no purpose other than exposition is an issue. Is the scene allowed to support character development?
In that case, one possibility could be an argument between two characters. If they both know about the bank, etc., they can argue directly about it, and leak a lot of information that way. If they don't both know about the bank, it's more problematic--they could argue about something that reminds the in-the-know character about the bank, and some information could be leaked to the reader in his thoughts. It would be much more difficult to keep this from feeling like the author explaining. At the same time, the payoff for the reader could be seeing how the two of them argue, how they interact, perhaps how they make up the argument later, and so on.
Without the benefit of seeing the main character have a change of mood by the end of the scene, or the plot moving forward, it seems like the way to make this solution work would be to have a really interesting / witty / funny / well-written material. I've seen this sort of argument / conflict as exposition device used before, but usually the framing device is the main character learning about it, so while they aren't there, when the scene cuts back to them they experience an immediate change.
You said the character couldn't change--I thought you meant some sort of change in character or personality. He can't even change his mood? Can't go from contented to frustrated, or anything like that? I'm puzzled as to the reasons for the question. Why do you need to communicate the information while everything else remains totally static? Or maybe it doesn't have to remain totally static, but it sounds like that's what you're saying. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the above. (The framing device is the main character learning about it, but the main character isn't allowed to be there? Arr? ) Can you give an example?
A knight is trying to figure out if his grandmother, the queen, is evil. So he sneaks into the wizard library and watches how she came to power through a crystal ball. He finds out she killed her own brother to stop a demon from ending the world and was heart broken over it. After 5 pages from the grabdmother’s POV we return to the main POV character who now sees his grandmother differently.
I'd go with the argument/conversation idea suggested by Chicken, but in the example you open with could the information be overheard on the radio whilst driving/working/something or on TV news perhaps? Apologies if Ive misunderstood the question, its a strange one!
Could he be reading something that tips him off? You could quote whatever he's reading, to the extent that you need to? It might be easier to manage if he is actually looking for this information, rather than just running across it by accident.
I remain really, really curious as to why the story must remain static. Any chance you could tell us?
Maybe he tries to convince someone that the threat is real using information he knows, but that person is skeptical.
It doesn’t. But I read unpublished work a lot with these kinds of scenes, and they do come up in movies sometimes (like the info dump prologue). “Scenes must end with a character change and move the plot,” is a bit of standard writing advice, like “show don’t tell” but I wonder how true it is. What makes it well done, if it can be? Sometimes you find yourself at a point in the story where you realize explaining a magic system or describing the history of the flag or how their parents got together would make the next part more whatever, but you can’t do it in under 1k words. You could go back and try to slip the exposition in, but maybe that feels fake or clunky and you just want to go for it.
I think you’re right; these rules are flexible. Some of the sellingest writers that I follow just posted a podcast about how show don’t tell isn’t always the way to go. It’s incredibly useful a lot of the time but like any bit of writing advice it should be used in the correct context. https://writingexcuses.com/2019/04/07/when-to-tell/ I don’t agree with the idea that every scene has to change a character and move forward the plot. Does anyone actually follow that to the letter? What’s crucial is maintaining interest, conflict, character, and story. I’d be more worried about whether the reader’s attention is held. Does the reader want this information right now? If they don’t, then they’ll be bored and put the book down. If they do, then they will be captivated. Whet their appetite. Give them a reason to want the information.
Please cite a source for this because I have never heard it before. Scenes should move a plot forward or it has no sense being there. Giving info about a character's past should move plot forward, if it doesn't it definitely has no reason to be there. But a character changes after every scene I have not heard before, please cite a source. It could take a whole book or movie before a character changes. Especially in a journey themed story.
Actually when it comes to rules there are published writers and movies produced that broke the rules. But how were they received? Are better writers the ones that didn't break the rules? (something to ponder)
I suggest using the scene to introduce and develop the character of an antagonist. Create a way for them to be at the meeting, and give them a role in the decision.
If I had to plan that kind of scene, I would maybe start by thinking what kind of role derivatives have as indicators. I would focus on Credit Default Swaps. (CDS) After that I would try to understand the role of CDS's as back ups - is it real and reality based or not. (The answer is: it is not.) Then I would think what could link characters, plot and that story to CDS's. And... Why CDS's? Those would be where the corruption and risk of cascade disturbance would be. And... again... Why CDS's? Pay attention to sums! Billion is pocket money when we talk about CDS's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap
Okay, so i finally watched it. He wasn't talking about the whole character makeup or growth. Which is what I thought you meant by character change. So he said that if a character entered a scene happy he should end scene sad. I don't agree and besides this guy no one ever taught me that before. I can envision scenes where a character's emotions stay the same. But something did happen though to move plot forward.
Isn't a character failing to have an emotional change during a scene sometimes the dramatic point of the scene or the source of the humor. For example, this real life video of a guy not flinching has an impact on people: Another example, where it is kinda funny: