I hear it all the time. Never start with exposition, you'll bore the reader. Okay, but, when you're story has had a lot of build up and what came before is absolutely vital to the story, so vital in fact that you can't leave it out before you start the real story, what do you do? I'm thinking that a page or so of exposition if worded in an interesting way, could be just fine. What's the harm in a little backstory if it is relevant to what is going to happen? Please tell me if it's okay or not to do this.
If you feel like that’s what your story needs then cast aside those doubts and write what you think would make a better story in the long run. Nobody knows where that story is going or the style or the writing of the story better than you do. If in doubt maybe you could post parts of the exposition of your story in the workshop once you’ve written it to get some feedback. I think you should write it and then decide whether or not you want to include it afterward. If you think it’s relevant to the story-telling then make it happen.
A lot of the time writers feel a need to sort of write their way into a story. If that's something you need to to to get the story going, do it. It's only a draft. However, don't be tied to this long intro because you probably don't need it, and if you do it's probably in the wrong place. Backstory is comes out best in small and seamless delivery. Always start with story. I have written many things, but the stories I've sold all start with story. Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of backstory, but I think you have to be clever with it. All that other info, think of it like hiding the medicine in a piece of cake. You want readers to think it's all cake. Do whatever you need to write the story, but just be open to killing those darlings that don't seem to fit in the right way or are just in the way.
They're talking about naked exposition without context... those dreaded info dumps that read like a encyclopedia blurb, regardless of how interesting the information is or how well it is written. As with backstory, there's almost no reason why you can't leak a bit at a time and weave it into the opening scenes. The Hunger Games is a great example of how to do this: everything you need to know about the world is woven into the first 8 or 10 pages. It would have been tempting to open with a one page explanation of how, what, when, where, and why, but that would have been lame and would have deprived the reader of the "joy" of learning the context through the eyes of a character.
There's a reason. Not always, but there's a strong posibility. You step back and try to be as objective as possible as to the truth of the idea that the story doesn't work without this segment. Even the ASoIaF books begin with some dudes finding some dead people near The Wall (you get only a vague idea of what the wall even is) and these dudes all appear to belong to some organization (The Nights Watch) that isn't remotely illuminated yet (later for that), and the whole of the backstory to the Westerosian saga is immense! All these people have spectacularly convoluted lives and past loves and dalliances and alliances and betrayals and wars and skirmishes and a veritable gumbo (thick and heavy) of personal story each and every one of them is carrying. And still, it starts with some dudes finding some dead people and then in the next chapter, some other dudes find some puppies and just about all you get from that chapter is that one of these dudes (Jon) is getting treated shittily for not being born in wedlock. Westeros, Esos, Valyria, Children of the Forest, why the Baratheons are eternally tied to the Targaryens... all of this is crucial information to understanding the weft and warp of this story, but it comes later, when it makes sense and can be contextualized into the happenstances causing its invocation. Sure, it's okay to start. Sometimes we need to warm up the motor before we hit the street. Think of it as that.
If you think your story needs a lot of exposition, then don't write your story that way. You are in control. You get to pick where it starts and where it ends. Far too many people think that the story is something that just happens and they have no control over it. That's false. You're the writer. It's all on you, baby. If it needs exposition to start, change the story.
it depends on the story - James Clavells King rat starts with a whole chapter of exposition... it didn't stop it being a triple best seller in the US and in the UK
I put the actual exposition portion of the story in the workshop so you can see what it is like for real
he was originally captured in Java but then transfered to changi (singapore) - this is why the book feels realer than a lot of his other work, because a lot of Flt Lt Peter Marlowe's (one of the MCs) experiences are his
And most people who say that either a) never published a story or b) they use exposition and are just lying. Don't get me wrong. There are a lot of stories that don't benefit from exposition at all. Horror stories and psychological thrillers benefit more from being light on the exposition or just outright not having one. Even some adventure stories that start off with the character taking a journey, would probably be best in jumping into that. But stories that are heavily dependent on world building for the conflict to make sense, could stand a bit of explanation to emphasize the culture and status quoes of the world and where the main character fits in all of that. Do they have to be boring? Hell no! Mistborne started with Vin's crew planning a heist. The book Sabriel started with the titular character bringing back a dead rabbit. These were not boring things.
I woke last night to the sound of thunder How far off I sat and wondered Started hummin' a song from 1962 Ain't it funny how the night moves
Thinking about it. I recall King Rat a little, plenty of ‘Japs’ and ‘faggots’ kind of talking...and a bit lumbersome if that’s a word. ...would be good to study, replicate, parody the machismo, or not...make that the talking point. Also sex scene @ pg25/145 + 230...parents’ bookcase, 50% of all books.
Of course it's okay. It's really more a question if you can pull it off well enough that the readers don't get bored. It's not like there are any actual rules saying you shouldn't ever write this or that way. Rather, some approaches may be inadvisable because they're difficult or inefficient, and there will usually be an easier or more elegant way to go about it. But if you know what you're doing and make it work, anything's fair game. Exposition has sort of a bad reputation, I presume, because inexperienced writers use it in a very clumsy, lazy way. Consequently, those inexperienced writers are told not to do that, and then they go on thinking you should never do that. The truth is that eventually you're going to have to use exposition, assuming your story is meant to be understood in the first place. I think the trick is in how you present it and how well your story justifies it. You really don't want your readers to feel that you are just handing them a bunch of extra information they'll need make sense of the story. Instead you could have a character explain it to another character who for some reason didn't know about it, frame it as an old legend or history lesson, whatever. That makes it part of the narrative, which feels more natural. This is it's so damn handy to have a fish-out-of-water type main character who is completely unfamiliar with the setting and premise: It basically gives you an excuse to explain virtually anything as it becomes necessary, and the readers can relate to it because they're learning at the same pace as the protagonist. Oh, and please don't do the "As you all know..." thing where characters provide detailed explanations for stuff everyone should already be aware of, for no reason. Is this actually true, though? Like, is it really necessary for the readers to understand the whole setup before they can appreciate the story proper? I know sometimes it feels that way but you should at least consider the possibility that this is just you worrying that all your planning will go to waste if the readers don't "get it." Sometimes we just need to have a bit of faith in them, see? If you don't, you can easily come across as a bit insecure, like you don't trust your own narrative. Like, did Star Wars really need the opening text crawl? I always figured it was more of a stylistic thing and an excuse to play a really awesome theme song. I'm pretty sure I could have figured out that Darth Vader is an evil dude working for an evil empire, and that he's chasing the princess because she's a rebel who stole the plans of the Death Star, which is presumably something very bad, just from actually watching the first few scenes. It's not that hard to piece together. And, hey, getting into a story and having no idea what's going on often just makes you really curious and eager to find out more. It's a mystery! People like mysteries. Perhaps you've already begun inferring stuff from context and subtext by the time things start getting explained which makes those explanations more satisfying. For that matter, figuring out what's going on by your own deductions can actually be kinda fun, and certainly more stimulating than getting all the information handed to you right away because the author really don't want you to misunderstand anything. Again, exposition isn't necessarily bad writing, and frequently necessary writing. But I do think that a bunch of exposition being legit essential for the reader to even comprehend the premise sounds like such a specific scenario that it should only arise in very rare circumstances, and also that it possibly indicates a problem with the story structure itself. If you think about it, kinda the whole point of a story is that it explains itself. In that sense, perhaps the exposition is not in itself wrong, but rather consequence of something else you did wrong.
