posted
I would say they're less tolerable in short stories, because you have even less justification for their presence. Short stories are supposed to be just that...short. The term 'info dump' generally means a deluge of extraneous information. Stuff you should be showing the reader, not telling him. This differentiates 'info dump' from necessary exposition.
That being said...I've answered your second question. Information that is both vital to the progression of the plot or the development of character(s) is necessary exposition. If you write it carefully, and it fits the overall flow and pacing of your story, it may work for you. 'Info dump' is a negative term. It sounds like you're describing something akin to Louis L'Amour's way of telling a tale...rich detail. So real you feel like you can taste the food, rub the fabric between your thumb and forefinger. Breathe the musty air. That's good...though keep in mind that readers with a shorter attention span (a growing majority these days) may find your detailed exposition 'info dumpy.'
That's why I recommend asking yourself these questions, regardless of how interesting the aforementioned information is to you, personally:
"Is this necessary? Does it move the plot forward? Should the reader care about this? Does it strengthen or weaken my storytelling?"
Inkwell ------------------ "The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp." -Anonymous
[This message has been edited by Inkwell (edited October 14, 2008).]
posted
Well specifically, I'm talking about recapping past events. Here's a made-up example, imagine there is a standoff between a bandit and a sheriff. And as they face each other, before either draw for the kill, the sheriff thinks of how the bandit, his old friend, had become crazier ever since marauders had raided his home and killed his wife. [except imagine, for whatever reason, it isn't summed up in one sentence and takes a paragraph.]
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of all the terms bantered about by neophyte or proficient writing analysts, info dump is the only one I perceive as derogatory. I know what an info dump is, can spot one in my writing and others'; however, not all exposition is info dump, nor is info dump the only form of telling. I tolerate unnecessary exposition easier than being told how to interpret a scene or how I'm supposed to feel or being commanded what to think. When a narrator assumes a patronizing attitude toward me as the reader, I'm insulted. Insulting a reader is not a best practice.
The term info dump doesnt't identify what it is. Is it backstory? Is it summary exposition? Is it an explanation? Is it a summary flashback? Is it telling me about the story or is it directing me, ordering me like a drill sargent? The shades of exposition are subtle, not all exposition is info dump, any more than exposition is solely telling.
Because info dump doesn't identify what it is in any meaningful way, and because of it's derogatory nature--it's wounding words, emotionally more inciting than what it's supposed to mean, but emotionally inciting in the worst possible way--I avoid that term when I comment on a story. I prefer expository telling. That's what it is, one of a variety of telling that's not as tolerable as preferable emotionally stimulating exposition.
[This message has been edited by extrinsic (edited October 14, 2008).]
posted
1. Are they more tolerable in short stories?
While there is more time to slowly lay out info in a novel compared to a short story, the short story shouldn't be trying to summarize a novel's worth of information. The entire scope of the story should be short. I would say it is no more or less tolerable.
2. What if the information is interesting? Is it still seen as a rookie mistake if the information being conveyed is intriguing?
What makes it interesting?
In my opinion, the only thing that makes information interesting is relevance. So if you've created a relevant need for the information to be told, then yes, I'll handle a proportionate amount of information. The "dump" is the real sticking point here. If you trickle it out a sentence or sometimes even a paragraph at at time, and if you do so at relevant moments, then it's not really being dumped at all.
posted
Further, after posting my previous reponse;
In the example, the sheriff might not be considering what made the bandit crazier, or crazy to begin with, in the moment of confrontation. Is it important for the sheriff to know why the bandit is crazy? Might it be far more effective to just show the bandit as unstable? through his movements, expressions, gestures, dialogue? Leaving a reader to reach their own emotional responses wins half the battle of defeating expository telling.
However, the sheriff knowing the bandit's backstory, and relating to it, makes the sheriff out to be a sympathetic character, establishes an emotional connection with a reader. Caused by causal context, the bandit's erratic behavior, the sheriff seamlessly recalls the bandit's backstory that causes the erratic behavior. Combined with the bandit's erratic behavior, the summary backstory becomes part of an emotionally potent scene.
posted
IMHO, an "info dump" isn't just a narrative section. It's a narrative section that stops the story cold. It's a section that the author says - look I know that something else is going on but you need to know this, so let's stop the story for a second while you catch up. It's an author's intrusion into the story.
What makes narrative sections or back history "tolerable" is that the information is interesting, relevant and moves the story forward.
In Seabiscuit there is a great description of the horse's owner, including a bit about what he's done in the past. Is it backstory? Yes. Is it an "info dump?" Not, IMHO. Why? Because the description has its own movement/action and doesn't take away from the story. No extraneous information is there. I'm not told he was a C student in elementary school. I am shown that he personality is nearly a force of nature, although the author likens him to a train.
Inkwell's questions are pretty good guidelines to let you know when you've moved from necessary exposition to something more.
Anyway, back on topic. I found an example of what I consider to be a 'deluge' of relevant information that could be considered an info dump if the author had not handled it masterfully: March to the Sea by John Ringo and David Weber, Chapter 44. If you scroll nearly halfway down the page, take a look at the discussion on metallurgy as it relates to swordmaking. True, this information is conveyed through dialogue (which is part of the reason why it works). I have seen info dumps in dialogue before, however...it is not exclusive to exposition.
Inkwell ------------------ "The difference between a writer and someone who says they want to write is merely the width of a postage stamp." -Anonymous
posted
Thanks everyone. I feel a bit more optimistic now, because I feel the information is very relevant and is necessary to know both for the scene at hand and later in the plot.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Infodump is the bane of speculative fiction. In a wild west story it is tolerable for the sheriff spends a paragraph considering how an outlaw's character may have been shaped by his wife's brutal murder.
It is much less tolerable for the First Brith'na Stardaughter to spend a paragraph pondering the implications of Lord Darkweener's childhood failure to achieve a state of bagoomba the first time he took the Test of Wise Passage.
The two stories might present exactly the same situation, but the wild west piece is filled with familiar landmarks. The speculative piece force-feeds too much information about the milieu.
My personal tolerance for an infodump is inversely proportional to the number of proper nouns and made-up words it contains. A paragraph of backstory should contain no more than two proper nouns and made-up words*. Give me three or more and it's an infodump.
* Exception - Made-up synonyms for things that actually exist are okay. Thus Anthony Burgess could use "gulliver" to mean "head" without limit in A Clockwork Orange.
posted
The first rule of information feeding is to make it interesting. If it's boring, it's probably an info dump. If it is something cool, it isn't. Now how to divide the really cool info from the dump? That's tricky. One way is if you relay the really cool stuff and have an attitude toward it as you relate it. An attitude within the story, not of the author personally.
I have also noticed -- for me -- I have a higher tolerance for information, especially in fiction, if I feel the information is real-world accurate. The history of the colonization of Marsport I'm going to tolerate a lot less than some neat new facts about the Roman port of Brundisium. How an AK-47 jams will be more interesting than how the different types of magnetic cartridges in an Imperial ray gun work...usually.
[This message has been edited by arriki (edited October 14, 2008).]
posted
"I feel the information is very relevant and is necessary to know both for the scene at hand and later in the plot."
The question is, knowing what the reader knows at this point in the story, will she share your feeling? Because if she doesn't, if the information doesn't seem interesting and relevant to the reader, right now, she'll likely skip it, or worse, put it down.
posted
I think Doc Brown and arikki both have made some great points about the specifics of speculative fiction when it comes to info dumps and backstory - that has helped clarify for me something I had an instinctive knowledge about but couldn't explain very well. Thanks!
good luck on your story, Zero. (sorry to not have anything to add!)
posted
Hard to know. But yeah, that really is the question at hand.
Also, I think that's a pretty keen obsrevation that real-life info can be much more interesting than made-up-techno-babble. If I am gleaning something interesting about history, humanity, culture, or technology that's more interesting to me than the author arguing that such-and-such works when it actually doesn't.
posted
Yes, it's hard to know whether the reader will want the information. One technique is to "sell" it, to grab the reader's attention.
For example, Fleming does it well in "Goldfinger". It's necessary for the reader--and Bond--to understand some technicalities of the gold market. Fleming (well, M really) sends Bond to a gold expert to find out what he needs to know.
We're held through what is really a dump of a ton of information, partly because Bond is interested in it, partly because the gold dealer is eccentric and entertaining in his own right, and partly because while Bond is initially bored but then perks up with amusement in the eccentric's behaviour, and growing interest in the gold market and its relevance to his problem. Essentially, our attention is on the information through our attraction to Bond. It's a clever scene because we absorb the info without really realizing it. (In the movie, they enliven this scene with some byplay on the year and quality of the brandy.)
posted
I'm inclined to think of them as a necessary evil...all the more so in science fiction, where an odd and unusual premise must often be set up, and where the absence of said information hurts the story.
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Primo example, TaleSpinner, Fleming was incapable of writing anything boring.
On a similar note Robert E. Howard penned a brilliant info dump in the Conan story A WITCH SHALL BE BORN. The 18,000 word story takes place over a year; the events that have befallen a city in the months since a witch seizes the throne are cleverly told in a short chapter that consists entirely of a letter from a citizen to a friend (out of the country).
Printer-friendly view of this topic
