What is too much info?

[stormiel]

I'm working on the second draft of my novel and the feedback I've gotten (from my one and only reader) about my prologue is that it doesn't tell enough of whats going on.

Its a sci-fi story and is very complicated. I think I would have to shove a whole lot of backstory/telling into it if I wanted to explain what is going on.

Anyway, since no one here has read my prologue I'll just ask this:

Does it bother you if you start reading something that doesn't explain everything up front?

Too vague, I know. But I don't know any other way to ask.

[Bethany J.]

I don't mind not knowing everything, but I'd rather not be confused. There's a big difference between, "Ooooh, what's this all about?" and "What on earth is this even about??" - but it's hard to define what that difference is.

[tris]

There are several authors who give just the bare bones at the start and fill in the details along the journey. Others jump straight into the action and leave lots of unanswered questions about the background (fodder for sequels). It really depends on where your story is heading and what exactly you want to do with the story. Sometimes your reader doesn't need all the back story, just a quick sketch and a few supporting details later on.

It might not even be a question of back story, but rather how you are presenting the actual story: too many characters, too many POVs, too many different subplots.

If you want, I can take a look at your prologue. Might be a couple of weeks, having to travel out of town next week.

[fluke]

It does not bother me at all.

If you are boring the reader, it's too much info. Lots of times, much of what we writers think is essential to the story at the get-go isn't. If it is essential to the story, dribble it out as you go. Readers are more savvy than we think and will make up details as they go. Then they have to rewrite their head canon when you reveal more as you go, but they usually don't mind if they enjoy the story.

I have a set of 4 stories in progress where a certain concept is very important, in story 2-4. It's not a factor at all in story 1, but since it is important to the story world, I felt like it needed to be explained. That was boring. I removed it from part 1, worked it in to part 2 (where it actually matters to the action), and the whole thing works better.

[Kristen]

Resist the Urge to Explain.

It is totally OK to keep readers in the dark. The important thing to do is to give them characters they care about, so they stick with the story as you gradually reveal what's going on.

It sounds to me like you've employed the "drop them in the deep end" method. I approve. It puts some readers off, though, especially if they've read a lot of the 19th century classics where there's a ton of handholding. (If Tale of Two Cities were written today, the entire first chapter would be deleted. It's all infodump and backstory.)

fluke is right. Readers are smart. They'll figure it out.

[stormiel]

Well from what you have all said, plus the fact that I like my prologue as is I think I'll stick with the current course of action

Although, Tris, since you offered I'm going to pm it to you here on the Anomaly tonight (take as long as you want to look at it). I would love to have another opinion Its pretty short. Thanks!

[tris]

Stormiel,
Got your message and replied. Great beginning!

[rjj7]

I think the temptation nowadays is to begin a story cinematically, like a movie. While this isn't necessarily wrong, it is certainly not playing to the strengths of a novel. When Tolkien wrote The Lord of the Rings, he was not afraid to begin with 3 paragraphs summarizing 60 years of pertinent backstory. "Show, don't Tell" is a great principle, but it's just that: a principle. Another principle that I go by is that you should spend time on a point proportional to its importance to the story. Telling is quicker, and so if it would require a disproportionate amount of time to show, don't be afraid to utilize the tools of the novel; just tell it. This is mostly true at the beginning of a novel, where authors can get away with more narration (it is inadvisable to drop a narration bomb in the middle of a book unless you have maintained a fairly consistent narrator voice throughout).

*This advice subject to modification based on the tone and viewpoint of the story. Some stories can handle more narration than others.

[metalikhan]

I think you've hit on something about the cinematic opening. Do people really stop to think about what kind of opening they're seeing? The beginning of Master and Commander would possibly translate into several pages of description and setting as well as action at the ship's shift change. It's several minutes before we even see the main character.

Or how about those movies that start in someone's dream (and then the alarm goes off)? Or ones that open in a sepia or b&w past event (prologue, flashback)? With movies, we're visually and auditorially engaged from the outset; we take in a lot of details rapidly. With books, the same opening is built word by word rather than at a glance.

And, yes, principles aren't rules. Once we confuse that, the vast writing arsenal we have available to us shrinks dramatically. Our stories reduce to a few predictable formulas.

[stormiel]

Sometimes telling is unavoidable, but for the most part there are interesting ways of getting around it. As I continue my project I'm becoming more convinced that if it isn't interesting to read, it needs to be cut. The reader is probably going to skip it anyway. Although, I'm also considering a Hunger Games-like interview to reveal some key information, but rather than an info dump I've still got to keep that short and interesting.

Movies have the advantage of visual story conveyance. The setting, the colors, time of day, the weather...etc all contribute non-verbal communication of the story and the characters. In books there is some description, but that description is open to interpretation by the reader meaning its possible to be misunderstood. At the same time you have to be careful not to explain what you mean all the time either or you risk boring your reader.

[rjj7]

While I agree in principal, it would help if we had a universal standard of what constitutes interesting.

[lexkx]

A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself: "What question do I want the reader to have?"

Your reader should want to know more, so you don't have to explain everything. BUT, your reader should also want to specifically know what you're going to tell him, so you need to shape the story so that the reader is shepherded along the correct path of questions.

If your reader(s) come away going "I don't get it," that means you lost your sweet reader-sheep on the path. Be the shepherd who goes and rescues that sheep. You want your reader-sheep to nibble the flower in front of them, then the grass on the edge of the path, and then trot merrily behind you as you lead them to the next green pasture.

Any time the reader leaves the path you intend for the story, you run the risk of them putting down the book and never coming back. At each turn, the sum of the reader's questions need to be "Yes, and...?"

So, look at the place(s) where you lose a reader. Find out, or carefully ponder, what they objected to or what crack they wiggled through to get out from your guidance. ***You don't have to plug every escape hatch with explanations.*** Explanations can come when the time is right. But your reader needs a bit of a mirror here or a guard rail there to turn/bounce them in right direction, so that the reader comes into the story looking for your explanation.

Without reading your prologue, I can't be more specific. Does that help any?

[metalikhan]

Nov 9, 2013 13:19:51 GMT -5 rjj7 said:

While I agree in principal, it would help if we had a universal standard of what constitutes interesting.

Helpful, yes, but not possible.

The reader isn't a single entity. What I find interesting as a reader, you might or might not. My interests include but range outside of commercial genre works, so I'm thrilled by Joyce-esque, Faulkner-esque, Barth-esque, literary/ international/ experimental et cetera-esque works in speculative fiction. I enjoy works that approach storytelling in ways different from current American fashion. Ever tackle Cloud & Ashes by Greer Gilman? Or Mechanique: A Tale of the Circus Tresaulti by Genevieve Valentine? Rare gems! (But you won't find them among Christian SFF titles.)

Which is, btw, one reason I enjoy the stories on The Cross and the Cosmos. The stylistic range found there is pretty daring for a Christian ezine. You find standard American style, but you also can find gems in literary, experimental, prose-poetic, Old World (European), and Latin/Spanish style.

The question regarding interest needs to include what kind of reader(s) would your style best appeal to. And a some of that will be determined by what kind of reader and writer you are.

[rjj7]

The reader isn't a single entity. What I find interesting as a reader, you might or might not.

Exactly.

[Bought In Blood]

I agree with Randy and echo most people’s caution against over exposition. However, I would like to warn against a few flaws that land on the opposite side of the fence. As Bethany said earlier, there is a big difference between being intrigued and being confused.

I have read several contemporary novels in which the author has attempted to create intrigue and hunger for exposition by stating the names of in-universe terminology without explaining what they are or providing the framework needed to understand the terms.

One example of this is in Brandon Sanderson’s first book in his Mistborn series. Early in the novel, there is a segment in which one of the protagonists meets with another character to discuss plans and the need for certain crew members. At this point in the story, allomancy (this universe’s magic system) has not been explained and none of the terms have any meaning for the reader. Personally, I found this scene very frustrating as its attempt at creating intrigue only succeeds in making the reader feel left out of what the characters are talking about.

Make sure that your reader does not feel like the only one in the story who doesn’t understand what is happening/being discussed. It is possible to use unexplained terminology without frustrating the reader as long as you provide a framework for the reader to infer what the terms mean.