![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
This is the first panel I was on at Norwescon, and so I thought I'd write up some of the discussion for everyone to enjoy. It turned out to be a good panel. I was the moderator, so I was slightly concerned that there wouldn't be enough "stuff" to fill up the entire hour, but it actually went rather well. The other panelists were Alma Alexander, Kevin Radthorne, A.M. Dellamonica, and Jean Johnston. I'm summarizing the panel here, and obviously won't be discussing everything we talked about, these are just my thoughts on what came up at the panel.
I think the thrust of the panel came down to the fact that just telling how your world works or doing an info-dump to set the scene, etc, isn't always the best way to get the information across and that a good writer will use the characters to get it across instead. The description of the panel suggests that the only way to do this is with dialogue, but we actually came to the conclusion that what is really needed is not just dialogue but that the characters should actually be LIVING in the world. Use them to show how the world works by having them talk to other people, or have them actually performing the ritual at the altar, or working in the fields at harvest, etc. Don't just tell us that this is how the ritual works or this is what's growing in the fields. As the characters goes about their daily life, the reader will pick up on all of the interesting little facts about the world without the writer needing to point them out. They'll just HAPPEN. This has the added benefit that it brings the character alive for the reader as well, giving them a voice and a passion and a reality that the reader wouldn't get from a rote info-dump, something that might be found in a textbook somewhere.
One of the quickest ways to do this is to start a conversation, which is why the description of the panel suggests dialogue. I use this technique all the time. In fact, I will often start out a scene or chapter with dialogue, specifically because of this. One of the pitfalls of new writers is that they begin each scene with a description of the setting, and these setting descriptions tend to be the ones that turn infodumpy on us.
Another way to get us into the scene and world and into the character is to bring in some type of conflict with the character involving that part of the worldbuilding that you want to get across. Say you have two scientists talking about how to fix the SF warp engine you've created. You don't want them to go into a lengthy description of how the engine works, because that's infodumpy, and generally it means that both scientists know how it's going to be fixed, so they wouldn't be talking about it. Instead, have the scientists disagreeing about how it should be fixed. As they argue, you can insert any of the necessary info you need about the technology without having them rotely explain it to each other. (This rote explanation is one of the pitfalls I'll talk about in a moment.)
Now, using the characters to get across info also has some drawbacks that the infodump doesn't have. One is that specific characters are only going to know about specific things, or notice specific things. So you have to keep the info you're dumping in line with the character and what he/she knows. So there are limitations. I can't have my carpenter explaining in a conversation how the sails on a ship work, for example. So using the character for that wouldn't be good. UNLESS you turn it around and have a sailor explaining how the sails work to the carpenter because he happens to be on the ship and needs to know (for example, he's been drafted because half the crew has been lost). So that's one pitfall.
Another obvious one is the "As you know, Bob . . ." syndrome, where two characters who already know everything that's going on end up discussing everything they already know amongst themselves solely for the purpose of getting that info across to the reader. You don't want this to happen. The only way you can get away with an "As you know, Bob . . ." moment is when that's the way the character operates, so it's already part of their character. As a teacher, I repeat the same information over and over again to my students because I know that even though I know it and they're supposed to know it, they need the reminder. So in a fantasy, a mentor might repeat the same info to his apprentice in a studen/teacher type of setting. You can get away with the "As you know, Bob . . ." situation there, because it's part of the character.
There are other pitfalls of course, but those are the two biggest. One of the things pointed out was that sometimes you don't WANT to have the characters get the information across. For example, if you launch into a scene where two characters are discussing their plans on how to get something done in order to get across the info on how dangerous this is, it's going to slow the story down. Sometimes, you want to just tell the reader what some of the dangers are and get to the action, because the pacing of the story demands that. So pacing is a good reason to just TELL the reader, rather than simply SHOW them. And setting is also a part that is often TOLD rather than SHOWN.
And this brought up one of the biggest problems in this situation regarding information. We discussed for a long time how to get across the info through the character's life, and when to just info-dump it, but a writer should always ask themselves at some point whether the information their trying to impart IS EVEN NECESSARY. There are certain situations in which the writer has information about their world that just isn't needed for the story, in which case it shouldn't be imparted at all, but should be cut. This happens alot with research. Writers generally put in alot of time on researching material, and they want the reader to know how much time they've spent, so they try to get as much of that cool research into the story as possible. Often, this isn't necessary in the slightest. Sometimes, it's a soapbox issue: the writer has opinions and they want those opinions to come across in the writing and so they spend time imparting the information about their opinions through the characters when that info and that opinion aren't relavent to the story. So, when a writer is trying to figure out how they should get their information across, they should also ask themselves whether it's even necessary for the story at all. If not, it should be cut.
My final comment on the panel was that you should certainly let your characters impart as much information as possible without interrupting the pacing and flow of the story simply because letting your character be free and live their lives will often surprise you as a writer. I've had many situations where I've just let the characters go and they've done things that I had never planned (consciously) and it's always made the story richer and better in the end. So let the characters live and roam freely and see what happens. You might be surprised at what you find out.
I think the thrust of the panel came down to the fact that just telling how your world works or doing an info-dump to set the scene, etc, isn't always the best way to get the information across and that a good writer will use the characters to get it across instead. The description of the panel suggests that the only way to do this is with dialogue, but we actually came to the conclusion that what is really needed is not just dialogue but that the characters should actually be LIVING in the world. Use them to show how the world works by having them talk to other people, or have them actually performing the ritual at the altar, or working in the fields at harvest, etc. Don't just tell us that this is how the ritual works or this is what's growing in the fields. As the characters goes about their daily life, the reader will pick up on all of the interesting little facts about the world without the writer needing to point them out. They'll just HAPPEN. This has the added benefit that it brings the character alive for the reader as well, giving them a voice and a passion and a reality that the reader wouldn't get from a rote info-dump, something that might be found in a textbook somewhere.
One of the quickest ways to do this is to start a conversation, which is why the description of the panel suggests dialogue. I use this technique all the time. In fact, I will often start out a scene or chapter with dialogue, specifically because of this. One of the pitfalls of new writers is that they begin each scene with a description of the setting, and these setting descriptions tend to be the ones that turn infodumpy on us.
Another way to get us into the scene and world and into the character is to bring in some type of conflict with the character involving that part of the worldbuilding that you want to get across. Say you have two scientists talking about how to fix the SF warp engine you've created. You don't want them to go into a lengthy description of how the engine works, because that's infodumpy, and generally it means that both scientists know how it's going to be fixed, so they wouldn't be talking about it. Instead, have the scientists disagreeing about how it should be fixed. As they argue, you can insert any of the necessary info you need about the technology without having them rotely explain it to each other. (This rote explanation is one of the pitfalls I'll talk about in a moment.)
Now, using the characters to get across info also has some drawbacks that the infodump doesn't have. One is that specific characters are only going to know about specific things, or notice specific things. So you have to keep the info you're dumping in line with the character and what he/she knows. So there are limitations. I can't have my carpenter explaining in a conversation how the sails on a ship work, for example. So using the character for that wouldn't be good. UNLESS you turn it around and have a sailor explaining how the sails work to the carpenter because he happens to be on the ship and needs to know (for example, he's been drafted because half the crew has been lost). So that's one pitfall.
Another obvious one is the "As you know, Bob . . ." syndrome, where two characters who already know everything that's going on end up discussing everything they already know amongst themselves solely for the purpose of getting that info across to the reader. You don't want this to happen. The only way you can get away with an "As you know, Bob . . ." moment is when that's the way the character operates, so it's already part of their character. As a teacher, I repeat the same information over and over again to my students because I know that even though I know it and they're supposed to know it, they need the reminder. So in a fantasy, a mentor might repeat the same info to his apprentice in a studen/teacher type of setting. You can get away with the "As you know, Bob . . ." situation there, because it's part of the character.
There are other pitfalls of course, but those are the two biggest. One of the things pointed out was that sometimes you don't WANT to have the characters get the information across. For example, if you launch into a scene where two characters are discussing their plans on how to get something done in order to get across the info on how dangerous this is, it's going to slow the story down. Sometimes, you want to just tell the reader what some of the dangers are and get to the action, because the pacing of the story demands that. So pacing is a good reason to just TELL the reader, rather than simply SHOW them. And setting is also a part that is often TOLD rather than SHOWN.
And this brought up one of the biggest problems in this situation regarding information. We discussed for a long time how to get across the info through the character's life, and when to just info-dump it, but a writer should always ask themselves at some point whether the information their trying to impart IS EVEN NECESSARY. There are certain situations in which the writer has information about their world that just isn't needed for the story, in which case it shouldn't be imparted at all, but should be cut. This happens alot with research. Writers generally put in alot of time on researching material, and they want the reader to know how much time they've spent, so they try to get as much of that cool research into the story as possible. Often, this isn't necessary in the slightest. Sometimes, it's a soapbox issue: the writer has opinions and they want those opinions to come across in the writing and so they spend time imparting the information about their opinions through the characters when that info and that opinion aren't relavent to the story. So, when a writer is trying to figure out how they should get their information across, they should also ask themselves whether it's even necessary for the story at all. If not, it should be cut.
My final comment on the panel was that you should certainly let your characters impart as much information as possible without interrupting the pacing and flow of the story simply because letting your character be free and live their lives will often surprise you as a writer. I've had many situations where I've just let the characters go and they've done things that I had never planned (consciously) and it's always made the story richer and better in the end. So let the characters live and roam freely and see what happens. You might be surprised at what you find out.
