Storyteller Exposition - Acceptable or Not?

[Perpetual Man]

I've just reached a point in my current work in progress and I've found another little chestnut.

The group of teenage kids are out exploring and have found an old ruin.

They know nothing about it but...

The whole story is told by one of the kids at a later date, so he will have knowledge of what the place is, how it ended up as it did.

I think as it stands I'd like the reader to know the background of the place, but there is no easy way to insert it into the flow of the story, but the narrator could do it as an aside:

Of course we did not know anything at the time, but I later discovered.....

Is this appropriate, or would it disrupt the flow of the main story, the kids exploring and finding the mysterious ruins?

 

[ratsy]

Personally I think I would find that a little off-putting if I'm honest. I guess if the whole story is told like that then maybe it could be forgiven to me. Again, it's all in the story, and it's hard to judge with out seeing it on paper I suppose.

 

[Perpetual Man]

That is almost exactly what I was thinking/feeling ratsy, so you have just re-enforced that.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I think as it stands I'd like the reader to know the background of the place

Basic error. The reader only needs to know what the story demands. If the backstory isn't important to the story at that point, then leave it out - until required.

 

[Dennis E. Taylor]

"Breaking the fourth wall." I'm dealing with a somewhat similar issue. It's fairly common with first person past tense. There's several levels of exposition you can go to:

1. Completely breaking the 4th wall and addressing the reader directly. "And you'll be happy to know, dear reader, that they did in fact survive.." This style is generally seen as kind of antiquated.
2. Narrator giving spoilers. This can be done without breaking the 4th wall if the narrator is known to be talking to other characters in the story. Think of the father telling the story to his son in "The Neverending Story."
3. Narrator editorials. That's not really a good phrase for it, but the narrator is going on about something and inserts the kind of comment that anyone might say in a conversation, like, "because there wasn't already enough ketchup on it..."

My MC in my current WIP does a lot of #3. I haven't had any complaints from any of my critters or betas, so I think in principle, at least, it's acceptable.

 

[Perpetual Man]

Brian - I think this is what is grating with me, it feels out of place and forced in this context, but the information is something the kids need to know, it pertains to the core of the story basically why they have been told not to go there but I am trying to work out how to insert it in the story without disrupting things, which doing this would feel like.

Bizmuth - three solid suggestions, the third easily being the best and something like what I am considering, but considering it is the only time it would happen in the book is what makes it jarring.

 

[LittleStar]

I agree with Brian, if it's not relevant to the story then info-dumping it won't be necessary, and might be off-putting if heavy handed. Ignorance until relevant? Or of there was some aspect you needed the reader to know Couldn't you slip it briefly in some speech, from a parent or someone, and leave out the need to info-dump from the narrator when they get there altogether?

 

[Juliana]

Couldn't you slip it briefly in some speech, from a parent or someone, and leave out the need to info-dump from the narrator when they get there altogether?

I agree with LittleStar's suggestion. And anyway, if they're like most kids, they'll probably only have a vague idea that they're not supposed to be there. Like when I was a kid exploring vacant city lots. At the time I just remember my mum saying not to go in there because there might be rats, but of course there was more she wasn't lecturing me about, things like broken glass, syringes, rat-born diseases such as leptospirosis etc. She just told me the thing scariest to a child, and I filled in the blanks later.

 

[Perpetual Man]

Thanks for the suggestions Littlestar and Juliana both are very valid. I did think of doing something that saw the kids going back home at the end and learning the truths there, but I'm not sure how it will work. I'll have to see how it goes as I am writing.

 

[Mr Orange]

Brian - I think this is what is grating with me, it feels out of place and forced in this context, but the information is something the kids need to know, it pertains to the core of the story basically why they have been told not to go there but I am trying to work out how to insert it in the story without disrupting things, which doing this would feel like.

Bizmuth - three solid suggestions, the third easily being the best and something like what I am considering, but considering it is the only time it would happen in the book is what makes it jarring.

Tim, even if you do manage to insert it using the narrator as discussed, the kids still won't know it at the time. Maybe the warning they get could be expanded slightly to hint at what is there?

 

[tinkerdan]

Depending on the length and whether it is in sections or chapters and if you really are telling this from a POV that is after the fact you could employ something that is old and in some way not in favor these days; but I think because it would have a distinct purpose you could get away with it.

Have the narrator start the story while he's uncovering the secret and give a few gems then and perhaps quotes from a history book or such at each interval [chapter] keep it short and relatively unobtrusive and by the time the pertinent information is need the reader should have it.

 

[TheDustyZebra]

I agree with tinkerdan -- this is what those things at the fronts of chapters are for, if you don't want a prologue. A bit of lore at the start of each chapter, building the hints along the way, and by the time you get to it, it's all there.

 

[Perpetual Man]

Good ideas there thanks tinkerdan and TDZ, but I'm not sure whether they would work in this case. I may well have a try though, if I don't try I won't know.

There is the obvious point, that if the kids don't know then the reader does not need to know but... that makes me itch!

 

[Denise Tanaka]

What I'm getting from your question is that you want the reader to know information about this place at an earlier point from when the characters find out? You say the story is narrated by one of the characters? Is it in first person? Is this the only spot where you would - as Bizmuth puts it - break the fourth wall, or would this be an on-going narrative style throughout the piece? I'm thinking of the Lemony Snicket books where the narrator did this quite a lot and it enhanced the tale. I can see how knowing the meaning of a place can give weight to the scene vs. the kids just walking through dusty ruins. It's the difference between strolling a museum on your own vs. reading the tags or having a guided tour.

I'd say give it a try and put the segment up on the critiques area to see how it holds water?

 

[Perpetual Man]

Thanks Denise, I'm going to wait on posting anything in the critiques for the moment (I did post something from it recently, but not connected to this).

As it seems to be coming quite fluidly at the moment I'm going to write and see where the muse takes me. Then we'll see what happens!

 

[Wanderlog]

The reader only needs to know what the story demands.

A questionable statement. The reader wants to entertain himself by reading the book, that's the basic idea. Lyrical digressions may be fun if written properly event if they aren't directly related to the main plot.

Of course we did not know anything at the time, but I later discovered.....

I think it's a valid way to supply the reader with the information you want. Just don't abuse this method.

 

[Ray McCarthy]

Lyrical digressions may be fun if written properly event if they aren't directly related to the main plot.

I agree, but for the inexperienced author it's easy to be self indulgent and detract from the story. Tastes aren't what they were, so it depends on audience.

The reader only needs to know what the story demands.

For many readers / publishers Brian is correct. But many books would be like poorly done Reader's Digest Condensed books if Brian's view is too rigorously applied.

So I think it's not an absolute.

 

[Droflet]

Established writers get away, not only this this, but out and out info dumps. We of the unpublished fraternity do it at our peril. I guess. Either way good luck with this one Per ah, I mean Tim.

 

[Perpetual Man]

Thanks for the help Wanderlog, Ray and telford.

It has all given me a lot to think about, I might even write things a couple of times and see what feels the best. I still don't have a clue what I'm going to do really. (Sounds like me on a day to day basis.)

 

[Warren_Paul]

Of course we did not know anything at the time, but I later discovered.....

Is this appropriate, or would it disrupt the flow of the main story, the kids exploring and finding the mysterious ruins?

The thing with saying, "but I later discovered...." is that, he's obviously going to discover the truth later, so why not just write in the actual "later" scene and tell the reader at the same time the PoV character learns the truth? Unless later is well beyond the scope of the story, but if that's the case, then it comes back to the question: do we actually need to know?

Don't spoil the fun. If you tell us now, then the reader isn't hooked into the "what does it all mean?" question that keeps them reading. They want the answers at the end, not the beginning.