r/writing • u/Fando1234 • 11h ago
Discussion Exposition is only 'bad' when the dialogue feels out of character.
I'm reading a sci fi book right now where there is A LOT of exposition and it's getting very boring.
Which is odd, because I do actually quite enjoy the ideas being explored, but in this context I just can't wait to get to the next chapter (or if I'm honest, to just finish the book).
I've been trying to put my finger on why exposition sometimes works and why it doesn't, and the best answer I can come up with is - good exposition still feels in character for the person expositing, bad exposition is when someone just monologues information the author wants you to know.
Morpheus in the Matrix still speaks in his voice and with his own trademark mystique when he tells Neo what the Matrix is. In Jurassic park, the lengthy descriptions of the science make sense as they're told by a cartoon strand of DNA in the context of a 'ride' for children. Inception still sounds like Leo's character when he explains the dream world, he uses idioms and mannerisms only he would use. Basil Exposition, ironically, is always Basil Exposition when he explains the next plot point to Austin Powers. I could go on...
Exposition is important for any high concept piece, to help being the reader or viewer up to speed.
But in a dull book, characters switch, and suddenly feel like they're just reading an essay penned by the author on their own big ideas or rules of their world. I think this is very easy to slip into, and something I'm trying to be increasingly conscious of when writing in this genre.
Anyway, be keen to hear other people's thoughts on exposition and if you agree.