Thread Closed
(09-30-2013, 07:32 PM)ArmachiA Wrote: Is she being sincere? Sarcastic? Is she mad? Does she even care? Nobody knoowwss.
That assessment made me think of this. In a good way, I assure you. Made me giggle.
There's a big difference between showing thoughts, telling thoughts, and gratuitously needless exposition. While it's better to show through your words what is going on, stating something plainly is not in and of itself wrong.
Uh, examples! (quick and dirty ones)
"His expression changes as the implications on her words dawn on him. His ears roll back and he looks down, avoiding eye contact."
In this example the characters thoughts aren't explicitly stated and it's based on the reader to infer based only on observable reactions. You'd probably add a little more detail to make sure you get the right meaning across, but it should make sense in context without having to go into that pseudo-mind reader place.
"Her account of the situation had put him on edge. He looked nervous and haunted."
In this situation you're explicitly stating what emotion you're projecting. This is relying on the reader to put together the actions and expressions themselves based on what they associate with those things. You're not giving as detailed an account, and little nuances of behavior get lost in translation, but it's a 'quick and dirty' way of making a point. It's not unacceptable by any means, you're still making statements about observations.
"He feels scared and alone when he thinks about going back to that place."
This is where it stays into the 'exposition' territory. Thoughts and feelings are not observable traits, unless you are a mind reader. Exposition is not in and of itself a bad their either, because it serves to give context to you, the reader, even in your character does not benefit from it. But exposition is like an expensive spice, you use a little bit of it for flavoring. It can be used to impart a certain tone on your writing.
Putting the three examples above you get an over all coherent feel for what is going on in this situation and the character's feelings come through without wasting a lot of effort on needlessly fluffy prose. What is not a decent use of exposition would be...
"He didn't know what to do in that situation. Memories of the terrible things he saw came flowing back unbidden. Images of crimes unspeakable, deeds unfathomable to the waking eyes of innocent mortal minds. He wanted to scream, or to cry, but his body was frozen. All he could do was let himself become a useless, nervous wreck."
That right there? That's a shitty post. Don't do that.
Snark aside, that is a terrible use of exposition in an interactive story telling medium. Because what you are doing is bogging me down with a lot of things I can't observe or react to. In all of that block of text I don't actually know what his reaction is. I, the reader, know that he's wrestling with some serious PTSD, but that's not something I, the character, know. I just see a guy, standing there, maybe looking a little uncomfortable. I don't know, because you didn't show me anything.
Again, there's are just sort of quickly thrown together examples used to illustrate a point. It's just not good writing to sit there telling someone a bunch of things they can't react to. It doesn't matter if your English isn't good, or if you don't have a large vocabulary. The thing you need to ask yourself before posting is What information am I trying to communicate and Can I see them doing this. It doesn't matter if the observation is blatant (telling) or intuitive (showing) it only matters that it's something that CAN be seen and CAN be reacted to.
And that's my crash course on exposition and why it's a terrible thing.
Blah blah disclaimer blah opinions blah blah subjective blah blah grain of salt yadda yadda