date
newest »


I guess many of these articles come from a mainstream point of view. I have always strived to write fiction that hopefully has a large following. (And to be clear, I don't mean to suggest that we should fall into the same old patterns. Just because a vampire and a werewolf share a forbidden love, doesn't mean I'd care to write about them.)
That being said, I believe a poorly placed infodump would be far dicier (for someone hoping to build a following) than the gradual revealing of details integral to your plot, but to each his own. It is actually quite refreshing to meet someone who intends to dwindle his audience rather than grow it.
May I ask, Owen, which of your most favorite stories doesn't use this model? You can find it in the vast variety of genres. I don't think I have ever read a book that doesn't; perhaps it is time I expand my horizons.

I probably ought to expand on why I added my comment. It's just not to point out that there might be exceptions, because your advice is sound -- especially about infodumps. Infodumps tend to be just boring and once upon a time, I didn't encounter them. I blame Tom Clancy (overall) and David Weber (in sci-fi) for the trend. (I think some authors I don't read did infodump before, in the sense that we'd call them infodumps now, but I never heard the term back in the 70s-80s.)
Anyway, something I neglected to mention, and maybe should have, is it's not that these authors I so admire may not have followed this approach -- it's that they did what they did quite well (IMO). They managed to engage readers and make their writing evocative and gripping, using a different approach -- or using this approach differently.
The importance to me -- beyond the question of preference -- is what we can learn from them. By going out of the mainstream, we adjust our sights and broaden our horizons. I said that I think broadening readers' horizons is often a thankless task (which is true and needs to be considered), but I think authors owe it to themselves to broaden their horizons. For this reason, I read authors who don't speak to me at all, because they have spoken to others (for decades, in most cases) and I want to try to figure out why. If I can figure out why, I may want to sneak some of that into our work. I feel I grow as a writer by "beating myself bloody" on "classic" texts I do not, in fact, like.
In answer to your question, I'll nominate "Nightwood" by Djuna Barnes, Faulkner (Absalom! Absalom!) and Patrick O'Brian (The Ionian Mission, especially). Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, also (which I can't finish). If you look at these, they may well follow this approach (clearly, their works has elements) but they certainly don't do it in a mainstream fashion.


My "review" of "Nightwood" is here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
It might give you some idea what you are getting into.
My reviews of Patrick O'Brian's work aren't. They are endorsements. Faulkner I would not dare to comment on; I'd most likely sound like an idiot.


He's definitely more the popular author. And his sense of humor is superb. : )
But having said that, I feel the works I personally consider to be the best ever written do not always, or maybe not often, conform to this model -- at least as I think it is typically understood. (They have elements of course, because without any of these elements, you have a shopping list.) I may be wrong, but I think this is a fairly recent formulation (based around the concept of 'the hook' which became an overriding concern 30 - 40 years ago[?]).
I could be out to lunch here, but I'm tempted to say this is a consequence of an overall shortening of the reading public's average attention span in recent decades. Thus it may be that "strong" equates in some way to "instant gratification"?
I do believe this is pretty much a fact of life. If you want to reach people, you need to submit (mostly) the forms they respond to. I get a little sad about that. You can try to "broaden their horizons" if you want, but that is often a thankless task.
Edit: a comment on the notion of keeping any backstory until it absolutely matters. This is dicey. On the one hand, there are have "infodumps" (famed in song and story); the other there is lowest-common-denominator, dumbing-down, and telling the reader: "You don't have the attention span to follow this." Obviously, you want to avoid extremes of each, but it's a guessing game. You take your best shot based on your sense of the story.
When it comes to losing your audience, that raises the question of just who your audience is? Are you writing for the widest possible audience, or a specific audience?
For our part, we are writing for a specific audience -- which we know next to nothing about. So we write in such a way that the audience will self-select. We don't make things "easy" on readers -- the readers who stick with us are those who (we believe) will be open to, and appreciative of, our story. There may not a whole lot of them left when we get to the end, but that's what we want.