SciFi stories that begin with exposition - a fan or not?

[Krazykiwi]

Re older books, and trends: I think, unfair as it may be, I tend to give books a pass in relation to the time they were written in. Brenda Becky points out quite fairly that trends change, which Cheryl bought up re the Time Machine.

I put up with the rampant sexism in golden age sci-fi, although I might mention it in a review I can set that aside to a degree, if the story is strong enough at least. But I would put down a book written that way now, and probably write a scathing review about it (actually I have done exactly that).

By the same token, I skip through the frame story and randomness of the opening of The Time Machine, because... novels were different then. But I'm much less willing to do that with a current book that's trying to get my attention.

Older books have the benefit of years, or even decades of other readers opinions, so I'm more willing to give them a shot even if the opening doesn't grab me directly. I figure "I love X, and everyone I know who loves X says I really must try Y" so even if Y opens with a full on info dump prologue, it gets the pass - but only to the point I will keep on reading, I still might not like it by the end :)

New authors, and new books, usually don't have any of those things that will make me give them the free pass and keep reading. So unless it was a direct recommendation from someone who I trust to know what I like, and there are sooooooo many new books coming out, and I haven't even read all the old ones that I have on my Mount TBR. I'm just a lot more willing to put down a recent book (or more likely not buy it, after looking at the sample), over fairly arbitrary reasons.

[Becky]

It was actually me who mentioned that trends change. ;)

[Krazykiwi]

Becky wrote: "It was actually me who mentioned that trends change. ;)"

Oops! Sorry :)

[Sid]

Rain wrote: "I love to jump right in, and prefer background details to emerge gradually, as a natural part of the story. I really enjoy books which take a more subtle approach, treat the reader as intelligent a..."

I believe this is what it all boils down to. Respect for the reader's ability to piece it all together themselves as opposed to leading off with an info dump. The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to not write an expository prologue.

The "Theater of the Mind", I'm a little more skeptical of, because whenever I read books that skimp on a bit of the historical worldbuilding, I feel the author was being lazy. "Back in the days of the great war of 2070..." if it's only mentioned in so much detail, I feel like the author didn't think about all the ways that war could've affected the current story and it acts only as a window dressing.

[Becky]

Krazykiwi wrote: "Becky wrote: "It was actually me who mentioned that trends change. ;)"

Oops! Sorry :)"

No problem! :)

[Becky]

Sid wrote: "I believe this is what it all boils down to. Respect for the reader's ability to piece it all together themselves as opposed to leading off with an info dump."

Ehh, I don't know. I am all for authors respecting their readers, and not insulting their intelligence, but I think that a historical recap of a major event isn't really disrespecting a reader's intelligence. It's a preference thing. It's building a stage for the play you're about to put on. Nothing exists in a vacuum - and the story needs a setting and history to bring it to life. Some stories give that in advance and then can just build off of it, and some piece it out a little at a time throughout the story (thinking of those books which start each chapter with a little blurb, or ones which have a character in school learning with the reader, etc), and some others just leave it up to the reader to pick up context clues.

None are wrong - but I don't feel insulted if someone includes an infodump in their book opening to tell me the lay of the land. If they KEEP infodumping all over me to tell me all of the things, then I might wonder about it... lol

[Mary]

One thing that hasn't been brought up is the question of voice.

If the style is interesting, engaging, quirky, it can info-dump in the opening and you will read just to see what this voice has to say.

Not SF, but consider:
"I was the youngest of three daughters. Our literal-minded mother named us Grace, Hope, and Honour, but few people except perhaps the minister who had baptized all three of us remembered my given name."

And she's off and info-dumping the story of how she came to be Beauty.

[Trike]

I did just encounter a seven-page prologue that was entirely in italics.

DON'T DO THAT.

[MrsJoseph *grouchy*]

All of this has a great deal to do with the skill of the writer and the interest of the reader.

My favorite author is Andre Norton. She is NOT known for giving information quickly. Sometimes she dumps but most of the time she trickles. In fact, quite a few of her [series] books rely on information that was given in previous books. I love LOVE Norton's Witch World series but I'm so close to the stories that I have a hard time comprehending the difficulties others have when reading her (later) WW books.

[Papaphilly]

I start on page one and go from there. I read it all whether it adds to the story or not I will not know until later anyway. If it doesn't work, what did I lose and if it works, then it was worth it.

As for exposition, it all depends on the story for me. Sometimes it is best if the author throws you in the deep end and ties chains around your ankles and sometimes it make tons of sense to help explain what is happening.

[Papaphilly]

Nathan wrote: "Okay, then what should I, as an aspiring writer do? How does one communicate information to the reader, be it backstory, or merely an introduction, that is not properly a part of the story?

In my ..."

Nathan,

I am going to give you the very best advice and the very worst advice right now. It is what works for you. Do not try and write to a reader per se, but to yourself. You already know the answer, just listen. If you think it needs it, it probably does. You certainly should have a couple of trusted readers to help you through tough spots or for advice, but ultimately it is you that has to answer to yourself. Unfortunately, there is no one right answer and that is what you are trying to decide for yourself.

Shakespeare said it best "to thine own self be true".

[Tommy]

The more i read this thread the more awesome I think Becky is. I read something, am ready to respond, then see Becky has just said basically what I was about to haha.

[Cheryl]

Tommy wrote: "The more i read this thread the more awesome I think Becky is. I read something, am ready to respond, then see Becky has just said basically what I was about to haha."

Agree.

[Earl]

Jen wrote: "I don't mind some exposition as a beginning, if the world is interesting enough. But I'm a fan of the 'show, don't tell' school of thought- the Dune universe is about as complex a world as has bee..."

Jen--I just read through most of the original Dune books and I agree. Herbert handled the distribution of exposition quite well. Never felt like an info dump. Quite an accomplishment, considering how complex a world he created. He brilliantly avoided any exposition not directly related to the plots.

The incredibly interesting "Bulterian Jihad" was often referred to by the characters, but never properly fleshed out in any of the original novels. And that's what made it so enticing. I almost felt like I'd somehow missed a book or something. But it really struck home the feeling that the Dune universe had a LOT of history to it, and the books only scratched the surface.