Friday, August 05, 2005
Exposition: dialogue (Part 1 of 2)
Dialogue is a quick and active method of delivering expositional information to readers. Because dialogue happens in the "now" of the story, it doesn't bring everything to a dead halt; the exposition--when done well--actually keeps the story rolling forward.
There are two kinds of expositional dialogue. In the first kind, one character knows the information and the other character does not. In the second kind, both characters know the same information.
This post deals with the first kind, where a character is either trying to get information from another character, OR a character is trying to give information to another character. Notice that this is an either/or choice for the writer. A promising scene can die a quick and dreary death if a character tries to get information from another character who is all too willing to give it to him.
Sustaining reader interest is all about conflict, and this as true of expositional dialogue as any other story element. So, if a character is trying to get information from another character, it will be a lot more interesting if he has to work really, really hard for it, and the other character is motivated not to give it to him. Or, if a character is trying to give information to another character, it will be a lot more interesting if the other character is motivated not to hear it or obstacles interfere.
Motivation supercharges conflict. In fact, conflict is only as powerful as the motivation behind it. If a character enters a scene without the motivation to find out the exposition the writer needs to come out in the scene, then the character needs to find that motivation within the scene. The information should not fall in his lap without effort. Likewise, the person who gives the information should be motivated to either give or withhold it, depending upon the dynamics of the scene.
For example, in Frank Peretti's Monster, one of the first passages of expositional dialogue occurs when Cap and Sing, a couple who are friends of the hero and heroine, arrive at a rustic resort. They plan to spend the evening, and in the morning hike out to meet the main protagonists for a week of camping. While registering for their room, they chat with the proprietor, Arlen Peak, who warns them about their pre-arranged campsite: "Keep your eyes and ears open, and don't uh, don't hang around if...you know, if you think better of it."
Cap and Sing weren't motivated to find out expositional information when they entered the resort, but Peak's mysterious warning does the trick. Now they have an urgent reason to find out what he knows before heading out into the wild unknown in a few hours. They press him for a full page before he finally gives it to them. When Cap realizes Peak is talking about Bigfoot, Peak's motivation for reluctance becomes clear. He's been ridiculed before, and wasn't eager to be laughed at again. But Peak is earnest, and once committing to tell all to the young couple, recounts strange and disturbing events.
This pivots the dynamic of the scene from Cap and Sing pushing for information to pulling away from it. Cap is utterly disbelieving of Bigfoot stories and wishes Peak would drop the subject. But Peak, motivated by his own Bigfoot obsession and genuine concern for the couple, makes them hear him out.
Near the end of the scene, the motivational dynamic turns again. Sing expresses genuine interest in Peak's Bigfoot artifacts, which adds a new element of internal tension within the incredulous point-of-view character, Cap.
Peretti masterfully employs a push-pull dynamic to turn the scene, trimming the exposition in the dialogue to one-to-three sentence segments. He builds upon the characters' motivation and conflict to layer the exposition with foreshadowing. The reader comes away from the scene with more information, yes, but more importantly, with increased interest in what happens next.
Next, the second kind of expositional dialogue.
(To be continued…)
There are two kinds of expositional dialogue. In the first kind, one character knows the information and the other character does not. In the second kind, both characters know the same information.
This post deals with the first kind, where a character is either trying to get information from another character, OR a character is trying to give information to another character. Notice that this is an either/or choice for the writer. A promising scene can die a quick and dreary death if a character tries to get information from another character who is all too willing to give it to him.
Sustaining reader interest is all about conflict, and this as true of expositional dialogue as any other story element. So, if a character is trying to get information from another character, it will be a lot more interesting if he has to work really, really hard for it, and the other character is motivated not to give it to him. Or, if a character is trying to give information to another character, it will be a lot more interesting if the other character is motivated not to hear it or obstacles interfere.
Motivation supercharges conflict. In fact, conflict is only as powerful as the motivation behind it. If a character enters a scene without the motivation to find out the exposition the writer needs to come out in the scene, then the character needs to find that motivation within the scene. The information should not fall in his lap without effort. Likewise, the person who gives the information should be motivated to either give or withhold it, depending upon the dynamics of the scene.
For example, in Frank Peretti's Monster, one of the first passages of expositional dialogue occurs when Cap and Sing, a couple who are friends of the hero and heroine, arrive at a rustic resort. They plan to spend the evening, and in the morning hike out to meet the main protagonists for a week of camping. While registering for their room, they chat with the proprietor, Arlen Peak, who warns them about their pre-arranged campsite: "Keep your eyes and ears open, and don't uh, don't hang around if...you know, if you think better of it."
Cap and Sing weren't motivated to find out expositional information when they entered the resort, but Peak's mysterious warning does the trick. Now they have an urgent reason to find out what he knows before heading out into the wild unknown in a few hours. They press him for a full page before he finally gives it to them. When Cap realizes Peak is talking about Bigfoot, Peak's motivation for reluctance becomes clear. He's been ridiculed before, and wasn't eager to be laughed at again. But Peak is earnest, and once committing to tell all to the young couple, recounts strange and disturbing events.
This pivots the dynamic of the scene from Cap and Sing pushing for information to pulling away from it. Cap is utterly disbelieving of Bigfoot stories and wishes Peak would drop the subject. But Peak, motivated by his own Bigfoot obsession and genuine concern for the couple, makes them hear him out.
Near the end of the scene, the motivational dynamic turns again. Sing expresses genuine interest in Peak's Bigfoot artifacts, which adds a new element of internal tension within the incredulous point-of-view character, Cap.
Peretti masterfully employs a push-pull dynamic to turn the scene, trimming the exposition in the dialogue to one-to-three sentence segments. He builds upon the characters' motivation and conflict to layer the exposition with foreshadowing. The reader comes away from the scene with more information, yes, but more importantly, with increased interest in what happens next.
Next, the second kind of expositional dialogue.
(To be continued…)
