As an ex-biologist of sorts, love this about science's approach to evaluating an idea, and applying that to literature: "to take the thing I hold most true (a primacy upon scenes) and assume the opposite view and interrogate my belief with extreme skepticism until I arrive at something much more like the truth. Or a sincere clarity of vision."
This has probably been said better elsewhere, but it occurs to me that the well-worn examples of the victory of show over tell (e.g. the "baby shoes for sale never worn" stuff that's supposed to make the reader gasp without backstory) may only work because the reader is (ideally) supplying the unconscious backstory for the action. But when the character in question isn't a universally adored object (a baby vs Isabelle Archer) or the social context isn't immediately obvious (parents put an add in the paper, vs the social customs of the former age), then, like, you probably need some backstory. Need to fill up the tank of the unconscious before gesturing at it, or something. Or as in Persuasion, leave the reader looking for the backstory as a way to drive the narrative forward. Anyway, using this Freudian framework to think about exposition is really fascinating -- thanks for this.
Thank you. Very helpful, both as a reader and a writer. Made me think of the wonderful dinner party scene early in Dickens’ Our Mutual Friend, when he mixes together back story, interiority, and the real-time narrative conversation, and, for me, reaches the height of his creative power.
Thank you for the craftalk. One thing that occurred to me as I was reading this and afterwards when I was thinking about it is that exposition can help control the pace within a work. It can speed things up or slow them down in ways that aren't necessarily available to scene.
Please can I have some more, sir? How well you communicate your (always interesting, always valuable, often lovable) insights! In fiction and in these essays / posts. Thank you lots.
As an ex-biologist of sorts, love this about science's approach to evaluating an idea, and applying that to literature: "to take the thing I hold most true (a primacy upon scenes) and assume the opposite view and interrogate my belief with extreme skepticism until I arrive at something much more like the truth. Or a sincere clarity of vision."
This has probably been said better elsewhere, but it occurs to me that the well-worn examples of the victory of show over tell (e.g. the "baby shoes for sale never worn" stuff that's supposed to make the reader gasp without backstory) may only work because the reader is (ideally) supplying the unconscious backstory for the action. But when the character in question isn't a universally adored object (a baby vs Isabelle Archer) or the social context isn't immediately obvious (parents put an add in the paper, vs the social customs of the former age), then, like, you probably need some backstory. Need to fill up the tank of the unconscious before gesturing at it, or something. Or as in Persuasion, leave the reader looking for the backstory as a way to drive the narrative forward. Anyway, using this Freudian framework to think about exposition is really fascinating -- thanks for this.
Thank you. Very helpful, both as a reader and a writer. Made me think of the wonderful dinner party scene early in Dickens’ Our Mutual Friend, when he mixes together back story, interiority, and the real-time narrative conversation, and, for me, reaches the height of his creative power.
Thank you for the craftalk. One thing that occurred to me as I was reading this and afterwards when I was thinking about it is that exposition can help control the pace within a work. It can speed things up or slow them down in ways that aren't necessarily available to scene.
Please can I have some more, sir? How well you communicate your (always interesting, always valuable, often lovable) insights! In fiction and in these essays / posts. Thank you lots.
Fantastic - I could listen to Brandon deconstruct Austen (and let's throw in some James) all day long. :)
man i wish i was smart enough to understand this
this is a really great and eye-opening read