# Explanation chapter ok?



## SinJinQLB (Feb 9, 2014)

So my story start kind of in the middle. The main character is going about her life when she starts getting followed by someone. She continues being followed, but the audience at this point doesn't know why. Then in one chapter, a boy meets up with her and explains who is following her and why.

basically it would be an explanation chapter to bring the main character and the audience up to speed. Granted, other things happen along the way that involve the plot, so it's not like the audience is in the dark the entire time. But they are in the dark as to who's following her and why. That is, until the boy shows up and explains it.

is this a bad idea? Or could it work if done right? I want the explanation chapter to play out in flashbacks, like the boy tells his story of where he's from, how he knows the girl, how he knows who's following her, and so on. So the chapter will be showing the audience this stuff. But still, it will be a chapter mainly composed of explanation. I'm afraid this will be seen as a cheap way to get information to the audience.

Is this an acceptable thing to do? I know too much explanation is bad. But is an explanation chapter really bad, or can it be done? Thanks for any advice!


----------



## Jeko (Feb 9, 2014)

> Or could it work if done right?



That's practically the answer for everything in writing. 

Have you finished the entire draft?


----------



## SinJinQLB (Feb 9, 2014)

Cadence said:


> That's practically the answer for everything in writing.
> 
> Have you finished the entire draft?



Hi Cadence! No I have not finished the draft. I have so far included this explanation chapter and moved past it. However I keep wondering if it's an ok chapter to have in there.

Are there any great stories out there that have pulled similar things off?


----------



## Jeko (Feb 9, 2014)

I think this sort of this is only understandable on a macro level; I'd finish the story before being concerned about the structure of it. But that might just be my way of doing things.


----------



## SinJinQLB (Feb 9, 2014)

Cadence said:


> I think this sort of this is only understandable on a macro level; I'd finish the story before being concerned about the structure of it. But that might just be my way of doing things.



No I think that's a great idea, and pretty much what I am currently doing. However, as I continue to progress, I keep thinking oh no, I'm breaking the cardinal rule of writing by having a character come out and start explaining things. However I do feel it is different, because he's not so much explaining things just for the audiences sake, but since we haven't followed this character up until this point, he is rather just giving his side of the story thus far.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Feb 10, 2014)

SinJinQLB said:


> I keep thinking oh no, I'm breaking the cardinal rule of writing by having a character come out and start explaining things. However I do feel it is different, because he's not so much explaining things just for the audiences sake, but since we haven't followed this character up until this point, he is rather just giving his side of the story thus far.



So answer this for me then. If you _don't _use a character to explain it to her, then _how_ would you explain it?


----------



## Jeko (Feb 10, 2014)

> However, as I continue to progress, I keep thinking oh no, I'm breaking the cardinal rule of writing by having a character come out and start explaining things. However I do feel it is different, because he's not so much explaining things just for the audiences sake, but since we haven't followed this character up until this point, he is rather just giving his side of the story thus far.



Sounds good. Don't worry about it.

I keep seeing this sort of thing in a lot of commercial fiction. It doesn't bug me as long as the characters keep my interest; it especially helps when I feel like I need the answers that are being explained.


----------



## stevesh (Feb 10, 2014)

I think what you're planning will be OK. The kind of thing the 'cardinal rule' you mentioned is describing is something I call 'second person explanatory' and is a staple of bad science fiction. Instead of proper description, the author will have one of the characters say something like, "As you know, Bob, the X-19 rocket is a three-stage, liquid-fueled, blah blah blah." If Bob knows, there's no reason to tell him, and nobody talks like that in real life.


----------



## SinJinQLB (Feb 10, 2014)

T.S.Bpwman said:


> So answer this for me then. If you _don't _use a character to explain it to her, then _how_ would you explain it?



I think this is a great question and exercise!

You know, as I was writing out an alternative solution, I realized I am going to have to have the boy explain his story no matter what. If his story is happening parallel to the main character’s story – even if I jump back and forth and show parts of his story AND her story so that the audience gets to see both, he will still have to explain it to the main. The whole point of the first quarter of the book is that their stories collide. So one way or another, he’s going to sit the main character down at some point and tell her his side of it all. If I show it too, then the audience will be getting 2 explanations.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 10, 2014)

SinJinQLB said:


> But still, it will be a chapter mainly composed of explanation.



This is bad. 

You've got to maintain micro-tension (which is to say,  "tension within the scene").  
Also, have the boy explain as little as possible in this scene.  I've never seen a story where you can't explain things over several scenes.  Consider that the boy is wrong in at least some manner and show that he's unreliable.


----------



## SinJinQLB (Feb 10, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> This is bad.
> 
> You've got to maintain micro-tension (which is to say,  "tension within the scene").
> Also, have the boy explain as little as possible in this scene.  I've never seen a story where you can't explain things over several scenes.  Consider that the boy is wrong in at least some manner and show that he's unreliable.



*Well what if he stars off telling the story through dialog, but then it morph into a flashback showing us the story?

Like he says “It all started when I began working for this company…” and then from there, we the audience see the event unfold, like a flashback. And then it can come back to him telling more of the story, and then show another part of the flashback, and then she could interject with a question. Kind of like the grandpa reading The Princess Bride to his grandson, where him telling the story morphs into the audience experiencing the story. Of course this would only last the one chapter that is needed to bring the main character and audience up to speed. But I think it would be a lot better than just having the boy sit there and tell her everything through dialog*.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 10, 2014)

SinJinQLB said:


> *Well what if he stars off telling the story through dialog, but then it morph into a flashback showing us the story?
> 
> Like he says “It all started when I began working for this company…” and then from there, we the audience see the event unfold, like a flashback. And then it can come back to him telling more of the story, and then show another part of the flashback, and then she could interject with a question. Kind of like the grandpa reading The Princess Bride to his grandson, where him telling the story morphs into the audience experiencing the story. Of course this would only last the one chapter that is needed to bring the main character and audience up to speed. But I think it would be a lot better than just having the boy sit there and tell her everything through dialog*.



Flashbacks don't inherently elevate tension.  It all depends on how the flashback is written.  So, as you write it, pay attention to the tension within both the overall story and the scene.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 10, 2014)

> This is bad.
> 
> You've got to maintain micro-tension (which is to say, "tension within the scene").
> Also, have the boy explain as little as possible in this scene. I've never seen a story where you can't explain things over several scenes. Consider that the boy is wrong in at least some manner and show that he's unreliable.



You can have tension with explanation; there's nothing to say the two are incompatible or create issues for each other. The trick may be to sustain tension over the explanation through a prior source.


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 10, 2014)

Cadence said:


> You can have tension with explanation; there's nothing to say the two are incompatible or create issues for each other. The trick may be to sustain tension over the explanation through a prior source.


  You can't maintain tension in a chapter that is almost purely exposition.


----------



## Robdemanc (Feb 10, 2014)

I'm going to use an example from film. The Terminator has a scene where the main character is given an explanation as to why the terminator is out to kill her. Without that scene the film would be a confusing mess.

It sounds like you are worrying about how much you are giving away to the reader. But be aware that the reader wants questions answered. The question for you is when to answer those questions.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 10, 2014)

It's actually considered a *"required scene"* in many stories to have a character explain *"what it's all about"* to the main character. 

Like Rob pointed out, the _Terminator _scene in the car, after they've been chased, is where Kyle Reese explains "what it's all about" to Sarah Conner. _"I was sent back in time to protect you... you were assigned for Termination... Don't you get it? He won't stop, ever, until you are dead!"_

Smart writers, though, know that *the explanation alone isn't enough to carry the scene*. This is why _during _the explanation it's important to *have some source of conflict* happening simultaneously. In that _Terminator _scene, the conflict comes from Sarah and Kyle. Kyle is trying to explain why he's there, but Sarah doesn't want to hear it, and is too busy trying to fight him off. Conflict.

Embed your explanation within some sort of conflict, and you should be good to go! :encouragement:


----------



## SinJinQLB (Feb 10, 2014)

Robdemanc said:


> I'm going to use an example from film. The Terminator has a scene where the main character is given an explanation as to why the terminator is out to kill her. Without that scene the film would be a confusing mess.
> 
> It sounds like you are worrying about how much you are giving away to the reader. But be aware that the reader wants questions answered. The question for you is when to answer those questions.



I am glad you guys gave The Terminator as an example. I didn't even realize it, but my situation is very similar!


----------



## Justin Rocket (Feb 10, 2014)

Robdemanc said:


> I'm going to use an example from film. The Terminator has a scene where the main character is given an explanation as to why the terminator is out to kill her. Without that scene the film would be a confusing mess.
> 
> It sounds like you are worrying about how much you are giving away to the reader. But be aware that the reader wants questions answered. The question for you is when to answer those questions.



Exposition is fine.  A chapter that is almost all exposition is something different.


----------



## Jeko (Feb 11, 2014)

> You can't maintain tension in a chapter that is almost purely exposition.



Of course you can. As I said, the tension can be maintained through devices that draw upon a prior source - that or the conflict comes from the explanation being given. The explanation itself can shape and mould the tension as well, and can be given in a tense situation or environment.

No scene works without conflict - that's a general rule. As Kyle said, you need to have that to carry the scene along. As long as you are carrying the reader along, therefore, you can have as much explanation as you like.

I wouldn't read into 'a chapter' much either; chapters/scenes can vary dramatically in length.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 11, 2014)

I'm struggling with the problem myself.

My story involves a cabal, a clandestine triumvirate whose power base builds in secrecy.  The issue I face is that most of the story's characters must obviously remain clueless while the reader is slowly shown the truth.

In one scene I have a snippet of dialog where an powerful member of the clergy retrieves his cloak, only to exchange a clandestine bit of knowledge with a shadowy, unnamed co-conspirator.  I felt I needed some overt plot point demonstrating to the reader that there indeed a web of intrigue.

After all, how do you successfully show a secret?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 11, 2014)

I have an explanation chapter, so I hope it's okay.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 11, 2014)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> I have an explanation chapter, so I hope it's okay.



I hope it's okay, as well.  You often hear the old canard, "Show, don't tell."

However, I'm at a loss when part of the plot hinges on events unknown to the lead, or happening on the far side of a continent, or worse yet, points that if revealed too early spoil the climax.  You cannot hold the reader out of the loop forever, you cannot have the "villain" tip his hand, and suspense is a valid concern.

_"Minimalist insider open-ended secret obvious suspenseful clandestine punch telegraphing."_

Sounds like a good name for a heavy metal rock band, or the latest trend in YA fiction...


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 11, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> I hope it's okay, as well.  You often hear the old canard, "Show, don't tell."



You do, but like you said, these are things that cannot be shown due to their nature.  These are things whose whole purpose and nature is secrecy.  Unless someone willingly explains it, or someone slips and mentions it, there's no way the reader can know about it.

In my story, the protagonist is fighting for a particular organization.  They don't explain their motives, because they don't have to.  They just send people out to fight.  The command center, research labs, etc. are all in the heart of the base.  They're heavily guarded and completely off limits to laypeople.  Unless someone with authority actually takes the protagonist down there and explains things, he'll never know.  How the heck do you handle a reveal like that without a big chunk of exposition?


----------



## movieman (Feb 11, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> However, I'm at a loss when part of the plot hinges on events unknown to the lead, or happening on the far side of a continent, or worse yet, points that if revealed too early spoil the climax.  You cannot hold the reader out of the loop forever, you cannot have the "villain" tip his hand, and suspense is a valid concern.



Suspense is where the reader knows something bad is going to happen, but the protagonist doesn't. When the reader doesn't know something bad is going to happen, and it does, that's surprise.

Hitchcock gave a good example in one of his articles on film-making: if, in your story, a boy gets on a bus and his bag explodes, that's surprise, and keeps the audience interested for a few seconds. If the boy gets on a bus and the audience know there's a bomb in his bag, that's suspense, and will keep them interested for hours, hoping he'll find it before it goes off.

Far too many unpublished stories I read are based on surprise, not suspense, and try to keep things from the reader that would work better if the reader knew them.

Terminator, as mentioned earlier, does that in many ways, from showing that Arnie is a near-invulnerable machine, to showing that they've come back from the future, while Sarah Connor doesn't know any of that. Then you spend the rest of the movie wondering how they're going to defeat Arnie, and half the movie wondering how whatsisname is going to convince her that he really is from the future. Of course, the scenes that explain what's happening are interesting in themselves with their own conflicts, not plain exposition.


----------



## SinJinQLB (Feb 11, 2014)

Justin Rocket said:


> You can't maintain tension in a chapter that is almost purely exposition.



But does there absolutely have to be tension in a moment of exposition? Granted an entire chapter of nothing but explaining might get cumbersome, but at the same time isn't there something to be said for simply holding the audiences attention? What if the explanation chapter parses out information that answers a bunch of questions the audience has had up until that point? I would think then it would be an interesting chapter - and yet no tension or conflict is needed.

What about the scene in Jaws when Quint is telling his story about being shipwrecked and stranded in the ocean for days? There's really no tension or conflict, and yet the scene holds your attention. I mean he survived to tell the story, so obviously the audience is on the edge of their seats waiting to hear if he made it out of the ocean alive or not.

Another example that comes to mind is the whole story in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows about the elder wand. From what I recall, it was just exposition about what the elder wand was, who had it, and what happened to it. Not edge-of-your-seat tension or conflict, but interesting enough to keep you interested!

I know there is a strong line between an interesting scene and just some character talking and explaining and talking so more. BUT, if the exposition is interesting, and it fills in some gaps, and answers some important questions the audience has been thirsting for, does there still ALSO need to be tension and conflict within the scene?

And finally, what if they just came from a tension filled chapter? Like what if the chapter right before is about them running from danger, and they escape and hide out somewhere. Can't the next chapter just be them talking, filling each other in. Or does there have to be MORE tension still?


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 12, 2014)

SinJinQLB said:


> But does there absolutely have to be tension in a moment of exposition? Granted an entire chapter of nothing but explaining might get cumbersome, but at the same time isn't there something to be said for simply holding the audiences attention? What if the explanation chapter parses out information that answers a bunch of questions the audience has had up until that point? I would think then it would be an interesting chapter - and yet no tension or conflict is needed.



That's an excellent point.  Tension is there to maintain the reader's interest, but it's certainly not the only method of doing so.  Sometimes answering questions (that is, relieving tension) works just as well.


----------



## Robdemanc (Feb 12, 2014)

I think if this chapter comes at a point in the story after a lot of action then it may work as a rest period for the character and the reader. And it will not be boring if they are learning what is going on and why.


----------



## Sam (Feb 12, 2014)

SinJinQLB said:


> Basically it would be an explanation chapter to bring the main character and the audience up to speed.
> 
> 
> Is this an acceptable thing to do?



Depends on where the explanation chapter happens. If it takes place at the start of the novel, I would give serious consideration to moving it somewhere else, otherwise what you'll have is something similar to a prologue. Chapter One is your selling point as an author. It's where you capture the imagination and attention of your reader and convince them to part with their money or their time. Most people don't want to read back-story at the start of a novel. It's passive and often tedious.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 12, 2014)

Sam said:


> Most people don't want to read back-story at the start of a novel. It's passive and often tedious.



Exactly.  Readers like answers to questions they are presently asking, not ones they haven't asked yet.


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 12, 2014)

An explanation chapter is fine IF it also moves the story forward at the same time.  Stopping the story flow to give an explanation of the events will bring your story to a sharp stop.

As a reader, I hate that.  In fact, I'm tempted to skip those points when I come across them.


----------



## SinJinQLB (Feb 12, 2014)

Tettsuo said:


> An explanation chapter is fine IF it also moves the story forward at the same time.  Stopping the story flow to give an explanation of the events will bring your story to a sharp stop.
> 
> As a reader, I hate that.  In fact, I'm tempted to skip those points when I come across them.



What if the previous chapter, in a manner of speaking, ends with the boy basically saying "...and here's my side of the story, which will explain and tie everything together..." and then the next chapter is his whole story/explanation? Would that lead-in, and promise of payoff, make you less tempted to skip the chapter? Knowing that it will contain answers and will help drive the story?


----------



## Tettsuo (Feb 12, 2014)

SinJinQLB said:


> What if the previous chapter, in a manner of speaking, ends with the boy basically saying "...and here's my side of the story, which will explain and tie everything together..." and then the next chapter is his whole story/explanation? Would that lead-in, and promise of payoff, make you less tempted to skip the chapter? Knowing that it will contain answers and will help drive the story?



Depends on how the information is given.  If it's in a conversation, it's more palatable then say a straight up flashback.

In my novel, I have an explanation-ish chapter that provided some background, but it's framed within the context of the main character having a discussion with another character as they head towards the protagonist's next destination.  It's not simply a chapter of chatter.  Things are happening, new characters are being introduced and others are being defined as the background is being explained.

It can be done in a way that does not stop the story in it's tracks.  But, some people enjoy detailed background info.  I hate it personally.

Since the Hunger Games is brought up on this often, I'll use that as an example.  I hated the first few chapters.  None the info presented felt relevant to me, or couldn't be covered as more interesting events were occurring.  Another example is The Shining by Stephen King.  Every once in awhile, he'd write out a long background for different characters that had nothing to do with the story itself.  I felt it all could have been left out and the thrust of the story would still be relevant.

Now if you've ever read the Poisonwood Bible, the writer focuses on the events at hand and almost in passing, mentions previous events.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 12, 2014)

My lead character becomes akin to a Templar.  Yet, the order he joins, their duties, their goals, "The New Order" among them and why it's important is always murky and never fully formed--until the end.

Any clear, finite explanation would have given away the ending.  However, and like the artichoke example, parables and past examples are offered.  Even things like the fact that they worked as singular individuals, until recent history, is a clue.

We have mentioned examples in movies.  I would argue that the producers of the original show "Mission Impossible" had it right.  There were lots of little snippets of inventions and seemingly unrelated bric-a-brac that all came together at the end of the show.  One of the writers stated that the viewers didn't need constant hand-holding.

I explain what's needed.  The problem for me is doing this in an entertaining manner.


----------



## Sam (Feb 12, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> I explain what's needed.  The problem for me is doing this in an entertaining manner.



You've hit on the problem for, I would imagine, virtually every author who ever lived.


----------



## The Tourist (Feb 12, 2014)

Sam said:


> You've hit on the problem for, I would imagine, virtually every author who ever lived.



Sam, I perused the forum home department headings, looking for a section devoted to tutorials.  My thinking was that this OP issue has touched a lot of us.

There has to be a literary device that is a "informational seduction."  Is there a writers' reference book on this topic?


----------



## Robdemanc (Feb 13, 2014)

SinJinQLB said:


> What if the previous chapter, in a manner of speaking, ends with the boy basically saying "...and here's my side of the story, which will explain and tie everything together..." and then the next chapter is his whole story/explanation? Would that lead-in, and promise of payoff, make you less tempted to skip the chapter? Knowing that it will contain answers and will help drive the story?



That sounds fine. I have seen other examples in work. One is The Pelican Brief by John Grisham. If I remember correctly an entire chapter is used to show the 'brief', which is a report written by a student speculating on why two high court judges were killed, which was the trigger for the story.


----------



## Shari Sakurai (Feb 14, 2014)

It's not a bad idea at all. I've done that in one of my novel's and I found it worked really well!


----------

