About the depth of the study of the world, V. 2. "Tub of frogs"

Well, let's continue this important topic - last time we, as the right storytellers, started from the very beginning - but, however, we didn't tell everything.

Therefore, let's continue.

There is something we would like to say about the beginning of the text even when the "entry point" is already implemented.

It is commonly thought that the beginning of the text - what we called the "entry point"- should be like this... immediately immerse yourself in the world of text, here! Imagine the smile of a Cheshire cat against the background, because I'm saying this now with a certain amount of sarcasm

Do you know why sarcasm? Yes, because often this very immersion is so misunderstood that it acts exactly the opposite of what was intended.

Let's deal with this first. The world as such, what is commonly called the "setting" is a very important part of the book. Disputes do not subside, it is possible or impossible to read a book just for the sake of the setting - personally, I have seen the hottest battles in a wide variety of online and live litos devoted to this topic more than once.

So - for our taste, it is possible. But it is not always necessary - the world is the world, but the story would be seen against the background with a decent drama, that's the catch!

However, the same dramaturgy without a perfectly prescribed background will also turn into a statement of the form "people walk on a white sheet and talk, often to themselves," so we will throw this rhetorical question on a sieve and take it as a constant that the author will not go far without a description of the inner-book world.

So. The world. The "entry point", let's say, worked. The reader goes on, following the hero. What will he see? What will he hear and find out? How will this knowledge be served?

Nowadays, in general, anyone who is interested in literature has probably heard more than once that "infodump is bad." What is an infodamp? This word, directly translated from English, means nothing more than an information dump. That is, information dumped out in a messy, large array, detailed, detailed - and often completely redundant. This word is used by psychiatrists, sociologists, and we, writers, too. in psychiatry, by the way, "infodumping" is the specific behavior of people with autopilot-like changes in the psyche: when such a person begins to pour tons of specific information about his hobby into any ears that happen to be in the vicinity. And so. in literature, especially amateur literature, it is customary to use the same word to denote the flow of some "technical" information. This may be a listing of the genealogy of heroes, ttx weapons, long and unfounded monologues or a stream of words by the author on the topic of some Very Important Event in the world of the book... everything that, according to the author, remained behind the scenes of active actions. but it matters a lot.

And now almost everyone has probably learned to avoid direct infodumps. It's just a matter of business - do not paint five pages each, who is the brother and sister, and who is the grandfather and who is the second cousin, and do not tell me how that blue tank differs from the red one, even if you, the author, are such a good fellow and have come up with all this in detail.

But there are hidden infodumps (well, more or less hidden). And they often disguise themselves... under what? And that's right, under the "detailed presentation of the world". And here they are, they are just much more difficult to avoid, and most importantly, there is much more harm from them.

A hidden infodump is like a tub of frogs tipped over the reader's head - R-time! Plop! Plop! Here you go! Catch it! Don't mess up! The reader seems to be gradually, but inexorably loaded with details. Names, details, pedigrees. Not a single piece of text that can be faintly scrolled through, but evenly (in fulfillment of the wildly popular advice to "break" information pieces into some slightly more active actions or dialogues) smeared over almost the entire initial piece of text. The first chapter, or the prologue, or whatever we have a large structural unit of the text? Everyone has their own, but as a rule, it is the first chapter that starts from the effect of the "tub of frogs". Sometimes she's not the only one. And this very tub of the notorious frogs kills all the magic of literature and literary text, if it was caught at the "entry point". Why do we compare pieces of information flow with frogs? Yes, because they are just as inconvenient, and most importantly, unnecessary. like a slippery frog in your hands.

"Tub of frogs" is not even a classic infodump, no. This is not information in its purest form, which. you can read it, you can take notes, or you can just throw it away. And this is rather a reader's feeling when you are stunned by some tightly, massively stuffed into the text with details. A bunch of specific terms, names, mentions of something that everyone in the world knows about, and you, the reader, stand and clap your ears like a fool: what are these people talking about anyway? "Tub of frogs" is the feeling that you got into a company in which everyone speaks some tricky slang. And you seem to understand the grammar of this speech, you understand the sounds, and even most of the words - but that dozen or two words of completely unclear purpose turns you almost into an alien among this company. You just don't understand. And mocking words-frogs jump around, laugh and hide their essence under the slippery skin of an incomprehensible sound. You're standing, so you're like this.and you think - well, thank you, the author, well made friends!

It is often customary to scold books - and indeed all kinds of works of art, even culinary, for the fact that something is missing in them. But almost always everyone forgets that excess is worse than lack. And this very tub with frogs is an excess. The oversaturation of the text with terms, names and titles in isolation from their direct value and necessity, fragments of meaningful mentions and everything that can be generated by the misinterpreted postulate that the heroes live in this world and they know it all. Yeah, they live. Yeah, I know. But let's not at the same time still make the reader a kind of alien with language barrier problems, huh? It is insulting to the reader, it looks ugly in the body of the book and yes, it is a hidden infodumping, it spoils the presentation and narrative structure.

What follows from this?

That moderation is important in everything.

And the lack of haste.

And a sense of rhythm and beat, again, again, yes.

Yes, the author knows a lot about the history he created and the world around this story. So, there is no need to hurry with the disclosure of this magnificent knowledge. Let the reader gain knowledge about the world gradually. Very gradually, gradually. and not so that they cause questions like "where else did this come from?"

The main part of the book is still a narrative. And drama. And the world - the world is a scenery. For that matter, they can be as watercolor and light as you like - we don't need to prescribe every blade of grass, not at all. In order for your reader not to experience the effect of a "tub of frogs" on their reader's head, it is worth telling, let's say, not everything that you have invented for this world of yours, and certainly not immediately.

Don't stuff so much stuffing-facts and stuffing-details into the pie of your story, so that the dough - the canvas of history - begins to tear and disintegrate. After all, this is exactly what happens when there are more "help pages" than actions... and here the ancient, but golden advice - "show, not tell" - will come in handy most of all.

In fact, moderation and the ability to show, rather than tell, are the main means to combat the effect of the "tub of frogs"

These sinful frogs, to be honest, turned us, Eirik Godvirdson, away from a lot of books and literary universes - so we know exactly what we are talking about when we describe how unpleasant it is to feel like a fool reader around whom all his character friends speak some incomprehensible bird language.

Therefore, we warn you: beware of a large number of frogs! =)

So, once again:

1. moderation

2. no rush

3. show me, don't tell me.

And the frogs will stay where they belong - in their native swamp, and not behind the collar of the one who decided to look under the cover.

And in detail and in detail about "show, not tell" - in the next issue, of course. For this we say goodbye, until next Thursday!

Your. E.G.

the picture is taken from free access on the Internet