Balancing a Fast-Paced Narrative w/ Worldbuilding Details

Imbroglio said:

It seems in my novel that when my characters are introduced to a new situation there is only a split second of time for them to take it in before some new problem is thrown at them. This makes it difficult to fully explain some of the circumstances surrounding these situations in the novel.

Click to expand...

This isn't intended as a complete answer to your post (such an animal probably doesn't exist), BUT, the bolded word above strikes me a central to your problem. Your characters can't explain their newly-encountered situation, because . . . it's newly-encountered. If you, as author, try to "explain" it, you simply mire your narrative in static detail.

"Explaining" is the death of narrative, IMO. And most readers don't need things to be "explained." They need story. Think story, and what details need to emerge will emerge, at such moments as are appropriate.

caw

Yeah, I agree with Blacbird! Frankly I don't think your readers will even notice that not everything is explained as long as the story keeps moving at a brisk pace. If the characters are compelling, the reader should not have time to wonder about the political situation while the characters are in lethal danger with arrows flying every which way.

.... that said, nonstop action and endless disasters get repetitive after awhile, so presumably you will have an opportunity to gently seed in some background information the next time the pace of the plot slows down.

While fast-paced is good, it's also good to slow down every once in a while and give your characters a quiet, character-developing moment. Is there any place in the story along the way that could be stretched out to allow for this?

It doesn't have to be right when you introduce them. It could be later on after they've done their fleeing. Maybe for now, you can just throw in a picture or memento that relates to their past somehow.

Imbroglio said:

It seems in my novel that when my characters are introduced to a new situation there is only a split second of time for them to take it in before some new problem is thrown at them.

Click to expand...

A split-second is very probably enough time to build the world. I agree with blacbird that you don't need to explain. A lot of worldbuilding will happen naturally just because a reader is engaged in the moment and the actions, using her imagination to build the necessary trappings.

If you go to all the trouble to tell me all about the tree roots your characters are tripping over and then you accidentally put a root in the wrong place you're actually breaking that imagination. If your descriptions are at all boring or unrelated to the actions immediately at hand, you'll break that immersion by forcing a reader to read all the explanation without any value or reward. It is far, far safer and usually more powerful to let the reader do this work for you.

Heck, that's where fan-fiction comes from. That's where drawn out internet flame wars over Wesley's exact purpose on the Starship Enterprise come from. Can't rob the audience of that. Trust them.

Imbroglio said:

For example, my characters meet a group of rebels in an area they know nothing about, but essentially an hour after meeting the rebels, they are forced to flee without really learning much about the real state of the other rebels in the surrounding area or how they managed to become rebels in the first place. As the author, I know this, but there was never time for a character to explain it, or even for a character to ask about it.

Click to expand...

Fair enough that you're close to the story. You're going on instinct. That's great! Keep on going. Worry about this later. There's about a 96% chance that the combination of your writing skills and reading instincts has already chosen the exact amount of relevant information to disperse in this scene. In other words, the rebel origin story and their current tribulations are not relevant to the story at this exact moment. They may be later, so consider writing it down somewhere. These little things that you know but don't need to tell readers make up the supporting web of your story and are, I presume, gems at conventions. (Look up "Word of God" on TVTropes for when these things come out.)

When you revise, think carefully about what readers know and need to know in this scene. It might be necessary as foreshadowing or scene context to explain this. You might find that there is still no room for a character to explain, though. There are other ways to more subtly create world: word choice, specific actions chosen, geography. Explanations should not be long-winded info-dumps. They're a word here or there that gives the reader a colour with which to paint her own picture.

What the bird said.

You don't need to explain. You need to show, in action, if it's required. Do I need to know why these rebels became rebels? Or do I just need to know they are rebels? If I do need to know (for the plot) then you can probably cover it in a couple of sentences or less - "Yeah well, Darth Bobo blew up my home planet. Bastard". *cocks laser death beam*

The reader does NOT need to know Every Last Detail about the world*. In fact, a few not-explained details will give the impression of a rich world just off camera, waiting to be explored.



*If you try it, I will fling your book sooo hard. I once read a book where a Very Important Conversation (about how the protag was secretly the son of the king, yeah) was interrupted for a few paragraphs about the mating habits of seals that did not even mate in the area this was taking place. The wall still has a dent

...and your genre is going to affect the amount of worldbuilding you can intro with brief reference and context. SFF readers may be a little more tolerant of a larger proportion, romance readers slightly less. (I apologize if that antagonizes both readerships, it's just my observation from publishing a crossover novel two years ago.)

Filigree said:

...and your genre is going to affect the amount of worldbuilding you can intro with brief reference and context. SFF readers may be a little more tolerant of a larger proportion, romance readers slightly less. (I apologize if that antagonizes both readerships, it's just my observation from publishing a crossover novel two years ago.)

Click to expand...

Yeah Genre is critical here. I'd actually go one further than Filigree and say that some SFF readers demand passages of in depth world building**. It's something they actively enjoy about the genre. I read a lot of big SFF books and good world-building is good world-building, whether its cleverly folded in, or a three page monolgue. The only thing I'll draw a line at is irrelevance and over-explaining.

**[Caveat: assuming it's plot relelvent. Complex magic system explanation = Fun. Complex dining etiquette explanation just for "flavour" = ARRRGHHH!!!]

In short, know your audience.....

* Less worldbuilding is needed than you probably think. Even Tolkien put the bulk of his into the appendix.

* The best way to build your world is to have your characters act in accordance to the history and customs of the world.
Don't take 400 words to say they live under a tyrant. Have them nonchalantly accept harsh treatment as they pass the guards at the city wall. Don't describe the history of inter-city trading compact and shipping guild. Have your band of female trappers unload their zither skins at the dirigible port under the eye of the transit union officials.

* If you have specific factoids to impart, one trick is to chop them into small blocks. Add these
(1) at the beginning of a scene or
(2) where there's a lull in the course of events or
(3) when you specifically want to slow the pace for a while.

So
********
"We'll be there in an hour." Dashell shifted in his saddle.

"Round about." Gorge was agreeable. Not impatient. He'd been to these meetings before.

General Tront's tent was the center of operations, a big red-striped affair with lines of rush mat leading in and out through the mud. The Forgoi had held the Plains of Bragstavvi for three hundred years, but they held it with troops of armed men. They never settled. They brought in their own supplies and horses; they used their own whores -- there was one in that tent now; they imported their own gods.

The latest gift to the most bloodthirsty of these gods was slung across the packhorse behind them, squirming, and cursing under her breath.

"We should feed her," Gorge said. "No reason she has to get sacrificed hungry.
*******
(This little passage of slow pacing would be a good spot for the Fighting Free Tribes to drop down from the trees and attack to get their princess back. This is the Hitchcockian calm-before-the-shock.)

* Factoid do not get set in a spot of frantic sword-fighting. But action writing is not one continual swordfight. Even exciting scenes have slow-paced intervals. You need that slow pacing to make the action stand out.

* That chunk of backstory is 43 words of abstract info:
--The Forgoi had held the Plains of Bragstavvi for three hundred years
-- they held it with troops of armed men. They never settled. They brought in their own supplies and horses; they used their own whores
-- they imported their own gods.

* That info is sandwiched by dialog and stage business.

* It's interlarded with stuff that ties the abstract info bits to something happening in the here and now. To stuff the characters can see or know:
-- General Tront's tent was the center of operations, a big red-striped affair with lines of rush mat leading in and out through the mud.
-- whores. there was one in that tent now;

* The sequence of this chunk o' worldbuilding:
1) immediate story. It's happening now. The sandwich. (riding horses. talking.)
2) a lead in from that real-time stuff to the worldbuilding. (They see the red-striped tent)
3) worldbuilding factoids (how the Forgoi hold their territory)
4) another tie back to the here-and-now. (the whore in the tent)
5) and we're back with the horses and the pack animal and the sandwich.

* One way to study this slipping info into the scene is to buy a paperback edition of a favorite writer in your field.
What are the worldbuilding factoids that can't be acted out? How does the author add them? Where in the scene? Mark those factoids with a yellow highlighter.
What do the characters do that builds their world? Mark that in pink.
The ratio of yellow to pink is probably good for the sort of story you want to write.

So slow it down a little. Time is up to you, not up to them. Details do matter, and a world, be it this one, or be it a fantasy world, that doesn't have enough details about setting is a generic world set in Nowhere. No Time.

Mr Flibble said:

*If you try it, I will fling your book sooo hard. I once read a book where a Very Important Conversation (about how the protag was secretly the son of the king, yeah) was interrupted for a few paragraphs about the mating habits of seals that did not even mate in the area this was taking place. The wall still has a dent

Click to expand...

Are you saying you are anti-seal-erotica? I'll have you know some of my best friends are seals!

Seriously, there is some good advice already here in this thread. And in spite of the above comment, I haven't even thought about whether seals exist in my world, let alone which beaches they mate on.

As a rule, unless there's a reason for the pov character to be thinking about, noticing, or experiencing some aspect of the world in a given scene, I don't mention it. So if seals become relevant at some point, or my characters encounter some, maybe they'll make an appearance. But my style is for such mentions to be brief unless there's an actual reason the character would be contemplating their biology at length, or explaining it to another character.

And if you want a good example of how to get some world building into a first-person (or other close pov), fast paced narrative, read Flibbles's books. They're not nearly as bloated word count wise as many secondary world fantasy novels, but I always had a good mental image for the surroundings, the characters, and for the basic way the society was structured from those little thoughts and details that were slipped in. Note that the setting is all in one city, but even so, the techniques would have worked fine in a story where the characters go further afield.

job said:

The latest gift to the most bloodthirsty of these gods was slung across the packhorse behind them, squirming, and cursing under her breath.

Click to expand...

That's Myrtle, isn't it? I just know it is. Those dudes are in for a world of hurt...

BethS said:

That's Myrtle, isn't it? I just know it is. Those dudes are in for a world of hurt...

Click to expand...

Ohh, I still shiver with fear remembering what she did to them. And to their tribe. And the kingdom where the tribe wandered. And to the whole of the Western mountain range and the forests between. And...

BethS said:

That's Myrtle, isn't it? I just know it is. Those dudes are in for a world of hurt...

Click to expand...

Myrtle slips in everywhere ...

Roxxsmom said:

As a rule, unless there's a reason for the pov character to be thinking about, noticing, or experiencing some aspect of the world in a given scene, I don't mention it.

Click to expand...

If the character isn't thinking about it/had no cause to think about it, is it important to the story? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. More often no though. If you want to add it in, then add it in via the character interacting with the world, rather than just telling. Unless you are Pratchett and you can make telling the funnest thing you read all year.

If you meld this quote with Job's excellent example of sliding in a bit of wroldbuilding a little at a time, you won't go far wrong imo.

In fact if you limit yourself to the POV (I tend to, my preference) then often times you can work that in AND make it show character as well.

Any time you make words do double duty*, you're winning


*They advance plot and character, or plot and worldbuilding or character and worldbuilding. All your scenes should do more than one thing. Even better if you can get your sentences to

Economize with your words. You don't need paragraphs of minutiae to build a world. You just need the right details in the right places in the right amounts. This generally means illuminating the world directly around your character: the things they see, hear, smell, etc., and what they think about when they see/hear/smell those things.

I'm writing a sci-fi thriller and I personally feel it is immoral to "world build". By that I mean, if the reader knows that I'm giving them information, I'm doing it wrong. And when it comes to action, the action always takes precedence.

Here I wanted to make it clear that they're fighting a big robot (military drone). I have a lot of information in my head about how it works, where it came from, etc. but I only include those details that are important. I want to let the reader know that it's a military drone while they're fighting it, so I have the main character yell it as dialog.

“What the fu-?” Scarface was filled with enough bullet holes to kill him before his goatee hit the pavement. Torres, seeing the Inquisitors drop, ducked and ran towards the nearest building. Everyone else was in a state of panic, running in all directions like cracks in shattering glass.

The hail of bullets paused briefly as the mechanical monster stepped out from its nest of twisted metal and garbage. It was at least twelve feet tall, fully armored with twin miniguns on either arm. The arms spun up again, mowing down a group of Spiders trying to get to cover.

“Military drone!” Ilsa shouted as she pulled her pistol awkwardly while still prone. “Shoot for the legs!” She fired off a series of three-round bursts, hitting her target but causing no perceptible damage. The drone swiveled, firing another volley of bullets in their direction, tearing up the pavement around them.

Later on, they'll have time to examine the robot in depth, where it came from, who sent it, etc. but during the action - action is all that counts. If the reader doesn't know what a minigun is - that's ok, it doesn't matter. If they can figure it out from context, that's great. If not, they know it's a kind of gun and it shoot bullets - that's what's important.

Similarly, I can add little bits of information as I go. Here, the main character is looking at herself in a mirror:

Very muscular, especially for a woman, but not nearly so much as the men - especially Scion Freyr. Even surrounded by physical specimens, though, she was unusually fit - and scarred.

I don't explain what Scion Freyr is or what a Scion is, but I've implied that one type of Scion is unusually muscular by contrast. Later, little bits like this will help explain what a Scion is, but I never had to "tell" the reader, they just absorb it as they go along. I sneak information into their waiting brains.

DonAtreides said:

I'm writing a sci-fi thriller and I personally feel it is immoral to "world build". By that I mean, if the reader knows that I'm giving them information, I'm doing it wrong. And when it comes to action, the action always takes precedence.

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but just fwiw, that's not what "immoral" means.

BethS said:

DonAtreides said:

I'm writing a sci-fi thriller and I personally feel it is immoral to "world build".

Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, but just fwiw, that's not what "immoral" means.

Click to expand...

Also the first thing I thought when I read this was: This will lead to a version of the "Stephen Erikson Problem"....A phenomena where the writer stays so 'in the moment' and doesn't declare any facts outside of the current narrative, readers go "Eh??" a lot and keep skimming back through the first twenty pages trying to work out what the ha'penny frig is going on. I like Erikson, but a lot of people don't for that reason.....It's a trade off.

The second thing I thought was: "That's garbage". I guarantee that in your novel you've done it somewhere. It may not be egregious, it may not be pages and pages, but you’ve exposited/back-storied (BOTH OF WHICH ARE VERBS SHUT UP STOP POINTING AND LAUGHING!).

Whether they’re fighting a Military Drone or a genetically engineered axolotl in Power Armour isn’t backstory, that’s description. They go on later to examine it, and the mutant axolotl is discovered. You have 4 options to explain why its an axolotl to the reader.
1) One character didn’t know – The Watson Character
2) They discuss it in dialogue – “As you know Bob”
3) You don’t – See Stephen Erikson Problem
4) The narrator clears it up – Back Story

Now 1 is fine, but it’s a plot device you can’t keep using. 2 is largely considered poor writing. 3 is fine, but if you keep doing this with everything, no one will have a clue what’s going on. Which leaves 4 – and hey, you’ve just broken your own “morality”!

OK, I'm being a bit of a dick. But the point is these sweeping declarative statements really ain’t helpful to anyone. I started one novel so scared about expositing and backstorying, I put pretty much none in. Every bit of feedback I got contained at least one mention of not enough working facts about the magic system/aliens.

Writers exposit and backstory, no amount of hyperbolic rule-making is going to stop that. It’s part of narrative structure – something must have come before that’s relevant, and ‘The Watson Character’ can’t appear in every book. It’s much, much better to accept the necessity of both and learn how to do them so they don’t derail the reader.

BethS said:

I get what you're saying, but just fwiw, that's not what "immoral" means.

Click to expand...

Actually immoral is the word I wanted:
...not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

Or, if you prefer, sinful:
wicked and immoral; committing or characterized by the committing of sins.

Hillsy7 said:

The second thing I thought was: "That's garbage". I guarantee that in your novel you've done it somewhere. It may not be egregious, it may not be pages and pages, but you’ve exposited/back-storied ..

Whether they’re fighting a Military Drone or a genetically engineered axolotl in Power Armour isn’t backstory, that’s description. They go on later to examine it, and the mutant axolotl is discovered. You have 4 options to explain why its an axolotl to the reader.

1) One character didn’t know – The Watson Character
2) They discuss it in dialogue – “As you know Bob”
3) You don’t – See Stephen Erikson Problem
4) The narrator clears it up – Back Story

Now 1 is fine, but it’s a plot device you can’t keep using.

2 is largely considered poor writing.

3 is fine, but if you keep doing this with everything, no one will have a clue what’s going on.

Which leaves 4 – and hey, you’ve just broken your own “morality”!

OK, I'm being a bit of a dick. But the point is these sweeping declarative statements really ain’t helpful to anyone. I started one novel so scared about expositing and backstorying, I put pretty much none in. Every bit of feedback I got contained at least one mention of not enough working facts about the magic system/aliens.

Writers exposit and backstory, no amount of hyperbolic rule-making is going to stop that. It’s part of narrative structure – something must have come before that’s relevant, and ‘The Watson Character’ can’t appear in every book. It’s much, much better to accept the necessity of both and learn how to do them so they don’t derail the reader.

Click to expand...

In general, I agree with your statements. But I still maintain that if my reader knows I'm giving them information, I've failed as a writer. I really hate the [information begins here]blahblahblah[information ends][resume story] format. This is just a personal philosophy but the OP asked for our take on his problem. That's my opinion. It's the hallmark of a poor writer to tell rather than show. Now admittedly there are limitations to this, but I think it holds as a good general, "err to the side of" rule.

Job gave a good example of how to do it properly without making it overt:

job said:

The best way to build your world is to have your characters act in accordance to the history and customs of the world. Don't take 400 words to say they live under a tyrant. Have them nonchalantly accept harsh treatment as they pass the guards at the city wall. Don't describe the history of inter-city trading compact and shipping guild. Have your band of female trappers unload their zither skins at the dirigible port under the eye of the transit union officials.

Click to expand...

DonAtreides said:

In general, I agree with your statements. But I still maintain that if my reader knows I'm giving them information, I've failed as a writer. :

Click to expand...

Well, it should seem that the character is the one giving me the information, not the writer, but as a reader, I still need and want the same amount of information, regardless of who is giving it to me.

And I'm not stupid. I know a writer wrote the book, and I know the writer is giving me every tiny piece of information in the book. If he does the job well enough, it will seem that the character is giving it to me, but someone had better give it to me, or I'll go look for another writer who will.

There's a difference between world-BUILDING and world-PORTRAYAL. The world should be like an iceberg. Only the tip shows.

How much you bring above the water also depends on where you are in your story. Sometimes it's useful to slow the pace, especially if you feel it has gotten too fast at that point in your story. Exposition can sometimes be useful as a way to orchestrate the pace of your story, as long as you don't overdo it.

Just how much "bringing above the water" is overdoing depends partly on the majority of your fans for a particular type of story. Fans of procedural detective stories don't mind an occasional foray into blood-typing or wire-tapping or other forensic process. But notice the way it's done in the CSI-type TV shows. The characters expound just at the right point in the plot, and only for a few sentences.

Many genres are like this. Historicals, including alternate-historicals is one. Military fiction is another. Some kinds of sci-fi (not all of them). You can add others, I'm sure.