Is exposition-heavy writing easier to read?

[joe_galindez]

so bad it is good

I dunno, man. A lot of these people are pretty sincere about liking this stuff. It's not ironic at all.

[shazzbaa]

Do you mean in terms of like... are you asking if "she was happy" is easier to read than "her face lit up as she squeezed his hand excitedly"? Like that the first one is simply Telling rather than Showing and thus easier to read but doesn't provide the description of the second?

I'm curious what specific types of writing you're intending here because I see a lot of folks seem to be thinking of "exposition" as when you do a big infodump of like.. the history of the world or whatever, but generally you don't replace that with description in order to make it better; you just... weave that exposition into the story more naturally to make it better.

It's just that I've been wondering why horrible webfiction can be so popular. Does it appeal to a certain kind of person who likes light reading and doesn't care to strain their imagination? I suspect that's the case but I can't really tell. I find bad writing really, really irritating.

There's also the possibility that "bad writing" is popular in spite of, rather than because of, these factors.
Like, between a well-written story that's decently in your range of interest, and a poorly-written story that is THE EXACT SCENARIO AND CHARACTERS that are 100% your jam, a lot of people will gravitate towards the second one -- not because they like bad writing, but because the bad writing doesn't put them off of something that resonates with them so strongly.

I think a lot of times when "bad" things become popular, it's because they're tapping into something that a huge percentage of people really wanted to see or experience in that moment, and for a lot of readers, a writer handling exposition optimally is kind of secondary to the experience they're providing.

[joe_galindez]

I think a lot of times when "bad" things become popular, it's because they're tapping into something that a huge percentage of people really wanted to see or experience in that moment, and for a lot of readers, a writer handling exposition optimally is kind of secondary to the experience they're providing.

This explains a lot of r/HFY. A lot of it is badly written but it provides an ego boost for people who are into the genre.

[ISNEKO]

wonders in what boat he sits within this conversation

[Strontium]

I like exposition in the books I read. I just love worldbuilding and will take it no matter how laborious it is. One of my book pet peeves is holding off on critical information and teasing they'll reveal it at the start of the next chapter... only for the next chapter to start and no exposition. This is how some authors get me to read more chapters in one sitting, I guess!! Those sneaky chumps.

Since I'm a very fast reader, the only time really dense prose bothers me is when I can't skim it. My speed reading abilities probably led to me actually enjoying reading Dickens, unlike my classmates in high school, because most of what he writes is just flavor. You can skim it. But when books go on and on and on about something that you can't tell if it's plot relevant or not, it gets tedious. I'm thinking of almost all of the first half of Dracula. What a slog! They don't even start talking about vampires until halfway through the book.

[Hexigate]

I lean towards believing that people, while desiring a degree of explanation for what they're reading/seeing, are turned off when there's too much crap being thrown at them.

At the same time, people are dense. Some subtle details will sail right over their heads.

So, a balance? You don't want to barf info all over them, so drip-feed? Give them pieces, lure them in, sow the seeds of questioning, and reward those readers with answers if they see fit to seek out the answers. (Therein lies your true audience.)

I'm in the "show; don't tell" department as well. Instead of directly explaining an event, i tend towards a character referencing said event when the opportunity arises. Maybe a conflict even arises from said reference. That'll surely get the audience to focus on what "that event" is. I always try to inject some history and humanity into even the most mundane things/people; it's a worldbuilding technique, a fairly effective way to have the audience engage.

Or maybe i'm a fool and don't know anything. shrug

[DiegoPalacios]

"Give them enough answers so they start asking themselves questions"

[Twoony]

I honestly think it's different for everyone but, personally, I feel it has a lot do with genre for me. Comedies and romance I expect a more light hearted feel with an emphasis on feelings and people rather than expansive paragraphs describing every little detail. However, fantasy or adventure I expect world building and more emphasis on the surroundings and what's happening so there should be more descriptions. Obviously some people can pull off the opposite but this is just a generalization for me.

Also, I post on Wattpad and they have a demographics system where you can see who reads what you post. I've noticed that my younger reads (12-18ish) prefer a more simple form of writing, very straight to the point, funny and lacking description. They like witty dialogue and brief descriptions as opposed to a paragraph. Where as my darker stuff that has heavy descriptions resonates better with my older audience (20+). Again, just a general idea and obviously there are those who are different but I do think the audience has a lot do with it even if the audience themselves don't always realize it.

To sum it all up, depends on the person. For me, I can read either and enjoy them equally but for others it all depends ^_^

[Croik]

Like, between a well-written story that's decently in your range of interest, and a poorly-written story that is THE EXACT SCENARIO AND CHARACTERS that are 100% your jam, a lot of people will gravitate towards the second one -- not because they like bad writing, but because the bad writing doesn't put them off of something that resonates with them so strongly.

I think this is very true. It's just like people who say they don't mind mediocre art as long as long as the characters and story are engaging. Everyone has a different threshold and are looking to have different needs met in their entertainment, and wanting something light and fun is just as valid as wanting something challenging.

But I think it's also worth pointing out that "bad writing" is also extremely subjective. Tapas specifically encourages writers toward shorter chapters with it's itty bitty (IMO) character limit, so someone writing FOR Tapas may want to get as much into that chapter as possible. "Tell-heavy" style is very efficient in this way, speeding through plot to get to the Good Parts. It also allows for a very modern, conversational tone as if your friend is just telling you the story. That connection can be comforting and engaging.

Sure we all have our moments of "Why is THAT so popular??" but every story has its merits and its audience.

[joe_galindez]

"bad writing" is also extremely subjective

Can we say the same for the visual arts?

[Croik]

Of course.

You can always point to, let's say, "technical" flaws, like poor proportion, missing lines, this character's hair keeps changing colors, etc. Quantifiable errors. But art that is "perfectly" drawn can still come across as lifeless or dull, and art that isn't technically sound can still be exciting and fresh and beautiful.

In prose the equivalent might be switching tenses, or using the wrong punctuation. Sure you could call that "bad writing." But if we're talking about show vs tell specifically there is no quantifiable metric for good vs bad. Flow and style are very personal and subjective.

[joe_galindez]

I get that people have different tastes, but I feel that there are certain minimum requirements. If a piece of art lacks them, then it qualifies as bad, and if a piece goes above and beyond then it qualifies as good, or at least good-quality. You may not like a piece but you can still admit that it was made with a certain amount of skill.

[Croik]

Well, I agree in general. Some movies are so bad there's almost no saving them, and you wonder, how did this even get made?? But if a movie is well made in every aspect but still kind of clunky and soulless, despite everything working as intended, can you still call it a good movie?

I think there should be a distinction between "skilled" vs "good," and "poorly made" vs "bad."

[joe_galindez]

Okay, so I'm wondering why a lot of very-poorly made webfiction can be so popular. They're the complete opposite of what I'm trying for, so it's kind of bewildering.

[SleepingPoppy]

but I feel that there are certain minimum requirements. If a piece of art lacks them, then it qualifies as bad, and if a piece goes above and beyond then it qualifies as good, or at least good-quality.

I think there's way more wibbly wobbly then you're giving credit for.

so I'm wondering why a lot of very-poorly made webfiction can be so popular.

Quality is a singular factor in the complex Popularity Machine.

[joe_galindez]

I think there's way more wibbly wobbly then you're giving credit for.

. . . Very possibly . . .