KAMN Survey: Info Dumps
A side discussion popped up between Jack, Mur, and myself about the use of infodumps in novels (especially the epic-length dumps of Neal Stephenson in Snow Crash, Cryptonomicon, and the Baroque Cycle).
This is probably a discussion for everyone to participate in.
So, first, Jack said:
Mur, I’m curious to hear if you have a rebuttal to our rebuttal.
Mur responded:
Jack, my rebuttal is simple-the info-dumps are one of the things I hate about Stephenson. I love Diamond Age, but the bits about the Turing machine bores me to tears. While you guys think it’s fascinating, I feel as though Stephenson can’t just do research for his own foundation of the story, he has to tell us EVERYTHING he knows, which I feel is boring and unneccesary. It is possible to build a story without the excruciating detail of everything you research. That’s why it’s called a “foundation” and not “plot”.
You guys said a beginning writer can’t get away with it. I’ll go farther and say that he can’t either, but I know I’m in the minority.
It’s OK, I was the only person who didn’t like Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell too…
I chipped in with:
There are times when I can appreciate an info dump, and there are times when I wonder why it’s in there.I didn’t mind the one in Snow Crash as much as you did. Now, don’t tell my friend Sean this, but I’m pretty sure that it may have been the info dump that prevented me from finishing Cryptonomicon, and prevented me from ever wanting to pick up The Baroque Cycle.
Now, if you could skip over the info dump, say flip forward 40 pages and forget Stephenson got away with that, how’d you like Snow Crash, the story?
And Jack followed up with:
Speaking of infodump, I discovered Snow Crash back in 94/95 when I came a cross a semi-enthusiastic review for the Diamond Age, where the reviewer basically said, yeah it’s pretty good, but “Snow Crash! Wow!” So I read SC first, but definitely disagreed with him about DA. Haven’t read that one since, and am long overdue for a reread.Anyway. I’m a sucker for Stephenson’s style. The Baroque Cycle is three thousand pages, chock full of infodumps, mind-numbing ideas, and cool action sequences, easily the most difficult fiction I’ve ever worked through (and I’m only 2/3 through) – makes James Clavell look like Mercer Mayer. But it has its rewards for the reader. I’m in awe of his skill.
I suppose we ought to be saying this stuff on the KAMN message boards, huh?
Yes, Jack, we probably should be.
So, listeners… what do you think about the info dump in general, and does Neal Stephenson pull it off well, poorly, or somewhere in between depending on which book of his you’re reading?
Depends on which book. I found Cryptonomicon fascinating, and though I’m nobody’s idea of a mathematician, found I could follow some of that stuff quite well.
Science fiction by it’s nature has to incorporate infodump – especially the hard SF flavor. Even though the reader might know something about zero point energy or the human genome, the writer must include some of this data to give a jumping off point for extrapolations and concepts. The trick is making it work well in the story. For my money, writers like Baxter, Gibson, and Niven make it work well. Heinlein set the blueprint for it. Stephenson is hit or miss. Greg Egan – the one book I read, anyway – was dull because the whole story seemed like infodump. Asimov I loved, but he used lots of infodump, and his fiction has become dated because of it.
There’s a KAMN message board?
The most trafficked KAMN message board is this site, but there is a KAMN message board that’s part of the Cult of Summer forums.
http://cultofsummer.com/kamn will get you there.
Info dumps, never a cool way to start a story but are some times needed so that rest of the story flows better. The determining factor for me is just how much detail is needed, and how much of it does the writer expect the reader to keep in his or her head.
I stopped reading David Webbers Honor Harrington series because of the long, boring dumps that could have been summed up nicely in a few sentences.
Yes, info dumps are sometimes necessary but they have to be used sparingly. If you are going to violate the “show don’t tell” rule, then do so carefully; it can backfire on you.
Stephenson has lots of cool ideas in his info dumps, but many times those enormous dumps just hinder his story.
“Cryptonomicon” was the last book of his I read. I waited forever for something to happen in that book and then was horribly disappointed with the lame ending. While I enjoyed and understood much of what was in his info dumps, that enjoyment was not enough to overcome what was a weak story, IMO. Frankly, if I *really* want to know about cryptography, I’ll read (and have read) Bruce Schneier’s books.
Isn’t it funny that Simmon’s was critisized for having too long descriptions in the Hyperion books, but Stephenson is praised for his info dumps? Maybe it is just a matter of how much we can geek out over the information, but without doubt, info dumps are a double-edged sword.
I generally like info dumps, but I always have a nagging worry that if it’s not a subject I’m already familiar with I don’t have any way of knowing what bits are true and what bits are made up for the story.
I don’t mind a lot of exposition early in a story to get up to speed, but it’s admittedly a fine line between “too much” and “just enough”. Has anyone else read “Oryx and Crake” by Margaret Atwood? There’s an example of a story with well-spaced and effective infodumps. She gives out just enough background to keep up while leaving a significant amount of mystery in the story.
It’s a mood thing.. . .
I’ve read Smith/Trowbridge’s Exordium a couple times, and they go into intense philosophical and political detail that is fasinating and does actually apply to the storyline, but skipping them doesn’t detract from the plot – if they skipped these, you could probable save several hundred pages of the 5 book series. Sometimes I read em, sometimes not.
Jumping back to the Zelazney discussion, I tend to skip hellrides . . . .easy to find the end, for all the ….ellipsis stop.
On to infodumps in just a second.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion. In this case Mur’s is wrong. Keep reading Norell and Strange until you become right — with God, with the Universe, everything. I have developed a low tolerance for fantasy and Clarke succeeded where so many have failed, so often and so unimaginatively.
Stephenson serially commits “I learned it, so you have to” but he manages to weave it into the story’s plot much better than others. I’m not saying he shouldn’t abandon the practice and work on making it seemless like others have but since he does it so well and he’s the one exception I’m happy to have him, if only to prove the rule.
Beginning writers shoud read Knutter and see how it’s done. Or, for non-genre writers, read Clavell’s Shogun. Sure it’s 1100 pages long but by the end you actually speak a little japanese. He teaches you a language without you ever noticing.
Maybe we should do a show about what works in fantasy and what doesn’t, and why we think those things do and don’t work.
And as much as I love classes and higher education, I don’t want to be subjected to an advanced lesson in mathematics, physics, psychology or anything else when I sit down to read any fiction, scifi, fantasy, or otherwise.
My patience with it gets tested, and I’m not so sure Stephenson’s better-than-average execution of the punishable offense is an excuse for him to keep committing said offense
Shogun, eh? Maybe someday.
Shogun is really, really, really good. Really.
That was a gateway Japanese historical fiction book for me, leading to much harder stuff — like the English translations of Eiji Yoshikawa’s 1000-pages-each novels, “Musashi” AND “Taiko”.