Just made an exposition chapter and I'm worried

Question

I'm currently working on a fantasy novel.

Storyline wise I'm just about to charge into the second arc of the story, much more intense and action focused than the previous world building arc.

I'm dealing with three main characters right now, one is actually set to die as a way to force the other two into the "quest" itself and have them interact with two other characters that would follow them all the way to the end of the story.

Right now, each one of these three characters had their own "mini" adventure gathering important knowledge and information that when put together makes for the whole picture. They get together and after a chase scene they had some downtime. This is that chapter. It's the first time all three were together in a non-risky situation, so I felt it would be only natural and logical for these characters to exchange information, form a plan they can all agree to but also exchange perspectives.

Instead of just dumping exposition onto the reader (or repeating information they already know) it sort of reads like a "revision" of facts. These characters are interacting with each other, their bonds are building, they are not just sharing what they know with each other and about each other, but actually sharing of what they think about those things and how they come together. The point is to have these characters actually agree to move towards danger instead of away from it, because that is what it feels right after they share their thoughts and feelings on the previous events.

Of course, this is theory and the reality is a full chapter of conversations and pondering between three people over what to do next. I'm a bit worried.

I think it works because now information is focused and revised in a way where the reader knows all the players, the risk, the events and what comes next, and I know I don't have to explain any of it again.

It is a solid chunk of text, though. I used first person POV when new sentiments or info were shown, but third person when I had to summarize previous events and give a character's perspective on it.

Now I'm considering just doing a sharp turn of perspective and toss the reader in the room with the villains, not only to change the actors on stage, but also the tone and sort of show how things are coming from the other end and forming the "collision course" that will be the heart of act 2.

My worry is that by having to slow things down for a full chapter to logically explain what each character knows and how they feel about it, would just feel like a slog and then "rewarding the reader" with the villains perspective. I'm trying to replace "surprise" with "tension" but unsure if it's a good bet.

I would love to get some perspectives and opinions on this course of action.

Answer 1

each of these three had their own "mini" adventure gathering knowledge and information that when put together makes for the whole.... It's the first time all three were together in a non-risky situation, so I felt it would be only natural and logical for these characters to exchange information, form a plan they can all agree to but also exchange perspectives.

Instead of just dumping exposition onto the reader (or repeating information they already know) it sort of reads like a "revision" of facts. These characters are interacting with each other, their bonds are building, they are not just sharing what they know with each other and about each other, but actually sharing of what they think about those things and how they come together.

You have 3 heroes, hopefully each with a distinct 'voice' and 'style'.

Now you need them to come together and clash. They throw off sparks.
It cannot be easy-breazy, instant team.

There is tension.

The scene needs to be as fun as their individual hero scenes. Whatever their signature voice and style, they are using it on each other. They each try to establish dominance (and fail). They are sparring. Even if they are not fighters, they not going to allow a stranger to assume leadership.

They have only just met through a 'chase scene', and this is the immediate downtime after. They are all high on adrenaline, wary, and 'punchy'. If there are criticisms from the chase scene bring them up, and let each have a comment about the other. Avoid giving them all the same voice. They will score 'points', but some will be more subtle and backhanded. They are also releasing tension, there's good reason to run the scene a little hot.

They irk each other just enough (there's a range, from sporting banter to comedic loathing), but they're not going to give up the lead role in their own story. Either they were being chased and are forced to hide together until the coast is clear, or they were chasing and formed an ad hoc cooperation –– they don't believe this the start of a team. As soon as business is concluded, each is back to their own adventure.

What needs to happen

Forget the recap. The reader already knows more than the heroes. Give readers what they've been anticipating: a juicy 1st meeting of the 3 MC.

There are 2 more 'levels' to this scene. Each character needs to 'level up' to the next stage. They each need to share a bit of information, and each accepts the possibility of becoming a 'team' – whatever that means.

First, the information needs to be recognizably plot-important. That means a prior setup in one of their worldbuilding stories: one character is very aware of a hard limitation (or a potential vulnerability). It's a problem they experienced in-story that has no solution –– until something is revealed by one of the other characters. It is not 'solved', but this is the first time encountering some part of the solution.

This character now has a need to go to Stage 2, and trade information. The others will need to be convinced to move to Stage 2, after all experience and information are valuable to an adventurer. Tomorrow these people could be rivals. There is no reason to give more than necessary.

You now have a goal, and a conflict. This keeps the scene interesting.

The information that is revealed is not important, but the need for the information has to be pre-established. The reader must understand the stakes, not the information itself.

If they are sparring, one might offer a piece of information as a (condescending) 'favor' to the others, only to be corrected with another part of the information (one up). The 3rd chimes in competitively, and a piece of the information is revealed organically.

Again the answer doesn't need to be pre-established, only the need. They other character does not consider it particularly important, so wouldn't draw attention to it in their story. Perhaps the 3rd character understands how to implement it but never considered it a possibility. They are each in very different corners.

They can still be cagey about what they know, while being willing to point out a flaw in another's knowledge. It's up to the characters how much resistance and sparring continues before each is seduced by the entertaining idea. Their interactions become more like the co-operative action scene in which they are improvising off each other.

It's a bold idea, interesting... but not feasible. Nobody has that skill set –– it's ridiculous actually, only a fool...

The big leap: "But what if...?"

The next level of the scene is that someone decides it can (must) be done... and by the 3 of them. (They may not actually be convinced, but they understand the endgame: there are no good alternatives.)

That's not how they present the idea, of course. There is already a clash of personalities. No one was looking for a partner much less two partners....

This person will begin to dismiss the holes in the strategy, gloss over their differences, and speak persuasively because they have a motive to keep the trio together until the idea is fleshed out. They don't need to believe the plan to make this character switch, just behave like they believe in it.

The other 2 don't need to be bamboozled. They cautiously go along, or even adamantly refuse (for reasons). You don't need to have a full plan or a happy team at the end of this scene – it would be too much to have every character make that leap.

You can make the jump-cut to Act 2, and they are somehow on their way despite never actually agreeing to the plan. Those hanging issues are still there, and characters are still in their relative positions of cautious skepticism with un-tested allies.

It's likely your 'diplomat' who manages to charm the other 2 and glues the trio together, is the character who is sacrificed. It allows the other 2 to have a stronger personality clash. Without him there is no team. Cue the arrival of 2 more people who were suckered in by diplomat's charm.... The plan is back on but the 2 never really need to settle their differences. It can be a clash that continues to give off sparks.

A little bit of plotting:

3 characters, each start in different corners and a little feisty from the action. Each is secure in their own adventure, and wary of giving too much.

1 convinces the others to share information, paying off a set-up from that character's worldbuilding.

Additional information can be sketched in. it's enough for them to learn each has key knowledge, making them roughly equal. Curiosity has changed the mood.

Through shared knowledge they have identified a strategy. It is unattainable of course, but they sketch a plan on a napkin. It is very much 'half-baked'.

1 convinces the others to change course and form a 'team' of sorts. There should be a built-in conflict that makes this team 'shaky', setting up a conflict for later when that team member dies.

Answer 2

Fantasy novels are often extremely long. People like it that way. It sure seems that authors of fantasy novels get paid by the word. Heh, some of them by the pound.

So when you have information to dump, there is a conventional way to do it. You tell the story instead of dumping the results. You can often get the right attitude by thinking of the movie version of your story. It's fairly rare for a movie to have a long expository segment. Instead there will be a sequence of action that, along the way, explains the information you want to dump.

Example from Lord of the Rings. You want to tell how hard it is to give up the ring. So you show Isildur failing to give it up. You show him and Agent Smith going right up to the edge of the lava cliff, and Isildur deciding not to. Then you show him getting betrayed by the ring.

Show don't tell. Instead of saying it's hard to give up the ring, show a powerful experienced guy failing to give it up. Isildur is this charismatic leader alpha-type. And he does not even hesitate, he just backs away from the edge without even considering it.

And it means you get to show off your ability to tell stories and build characters.

And it can even help you with the main line of the story. In LOTR the Hobbits all know about the story of The One Ring. So when you want the Hobbits to do stuff because of the details of the war, they can quickly explain their choices by referencing those old stories. You can even have the story be told by one of the Hobbits hanging out at the Green Dragon Inn. So you can build the character of the Hobbits at the same time as you build your world.

The only usual exception is a brief intro to explain the first chapter. You can sneak that in as some traditional explanation provided by a priest at a festival, or a short traditional poem before a feast or some such.

Answer 3

Readers are different. Who are you writing for?

There are novels with endless dialogue that I personally find boring, but obviously others love, or those wouldn't be consistently bestelling authors.

Boba Fit advised you to look at how movies to this. I wouldn't take that advise. Not every successful novel works like a film. There are great novels with long prologue – a thing movies usually don't have. And so on. A book is not a film and it follows different rules. You can write like a movie, but you don't have to, so be successful. Instead:

Define your target audience and write for them. How do other books with the same target audience handle this?