This has no doubt been discussed at length elsewhere, but I am trying to get my head round the meaning of that word 'exposition'.

In his excellent - but a bit too academic - book 'The Art of Fiction' John Gardner talks about the novel falling into three parts. He mentions Aristotle's (honest!) 'beginning, middle and end' which, Gardner says, falls into the pattern of 'exposition, development and denouement.'

Later Gardner says '..if anything is to come out of the initial siuation and characterisation, the matter presented in the exposition, the situation must be somehow unstable...' My italics, not his!

To me this suggets that exposition is the part that sets the story up before the action really starts, and before the plot really begins to develop.

But 'exposition' is used rather differently on WW, often in the sense of those occasions where the author tells the reader something, rather than shows them. For example, The blow was totally unexpected. She slapped him hard across the face.

Any thoughts on this?

Jumbo, the OD says: exposition 1.n. a systematic, usually written statement about or explanation of a subject. 2. the act of expounding or setting forth information or a viewpoint. 4. the act of exposing or the state of being exposed.

The Penguin says: noun 1a. exposition: the art or practice of expounding or explaining the meaning or purpose of something eg a text. b. a detailed explanation or eludidation esp. of something that is dificult to understand. 4. the act or instance of exposing.

I've missed a few definitions re. music which obviously don't apply. I've always used the word in the context of the above.

Nell.

<Added>

Typo alerts: elucidation: difficult

Hi John,

I thought exposition in a novel is information the reader needs to know to understand the characters or the story as it unfolds.

I also thought exposition is thought and not emotion. It is fact. Perhaps it is the ‘Why?’ of the story, like motivation or backstory. Every novel needs exposition, it’s how you dish it out that counts and that depends on the point of view being used.

Sometimes we use the word exposition when we talk about objective or subjective writing. Subjective shows the feelings of the character while Objective lets the reader use their imagination. I.e. if someone is shot, the subjective goes though all the emotions of the bullet piecing the body, while the objective gives it to the reader straight. “I got shot”.

This is how I see it, interested to see what others think.

Dawn,

In Reader’s Digest Universal dictionary (No, really! It’s fantastic!) exposition is defined as, among other things, the setting forth of meaning or intent.

It’s telling the action rather than showing the response and emotions associated with it.

The blow was totally unexpected. This is telling us he was surprised rather than showing us why. It’s not showing us the gasp, the flinch, the watering eyes.

She slapped him hard across the face. This is pure action. And it’s fine. But in this form it should come before the ‘show’ version of the first sentence….

She slapped him hard across the face. He gasped…

I’m only just getting my head round exposition. I recognise it when I see it but don’t always know how to illustrate what I mean. In the case you highlight, Jumbo, it’s the combination of those two sentences, rather than each individual one.

Clear? No, I thought not.

Dee

Jumbo,
I think people are falling into a verbal quicksand.

Aristole's 'beginning, middle and end' is excellent and so clear. Why the blazes John Gardner wants to muck about with this and try to demonstrate his intellectual abilities by re-defining, I shall never know.

If one looks at a completed work of fiction I think you will find that there are a number of points within that work (and not necessarily all at the beginning) that may come under this heading of 'exposition' - or (as you suggest) - 'setting the scene'.

I am sorry I feel that a lot of crass nonsense is penned by 'experts' who endeavour to demonstrate their expertise with the use of ambiguous or expansive words.

You may query 'exposition' but look at his third word 'denouemont'... this sounds like the French Master of Ceremonies at the Folies Bergere announcing "Now we come to the third act where the gorgeous ladies of the Chorus will reveal ALL!"

Len

Okay!

Thanks to everybody for responding to this! It seems that this is yet another word that has a range of meaning and application (thanks, Nell) let alone the two meanings it seems to have within the writing game (thanks, Dawn and Dee).

And I guess, Len, that Gardner has fallen into the trap of many so-called experts who believe they can explain the simplest concept within even greater clarity. Roll on the fog!!

Much obliged to you all.

Just to add quickly, .. simply because of the length and complexity of novels it would be difficult not to have some 'exposition', and maybe it's perfectly acceptable. In short stories, one of the basic drives is to avoid any exposition, and it's totally possible.
Becca.

Becca

Thanks. That's another little tip I've picked up - Short stories means no exposition.

Regards

jumbo

John, .. just a thought anyway.
Becca.

I agree with Old Friend. People should write in plain language. I know that while I was engaged in academic study I appreciated a text book written in uncompicated language rather than overblown, self indugent terms.

There, I've said it.

Peter

Taking everything said above into account, I would think that what Gardner and Aristotle both are referring to is the beginning in its function of revealing the conflict, as well as bringing in the characters in their 'start' forms.