Info Dumping!

[James Charles]

Well, folks, I'm going through my MS again because I did it again. I paid for an agent to look at my NEW opening, an agent who reps historical fiction.

She said I need to put in a sentence here and there to give historical context for historical illiterates.

Others here and there have screamed when I did this, “INFO DUMPING!” "Takes me out of the action." etc.

She said NO. It’s okay with historical fiction so historical illiterates can understand.

For example:

When Sal and Leah are meeting at the beach in the opening scene, she said it’s not clear why they can’t be together. Yeah Leah's Jewish and Sal Catholic, but why not? So she said put something like this between the action:

(Although Jews were allowed to integrate in Livorno, unlike in other duchies, they were not allowed to mix, per papal decree, here or anywhere.)

@Hannah F @Vagabond Heart @LJ Beck @Eva Ulian

 

[Vagabond Heart]

James, trust your gut, my friend.
Because my first thought on reading her suggested sentence was, 'so that's why she's an agent, not a writer, cos what a dry and unimaginative line'. Sounds more like non-fiction to me.
But hey, just show her you can do better. Get the important stuff in there in a way that isn't remotely info-dumping. Weave those facts in like precious, engaging, enthralling pearls. And then take all the credit for yourself.

 

[Ed Simnett]

#onepersonsopinion #beenwrongbefore
notwithstanding the show don't tell mantra, sometimes you gotta tell. It's often way less clunky than weaving it in (I remember an experienced editor saying "it's writing– you can Tell, and often that's the quickest way to move the reader on")

random solutioning... ignore unless helpful etc

Just slot in paragraphs of historical background (Mantel- A Place of Greater Safety)
Have the hero's internal dialog spread the exposition like a trowel (Kerr- Bernie Gunther series)
Put it in the blurb/back of the book [really], as long as the info spills out over time, that can work. "1940, Germany hovers ready to invade England. All that stand in its way are 1500 pilots, many barely out of school." Can then open with say [lurid potboiler] a love scene in a haystack between a young pilot and his girlfriend, and we are going to get why he is extra worried about being caught there.
Have a scene early on where someone sees an arrest or a punishment for the crime in question [cliched, and often used for sexual orientation etc, but if it works...]
Have one of the protagonists worry about not wanting to end up like their brother sister cousin etc [ugg]

 

[LJ Beck]

Hi James. I echo what Bev and Ed said.

And also... I thought you did a good job of showing why the Jews and Catholics can't mix in that scene you had at the brother's ceremony, where the main priest guy told the father that they needed to clamp down on the two religions mixing together. And the father agreeing, and consequences and all that. Maybe it's an order thing?

Maybe think about the stakes, and check if they're on the page. It's easy to assume they are when they're not, I do that too. If they're not, how is the best way to show the stakes? (Not how she suggested... I'm sorry, but that's just a bad suggestion.) In general, it's always fun to weave in cool world building for the reader. History, or in my case, futuristic stuff, whatever the world building is. If it's not commonplace to today, and is relevant to the story playing out, then I think it should be on the page.

Another thing... why is an agent taking $ to read? I thought that was a no-no for agents, and an indication of someone to steer clear of? Or is it an agent/editor type person?

 

[Claire G]

Agree with everyone else. That suggestion is dry exposition. It can be weaved in more organically xx

 

[Barbara]

Thing is, when you ask someone for advice, generally they'll feel obliged to give it.

If you pay them for advice, even more so. Their input may be something they pick off the top of their head (or however the phrase goes) just to do the job, or a superficial observation. You'll never know how much of your work they actually read, nor how carefully they read it, nor how much thought they gave it. And ask yourself what makes them an expert? Are they an expert in that genre? Or Are they just another reader albeit one who wants to be paid for it (nothing wrong with that BTW). For them it may just be another money avenue, not a passion to help authors. Again, there's nothing wrong with that at all, but it might mean that their focus is not with you and your best interest. Just on their benefit. Sorry, but I'm cynical when it comes to this industry (and any other art - acting, music. Seen it too often.). So, yes, I second @LJ Beck . Why are they charging? I'm always wary when I see this. There're agents out there who want to make easy money from the hopefuls then throw a bit of frivolous advice at them. A quick buck. I'm not saying that this one did, but before you doubt yourself and tear all your hair out, you might want to look at their feedback with that in mind. I hope, though, that you got something useful from it.

Basically, take a deep breath, then look at their feedback with some distance before you do anything.

An agent isn't necessarily good at story telling. Many of course are, and know what makes a good book, and many want the author to do well. But they may not be the go-to person for micro / in-depth writing advice. (Apart from those who actively work with authors, like Pete and our Huddles where someone takes time and care.) An editor of historical fiction might be more suitable.

The beauty of Litopia is that nobody gives advice for money. They help because because they want YOU to do well.

I agree with what everyone else has said so far.

You can turn boring clumsy exposition into interesting happenings. You can slip things in, like Ed said.

I haven't read much your book (I think I read your opening) but things like Jews not being allowed to mix can become a high tension scene with dialogue where the lovers struggle with the conflict of needing to be together and what that means in the grander things and their future. They can discuss it, argue, cry, change their minds etc. A conversarion like that might make a good opening scene. It's sort of the theme of your story. Dunno. But anything can be weaved invisibly into the text.

Treat it like backstory. Historical info is no different than a character's personal  history.

 

[JohnBertel]

When Sal and Leah are meeting at the beach in the opening scene, she said it’s not clear why they can’t be together. Yeah Leah's Jewish and Sal Catholic, but why not? So she said put something like this between the action:

(Although Jews were allowed to integrate in Livorno, unlike in other duchies, they were not allowed to mix, per papal decree, here or anywhere.)

Without knowing the full context, in my experience good editors tell you what information you need to get across and then it's up to you to to figure out how. For instance in some of the ways @Ed Simnett discuss above.

But perhaps, in this case, she may actually have meant "something like this" and is suggesting that you put in an "info dump." And maybe it's a good idea. 1) It is important for the story that the reader understands why the characters can't be together, so it may be better to simply tell why, instead of relying on the reader to read between the lines. 2) The genre is historical fiction. What for general readers may come across as "info dumping" may to fans of the genre, be a fascinating fact.

 

[Hannah F]

I read historical fiction, and the best reads weave the info into the story. They don't take you briefly out of the scene for an infodump nor do they put it in conversation between people who already know the info.

You have the back of the book blurb to give historical context.
You could include a brief (no more than one page) introduction (not prologue) that introduces the historical context. e.g. The Mercies by Kiran Millwood Hargrave: "BY ORDER OF THE KING If any sorcerer, or faithful man, had the sacrifice of God and his Holy Word and Chtistianity, and devoted himself to the devil, he should be cast down on fire and incineration. From Denmark-Norway Trolddom (Sorcery) Decree 1617, enacted Finnmark 1620.

But please don't interrupt story with a mini history lesson (as this agent has done).

 

[Pamela Jo]

Definitely something you can put in a character's thoughts or dialog. I still think the only thing missing from your story is what's going on in people's heads. Interiorosity to invent a word. Barbara seems spot on to me. Few agents have Pete's ability to help a writer polish their voice. Then there's the question, "If this agent is so good-why havent they picked enough winners to support themselves wo having to scalp writers?"

 

[Rachael Burnett]

For historical context, could you add the papal decree (or a few relevant lines) as an epigraph to either the book (if it’s a major theme) or the chapter? That way you provide historical context that’s interesting and relevant whilst subtly hinting at the research you’ve put in behind the scenes. I love an epigraph (I tend to look them up for background later) and lots of historical and classic texts utilise them to good effect.

 

[Hannah F]

This agent will be on Reedsy or somewhere and is offering their editing help maybe as a catharsis for the endless rejections they must dole out in their main "agent" role. This is quite common. I often see twitter/x threads where agents do this prior to opening for submissions (though that's free advice and not personalised after reading your MS). And agents work on commission. New agents or agents in small, boutique agencies may not be high earners. I wouldn't diss the agent.

 

[Rachael Burnett]

I would also add, if you’re going to change the fundamentals of a book opening don’t go on one agent’s opinion (unless it’s agent Pete, who no doubt knows your work in more depth) as they could be totally off the mark for many reason. I’d say you’d need at least three to get a better picture.

 

[Eva Ulian]

I see why the "editor/agent" said what she said - readers need to know the basic fundamentals to enjoy a story. And if they know the "dangers" involved, it also adds to the conflict which causes tension and that's always hooky.
It's not too much of a trouble weaving it into the story - it's simply hard work - which I personally don't like and expect it to come automatically- it doesn't.

 

[James Charles]

Hi James. I echo what Bev and Ed said.

And also... I thought you did a good job of showing why the Jews and Catholics can't mix in that scene you had at the brother's ceremony, where the main priest guy told the father that they needed to clamp down on the two religions mixing together. And the father agreeing, and consequences and all that. Maybe it's an order thing?

Maybe think about the stakes, and check if they're on the page. It's easy to assume they are when they're not, I do that too. If they're not, how is the best way to show the stakes? (Not how she suggested... I'm sorry, but that's just a bad suggestion.) In general, it's always fun to weave in cool world building for the reader. History, or in my case, futuristic stuff, whatever the world building is. If it's not commonplace to today, and is relevant to the story playing out, then I think it should be on the page.

Another thing... why is an agent taking $ to read? I thought that was a no-no for agents, and an indication of someone to steer clear of? Or is it an agent/editor type person?

It's through Reedsy. They all freelance.

 

[James Charles]

Thing is, when you ask someone for advice, generally they'll feel obliged to give it.

If you pay them for advice, even more so. Their input may be something they pick off the top of their head (or however the phrase goes) just to do the job, or a superficial observation. You'll never know how much of your work they actually read, nor how carefully they read it, nor how much thought they gave it. And ask yourself what makes them an expert? Are they an expert in that genre? Or Are they just another reader albeit one who wants to be paid for it (nothing wrong with that BTW). For them it may just be another money avenue, not a passion to help authors. Again, there's nothing wrong with that at all, but it might mean that their focus is not with you and your best interest. Just on their benefit. Sorry, but I'm cynical when it comes to this industry (and any other art - acting, music. Seen it too often.). So, yes, I second @LJ Beck . Why are they charging? I'm always wary when I see this. There're agents out there who want to make easy money from the hopefuls then throw a bit of frivolous advice at them. A quick buck. I'm not saying that this one did, but before you doubt yourself and tear all your hair out, you might want to look at their feedback with that in mind. I hope, though, that you got something useful from it.

Basically, take a deep breath, then look at their feedback with some distance before you do anything.

An agent isn't necessarily good at story telling. Many of course are, and know what makes a good book, and many want the author to do well. But they may not be the go-to person for micro / in-depth writing advice. (Apart from those who actively work with authors, like Pete and our Huddles where someone takes time and care.) An editor of historical fiction might be more suitable.

The beauty of Litopia is that nobody gives advice for money. They help because because they want YOU to do well.

I agree with what everyone else has said so far.

You can turn boring clumsy exposition into interesting happenings. You can slip things in, like Ed said.

I haven't read much your book (I think I read your opening) but things like Jews not being allowed to mix can become a high tension scene with dialogue where the lovers struggle with the conflict of needing to be together and what that means in the grander things and their future. They can discuss it, argue, cry, change their minds etc. A conversarion like that might make a good opening scene. It's sort of the theme of your story. Dunno. But anything can be weaved invisibly into the text.

Treat it like backstory. Historical info is no different than a character's personal  history.

Thanks, all. I'm going to try and put in the hist context in my characters interiority....

Another section someone had trouble with was when their fathers seperate them. Someone, it might have been here, didn't like Sal not fighting for leah and their baby. So, more interiority like this?

All were quiet in their thoughts. Salvatore wanted to grab Leah and whisk her away to that enchanted land they dreamed about where they were unencumbered by society’s stupid rules. But, he knew, they’d be paupers with a baby. You were either rich, or poor. There was nowhere to go.

 

[James Charles]

Agree with everyone else. That suggestion is dry exposition. It can be weaved in more organically xx

So have Sal do this interiorally?

-----------------

She huffed and said with an inflection in her voice, but facetiously, “So you’ll work for your father, marry a Tuscan Ragazza, that De Luca, and I’ll marry a … well … good Jewish boy and we’ll live happily ever after.” She frowned.

Salvatore was incensed that, although Jews were allowed to integrate in Livorno, unlike in other duchies, they were not allowed to mix, per papal decree, here or anywhere. “My brother, Gerardo, keeps our books,” he said. “If I could steal enough for us to run away. To Venezia perhaps.”

“No. Your father would find and arrest you. Throw you in a dungeon.”

 

[Roz Morris]

I'm late to this discussion, but that agent's solution made me cringe. Context is vital, yes, but an info-dump/history lesson isn't the way to do it. As most of the wise people here have said.
If you find it tricky to ease the info into just a line or two, consider whether you could make a lot more of it. You might be rushing to get it in, when actually you could delve into the conflict more and put it centre stage. Perhaps that's what you were already thinking!

 

[Ed Simnett]

I think you have to assume none of this is new news to the participants (which is kind of the problem). So I don't see how he would be incensed at this point. here's a modern language take:

Not that again. He pulled at his ruff <frustrated tic>. "Babe, we've had this conversation before. That law about mixed marriage does not apply in X. I'll steal the money to get us there."
Yeah right. From where? Your father?
Why not?

 

[Hannah F]

Maybe they do really properly consider eloping to wherever it is, even make concrete plans, but something/someone stops it all happening. (Just an idea to play with).

 

[James Charles]

Maybe they do really properly consider eloping to wherever it is, even make concrete plans, but something/someone stops it all happening. (Just an idea to play with).

Yeah, this won't work. See, this is the problem: I cannot go into a history lesson as to what eco-society was like in 1620. You were rich, or you were poor. They CANNOT run away in 1620; there's no where to go with NOTHING. They are from the upper clases, albeit in their own communiites. To leave, with nothing, they'd be on the street begging. AND, you can't just go find a job. You had to be an appreentice with connections in those days. And, the poor were kidnapped and sold into slavery. So, they MUST accept their stations in society and their communites.

 

[James Charles]

I'm late to this discussion, but that agent's solution made me cringe. Context is vital, yes, but an info-dump/history lesson isn't the way to do it. As most of the wise people here have said.
If you find it tricky to ease the info into just a line or two, consider whether you could make a lot more of it. You might be rushing to get it in, when actually you could delve into the conflict more and put it centre stage. Perhaps that's what you were already thinking!

Thanks, Roz. Miss you on Pop-Ups. Yeah, I just looked at Kate Mosse's The Burning Chambers on a recommendation from someone here. She starts with two pages of a history lesson before the story (which begins with a Prologue-oh my, don't tell Pete.)

In any event, This agent wanted to know UPFRONT, why they can't be together, so that she could understand their predicament. That's why I might suggest the info dump(?) in bold italics:

--------------

She huffed and said with an inflection in her voice, but facetiously, “So you’ll work for your father, marry a Tuscan Ragazza, that De Luca, and I’ll marry a … well … good Jewish boy and we’ll live happily ever after.” She frowned.

Salvatore was incensed that, although Jews were allowed to integrate in Livorno, unlike in other duchies, they were not allowed to mix, per papal decree, here or anywhere. “My brother, Gerardo, keeps our books,” he said. “If I could steal enough for us to run away. To Venezia perhaps.”

“No. Your father would find and arrest you. Throw you in a dungeon.”

 

[Claire G]

I don't think you need to spell it out. Let the reader put two-and-two together. For example, have the fathers talk in a derogatory manner about the other's religion. Show their bias in organic ways. Have them see a bride/groom somehow, e.g. coming out of a church, and resent/feel anger/sadness that they'd never be permitted to have their own wedding.

 

[Pamela Jo]

I'm liking the interior space inside their heads. It's a whole new world opening up. But always keep in mind the reader. We dont care from papal decree. All we need to know is the Inquisition is keeping them apart and they desperately want to be together. Nobody knows why the Montagues and Capulets hate each other. We accept it and get back to the story.

Though Leah's fate sounds rosier than you've painted before. She doesnt marry a niceJewish boy...she marries a disgusting old man?

Think of tidbits that readers might like to know instead of facts. Like it's interesting to know Venice was more open and free at that time. These have the same effect as cookies.

As others have said the religious conundrum can be in the blurb. Or even on a first page. A prologue doesnt have to be a scene from the story. It can be a historical info dump-done delicately.

Are you going from one POV to another with your interior thoughts.? It might be easier to go all Salvator's view why they can't run away and him frustrated because he cant understand her reasoning. Not so much dialog back and forth, but potent silences. As often happens between couples.

In the next chapter when we are in her head perhaps we learn that she feels rejected, betrayed and understands more than the boy she is love with. Whatever. That way we get to know each character's mind and live in their skin.

I suspect your readers will be more canny than this agent.

 

[LJ Beck]

Yeah, this won't work. See, this is the problem: I cannot go into a history lesson as to what eco-society was like in 1620. You were rich, or you were poor. They CANNOT run away in 1620; there's no where to go with NOTHING. They are from the upper clases, albeit in their own communiites. To leave, with nothing, they'd be on the street begging. AND, you can't just go find a job. You had to be an appreentice with connections in those days. And, the poor were kidnapped and sold into slavery. So, they MUST accept their stations in society and their communites.

James, you don't have to have them actually trying to run away, but you could have them argue about it. Maybe Sal wants to run away, not knowing what it's like to have nothing, be poor, no advantages, and Leah is the one who argues all these points to Sal. I think it would be a compelling argument, and info brought out through conflict is always interesting. And it seems to fit with their characters, right? She's a bit more world-weary, and he's a bit of a dreamer to start.

 

[LJ Beck]

She huffed and said with an inflection in her voice, but facetiously, “So you’ll work for your father, marry a Tuscan Ragazza, that De Luca, and I’ll marry a … well … good Jewish boy and we’ll live happily ever after.” She frowned.

Salvatore was incensed that, although Jews were allowed to integrate in Livorno, unlike in other duchies, they were not allowed to mix, per papal decree, here or anywhere. “My brother, Gerardo, keeps our books,” he said. “If I could steal enough for us to run away. To Venezia perhaps.”

“No. Your father would find and arrest you. Throw you in a dungeon.”

James, for internalizing, I know you're not a fan. I think there's a fine line between feeling like it would be something a char would actually think, and info dumping. This feels like info dumping. But you could put this into dialogue, I think. Seems to fit better spoken.

Salvatore grunted, incensed. "But Jews are allowed to integrate in Livorno. No other duchie allows that."
Leah huffed out a cynical laugh, "Salvatore, it's papal decree. We are not allowed to mix. Not here, or anywhere."
Salvatore would not give up. "My brother.... and so on"

For this one...
All were quiet in their thoughts. Salvatore wanted to grab Leah and whisk her away to that enchanted land they dreamed about where they were unencumbered by society’s stupid rules. But, he knew, they’d be paupers with a baby. You were either rich, or poor. There was nowhere to go.

The filtering here kind of dulls the sentiment, I think. You can just start the internalizing with the internalizing label, or filters like "he knew." Also thoughts tend to be shorter, choppier, less structured. For example... (I also added in why being poor meant not surviving as well. Not sure if that's true, but it's something I wondered about.)

Salvatore wanted to grab Leah, whisk her away. If they could get to that enchanted land, the one they'd dreamed about. Unencumbered by rules, those stupid rules. But no. You were either rich or poor. Poor couldn't survive alone. They'd have nothing. Be paupers. With a baby. There was nowhere to go.

 

[James Charles]

James, for internalizing, I know you're not a fan. I think there's a fine line between feeling like it would be something a char would actually think, and info dumping. This feels like info dumping. But you could put this into dialogue, I think. Seems to fit better spoken.

Salvatore grunted, incensed. "But Jews are allowed to integrate in Livorno. No other duchie allows that."
Leah huffed out a cynical laugh, "Salvatore, it's papal decree. We are not allowed to mix. Not here, or anywhere."
Salvatore would not give up. "My brother.... and so on"

For this one...
All were quiet in their thoughts. Salvatore wanted to grab Leah and whisk her away to that enchanted land they dreamed about where they were unencumbered by society’s stupid rules. But, he knew, they’d be paupers with a baby. You were either rich, or poor. There was nowhere to go.

The filtering here kind of dulls the sentiment, I think. You can just start the internalizing with the internalizing label, or filters like "he knew." Also thoughts tend to be shorter, choppier, less structured. For example... (I also added in why being poor meant not surviving as well. Not sure if that's true, but it's something I wondered about.)

Salvatore wanted to grab Leah, whisk her away. If they could get to that enchanted land, the one they'd dreamed about. Unencumbered by rules, those stupid rules. But no. You were either rich or poor. Poor couldn't survive alone. They'd have nothing. Be paupers. With a baby. There was nowhere to go.

Yeah, the problem with dialogue, is they're 13, although both smart and educated. An editor said would 13 year old talk like that, even then?

 

[Hannah F]

Yeah, the problem with dialogue, is they're 13, although both smart and educated. An editor said would 13 year old talk like that, even then?

13 year olds don't think like that either. Talking and thinking tend to work at the same age level. If they're only 13, sounds to me like the wrong place to put this depth of information. They might complain that their families are trying to keep them apart because of silly papal decrees. Is his older brother sympathetic? Maybe he's told Salvatore that in other places, like X, there'd be no problem in them being friends but not here. That kind of thing might come up in their conversation.

 

[James Charles]

13 year olds don't think like that either. Talking and thinking tend to work at the same age level. If they're only 13, sounds to me like the wrong place to put this depth of information. They might complain that their families are trying to keep them apart because of silly papal decrees. Is his older brother sympathetic? Maybe he's told Salvatore that in other places, like X, there'd be no problem in them being friends but not here. That kind of thing might come up in their conversation.

Yea, I'm taking that line out. It's frustrating when people say, "Why can't they be together?" They don't get it that she's Jewish and he's Catholic and the two shall not mix. URGH! So, I've got to make it simpler here. When the fathers are yelling at them in the next chapter, where she is pregnant at sixteen, his father says it to him so then the reader clearly will understand why. So:

Salvatore was angry about the stupid rule that they could not be together, as friends, or as husband and wife someday.

or something like that.

 

[Pamela Jo]

Yeah, the problem with dialogue, is they're 13, although both smart and educated. An editor said would 13 year old talk like that, even then?

That's it. You've bitten off a lot with your story. You need to take them from 13 to world weary adult with their voices matching not just their age but the period. It's no wonder this is taking a lot for you to work out. Old pros like Michener or Irving Stone would struggle. Hang in there.