Exposition generally has to happen at some point. Especially in fantasy and scifi settings where we can't just assume its our world with all the same background and rules.
Its just one of those tricks to make it sound less 4th wall breaking, the same way most stories introduce a noob or kid character to ask the questions so they can exposit at them the same way.
Indeed. Like it's a little glaring when you actually do notice it, but it's usually subtle enough that most people don't see it.
It's sort of a loophole of the "show don't tell" motif of storytelling, because it's usually done in such a way that it's still allowing things to unfold with the proper level of suspense and at an appropriate pacing, and doing so without being totally obvious.
I've never actually read/seen Hamlet, but wouldn't the whole thing where the main character is often seen talking to a skull be another classic example of this?
Ohh, that offers a much different context than I'd been assuming for so many years. I'll honestly have to actually watch/read it sometime when I have more time on my hands.
Only one scene, and Hamlet is talking to Horatio in that scene, not the skull.
"Alas poor Yorick... I knew him Horatio: A fellow of joy and jest.", lamenting on the fact that when they're dead, they're gone.
Shakespeare actually does straight-up tell the audience moments a lot, though. But you see, it isn't called bad writing when he does it, it's called "soliloquy".
Only one scene, and Hamlet is talking to Horatio in that scene, not the skull.
Ah, right. I knew that someplace in the back of my mind but I've had a lot going on lately. Plus I only think I knew of it from second-hand references in other pieces of media.
Shakespeare actually does straight-up tell the audience moments a lot, though. But you see, it isn't called bad writing when he does it, it's called "soliloquy".
Well I think it's also a little more difficult to judge live theater by the same metrics too. "Show don't tell" is a lot more challenging when you have to do everything on the fly. No second takes, no editing, the audience can't rewind bits they weren't paying attention to, etc. Just the live performance itself and everything the audience is able to hear and see.
Even so, it's fair criticism. Just because something is considered a classic doesn't mean it isn't without at least some drawbacks or flaws.
I can't speak to Hamlet as I also haven't seen it but yes I think it does count from what I know of it.
I think its just a real damned if you do or don't situation. Because without the exposition you will end up with a lot of things just looking pulled out of your ass or just not making sense, ruining big moments and underlying tensions.
Its why books are usually considered a "superior" form of entertainment, because its the only place you can exposit without anyone really saying anything or an awkward narrator doing it for you. Which makes it even more hilarious and a red flag when hack writers don't realize that and have characters explain things out loud in story.
Exposition generally has to happen at some point. Especially in fantasy and scifi settings where we can't just assume its our world with all the same background and rules.
Its just one of those tricks to make it sound less 4th wall breaking, the same way most stories introduce a noob or kid character to ask the questions so they can exposit at them the same way.
Indeed. Like it's a little glaring when you actually do notice it, but it's usually subtle enough that most people don't see it.
It's sort of a loophole of the "show don't tell" motif of storytelling, because it's usually done in such a way that it's still allowing things to unfold with the proper level of suspense and at an appropriate pacing, and doing so without being totally obvious.
I've never actually read/seen Hamlet, but wouldn't the whole thing where the main character is often seen talking to a skull be another classic example of this?
He's not talking to a skull, he's talking to a friend about who the skull once was.
However, he does talk to himself a lot for ot reasons.
Ohh, that offers a much different context than I'd been assuming for so many years. I'll honestly have to actually watch/read it sometime when I have more time on my hands.
Only one scene, and Hamlet is talking to Horatio in that scene, not the skull.
"Alas poor Yorick... I knew him Horatio: A fellow of joy and jest.", lamenting on the fact that when they're dead, they're gone.
Shakespeare actually does straight-up tell the audience moments a lot, though. But you see, it isn't called bad writing when he does it, it's called "soliloquy".
Ah, right. I knew that someplace in the back of my mind but I've had a lot going on lately. Plus I only think I knew of it from second-hand references in other pieces of media.
Well I think it's also a little more difficult to judge live theater by the same metrics too. "Show don't tell" is a lot more challenging when you have to do everything on the fly. No second takes, no editing, the audience can't rewind bits they weren't paying attention to, etc. Just the live performance itself and everything the audience is able to hear and see.
Even so, it's fair criticism. Just because something is considered a classic doesn't mean it isn't without at least some drawbacks or flaws.
I can't speak to Hamlet as I also haven't seen it but yes I think it does count from what I know of it.
I think its just a real damned if you do or don't situation. Because without the exposition you will end up with a lot of things just looking pulled out of your ass or just not making sense, ruining big moments and underlying tensions.
Its why books are usually considered a "superior" form of entertainment, because its the only place you can exposit without anyone really saying anything or an awkward narrator doing it for you. Which makes it even more hilarious and a red flag when hack writers don't realize that and have characters explain things out loud in story.