I've accidentally set the difficulty to 'Mayhem'.....

[Hillsy]

(aka "Open wide, here comes a spoonful of clues and plot. Nyyyeeeooowwww")

Right, I'm undergoing a bit of revision at the moment on me fantasy WiP and I've spent a good week on, so far, just 2 out of 5 pages of a very particular scene. The problem is I'm trying to set in motion in the reader's mind a mystery plot-line and am having a right ol' time trying to dole out the right amount of information to catch the imagination of the question without either drowning them to boredom in detail, or just leaving them utterly confused. See here's the problem.

I'm explaining a puzzle through dialogue between two characters, one ignorant of the details, one enlightened. The actual puzzle is quite simple: semantics. Specifically, why a different phrasing of a line of text would be a motivation for a certain action. OK, got that? Easy, right? Well....

I've thrown in a complication: rather than 2 different phrasings I've got 7, and each provides motivation for certain actions, giving me a really rich backstory for many characters, plus additional levels of world-building, plus a theme (the problems of determinism/self-determinism through the written word). So I'm really happy with that, it's a good cornerstone for the fantasy world I'm building. However, I'm sure you can see the issues arising. Yeah, setting out all of the rules, then handing out 7 versions of the same information at the correct rate is a Fracking Nightmare.

So my problem: How do I know I'm giving out enough information? Is it better to err on the side of lecturing (over writing and explaining) and editting down, or better to throw out the bare minimum of clues and add layers later on until the reader twigs? I think I've got the two correct characters here, and though I've got the option to drop in quick summary someone at the start (It's an epic fantasy, so you get a few more tricks to play with) It's the last resort.

So how do you guys approach early drafting of a very complex plot foundation? Do you prefer the Steven Erikson approach (aka "you ain't getting any help, sunshine!") or a more thorough, but slower, Robert Jordan style? Do I presume reader's will, or won't, understand off the bat?

***NB: This is Epic Fantasy, therefore core readers tend to be more forgiving in terms of learning curve as a rule of thumb.

[dios4vida]

Ho boy. Now here's a doozy.

Personally, I think a lot of it depends on you. (Don't you love that answer?) If this is the WIP I think it is, and having read a small sampling of said WIP, I think that if you tried to take it too slowly, explaining lots of details, it would alert readers that there's something up here. Your natural pace is quick, sharp, and full of action. A long explanatory scene would be like putting neon lights on it saying "Here's the mystery, try figuring it out!"

Also, though, the Stephen Erikson approach is dangerous because it was sooooooooooo hard to figure out what was going on in Gardens of the Moon - and I'm not a newbie to epic fantasy by a longshot. I'd have killed for a paragraph and a half explaining who the crap was on whose side (and why) in that big seige with the floating castle and the mages and townspeople and all. I'm still not completely sure I'm right as to what was going on there.

I'm thinking happy medium would work well here, but taking your style into consideration, leaning a bit more toward the Erikson sparcity.

I have no idea if that helped at all, but...it's about the best I can offer right now. (I'm fresh back from vacation and haven't had my coffee yet.)

[polymath]

Sounds to me like you might have a Rembrandt Comic Book on your hands. From the Turkey City Lexicon: "A story in which incredible craftsmanship has been lavished on a theme or idea which is basically trivial or subliterary, and which simply cannot bear the weight of such deadly-serious artistic portent" (Sterling, Bruce, SFWA. Web).

Consider simplifying. The Principle of Threes is a guiding thumb. Once is a coincidence; it takes two to tango; three's a party. Four creates a question of reliability or a burden on readers from perhaps he doth protest too much. Seven? Too many?

Also consider dramatic irony as an organizing principle. Dramatic irony is when one character knows a circumstance and another doesn't. Readers should be in the know along with the character in the know. Courtly intrigues type dramatic irony would have the protagonist revealing different versions to different characters for ulterior motives. Need to know would have the protagonist telling one version to one character for a reason, another version for similar but noticeably different reasons, and another.

Like he or she says So-and-so is having intimate lunches with Yada-yada. The protagonist is jealous, having had his advances spurned by his love interest. The next version might be they're taking a beach vacation together. If that doesn't start tongues wagging, then says, they're sleeping together and married to other persons. Motive and emotional context; in other words, reveal information when it's of import to the protagonist in the moment and within the setting where it's significant.

[writersink]

That is freaky, Hilllsy, because I've come across the exact same problem in my WIP. I'm very glad (not a mean way ) to hear someone is in the same boat as me. I've taken out a lot of plot points, and still it seems really confusing. The worst part is that mine is a MG, so it needs to be quite accessible. One of my chapters just feels like a giant info dump. I'm going to try and spread it out, but to make it clearer, not to let my poor readers try and figure out everything on their own. Giving the info dump seems like the easier option now, but I doubt it will feel that way in the long run. My advice? Do what works best for you, and the way you write. (And this may sound really silly, but I'm going to say it anyway.) Which option feels like the "easy" way out? Because that's probably the way you DON'T want to go.

[Amanda Elizabeth]

I think this is where you need people who are unconnected with writing come into play. People who will just read it and not want to edit it or suggest plot changes. There were a couple spots I hit like that, and the best thing was when I had a couple friends and family read the first draft. It was specifically "do you understand this?" None of them are fantasy/YA readers and more importantly, because my story revolves around angels and demons and much of their "history", I picked two who had no religious upbringing. Third parties with that unbiased POV is really the way you'll know if it makes sense or not. Writers and serious readers(like most of us here I believe) aren't a good sample of the general reading audience. It needs to make sense to them.

[MattLarkin]

I haven't read your work Hillys--though if Brenda likes it I'm sure I would, too--so take this with a grain of salt, but I agree with polymath. I think 7 is too many angles. Your average reader is not going to know your world as well as you do, not going to read the book in one sitting, and going to have trouble keeping that many angles and factions straight across a single book.

But like I said, I haven't read your book, so maybe it works great. In general, though, you might want to consider combining a few of these interpretations to give fewer ones more depth.

[Hillsy]

####EPIPHANY ALARM#####

Matt, you've actually nailed at, albeit possibly by accident. The 7 versions arn't so much plot as they are worldbuilding. There's only probably 3 that directly relate to the plot, which falls neatly into the 'rule of 3' polymath mentioned. I've got it into my head that they need to know everything the character knows, whereas the truth is the reader just needs to know enough - the rest I can feather in later where applicable as I would any other type of worldbuilding. Dammit, that's obvious! Especially as one half of the novel is an out and out mystery. How did I ever think they were all vital to the plot in the first place!

.....And now I've got a handful of new scenes forming in me head.....Oooo, tingly....

[MattLarkin]

Glad to help