The Lack of Exposition in Monstress

Reading Monstress felt like watching a movie.  It was very cinematic.  One of the things that made me feel that way was the fact that the story started in the middle and did not go back to give exposition.  Often I didn’t understand what was going on at first but would understand through carefully analyzing context clues.  The story never explained what was happening, it just let it happen and assumed the reader would understand.  This was very bold from a world building perspective.  I feel like I did get to understand this fantasy world, but the story never actually slowed down and explained “This is how this world works.”  The closest thing to that was the “lesson” immediately preceding chapter six, but as a reader, I had already picked up all of that information through context clues because the lesson didn’t come until the very end of the book.  

The fantasy books I’ve read usually take a moment to give the reader background on the world either by having a third person narrator take a step back and describe things or by having a more knowledgeable character explain things to a less knowledgeable character who may be young or knew to the world.  Monstress was able to do this by having really rich text full of context.  Often characters gave clues through dialogue, even though it still felt natural, like they were just saying what they would say rather than trying to explain things to the reader.  Also, Monstress grabbed the reader’s attention from the beginning and didn’t let it slow down or get dull.  Doing this made the reader want to pay excruciatingly close attention to every detail to make sure they understood.  This was a risk that really payed off for Monstress because often fantasy stories slow down and can become dull when there’s an “exposition dump” to try to give the background world building to try to allow the reader to enjoy and understand the book.  But Monstress was able to achieve this with little to no exposition which I think is amazing.  Also, as dark as it was, I really enjoyed this book.  The art was gorgeous and the story was engaging.
- Anna

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 24, 2017 at 1:02 AM

    I thought your take on the lack of exposition was interesting, I never really thought of it that way. I didn't really realize at all that there wasn't much in the way of an introduction until I read your piece, It makes me want to go back and see how she did that because I didn't notice it. I agree that I think a story can get really dull and boring when there's an "Exposition dump" something Monstress was wonderfully free of. It can be tricky getting an audience to accept a new world without it though.

    I often turned back a page or two every now and then while I was reading because I needed to process something or make sure I got all the details.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 24, 2017 at 10:18 PM

    Often dialogue can feel forced when it is trying to give a lot of exposition but like you pointed out, the dialogue feels natural in Monstress. The "lectures" were an interesting decision to add to the world building. I too found them unnecessary. By the time they finally appeared, the world felt pretty well built through dialogue and images. Even so, like Iris I had to reread parts. I actually read the book twice to try to better understand it. While I felt like the world building was very well done and thorough, in order to fully follow the plot I needed more time to absorb the laws and workings of this other world.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousOctober 25, 2017 at 12:23 AM

    "Doing this made the reader want to pay excruciatingly close attention to every detail to make sure they understood."
    I didn't realize this until you pointed it out. I was paying extra close attention to every frame, even the most horrifying ones, because there was a lack of explanation and there was so much going on that every little detail mattered in the telling of the story and my understanding of it. I didn't think about how I was doing this as I was reading, but now that you mention it, I see that I was.

    ReplyDelete
  4. ElmazwritesOctober 25, 2017 at 7:23 AM

    it's not apparent but the lack of exposition you speak of points out how successful the "graphic' parts of the novel are. I appreciate that this was reflected in your piece and agree with your colleagues, we have to reread-relook to get it--don't mind.
    e

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"The Stuff That Dream Are Made Of" and "Death of a Mannequin"

The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of             Before anything else, I just have to say – wow. Azar Nafisi is one hell of an inspirational writer. She starts off talking about her sense of home. That Iran had always been the home that she wanted to go back to when she was studying abroad and that classic novels and poetry became a sort of home for her. Then she tells us that she finally did go home to Iran only to find that it was not the home she remembered. She arrived to witness the stripping of rights and freedom, of creativity and imagination. Lastly, Nafisi challenges her readers to ponder our own humanity.             Her words are eloquent and impactful. They’re the type of words you’d expect to hear from a great leader. She started slow and worked her way up to a profound ending. I didn’t expect the beginning, where Nafisi describes herself as a spoiled brat running...
Read more

"Death of a Mannequin" and "The Stuff that Dreams are Made of" Response

Arya Samuelson Both stories challenge the idea of a “singular historical moment.” Nafisi makes it clear that every action of the regime pointed backwards. Ayatollah Khomeini claimed to be “restoring women’s dignity and rescuing them from the degrading and diabolical ideas that had been thrust upon them by Western imperialists and their agents, who had conspired for decades to destroy Iranian culture and traditions” (3). In other words, Ayatollah Khomeini insisted that he was trying to make Iran great again. As Nafisi counters, “in formulating this claim, the Islamic regime not only robbed the Iranian people of their rights, it robbed them of their history” (3). She goes on to discuss the powerful “process of self-questioning and transformation” that comprised the acquisition of rights for women throughout the nineteenth and twentieth century.   By the time of the revolution, “women were active in all areas of life in Iran.” This section prompted me to consider the distin...
Read more

"My Sister, Guard Your Veil; My Brother, Guard Your Eyes" Response

By Lila Kalick "The Stuff That Dreams Are Made Of" and "Death of a Mannequin" I thought a lot this week about the role of artists and writers in society and about the notion that the things these individuals make can last beyond their historical moment. With all that is happening these days -- in the news, in the world -- it can be hard to keep perspective beyond the present day. It seems me that there is a hard question that we need to ask ourselves as artists: Can we live in our imaginations exploring the space of what things "can be?" Should we? A lot of what I'm learning is that we don't have to disengage fully with the world in order to make things that last, but it is somewhat helpful. Ultimately, if we disengage enough in the current moment, ignore minutia, and focus on the bigger picture, I think we'll (or at least I'll) be more effective at making art that is transformative and that creates the change we want to see in the ...
Read more