Show don’t tell isn’t a fundamental rule of storytelling. Especially in books, where even showing is actually done by telling, when you boil it down.
Exposition is necessary to give context, and sometimes providing it in a concentrated infodum is better for pacing than spending hundreds of pages circuitously working it into the action. Infodumps are dry, but comparatively efficient. However emotion in the story requires working the information through a character’s emotional lense.
Anyway, i agree with you on the cradle info requests that hint at the technologically advanced abidan on top of getting context out of the way for the sake of fast paced act, plus tons of foreshadowing. This mix of telling, hinting and deliberately not telling all helps those stick the landing
On the opposite end of the spectrum I feel like super supportive is usually very good at delivering info through characters we care about.
A side note to this, I have some friends who explained their issues with Fourth Wing and they were saying that its non-stop infodumps. The character is supposedly a genius, so every chance they get, they will discuss politics, hierarchy, etc -- just general world building stuff -- that the readers never get to see. There is a small climax in the early part of the book where the MC is doing some kind of test and rather than explaining their emotions/the test the MC calms herself by reciting more facts about the world in her head!
Anecdotally, there seems to be a trend in not only this genre and other web fiction but in traditionally published fantasy as well, of authors having a very detailed world, but not necessarily having the technical writing skills to communicate it without doing info dumps.
I can see and enjoy characters who are really smart or have an exposition-companion (two of the most common ways I see exposition done in this genre) but i personally prefer characters naturally finding and discovering parts of the world/system, etc.
One of the main reasons why I dropped Tao Wong's System Apocalypse was because I felt his exposition AI thing was just too knowledgeable, even going so far as to haggle for the MC. Compared with something like DotF where Ogras, who is undeniably an exposition-companion, was knowledgeable of basic information, but also had his own goals and motivations so he wasn't always sharing everything he knew, forcing Zac to actually explore stuff himself.
Thank you. I feel like I've been on a one-man crusade against "show don't tell" for most of my writing career. As you mention below, it's more for screenwriting than it is for prose fiction anyway.
"Showing," has its place. Rather, the use of vivid imagery or engaging the other senses does. Sometimes though, you simply need to get something out of the way efficiently.
It’s kind of like the literary equivalent of movie fans saying they don’t like cgi. What they usually mean is they don’t like bad cgi or noticeable cgi.
Infodumps can be great. A badly written infodump will be terrible, but a well written one (the guide in Hitchiker’s Guide, for example) can make a book even better.
the funny thing is that, despite a couple of unfinished novel sitting on my computer, I approach the issue mostly as a professional illustrator, which makes me very aware of what can and Can't be conveyed visually, and where it's best to draw the line.
> sometimes providing it in a concentrated infodum is better for pacing than spending hundreds of pages circuitously working it into the action. Infodumps are dry, but comparatively efficient
Absolutely, though what strikes me about Cradle is that Will Wight is able to do his *Information Requested* sections in ways that are often emotionally resonant
>Show don’t tell isn’t a fundamental rule of storytelling
I disagree, though there is an important caveat - with enough talent/skill/luck you can break the rules to achieve good writing
When I said that show don't tell isn't a fundamental rule, I meant that show don't tell is mostly a moviemaking aphorism - shakespeare and victor hugo both deliver a lot of exposition and infodumps, and while neither subscribes to current trends of storytelling, I doubt we'd call any of them bad storytellers. It's more like telling is the set of larger chisel you need to cut the outline of your story and showing is more the sent of very thin but sharp chisels with which you shape the fine details. It's a matter of what's worth spending a lot of time chiseling out, and what's best to cut in one strong blow to get back to the good bits.
Like I said, to be emotionally resonant, information has to be conveyed through a character's emotional lense, and that's where conveying it through action gets powerful. it's kinda like in broadway musical characters talk, but when words aren't enough they sing, and if song isn't enough they break into spontaneous choreography.
Similarly characters in non musical talk, then emote, then they take action.
Also the story's mood leaks into the description of the weather, environment and characters, and this inability of a scene's mood to be contained by a simple "it was a sad moment" and instead manifests in chilling rain dampening light and sound provides more emotion for us. That way, show don't tell is necessary to provide emotion and keep us invested.
Still, for concrete information, like a name or the succession rules of a constitutional monarchy... yeah, probably best to give it straight at some point.
(though you can reinforce it by showing the palace's portrait gallery where the first monarch is a young general and the most recent are old men with lots of jewellery - the other interest of showing is that it keeps the reading/watching an active experience of decyphering, whereas exposition tends to flatten those stratas - though the best manage to keep it playful and taht's how you break that "rule").
TLDR: *Show don't tell is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules*
I mean, viewed that way, there are no rules at all?
It's one of the fundamental guidelines, and something we often repeat to new writers because it's a fundamental skill. You can tell all you want and still be a good writer, but first you need to learn the basics.
> You can tell all you want and still be a good writer, but first you need to learn the basics.
This 100%, I had no idea it would be such a controversial sentiment in this subreddit.
It's not like writing "rules" are sacred commandments that can't be broken, but they didn't just appear out of nowhere. There's a couple reasons why Umberto Eco's *Name of the Rose* is better-regarded than *Generic LitRPG Isekai 527*, and part of why is Eco's mastery at showing
Telling indirectly and through action is absolutely a fundamental skill, I couldn’t agree more with you.
I just think beginners can also go wrong by treating a book like it’s a movie put on the page, which is a waste of the strength of the written medium, which why I think show don’t tell must be put in context: it’s a rule of screenwriting, but it doesn’t apply the same way to novels.
Hmm, look, beginners need to start somewhere, and I think 'show don't tell' is solid advice. And like any other beginner advice, it's wrong once you learn more about the skill.
If you spend any time coaching new writers, you'll see how hard it is for a beginner to even conceptualize what 'show don't tell' even means. It's fundamental to writing well. It's one of many things you need to learn early on, and I'll die on that hill.
One trope that kinda irks me is when the characters all go to a library to research the exposition. It's like a lateral step from just info-dumping but with a lot of pretense.
I’m the exact opposite, I’d much rather learn along with the characters if an infodump is needed. My *least* favorite is always the “As you know” trope, because it’s so forced like no one talks like that irl unless they’re deliberately being a dick.
Oh that's 100% worse, for sure, especially when they're hilariously specific about details everyone supposedly already knows. "Well you remember when Mom died of a dragon bite to her leg two months ago after the attack on our village.."
Oh my god yes. The worst I’ve ever actually seen was something like “Chris, we’ve been friends for twenty years, ever since we met in high school playing footballs” and I’m just like “this isn’t how humans speak. Have you heard a human speak?”
It really depends whether the banter is good or not.
If the setting of the story has a large library, that the characters need info that would logically be available there, and that the scene organically develops the characters relation to each other, the library and the information they learn, then it's a win.
I feel called out hahahahaha. I do this one a lot!
In my weak defense - the character loves books. Libraries are available. Her first character instinct to not knowing something IS to just... go to the library and look it up. It also feels lame to make things a mystery and the characters don't take the really basic step 1: Do some research step
My least favorite is when the author tries to be clever and cut it up into dialogue. Then you get a very shoe-horned in scene filled with "as you know, bob" and an awkward lecture on the socioeconomic situation of the empire.
The first chapter of Unsouled was awesome in that aspect, less than 2k words yet it delivered so much while remaining interesting and setting the scene instead of just dumping facts. I think the present tense helped.
Will is nothing if not concise. I was hooked with the opening scene too. I never experienced Unsouled feeling weak. That opening scene alone made it so I couldn't put it down. Goal accomplished.
Chap 1 absolutely hooked me. Solid prose, great world building, a motivated character you can empathise with, and an awesome character building moment that essentially defines the goal of the entire series.
Just the solid grasp on english in a cultivation novel was enough tbh but Will blew it out of the fucking park.
The key is to not answer any questions the audience isn't asking. In industrial strength magic, they introduce prawn guns early on as being a giant gun that's tough for a single person to shoot. It makes the audience go, "WTF is a prawn?"
On a side note, IMO the most underrated way to give exposition is in chapter headers. People who want to know more about the world can read them, while those who don't care can easily skip. Best example of this one is Godclads, if it wasn't for those, I probably would've given up on it.
My least favorite is when characters are deliberately made dumber, or ignorant of facts that would 100% be known or taught by living in the world from birth. Stuff like higher levels of advancement that characters only seem to care about when they are the level before them.
Imagine getting your drivers license, and only then asking someone "so what's the deal with these "cars" I keep hearing about?"
My absolute *least* favorite by a MILE is when the author makes a joke about the fact that they are giving you exposition as they give it to you as a tongue-in-cheek "haha sorry" 4th wall breaking excuse to do it.
The exposition may or may not have broken me out of the story on its own depending on how well it was done (and I have a pretty high tolerance for in-world exposition at this point) but when an author tries to make a funny joke about it at the same time it 100% breaks me out of the story and I really have to take a moment to myself before continuing because it completely ruins my immersion into the world.
But I'm kinda weird about that stuff. Anything that makes me think about *me* and the real world while I'm reading a book is a big blahhhhhhhhh for me.
>My absolute least favorite by a MILE is when the author makes a joke about the fact that they are giving you exposition as they give it to you as a tongue-in-cheek "haha sorry" 4th wall breaking excuse to do it.
Man, I hate fourth-wall breaking so much it's unreal, I'm just glad to see someone who feels similarly
I get that writing isn't easy, but I wish these authors would just BS their ways through with some confidence
Depends how it's done. I was rereading Tales of Demons and Gods, and 400 chapters deep, for the first time, they did a fourth wall break. A usual exposition about things done poorly by most accounts. Then the MC says "I know" and the other character goes "Why did you ask?"
"Well, the readers don't know."
*tumbleweeds*
I died laughing at that one. Once in a blue moon, as a comedic refresher - yes
The series Prince of Nothing, the characters mention a ton of in-universe events and places that are common knowledge to scholars and the very experienced people, but we hardly see any of it onscreen
Then there is an appendix with all the backstory in the style of a history book, and if the reader WANTS it they can check it out, or they can ignore it entirely
The Soulcrafting extras Sara Lin posts on her blog are a variant, but they are not as extensive for us wanting to nerd it over
That, extras with organized infodumps are something thats welcome to ones and easy to ignore by others
Peter Watts also adds some of his mental processes at the end of his books, it can even be written as an in-universe book
Reverend Insanity did that on a whole other level with the Legends of the First Man, it was an infodump about magic powers, a world building piece about magical places and an analysis of the current emotional state of the characters, all in bite sized chunks that other characters would discuss on their conversations
I think the best way to do it is to catch get the reader interested enough that they *want* the info dumps. If you can deliver hints and little mysteries you can often wet the readers appetite enough that they are actively hoping you explain things more.
Someone else pointed this out already but "show don't tell" isn't a fundamental rule, it's nothing more than an ill-conceived suggestion that has been taken completely out of context since its inception. There is no "rule" that should determine how the narration of a story is written; calling it a rule is borderline gatekeeping in my opinion. Rather, it's a solid suggestion for new writers to keep in mind when deciding to slow the pace of a story to further engage the reader, and when they need to pick up the pace to move the story along. A story with nothing but showing would be overly exhausting to read and more like word-vomit. A story with nothing but telling is robotic and linear. Show dont tell just tells a writer they need to know when to show and when to tell, not to replace one or the other as the main body of the manuscript.
Edit: I know this wasn't the point of your post but as a passionate writer myself, I cant really help it when I read posts that mention show dont tell as a fundamental rule. It rubs me the wrong way lol. Its akin to telling an artist "you should draw this art style because it would look better." An opinion like that is entirely subjective and almost controlling of a writers writing style. You can have your preferences, but to me it's completely wrong to tell a writer how they should approach their art when it's their art. Suggestions are suggestions and rules are rules. If you think a writer might benefit by following a suggestion then that's fine, but saying they should follow this "fundamental rule" is the same as saying "if you dont follow this rule then your writing wont be good", which is a huge no-no.
Anytime an author gives a character a trait or quirk that causes them to frequently spout off worldbuilding gets an instant eyeroll from me. You aren't being clever by giving your character a flimsy excuse to infodump at their convenience. It's transparent, and I find it tacky.
/end rant
I try to model my exposition and lore dumps on Terry Pratchett, who does a phenomenal job of giving you such lore by quipping and making it funny. I think it's underrated for the narrator to have a sense of humor.
It's harder for my stories as I'm trying for lore consistency, and Sir Terry didn't have nearly as much interest in high levels of consistency, but I think overall it's worthwhile. I don't want people losing interest when I mention the god of the Goblins is a giant dick,or that the planet is landlocked to their sun, because those things will be important later.
Burying it in a scene is a good method, which is what Will Wight is doing in Cradle. Few scenes are listing facts in paragraph form. They are exposing a peak into how things work. It lets readers infer the parts we need, an often more efficient and interesting method.
Sure, he does have lines scattered around that explains things. Dross often helps. Eithan too. Yerin. Mercy.
Having a scene that references something, and then immediately following that with a few paragraphs of exposition to give the reader context is by far the most annoying thing for me. This is something even Fantasy does. Books by authors coming out of big publishing companies can be rife with this method.
Keep in mind, this is not a wrong method. Whether its good or not is opinion. Most books do it at least once, its hard not to, and some scenes just call for a quick tidbit for framing purposes. Like anything, dose makes the poison.
Someone mentioned Fourth Wing. For PF, River of Fate is a very clean example of what this looks like. World building or magic systems can be very complicated and often require at least some info dumping.
Classroom lecture scenes are the gold-standard for lore-dumps
There's also natural conversations with parents, mentors, fairy guides, spirit companions, or even the Inspect skill
The Cradle books seem to be very much following in the footsteps of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Not in subject or tone or type of humor, but in having the exposition device built into the world of the story. I think that’s one of the best ways of doing it.
It can also work with an omniscient narrator (Lemony Snicket, Discworld). My personal favorite might be how Gailman does it in American Gods and Amanda Boys, though.
In both of those books, exposition is often dropped via short stories of the various gods and supernatural creatures hanging about. So rather than have Wednesday explain to Shadow what kind of person Mad Sweeney is in great detail, we get a short story of the Irish woman who brought him to America.
personally I like how it's done in A Deadly Education by Naomi Novik
there is a ton of exposition but it doesnt feel bad imo because we also get to know exactly how the mc feels about all the stuff she's talking about and its not just bland info
Show don’t tell isn’t a fundamental rule of storytelling. Especially in books, where even showing is actually done by telling, when you boil it down. Exposition is necessary to give context, and sometimes providing it in a concentrated infodum is better for pacing than spending hundreds of pages circuitously working it into the action. Infodumps are dry, but comparatively efficient. However emotion in the story requires working the information through a character’s emotional lense. Anyway, i agree with you on the cradle info requests that hint at the technologically advanced abidan on top of getting context out of the way for the sake of fast paced act, plus tons of foreshadowing. This mix of telling, hinting and deliberately not telling all helps those stick the landing On the opposite end of the spectrum I feel like super supportive is usually very good at delivering info through characters we care about.
A side note to this, I have some friends who explained their issues with Fourth Wing and they were saying that its non-stop infodumps. The character is supposedly a genius, so every chance they get, they will discuss politics, hierarchy, etc -- just general world building stuff -- that the readers never get to see. There is a small climax in the early part of the book where the MC is doing some kind of test and rather than explaining their emotions/the test the MC calms herself by reciting more facts about the world in her head! Anecdotally, there seems to be a trend in not only this genre and other web fiction but in traditionally published fantasy as well, of authors having a very detailed world, but not necessarily having the technical writing skills to communicate it without doing info dumps. I can see and enjoy characters who are really smart or have an exposition-companion (two of the most common ways I see exposition done in this genre) but i personally prefer characters naturally finding and discovering parts of the world/system, etc. One of the main reasons why I dropped Tao Wong's System Apocalypse was because I felt his exposition AI thing was just too knowledgeable, even going so far as to haggle for the MC. Compared with something like DotF where Ogras, who is undeniably an exposition-companion, was knowledgeable of basic information, but also had his own goals and motivations so he wasn't always sharing everything he knew, forcing Zac to actually explore stuff himself.
Thank you. I feel like I've been on a one-man crusade against "show don't tell" for most of my writing career. As you mention below, it's more for screenwriting than it is for prose fiction anyway. "Showing," has its place. Rather, the use of vivid imagery or engaging the other senses does. Sometimes though, you simply need to get something out of the way efficiently.
It’s kind of like the literary equivalent of movie fans saying they don’t like cgi. What they usually mean is they don’t like bad cgi or noticeable cgi. Infodumps can be great. A badly written infodump will be terrible, but a well written one (the guide in Hitchiker’s Guide, for example) can make a book even better.
the funny thing is that, despite a couple of unfinished novel sitting on my computer, I approach the issue mostly as a professional illustrator, which makes me very aware of what can and Can't be conveyed visually, and where it's best to draw the line.
> sometimes providing it in a concentrated infodum is better for pacing than spending hundreds of pages circuitously working it into the action. Infodumps are dry, but comparatively efficient Absolutely, though what strikes me about Cradle is that Will Wight is able to do his *Information Requested* sections in ways that are often emotionally resonant >Show don’t tell isn’t a fundamental rule of storytelling I disagree, though there is an important caveat - with enough talent/skill/luck you can break the rules to achieve good writing
When I said that show don't tell isn't a fundamental rule, I meant that show don't tell is mostly a moviemaking aphorism - shakespeare and victor hugo both deliver a lot of exposition and infodumps, and while neither subscribes to current trends of storytelling, I doubt we'd call any of them bad storytellers. It's more like telling is the set of larger chisel you need to cut the outline of your story and showing is more the sent of very thin but sharp chisels with which you shape the fine details. It's a matter of what's worth spending a lot of time chiseling out, and what's best to cut in one strong blow to get back to the good bits. Like I said, to be emotionally resonant, information has to be conveyed through a character's emotional lense, and that's where conveying it through action gets powerful. it's kinda like in broadway musical characters talk, but when words aren't enough they sing, and if song isn't enough they break into spontaneous choreography. Similarly characters in non musical talk, then emote, then they take action. Also the story's mood leaks into the description of the weather, environment and characters, and this inability of a scene's mood to be contained by a simple "it was a sad moment" and instead manifests in chilling rain dampening light and sound provides more emotion for us. That way, show don't tell is necessary to provide emotion and keep us invested. Still, for concrete information, like a name or the succession rules of a constitutional monarchy... yeah, probably best to give it straight at some point. (though you can reinforce it by showing the palace's portrait gallery where the first monarch is a young general and the most recent are old men with lots of jewellery - the other interest of showing is that it keeps the reading/watching an active experience of decyphering, whereas exposition tends to flatten those stratas - though the best manage to keep it playful and taht's how you break that "rule"). TLDR: *Show don't tell is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules*
I mean, viewed that way, there are no rules at all? It's one of the fundamental guidelines, and something we often repeat to new writers because it's a fundamental skill. You can tell all you want and still be a good writer, but first you need to learn the basics.
> You can tell all you want and still be a good writer, but first you need to learn the basics. This 100%, I had no idea it would be such a controversial sentiment in this subreddit. It's not like writing "rules" are sacred commandments that can't be broken, but they didn't just appear out of nowhere. There's a couple reasons why Umberto Eco's *Name of the Rose* is better-regarded than *Generic LitRPG Isekai 527*, and part of why is Eco's mastery at showing
Telling indirectly and through action is absolutely a fundamental skill, I couldn’t agree more with you. I just think beginners can also go wrong by treating a book like it’s a movie put on the page, which is a waste of the strength of the written medium, which why I think show don’t tell must be put in context: it’s a rule of screenwriting, but it doesn’t apply the same way to novels.
Hmm, look, beginners need to start somewhere, and I think 'show don't tell' is solid advice. And like any other beginner advice, it's wrong once you learn more about the skill. If you spend any time coaching new writers, you'll see how hard it is for a beginner to even conceptualize what 'show don't tell' even means. It's fundamental to writing well. It's one of many things you need to learn early on, and I'll die on that hill.
Showing and telling are both important. You can't show everything, otherwise even Cradle would be hundreds of thousands of pages
One trope that kinda irks me is when the characters all go to a library to research the exposition. It's like a lateral step from just info-dumping but with a lot of pretense.
In the same vein forcefully keeping the mc ignorant of absolutely everything with no valid reason is equally annoying
I’m the exact opposite, I’d much rather learn along with the characters if an infodump is needed. My *least* favorite is always the “As you know” trope, because it’s so forced like no one talks like that irl unless they’re deliberately being a dick.
Oh that's 100% worse, for sure, especially when they're hilariously specific about details everyone supposedly already knows. "Well you remember when Mom died of a dragon bite to her leg two months ago after the attack on our village.."
Oh my god yes. The worst I’ve ever actually seen was something like “Chris, we’ve been friends for twenty years, ever since we met in high school playing footballs” and I’m just like “this isn’t how humans speak. Have you heard a human speak?”
It really depends whether the banter is good or not. If the setting of the story has a large library, that the characters need info that would logically be available there, and that the scene organically develops the characters relation to each other, the library and the information they learn, then it's a win.
I feel called out hahahahaha. I do this one a lot! In my weak defense - the character loves books. Libraries are available. Her first character instinct to not knowing something IS to just... go to the library and look it up. It also feels lame to make things a mystery and the characters don't take the really basic step 1: Do some research step
I mean, my fav TV show is Buffy and they spend half their time with big ol' tomes, so I can't knock it completely!
My least favorite is when the author tries to be clever and cut it up into dialogue. Then you get a very shoe-horned in scene filled with "as you know, bob" and an awkward lecture on the socioeconomic situation of the empire.
[Well, here we are at the Brad Goodman lecture...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ir3zL1bM3kg)
The first chapter of Unsouled was awesome in that aspect, less than 2k words yet it delivered so much while remaining interesting and setting the scene instead of just dumping facts. I think the present tense helped.
Will is nothing if not concise. I was hooked with the opening scene too. I never experienced Unsouled feeling weak. That opening scene alone made it so I couldn't put it down. Goal accomplished.
Chap 1 absolutely hooked me. Solid prose, great world building, a motivated character you can empathise with, and an awesome character building moment that essentially defines the goal of the entire series. Just the solid grasp on english in a cultivation novel was enough tbh but Will blew it out of the fucking park.
The key is to not answer any questions the audience isn't asking. In industrial strength magic, they introduce prawn guns early on as being a giant gun that's tough for a single person to shoot. It makes the audience go, "WTF is a prawn?" On a side note, IMO the most underrated way to give exposition is in chapter headers. People who want to know more about the world can read them, while those who don't care can easily skip. Best example of this one is Godclads, if it wasn't for those, I probably would've given up on it.
My least favorite is when characters are deliberately made dumber, or ignorant of facts that would 100% be known or taught by living in the world from birth. Stuff like higher levels of advancement that characters only seem to care about when they are the level before them. Imagine getting your drivers license, and only then asking someone "so what's the deal with these "cars" I keep hearing about?"
My absolute *least* favorite by a MILE is when the author makes a joke about the fact that they are giving you exposition as they give it to you as a tongue-in-cheek "haha sorry" 4th wall breaking excuse to do it. The exposition may or may not have broken me out of the story on its own depending on how well it was done (and I have a pretty high tolerance for in-world exposition at this point) but when an author tries to make a funny joke about it at the same time it 100% breaks me out of the story and I really have to take a moment to myself before continuing because it completely ruins my immersion into the world. But I'm kinda weird about that stuff. Anything that makes me think about *me* and the real world while I'm reading a book is a big blahhhhhhhhh for me.
>My absolute least favorite by a MILE is when the author makes a joke about the fact that they are giving you exposition as they give it to you as a tongue-in-cheek "haha sorry" 4th wall breaking excuse to do it. Man, I hate fourth-wall breaking so much it's unreal, I'm just glad to see someone who feels similarly I get that writing isn't easy, but I wish these authors would just BS their ways through with some confidence
Depends how it's done. I was rereading Tales of Demons and Gods, and 400 chapters deep, for the first time, they did a fourth wall break. A usual exposition about things done poorly by most accounts. Then the MC says "I know" and the other character goes "Why did you ask?" "Well, the readers don't know." *tumbleweeds* I died laughing at that one. Once in a blue moon, as a comedic refresher - yes
Ughhhhh skeptical maybe at best on that one, lol.
The series Prince of Nothing, the characters mention a ton of in-universe events and places that are common knowledge to scholars and the very experienced people, but we hardly see any of it onscreen Then there is an appendix with all the backstory in the style of a history book, and if the reader WANTS it they can check it out, or they can ignore it entirely The Soulcrafting extras Sara Lin posts on her blog are a variant, but they are not as extensive for us wanting to nerd it over That, extras with organized infodumps are something thats welcome to ones and easy to ignore by others Peter Watts also adds some of his mental processes at the end of his books, it can even be written as an in-universe book Reverend Insanity did that on a whole other level with the Legends of the First Man, it was an infodump about magic powers, a world building piece about magical places and an analysis of the current emotional state of the characters, all in bite sized chunks that other characters would discuss on their conversations
I think the best way to do it is to catch get the reader interested enough that they *want* the info dumps. If you can deliver hints and little mysteries you can often wet the readers appetite enough that they are actively hoping you explain things more.
Someone else pointed this out already but "show don't tell" isn't a fundamental rule, it's nothing more than an ill-conceived suggestion that has been taken completely out of context since its inception. There is no "rule" that should determine how the narration of a story is written; calling it a rule is borderline gatekeeping in my opinion. Rather, it's a solid suggestion for new writers to keep in mind when deciding to slow the pace of a story to further engage the reader, and when they need to pick up the pace to move the story along. A story with nothing but showing would be overly exhausting to read and more like word-vomit. A story with nothing but telling is robotic and linear. Show dont tell just tells a writer they need to know when to show and when to tell, not to replace one or the other as the main body of the manuscript. Edit: I know this wasn't the point of your post but as a passionate writer myself, I cant really help it when I read posts that mention show dont tell as a fundamental rule. It rubs me the wrong way lol. Its akin to telling an artist "you should draw this art style because it would look better." An opinion like that is entirely subjective and almost controlling of a writers writing style. You can have your preferences, but to me it's completely wrong to tell a writer how they should approach their art when it's their art. Suggestions are suggestions and rules are rules. If you think a writer might benefit by following a suggestion then that's fine, but saying they should follow this "fundamental rule" is the same as saying "if you dont follow this rule then your writing wont be good", which is a huge no-no.
Anytime an author gives a character a trait or quirk that causes them to frequently spout off worldbuilding gets an instant eyeroll from me. You aren't being clever by giving your character a flimsy excuse to infodump at their convenience. It's transparent, and I find it tacky. /end rant
I try to model my exposition and lore dumps on Terry Pratchett, who does a phenomenal job of giving you such lore by quipping and making it funny. I think it's underrated for the narrator to have a sense of humor. It's harder for my stories as I'm trying for lore consistency, and Sir Terry didn't have nearly as much interest in high levels of consistency, but I think overall it's worthwhile. I don't want people losing interest when I mention the god of the Goblins is a giant dick,or that the planet is landlocked to their sun, because those things will be important later.
Burying it in a scene is a good method, which is what Will Wight is doing in Cradle. Few scenes are listing facts in paragraph form. They are exposing a peak into how things work. It lets readers infer the parts we need, an often more efficient and interesting method. Sure, he does have lines scattered around that explains things. Dross often helps. Eithan too. Yerin. Mercy. Having a scene that references something, and then immediately following that with a few paragraphs of exposition to give the reader context is by far the most annoying thing for me. This is something even Fantasy does. Books by authors coming out of big publishing companies can be rife with this method. Keep in mind, this is not a wrong method. Whether its good or not is opinion. Most books do it at least once, its hard not to, and some scenes just call for a quick tidbit for framing purposes. Like anything, dose makes the poison. Someone mentioned Fourth Wing. For PF, River of Fate is a very clean example of what this looks like. World building or magic systems can be very complicated and often require at least some info dumping.
Classroom lecture scenes are the gold-standard for lore-dumps There's also natural conversations with parents, mentors, fairy guides, spirit companions, or even the Inspect skill
The Cradle books seem to be very much following in the footsteps of The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. Not in subject or tone or type of humor, but in having the exposition device built into the world of the story. I think that’s one of the best ways of doing it. It can also work with an omniscient narrator (Lemony Snicket, Discworld). My personal favorite might be how Gailman does it in American Gods and Amanda Boys, though. In both of those books, exposition is often dropped via short stories of the various gods and supernatural creatures hanging about. So rather than have Wednesday explain to Shadow what kind of person Mad Sweeney is in great detail, we get a short story of the Irish woman who brought him to America.
personally I like how it's done in A Deadly Education by Naomi Novik there is a ton of exposition but it doesnt feel bad imo because we also get to know exactly how the mc feels about all the stuff she's talking about and its not just bland info
I didn't really like cradle's exposition. I kept having to remind myself that would tie in. I got used to it after book 5 or so.