I'm an enemy of exposition. I feel there's no need to overstate.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Exposition has legitimate uses. It's the most efficient way to summarize background information, including necessary information about a character's history. It can set the stage well for a major dramatized event.
If my books appear to a reader to be oversimplified, then you shouldn't read them: You're not the audience!
When you do scenes that are just exposition, they feel false.
There is no scorn more profound, or on the whole more justifiable, than that of the men who make for the men who explain. Exposition, criticism, appreciation, is work for second-rate minds.
I'm manipulating the audience. I'm making sure people sympathize.
Expositions are the timekeepers of progress.
I suppose you inevitably fall into habits of expression.
The method of exposition which philosophers have adopted leads many to suppose that they are simply inquiries, that they have no interest in the conclusions at which they arrive, and that their primary concern is to follow their premises to their logical conclusions.
I'm tired of defending my character. I am what I am. What you see is what you get.
Where questions of style and exposition are concerned I try to follow a simple maxim: if you can't say it clearly you don't understand it yourself.