Well, apologies for taking so long to reply. My brain needed to relax after finishing chapter 1 of you know what
Exposition
As to my own thoughts on my own subject.
I love exposition, of the more 'historical' nature. That is simply because I love history, and can delve into any past an author chooses to share. It is one reason why "Shadow of the Past" in Fellowship was, and in many ways remains, my favourite single chapter in the whole trilogy. I think another effective use of exposition was in Stephen Donaldson's
Gap Series, where he had a number of "Ancillary Documents" that addressed background questions of the world in which he was writing. These slowly built up the world so that, but the fifth book, the context of the climax of the tale could be understand.
In addition to the ways of exposition raised by others here I would add another: the lessons of dramatisation. I am thinking here particularly, though hardly exclusively, of Shakespearean histories or Greek tragedies. Here the scenes are often set and directed by use of exposition. In Greek tragedy this can be especially obvious. If anyone has read/seen
The Persians by Aeschylus will know, that play's actions are almost entirely driven by exposition. Or think of
Henry V, where the plot is basically a series of scenes held together by various expositions. Both playwrights here can get away with this, in part because of the excellence of the speeches, but also because the expositions
mean something. Therefore in some respects they cease to be exposition and start becoming story.
Now, as to how that translates to prose-writing. I think the simplest approach is the best there. Put it in the mouth of someone, a messenger say, bearing terribly tidings. And then make the exposition into its own story.
Non-english language use
I love use of non-english language, so long as it does not detract from the essential plot of the story. I think it can be paticularly effective in historical fiction to add 'colour' to a story. One of my favourite historical authors is Dorothy Dunnett, who in her
Lymond Chronicles often inserts French et al. I can't udnerstand a word of it, but I don't really have to because where she uses it does not detract from the story, but since her characters moved in a multilingual world it makes sense and adds to the story.
Incidentally, I think in a history-book it is very sloppy writing not to include a translation these days. In the 1960s you could probably get away with it, but now it is just to impress, and not terribly effective (and yes, I am prejudiced against Norman Davies).
Deceiving the reader
A most time-honoured practice!
Putting on a subtly different hat, as a role-player (and more specificially as a ref/ST/DM/whatever) deception is a stock in trade of any good story. Twists are to be used, but to be used sparingly. Also a twist should never take over a story, to dominate it. Twists must be plausible.
Think of
Sixth Sense]/i] In that film we are led to believe one thing, but the twist is a thing of magic, but is, we realise, entirely reasonable. It is there if we want to see it, but the story leads us in another direction. Some would argue that the story depends on the twist there. I disagree. It is the twin story about the journeys of a man and a boy, the twist on its own has no meaning. When it supports those journeys however it turns that story from an interesting flick into a great piece of film.
As a reader/viewer I am quite happy to be led up the garden path (I know some people are not) providing it retains this consistency. A twist that is not shadowed or prepared in some fashion leaves me cold and dissapointed.
I hope the above was relatively coherent.