# My problem with SF on TV and film today.



## Scifi fan (Apr 20, 2010)

It's nothing new. All I see are the stale ideas of time travel, alternate realities, altered time lines, hostile aliens, benevolent god-like allies, half-naked female models, and, of course, the shoot-em-ups. 

I know there are allegedly no new stories, but I'm wondering if there's any way to revive our beloved genre.


----------



## Dave (Apr 20, 2010)

I think the answer is yes, but if I could come up with the ideas myself then I wouldn't be writing this, I'd be a scriptwriter and attending the premier of my latest blockbuster.

I do feel your pain - Daleks in child-friendly bright colours are still just the same old Daleks.

They should look to established book and short story authors to write. That is where the more wacky ideas come from. I think that the development time for films prevents them ever being way out there, but independent films like 'District 9' can still get made. An established weekly TV series can begin to take risks - a series like 'Star Trek' could do it on occasions - maybe they could bring back something like 'The Outer Limits' or 'The Twilight Zone'. TV series are usually so worried about being cancelled that it precludes anything that isn't mainstream.


----------



## J-WO (Apr 20, 2010)

I think there is a real disconnect--a canyon, even, sometimes-- between what I'm seeing on contemporary telly and what I'm reading in contemporary books. SF/ fantasy has moved on with the likes of Iain Banks' Culture and China Mieville's Bas Lag but TV never reflects any of that. 

*Dave*, what you say about established authors I heartily agree with (and I'm not usually one for hearting)- afterall, _The Wire_ had some novelists as scriptwriters. At least that's what I heard on Radio 4.

As for The Outer Limits and The Twilight Zone... I fear we'll never see their like again, what with modern marketing's need for an identifiable series hero etc. Shame if that's the case.


----------



## Quokka (Apr 20, 2010)

I'd agree with TV which is pretty dire imo, although never having watched the 90's outer limits I'm actually enjoying seeing that on late night tele .

But I don't think we do too bad with movies, take the last 10 years:

Star Trek  (one of the better reboots at least), The Matrix (ok that's 1999), Avatar (Huge blockbuster eye candy but we gotta have em ), District 9, Children of Men, Moon, The Butterfly Effect, Equilibrium, Pitch Black, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy... and there's got to be a lot I'm forgetting or just haven't seen.

and go back to the 90's and there's quite a few that make my all time favourites list. I'm not saying these are all great movies and as always there's some good ones in a whole pile of.... less than wonderful cinema... but on the whole I think there's as much variety in SF as there is in any genre at the movies and at least there still is some good ones coming out now and again.


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 20, 2010)

There has definitely been a lack of TV sci-fi that has a large scope of differing stories. I used to enjoy TNG and some of the different episodes were my favorites, also X files did have a few very interesting different episodes, they kind of leant towards the big alien abduction conspiracy stuff but the smaller one off ideas were always more interesting. I think there is a market for a well made TV series with different stories that allow lots of the enw ideas from Sci-fi to be explored. Even something great with BSG was one long story without the real variety that something like Twilight Zone had. Maybe there's a real space in the market out there for something different. Lots of smaller stories based on powerful and new Sci-fi ideas.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 20, 2010)

The thing is, this isn't exactly a new trend. SFF in the visual media of film and television has _almost always_ lagged quite a bit behind what is going on literarily. (Yes, there have been exceptions; but that's exactly what they are: _exceptions_.) Even _Star Trek_ and _Star Wars_ were things which had been long-since done in the literary sf market; good grief, Star Wars harks all the way back to the sf of the '20s and '30s! How about some things that at least touch on the type of tales being told in the '60s and '70s... a little New Wave wouldn't hurt, nor would some of the "classic" sf tales of the period, whether it be adaptations of existing stories or things in the manner of. I mean, I can't even imagine them tackling something as relatively simple and space-opera-ish as Harlan Ellison's *The Man with Nine Lives *(a.k.a. The Sound of a Scythe; 1960)... yet it could be a visually stunning piece with a fair amount of intelligence and a moral compass to it, as well... and many of the issues it revolves around are very much relevant today!

Or, if that's too recent, how about a film adaptation of a *Canticle for Leibowitz*? Difficult, yes, but by no means impossible.... Or Bester's *The Stars My Destination*? Or, as I mentioned, at least getting some writers who are familiar enough with these and other offerings of the field to actually broaden the spectrum a good deal. Think of the sheer _volume_ of sf which hasn't even been touched thematically, let alone in the sense of actual adaptations. It isn't as if we haven't had writers in the field who haven't written screenplays (and some damn' fine ones, at that).

But as long as people continue to settle for the eye candy and mindless explosions and chases; the unnecessary violation of physics of even a high-school level; the complete abrogation of thought-provoking, well-developed tales wherein the sort of thinking which the best science fiction and fantasy is evoked; cardboard or stereotypical characterization; rehashes/remakes/"re-imaginings"/regurgitations of old movies, television series, comic books, ad infinitum, ad nauseam... then we'll generally keep getting the sort of tripe which has too often been handed to us on a gilted paper platter.....


----------



## Scifi fan (Apr 20, 2010)

District 9 was very good, and it shows the potential for independents to provide meaningful entertainment.


----------



## J-WO (Apr 21, 2010)

j. d. worthington said:


> Or Bester's *The Stars My Destination*? Or, as I mentioned, at least getting some writers who are familiar enough with these and other offerings of the field to actually broaden the spectrum a good deal. Think of the sheer _volume_ of sf which hasn't even been touched thematically, let alone in the sense of actual adaptations. It isn't as if we haven't had writers in the field who haven't written screenplays (and some damn' fine ones, at that).



I'd like to see the BBC (Probably utilizing the  Doctor Who crew or the Life On Mars people) take *TSMD* on as a 3-6 part series. Bit of a daydream of mine.

And what about Brunner? *The Sheep Look Up* and *Stand On Zanzibar*- in terms of structure-  are almost templates for shows like *BSG* and *Lost* with their ensemble casts and many intertwining threads.


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 21, 2010)

What would be the new ideas permeating literary Sci-fi?
I'm very interested in the concept of creating a twilight zone-esque TVv series with different stories every week. I have been reading a lot of new Sci fi short stories and most of them would be pretty hard to pull off visually (without a lot of SFX) but I was looking at the 75 word story competition and I thought a few of those ideas could be transfered to the screen without too much fuss. 
Maybe a series of very short 10 minute productions that utilise the creative ideas of the Chrons wouldn't be impossible.


----------



## Dave (Apr 21, 2010)

Moonbat said:


> I was looking at the 75 word story competition and I thought a few of those ideas could be transferred to the screen without too much fuss.
> Maybe a series of very short 10 minute productions that utilise the creative ideas of the Chrons wouldn't be impossible.



The Chronicles You Tube Challenge?


----------



## Scifi fan (Apr 21, 2010)

How about a TV series based on Spider Robinson's Callahan's Crosstime Saloon and modelled after Cheers?


----------



## Connavar (Apr 21, 2010)

J-WO said:


> *Dave*, what you say about established authors I heartily agree with (and I'm not usually one for hearting)- afterall, _The Wire_ had some novelists as scriptwriters. At least that's what I heard on Radio 4.



That would save SF in tv medium.  Having rated writers who know how to write SF ideas that are new,characters,worlds.  Much better than it would be than watching Stargate Universe by a tv writer hack....

The Wire worked because many writers was kind of experts.  David Simon a journalist/novelist from Baltimore/Washinhton Area,many rated crime writers that was famous for urban crime stories.  Ed Burns a Baltimore cop....

Thats is what is needed for SF tv shows.  People from SF backround and not come from writing Beverly Hills or something.


----------



## ctg (Apr 21, 2010)

Connavar said:


> Thats is what is needed for SF tv shows.  People from SF backround and not come from writing Beverly Hills or something.



What qualifies these people over the normal screen-writers? Is a best-selling series or does someone with few short stories under the belt does the trick?


----------



## Ursa major (Apr 22, 2010)

j. d. worthington said:


> The thing is, this isn't exactly a new trend. SFF in the visual media of film and television has _almost always_ lagged quite a bit behind what is going on literarily...


Today's TV can even lag behind TV shows of decades ago.

I say this after having seen the first episode of the remake** of _The Prisoner_.




** - If that's the right word.


----------



## j d worthington (Apr 22, 2010)

Ursa major said:


> Today's TV can even lag behind TV shows of decades ago.
> 
> I say this after having seen the first episode of the remake** of _The Prisoner_.
> 
> ...


 
It isn't. What the right word is would probably get me banned from the site.... 

ctg: I'm not Connavar, but I'll take it upon myself to answer the question ... or what I think your question is. If I am correct, you were asking what makes people from the sff field more qualified than normal screen writers (correct me if I'm wrong). Well, there are a few things:

A.) Many people who have dealt with sff in the visual media have told the same story, whether it be J. Michael Straczynski, Harlan Ellison, Herb Solow, D. C. Fontana, Charles Beaumont, Richard Matheson... pick a name. But the essence of it is that the idea of most producers/directors/screen writers who _aren't_ from the field have an attitude which can be summed up in one line (which, as I recall, was a direct quote from one such producer): "It's sci-fi; it doesn't have to make sense". (Yet another reason I hate and despise the term "sci-fi" -- or "skiffy", as it has been pronounced: the very terminology degrades the field from something with intellectual integrity to a tasteless, tacky melange of stereotyped imbecilities.)

B.) Science fiction -- at least good science fiction -- requires that you be at least reasonably scientifically literate in order to tell the story. You may tell that story in such a fashion that even a nit who knows next to nothing about science can understand and enjoy it (even the science), but the writer has to be aware of what is going on in the various branches of science, and be at least reasonably familiar with much of the history of science; and the more they are up on the "cutting edge" of what is going on in the various fields, and have a fairly good grounding of the theory and some of its ramifications, the better the science fiction they write is going to be. The bulk of screen writers (like the bulk of most people in any profession except, perhaps, science) are woefully ignorant of such; and even where they are aware, it is generally in the fields of medicine or forensics, where the things they are dealing with are also the sorts of things which make the daily papers.

C.) Most writers within the field are at least reasonably aware of the sorts of stories which have been told already, and tend to steer away from recovering the same ground... or at very least of plagiarizing others ideas. Such is by no means true of the usual screen writers, who deal in little else but rehashings of stories which have been done to death, and still see science fiction as it was 30, 40, or 50 years (or even longer)ago. It tends to be on the level of a screen writer coming to a producer and saying: "I've got this really great idea for a TV movie! Y'see, there's this medical student, and he has this idea of making a man...."

(There is actually a story that someone -- Ellison, if I remember correctly -- tells that isn't all that far from such a scenario. It appears that this head-of-development had one of her writers come to her in a white heat of excitement about this dynamite idea he had, something which was sure to pull 'em in and keep 'em glued to the screen, etc., etc., etc. Excited, she asked him what the idea was. His response: "We do *The Wiz*... white!")

At any rate, these are some of the things which make writers from the sff field more qualified. The things which keep them from being qualified largely center around an ignorance of the proper way to write scripts or how to judge what in a script takes how much time onscreen (something very important to know), and how to deal with the visual media... but no few writers in the field have managed the transition, and often quite well. The resulting scripts from such, if you'll compare them to their contemporaries who were not from the field, tend to stand head-and-shoulders (hell, all the way down to the knees!) above their competitors....


----------



## Urien (Apr 22, 2010)

TV and movies suffer from the same problem, and that's making money. Spend a fortune on something shiny and new, say an adaptation of The Culture or Bas-Lag novels, and your career is suddenly flapping in the wind. If you build it they will come... unfortunately that's rarely the case.

The counter to this is the randomness of TV and audiences, sometimes something different takes off and becomes a big money spinner. Sometimes you win the TV lottery, but you've got to be in it to win it.

So the logical response to staying in business and in career is to put out the big fat same as, same as guaranteed pseudo-soap speculative fiction, and leaven the schedule with the odd, odd show, which might garner a following and become the next X-Files. If it doesn't take off then kill it quickly and spin the wheel again, (see Firefly).


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 22, 2010)

This is a very interesting discussion and due to recent changes in my employment situation I am considering producing a Sci-Fi (skiffy) TV program. 

I am a bit worried after Jd's post about having to know science, as I only have a layman's understanding of even the most basic of scientific principles, but I have a love of everything sci-fi and really love writing and creating stuff.
So in order for my Sci-fi Tv project to have any chance of getting off the ground 

(without the use of the word anti-gravity) I feel I need to embrace new sci-fi concepts and attempt to write some episodes relating to them. That's where you lot come in.  
What are the best recent Sci-fi developments in literature?

I am looking to write ten episodes (maybe not write them all myself if anyone is interested) that are unrelated to each other, each one focusing on a recent (not 50 years old) development in the field of Sci-Fi. 
I think (as JD mentioned) that it is the handling of thse ideas that is most delicate, it's one thing to write a story about the use of MRI scans to detect lies, but its another to write it in such a way that it truly explores man's need to lie and his desire to be lied to, or should that be man's desire to lie and his need to be lied to? 

I may open another thread in workshop to address this idea more fully. (so no need to move it moderators)


----------



## Rodders (Apr 22, 2010)

I don't have a problem with any Sci-fi on either TV or film. i don't fancy it, i won't watch it. I do miss SF set in space though. The last genuine one we had was BSG and that's been off our screen for a while now. 

Where are the B5's, the Farscapes and the ST: TNG's?


----------



## Connavar (Apr 22, 2010)

j. d. worthington said:


> It isn't. What the right word is would probably get me banned from the site....
> 
> ctg: I'm not Connavar, but I'll take it upon myself to answer the question ... or what I think your question is. If I am correct, you were asking what makes people from the sff field more qualified than normal screen writers (correct me if I'm wrong). Well, there are a few things:
> 
> ...




B and C is the most important thing.   It has to feel like a SF story where you create the human drama around a SF idea or element.  The setting or an actual science real or not.  SF are failing on tv these days because they are soap opera dramas in the disguise of SF too often.

C is the reason i want to see SF writers writing tv shows, they know what has been written before and what new ideas might grap us as the old ones.  Right now it feels like its the same old SF story over and over again on TV.


----------



## J Riff (Apr 23, 2010)

What J.D. said. 
 Plus - It's .._irritating_ to watch some of the newer sciFi because of the _effects._ They have this amazing effects now.. even by the time of the Starship Troopers movie I noticed how they could really do a lot of things, and attempt sciFi stories which were previously considered unmakeable - as Starship Troopers was thought to be ... but _NO_. Ten million on effects and ten bucks on the script. 
 Why they don't utilize classic SciFi stories, or hire genuine SciFi writers, I can't imagine.


----------



## Moonbat (Apr 23, 2010)

I think the concensus is that writing for TV is a serperate skill from writing for books and novels, and there is no doubt that it is. TV is a visual medium, there is much less scope for internal dialogue (within the person's head) and so any themes or internal conflict need to be expressed visually. That's not to say that SF writers (of books) are incapable to transfering their skills to the small (or big) screen its just that the prodcution companies feel safer if the screenplay is handled by those used to writing for the visual medium.
I think JD's strongest point is the required scientific knowledge. George Lucas created Starwars which is a classic of film but it is obivous he didn't really have a full understanding of the scientific restrictions. But then fiction is just that; fiction.


----------



## J-WO (Apr 23, 2010)

One inherent problem might be that SF shows are, by their very nature, mostly expensive.  Therefore, the people allowed to make them must have a proven track record which will almost entirely be mainstream stuff, because SF and Fantasy couldn't have been their debut material (See first sentence). A bit of a Catch 22 (Catch 11 1/2 at least) that prevents true SFF talent from acquiring television's SFF slots.


----------



## nebsmith (May 27, 2010)

Sorry if I'm lowering the tone here, but I have a solution to this problem.

Give Joss Whedon lots of money and let him make anything he wants.


----------



## j d worthington (May 27, 2010)

nebsmith said:


> Sorry if I'm lowering the tone here, but I have a solution to this problem.
> 
> Give Joss Whedon lots of money and let him make anything he wants.


 
Errrr... no offense -- I mean, I like a fair amount of what Joss has done and all, but... let's not forget that the *Alien: Resurrection* script has his name on it....

Alien: Resurrection (1997) - Full cast and crew


----------



## J-WO (May 28, 2010)

In some respects, that film looks like an exceedingly expensive pilot for _Firefly_.


----------



## Connavar (May 28, 2010)

Moonbat said:


> I think the concensus is that writing for TV is a serperate skill from writing for books and novels, and there is no doubt that it is. TV is a visual medium, there is much less scope for internal dialogue (within the person's head) and so any themes or internal conflict need to be expressed visually. That's not to say that SF writers (of books) are incapable to transfering their skills to the small (or big) screen its just that the prodcution companies feel safer if the screenplay is handled by those used to writing for the visual medium.
> I think JD's strongest point is the required scientific knowledge. George Lucas created Starwars which is a classic of film but it is obivous he didn't really have a full understanding of the scientific restrictions. But then fiction is just that; fiction.



There is proof against that.  There have been many writers who have won script awards,being nominated for Oscars,Emmy,Golden Globe.

If famous crime writers can bring thier knowledge,skill to crime tv,films why cant SF writers ?

Lets face most SF authors dont know alot about science excpet the ones that came from science schooling before writing.  Its the knowledge about how to write a story in SF setting that makes valubable to tv,film medium.


----------



## nebsmith (May 28, 2010)

j. d. worthington said:


> Errrr... no offense -- I mean, I like a fair amount of what Joss has done and all, but... let's not forget that the *Alien: Resurrection* script has his name on it....


Yes, OK, I'd forgotten that. But I've almost managed to forget the whole film as well.


----------



## clovis-man (May 30, 2010)

Connavar said:


> If famous crime writers can bring thier knowledge,skill to crime tv,films why cant SF writers ?


 
Good point, Conn.

Once upon a time it did happen. I recently watched a couple of the last stories from *The Outer Limits* (the original series). The authors were Clifford Simak and Jerry Sohl.

Of course, even Harlan Ellison was involved in "The City on the Edge of Forever" from the *Star Trek* initial season. But even though it won a Hugo, it was a production nightmare. However, with many production issues resolved via CGI, it should be easier for writers, I would think.


----------



## ScottSF (Oct 13, 2010)

Scifi fan said:


> It's nothing new. All I see are the stale ideas of time travel, alternate realities, altered time lines, hostile aliens, benevolent god-like allies, half-naked female models, and, of course, the shoot-em-ups.
> 
> I know there are allegedly no new stories, but I'm wondering if there's any way to revive our beloved genre.



I agree with you and these are some of the reasons I've found Stargate Universe so Refreshing.  It definitely breaks out of some of these redundant tropes.  Maybe not entirely but there is a sense of wonder that I haven't gotten from some of these shows that are all about space war.


----------



## Steve Jordan (Nov 23, 2010)

Two major problems with trying to "raise the bar" of SF TV and movies are the facts that producers/studios are in it to make money, and audiences have demonstrated that they will pay for action-packed, no-story productions.  

Look at the famous "every even _Star Trek_ movie" formula, and you see movies with minimal stories, lots of often-mindless action, and huge box offices.  Look at the big seasonal blockbusters, and we see a lot of action and minimal story... and huge box office receipts.  Look at the TV series that have been successful--_Star Trek_, again, during any of its iterations and during desperate season-long battles--_Galactica_--while programs like _Firefly_ languished, and humor-adventure programs like _Eureka_ and _Warehouse 13_ seem to get nowhere.

So we can't just blame the producers... we have to shoulder a lot of the blame ourselves... we're not supporting the intelligent stuff, we're munching popcorn and happily soaking up the action stuff.  Then we blow off movies like _Solaris_ and _Moon_.  I hate to say we deserve what we get, but...


----------



## J Riff (Nov 24, 2010)

JD has nailed it.
..these Hollywood people...sigh* ...are often similar to a spoiled 14-year old, no exaggeration. I've talked to a few, involved in these big projects, say AVP..and it's hopeless. They really and truly have come up in a wealthy self-centered world , where they don't have to ever grow up...and it's all a big game. If they don't have the ability to do something themselves, they pay someone then do what they want with it.
 HEY ! Why don't we make the aliens...infect that pregnant woman. That would be really gross! We could have a bunch of them pop out of her stomach! Cool!
 It's really at that level. Everyone complains about it and they are right to. These people actually think it's their job to..I dunno..'push the envelope'.. or whatever nonsense it is they believe. So really, a lot of what we see may as well be made by spoiled kids - cleaned up a bit based on the demographics of course. 
 Could any one of us walk in there and do a better job, with all the resources at
our behest? Probably, yes!


----------



## Toby Frost (Nov 24, 2010)

Well, there's a few factors, I suspect, but for me the problem is as often as not bad and lazy writing. I've seen some SF that really would be outwritten by a computer game plot. The whole questioning, challenging element of SF is often replaced on the screen by a sort of special-forces-on-the-moon that makes Warhammer look like _Das Boot_.* There are exceptions, and some are done much better than others, but still...

Speeches in SF blockbusters are beginning to become a pet hate of mine, especially the ones written by randomly choosing nouns from Churchill and/or the Constitution. "Today, we stand together as brothers, to face the first darkest dawn of mankind's new hour! An hour of madness. An hour of fear. An hour of liberty. I say never! Never shall humanity fight to allow our freedom not to be stolen from us..." Yawn. If you're not Shakespeare and you're not doing it for laughs, please don't put speeches in.

*In fairness I should add that daft, big-budget war films of the _Where Eagles Dare_ variety, where our chaps kill thousands of baddies and war is more fun than it is hell, aren't and probably can't be made any more. I think SF has taken over this role to a certain extent, as per _Aliens_ and _Starship Troopers_, neither of which is bad.


----------



## Dundalis (Dec 11, 2010)

The issue with a sci-fi tv show isn't what the show is, it's who's doing it. Get HBO or Showtime to do a sci-fi show and it will be quality. HBO are doing fantasy in a Game of Thrones, so it's not out of the realms of possibility that one or the other may pick something up in the future.


----------



## Jeffbert (Dec 26, 2011)

Moonbat said:


> I think the concensus is that writing for TV is a serperate skill from writing for books and novels, and there is no doubt that it is. TV is a visual medium, there is much less scope for internal dialogue (within the person's head) and so any themes or internal conflict need to be expressed visually. That's not to say that SF writers (of books) are incapable to transfering their skills to the small (or big) screen its just that the prodcution companies feel safer if the screenplay is handled by those used to writing for the visual medium.
> I think JD's strongest point is the required scientific knowledge. George Lucas created Starwars which is a classic of film but it is obivous he didn't really have a full understanding of the scientific restrictions. But then fiction is just that; fiction.


I think that films must have appeal that goes beyond science-fiction enthusiasts, and this is one of the problems or factors that limits what stories are chosen for film adaptations. Granted, I do not know of any science fiction stories that are so much about the science as they are about characters who must live in the scientific cultures themselves. Was *FRANKENSTEIN* about the science or about the abandoned child/creature? I have *FRANKENSTEIN... A NORTON CRITICAL EDITION*, and this was the focus of my class *CRITICAL APPROACHES TO LITERATURE* that opened my eyes to the vast number of interpretations. 

Yet, there may be some, perhaps many who would not even consider watching a sci-fi or fantasy film. Filmmakers may hesitate to invest big bucks in stories that though they are essentially about the characters, are just too involved with the high-tech gadgets that they may scare away many who might otherwise enjoy them. Novels can take time to ensure that readers grasp the important aspects of the technology, while films often must assume that viewers will figure-it-out on their own. 

I do not recall *BLADERUNNER* explaining much other than the empathy test, all the other high-tech stuff was just there; you simply had to accept it. Likewise, *STAR TREK* immersed us in a world of technology that was assumed to be sufficiently comprehensible to viewers. We did not need to know about the transporters other than their purpose; a few inherent problems that could occur under certain circumstances were introduced as plots required them. But, who would have imagined that a guy could be split into a Jekyll & Hyde pair? In a story involving automatic weapons, if one should jam on a bad round, though we may never have heard of this before, it does not seem so much like *deus ex machina* as does the transporter malfunction, or the phaser overload, though we may readily accept both as we watch them for the 1st time. 

I think *STAR WARS* at least the 1st 2 made did a better job on this than *TREK*. I really cannot recall any instances of *deus ex machina*, though there may be some. The story itself is an archetype, or so some say, and though the technology was just as impressive as  *TREK*'s, I cannot call to mind any device failing in such a way as to be so unexpected as Kirk splitting into 2. 

Moonbat says, films cannot get inside the characters' thoughts as novels can, but this is not specific to the sci-fi genre. I recall several instances of characters 'thinking' depicted as hearing their voices but not seeing their lips move. Cartoons can get away with thought balloons depicting their thoughts, but serious stories would shy away from these.  Though awkward, it can be done, instances of the current scene dissolving away as the characters' visualizations of thought solidify may be few, they may seem to detract from the action, but they are possible.


----------

