Amusing, but true: If all stories were written like science fiction stories

[Joshua Jones]

I found this today, and while I found it quite amusing, I think it does make a good point about ensuring we present our setting in a way that is realistic to the character. I know this is something I need to be careful of as well.

http://archive.is/9HERI

 

[tinkerdan]

I think the title should be If all stories were written poorly.

I get the notion that is being highlighted here in that there is overt description of mundane things that would easily be ignored in fiction because--well they are mundane things.

However the effort is fraught with poor writing. (And in truth the things in science fiction are not mundane to the reader and might in some case require some explanation. However these can be presented with good writing.)
'what do you mean poor writing?'
Well just listen.

Ann had changed into her travelling outfit, which consisted of a light shirt in polycarbon-derived artifical fabric, which showed off her pert figure, without genetic enhancements, and dark blue pants made of textiles. Her attractive brown hair was uncovered.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I often workshop in first then write in third. Helps get a deeper connection between character and location. I think this author might benefit from that.

But also, what @tinkerdan said is very important

pH

 

[Brian G Turner]

This is such a brilliant example of over-doing it - good find @Joshua Jones .

(I've also edited the thread title, so it's more clear what it's about - and make it easier to find. )

 

[Joshua Jones]

I think the title should be If all stories were written poorly.

I get the notion that is being highlighted here in that there is overt description of mundane things that would easily be ignored in fiction because--well they are mundane things.

However the effort is fraught with poor writing. (And in truth the things in science fiction are not mundane to the reader and might in some case require some explanation. However these can be presented with good writing.)
'what do you mean poor writing?'
Well just listen.

I agree that it is not the most well written document, but it does seem to stand as a satire of our (SF writers in general, though "sci-fi" may be more accurate here...) tendency to info dump and explore the universe in a way which is out of character.

What are some of the ways you have found compelling to flesh out the setting without info dumping or having characters contemplating things in unrealistic ways? I am always looking for ideas...

 

[sknox]

Could just as well substitute "romance" or "thriller" or your genre of choice. As satire it was a bit tone deaf. Maybe the writer simply didn't like SF.

Anyways ...

I'm not sure there are compelling ways to flesh out setting. Or, there are a hundred thousand ways. The only rule of thumb I follow is that world-building never gets a whole paragraph. Setting can. There are places where it's absolutely necessary to describe a scene in some detail. One such place is to set up a scene for consequent action. You don't want to be describing the setting as your characters are fighting for their lives; at the same time, it might be vital to know the bookcase is just here, that there's only one door, that the floor is polished marble. Another such place is to set ambience; this is especially appropriate for fantasy, where readers want to hear about fantastic scenes. Here, my rule of thumb is never describe without at least one reaction. The reaction adds impact.

The standard fleshing out for SF is describing tech. To me, that's pretty analogous to the fantastic scene. It's part of why your reader picked up your story. In some cases (much more common in Golden Age SF), the rocket engine or the time machine gets described in detail because the mechanism is crucial to the story. Here again, break up the description with dialog and reactions., to give an emotional frame of reference for the reader.

I guess, more generally and succinctly: make sure to keep people in your story.

 

[Onyx]

The piece is designed to highlight the way SF focuses too much relatively insignificant details by putting those details in our world. However, if this story was about a Western couple traveling in China in 1980, it would also contain many of the same seemingly mundane details to illustrate the technological state of travel, currency, clothing mores and efficiency. And many SF works would purposely skip how the characters "caught the shuttle" or purchased something.

It is a fair warning against bad writing in general, but does have the stank of someone who hates SF.

 

[Phyrebrat]

I agree with @Onyx

I’ve never read a Sf that’s been that mundane and we can all write thusly on things long in our past and make it seem irrelevant. If this author were to cast this passage in 2120 and rewrite it, it’d be more compelling.

Also, if you hate a genre, why waste time bashing it? Just avoid it.

pH

 

[Joshua Jones]

The piece is designed to highlight the way SF focuses too much relatively insignificant details by putting those details in our world. However, if this story was about a Western couple traveling in China in 1980, it would also contain many of the same seemingly mundane details to illustrate the technological state of travel, currency clothing mores and efficiency. And many SF works would purposely skip how the characters "caught the shuttle" or purchased something.

It is a fair warning against bad writing in general, but does have the stank of someone who hates SF.

You are probably right about the intentions of the author, though I think the example you gave of the Western couple in China may more accurately represent a "fish out of water" situation. At least in my mind, one would expect the couple to notice things in such a setting, as they are in a new experience and taking things in. It would seem that, if done correctly, this could be a very effective means of describing the world without breaking character, though it may be overused at this point.

But, I agree with you that many SF writers don't do exposition nearly to the degree it is expressed here (but, it is satire, so...), and other genres do the same. I just found this amusing because it satirizes something I can fall into when I am not careful.

 

[Joshua Jones]

Could just as well substitute "romance" or "thriller" or your genre of choice. As satire it was a bit tone deaf. Maybe the writer simply didn't like SF.

Anyways ...

I'm not sure there are compelling ways to flesh out setting. Or, there are a hundred thousand ways. The only rule of thumb I follow is that world-building never gets a whole paragraph. Setting can. There are places where it's absolutely necessary to describe a scene in some detail. One such place is to set up a scene for consequent action. You don't want to be describing the setting as your characters are fighting for their lives; at the same time, it might be vital to know the bookcase is just here, that there's only one door, that the floor is polished marble. Another such place is to set ambience; this is especially appropriate for fantasy, where readers want to hear about fantastic scenes. Here, my rule of thumb is never describe without at least one reaction. The reaction adds impact.

The standard fleshing out for SF is describing tech. To me, that's pretty analogous to the fantastic scene. It's part of why your reader picked up your story. In some cases (much more common in Golden Age SF), the rocket engine or the time machine gets described in detail because the mechanism is crucial to the story. Here again, break up the description with dialog and reactions., to give an emotional frame of reference for the reader.

I guess, more generally and succinctly: make sure to keep people in your story.

You know, one of us should write something satirical like this making fun of other genres... Maybe @Phyrebrat can take "If Everything was Written as Thriller", I might be able to take on Romance (I am thinking a trip to the fast food restaurant or grocery store)...

Oh, and yeah, great advice about not being a boring writer!

 

[Onyx]

You are probably right about the intentions of the author, though I think the example you gave of the Western couple in China may more accurately represent a "fish out of water" situation. At least in my mind, one would expect the couple to notice things in such a setting, as they are in a new experience and taking things in. It would seem that, if done correctly, this could be a very effective means of describing the world without breaking character, though it may be overused at this point.

But, I agree with you that many SF writers don't do exposition nearly to the degree it is expressed here (but, it is satire, so...), and other genres do the same. I just found this amusing because it satirizes something I can fall into when I am not careful.

One of the two characters in the story is a fish out of water who has clearly never traveled by plane and has only heard a little bit about it. SF characters don't express surprise about their travels taking as long as they knew they would.

 

[Joshua Jones]

One of the two characters in the story is a fish out of water who has clearly never traveled by plane and has only heard a little bit about it. SF characters don't express surprise about their travels taking as long as they knew they would.

Agreed. Like I said, it isn't a perfect satire, but I find myself drifting into unrealistic descriptions on occasion.

Another way to look at this is Roger is mansplaining the whole time, and Ann takes a passive-aggressive swipe at him with the hub comments. That actually makes the story make a little bit of sense...

 

[tinkerdan]

It's really quite simple.
Write well.
What this might look like is that when you read it back out loud it reads well and doesn't stumble you up or pull you out of the story. If it does either then you should yank it out and try again.

There are two possibilities with the author of this article. One is that he went out of his way to pick the best ways to pull people out of the story to make a point. The other is that he is simply a poor writer.

He is a professed satirist so there is that--however it's difficult to tell by the presentation of this that he might actually enjoy science fiction and is trying to make a living off of selling advice on world building and language building for fantasy writers. In my feeble mind, he's done a disservice to both the genre and himself(I think while trying to jest), so I'd not advise anyone doing something similar about any other genre.

 

[awesomesauce]

But, I agree with you that many SF writers don't do exposition nearly to the degree it is expressed here (but, it is satire, so...), and other genres do the same. I just found this amusing because it satirizes something I can fall into when I am not careful.

Well I think it's funny! All my first drafts are like this.

Even while I'm writing them, I'm thinking "No one cares how the train system works. No one cares how they handle cash withdrawals." I just write it down because I'm making it up as I go along, and until I get there, I don't have any idea how the train system or banking works either. (Later I'll go back and cut it.)