Sci-Fi: Too Much Information?

[fedorable1]

I have a question that so far has not been addressed (or at least answered) in any "how-to" novel book.

I am writing a Science-Fiction novel. What I am wondering is how much detail should I put into the descriptions of objects, vehicles, races, history, etc.? Most Fantasy novels I have read tend to begin straight into the story - ie the main character is walking down a hall or mountain, perhaps talking to a colleague, and the descriptions are minimal at the onset. Later on, more is explained. Sci-Fi can vary, from what I've seen, but I am not sure how I can convey alien planets or specific vehicles without describing them.

Perhaps an example is called for:

EXAMPLE A: Minimal Description

....Major General Peleus Korom walks quickly down the busy runway of the York Aerospace Port, surrounded by his entourage of lower-ranking officers and assistants who race to keep up. The port is crawling with Osiris-class fighters and their support craft. Like almost all Terrans, Korom has very dark features – such as his deep tan and short, brunette hair. He is not very tall, though he is muscular. He adjusts the shoulder straps of his metallic breastplate, which is engraved with a star – the insignia of the United Nations – and the metal attachments associated with his rank.
As he marches by, he is saluted by a battalion of cybernetic R.E.C.O.N. soldiers, Cyborgs who serve in the York militia. York, the Capitol of the United Nations, is sprawled in all its glass-covered glory beyond the Aerospace Port, encased in a massive dome....

EXAMBLE B: Detailed Description

....Within the great dome of the city, York is alive with people and activity. Over three hundred million citizens live in York, both Terran and otherwise. As there is no shortage of sand in the region, most buildings are completely faceted with glass. The abundance of glass structures creates a crystalline ambiance, and the city seems to radiate like a diamond in the daylight hours. The glass serves as more than an aesthetic display, as the vast majority of power generated in the city is solar. With the depletion of fossil fuels several centuries ago and the futility of hydrodynamic power, solar and wind generators remain the mainstay of Earth electrical accumulation.
The vehicles that soar about the city are no longer capable of containing rubber, due to the considerable lack of trees, and so have been designed using various lift propulsion systems in order to elevate them to their destinations. As such, York is swarming with elevated vehicles of every make and model.
There is one sector of the city, however, that civilian vehicles are not allowed to roam. That is the York Aerospace Port. The immense facility is protected by an armada of R.E.C.O.N. soldiers, half-human Cyborgs wielding substantial weaponry and programmed to defend the facility at all costs. There are no negotiations or bargains when it comes to trespassers, as all unauthorized personnel will be shot – or at the very least detained – without question. On a normal day, the base is strictly routine and organized. Today is not a normal day.
Over a hundred R.E.C.O.N. soldiers march in formation toward their designated Osiris fighter aerospace craft. The Osiris fighters are narrow, dagger-shaped craft painted in a black protective coating. The coating is not only resistant to small arms fire, but to detection by several forms of radar. One by one the Cyborgs take their places in the fighters, as they have been trained to do countless times prior. Terran technicians by the score aid them in their preparations.
Major General Peleus Korom walks quickly down the busy runway, surrounded by his entourage of lower-ranking officers and assistants who race to keep up. Like almost all Terrans, Korom has very dark features – such as his deep tan and short, brunette hair. He is not very tall, though he is muscular. He adjusts the shoulder straps of his metallic breastplate, which is engraved with a star – the insignia of the United Nations – and the metal attachments associated with his rank....

I know there are pros and cons to either approach, but as a personal preference what would you all rather see? In-depth information about history, descriptions, vehicles, etc - or very basic, plot-driven stories with brief descriptions regarding the world?

[LightShadow]

I love Frank Herbert, but he over describes, so it slows down the story. Then again, under-describing doesn't allow the reader's imagination to take over regardless. The thing about SciFi, and I used to write it, is that description is highly important because you are usually dealing in things not yet seen by mankind. However, with anything, moderation is always the key, so your task will be how to create a vivid picture without slowing down the story. Asimov, I thought was good at that, as well as Mack Reynolds. Niven and Heinlein are two other writers to read to give you an idea on how to manage description. Of course, the most magical is Ray Bradbury. He could trap you with his description before the story really got going, and then use the description to set a mood that forwards the story in ways I doubt many of us could accomplish.

[LightShadow]

Oh, and remember, back story can slow down a story, so you've got to somehow weave the back story into the fabric of the novel as dialogue, or something. Sometimes back story works, but not usually.

[kelker11]

What I am wondering is how much detail should I put into the descriptions of objects, vehicles, races, history, etc.? What would you all rather see? In-depth information about history, descriptions, vehicles, etc - or very basic, plot-driven stories with brief descriptions regarding the world?

Speaking strictly as a reader, too many details causes me to skim the text. I don't mind minor descriptions, but when writers, like Stephen King for example, spend a whole page describing the way a cloud looks, my eyes begin to cross from boredom.

Scifi and fantasy does require more descriptions than usual, but even then, some writers spend so much time describing objects that by the time you sift through all the details, you've lost interest in where the story was.

So my answer to your question is basic plot driven stories with only necessary descriptions.

[James D. Macdonald]

Only include those details that are important to the plot. Don't tell how things work; show how people use them.

If I could actually build a faster-than-light space ship I'd be off picking up my Nobel Prize. Since I'm not, any description of how one works is obvious BS and should be skipped.

[astonwest]

I assume it would be okay if it's part of the plot? In my next (hopefully) novel, the FTL system has a malfunction, at which point I explain why the ship won't let them go FTL...

[maestrowork]

I agree with UJ. Only include the bits of details if they're relevant to the current scene or if they enhance the setting of the scene, and if the settings/objects, etc. are alien to us (some out-of-this-world things). Otherwise, it bogs down your story.

IMHO, I prefer the first example to the second. The first takes us right inside the action and gives me enough details for me to visualize the scene. The second one makes my eyes gloss over everything... and if you have to explain something like FTL, slip the info in (gracefully) in dialogue or as part of the scene. Should not stop the story cold to hand us technical blah-blah.

[sunandshadow]

I like lots of description, but you have to make it palatable - instead of having whole paragraphs of description, intersperse sentences of description with sentences of action, or even better, do your description right in your action sentences or add action to your description sentences. Like:

The major general strides. The city is like a diamond. The light moves like something, and the general moves through it. Describe the general's feeling at this moment. His entourage hurries to keep up. Describe physical appearance of Terrans. They step onto the tarmac. York Areospaceport is... The general adjusts his breastplate. Describe his uniform. Cyborg soldiers climb into the fighters. Explain about cyborg fighters. Action, Description, Action, etc.

Whenever possible, mention something like the cyborgs to make the reader curious, then satisfy their curiosity by explaining, rather than tossing out explanations before they are needed. It also helps to have a sarcastic or poetic narratorial voice, to make your descriptions seem more artistic and less droning.

[black winged fighter]

I tend to be minimalist in my descriptions, relying on the second draft and beta readers to point out where just a tad more is needed. Adding description is tricky, but I have a few methods that seem to work for me, since my betas don't complain:
In a big city - a newcomer is always useful, since they will react to their surroundings. Also, someone who is so familiar with the city that they have a routine - it lets you slip in details that they've noticed over the years.
Different races - rough example; instead of describing the forty-eyed squid creature, have it talk to someone 'normal' and blink all eyes in rapid succession. Weave in race characteristics through habits and quirks.
Machines - exactly what UJ says; I usually just say what the machine is doing. It's shiny, the character will notice light. I'll use that to introduce its basic shape, and that'll be enough unless there's a specific detail that becomes important later on.

[azbikergirl]

Personally, I skim over large blocks of description when it's apparent that none of the major characters are actively involved in it. Example A would be my preference.

[reph]

Even your Example A is too much description to get the attention of readers who want to start identifying with a character immediately. That is, it's description of an impersonal kind. It has the air of coming from an invisible narrator at a great distance from the scene, like a TV host in a booth, describing the Rose Parade for viewers.

Who's looking at the general? I mean, not you, the writer, but who in the book is looking at him? Would that person have a reason to state his coloring, his build, his uniform? Would it occur to the person to give the info about the UN, the soldiers, and so forth?

[zornhau]

Go with the level demonstrated in Example A.

Example B - I took one look at it and my eyes glazed over.

[Marcusthefish]

I try to take Elmore Leonard's advice: Leave out the parts that people skim.

You may have seen this, but here's an enjoyable parody of (bad) SF that illustrates the absudity of rampant description/exposition: "If all stories were written like science fiction stories"

http://www.shrovetuesdayobserved.com/flight.html

MTF

[TMA-1]

Only include those details that are important to the plot. Don't tell how things work; show how people use them.

If I could actually build a faster-than-light space ship I'd be off picking up my Nobel Prize. Since I'm not, any description of how one works is obvious BS and should be skipped.
Something interesting regarding FTL can be found in this article about the Alcubierre drive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive), but of course even then it's impossible for us today to know how it would work - if at all.

[TMA-1]

And regarding descriptions, I think that science fiction needs more of that than other genres, perhaps, since we're often introduced to new exotic worlds and strange kinds of devices.

[Aconite]

fedorable1, the problem I'm seeing with both the examples is not that there's too much information, but how it's presented. Both are examples of what's called "infodumps"--large chunks of description or explanations dumped into the story. If you spread information out, describe things the way the characters would describe them (When you look at a bunch of soldiers, what do you think? Do you think to yourself, "Been through four years of elite training, look like every human I've ever seen"? Do you think, "Wow, they look impressive, except that one guy's shoelaces have come undone"?), and use what Jo Walton called "incluing," you can give the reader a lot of information without slowing your story or smacking the reader over the head with details that scream, "I'm writing a SF story; notice how SF all this is!"

[ChunkyC]

David Brin does it beautifully in his novel The Uplift War. Click here (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0553279718/ref=sib_rdr_ex/002-0404881-2077613?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S009#reader-page) to see Amazon's exerpt of Part One. It's a great example of how to open a scene in a science fiction novel. Note how he doesn't explain how anything works, but by the end of the first paragraph, you're there.

[clara bow]

I read on Holly Lisle's site that if you want to speed up the novel's pace, don't use as much description. If you want to slow down the pace, add more description. Or something like that.

[johnnycannuk]

I'll side with UJ on this and say that it should be important to the plot. And it shoulod be done in a natural way, which fits into the story.

I love Dashell Hammet. He is straight to the point. No BS. You get the picture. He only tells you what you need to know and nothing more.

And then there is Jack Kerouac who can paint with words a surely as Picasso can with a bush, stroking , splatting, smudging the words in graceful poetry at you until the picture is clear.

I love them both, but what they share is the story. Although they each give different amounts of description, HOW they do it and in which voice makes the description feel natural in context. You don't even realize how much or little description there is because it just flows.

It helps to avoid the "As you know Bob..." type passages as well. For this I love Robert J Sawyer - you learn more about evolution, anthropology, neanderthals and Sudbury Ontario in his book "Hominids" than in any text book. And you don't realize it because it fits naturally into the flow of the story.

[kaku]

Fedorable:

Before I respond to your question, I have one for you:

If a tree fall in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make any noise?

In the world of writng, it doesn't. Descriptions are irrelevant unless they are viewed through the eyes of one of your characters who cares about what he/she is seeing. Information is likewise irrelevant unless it affects someone in the story. Bearing this in mind, info dumps should be avoided like the proverbial plague. When something happens that affects someone in the story, that is the time to tell the reader about it IN PROPORTION to the impact it has on said individual. Do not spend multiple paragraphs describing worlds/technology if it doesn't advance your story.

That's my 2 cents worth...

[brokenfingers]

Another point to consider is that readers of speculative fiction are not like readers of romance or mystery or literary or other genres. They know going in that the writer's world is not the normal everyday world and so are more lenient when it comes to throwing down the story and not explaining every new thing as it comes along. Actually that's a part of the genre's charm for many readers.

But you must remember that they are trusting you to eventually make all things clear, not through an info dump, but through clever use of action, dialogue, character interaction etc., in other words - story.

And you'd be surprised how many things can be explained through context alone. This leaves many details to the reader's imagination. I feel one of the best things you can do is let the reader provide the inner minute details because then the story will become theirs. And thus more powerful.

Now don't get me wrong, detail is still required because it helps draw the picture in the mind's eye of the reader. But not EVERYTHING need be shown in detail.

A learned skill for a writer is the telling detail. It's kind of similar to how the eye will fill in the blanks if only part of a word or picture is shown etc. The same thing with a story and detail. Show the telling detail and the mind will fill in the rest.

Another one of the best things you can do, I think, is immediately show something new and different in your story's beginning but not fully explain it. That will intrigue a spec fic reader and make them want to keep reading to find out more about it, and isn't that a primary goal for a writer?

[sunandshadow]

Another point to consider is that readers of speculative fiction are not like readers of romance or mystery or literary or other genres. They know going in that the writer's world is not the normal everyday world and so are more lenient when it comes to throwing out the story and not explaining every new thing as it comes along. Actually that's a part of the genre's charm for many readers.

Lol, I would have said just the opposite - that reading the exposition about bizarre and intricate worldbuilding is part of the genre's charm for many readers.

[brokenfingers]

Lol, I would have said just the opposite - that reading the exposition about bizarre and intricate worldbuilding is part of the genre's charm for many readers.

The DISCOVERY of the world is the allure. Having it SHOWN to them. Not having somebody drone on and TELL every little thing about it. That's just boring exposition.

Show them the world - that's what they want.

[maestrowork]

Amen, Bill.

Show, don't tell. Even in sci-fi.

[TMA-1]

I don't think I agree that one should always show and never tell.

[maestrowork]

I don't think I agree that one should always show and never tell.

I don't think anyone said anything about "always" and "never."

[LightShadow]

Just let the reader use his/her imagination. Readers are smarter than we give them credit for. Over description can often destroy an image the reader produced.

[TMA-1]

I don't think anyone said anything about "always" and "never."
Sorry about that. When I read "Show, don't tell" I didn't realise you meant "Show most of the time, but not always."

[LightShadow]

Moderation! There's no such thing as always and never. Every rule has an exception, and every exception has a rule.

[TMA-1]

True, but this advice is one of the most common advices I've seen, and worded exactly like that too, which probably fooled a lot of people into believing that telling is bad and should be avoided.

[LightShadow]

common advice is often good advice. if it wasn't, it wouldn't be so common.

[maestrowork]

Telling is "bad" only because if overused, it's BORING -- it takes the readers out of the story and into some kind of quasi classroom lectures on architecture, sociology, psychology, or what not.

Trust your readers to make the connections. Let them experience what your characters are experiencing. That's the concept behind "show, not tell." We're not talking about absolutes here; only guidelines. The fundamental concept is "get your readers in that dream state and keep them there."

[TMA-1]

common advice is often good advice. if it wasn't, it wouldn't be so common.
Is that why common sense has gained such a popularity? :-)

Telling is "bad" only because if overused, it's BORING -- it takes the readers out of the story and into some kind of quasi classroom lectures on architecture, sociology, psychology, or what not.

Trust your readers to make the connections. Let them experience what your characters are experiencing. That's the concept behind "show, not tell." We're not talking about absolutes here; only guidelines. The fundamental concept is "get your readers in that dream state and keep them there."
True that too much of it is not good, I do agree with that of course.
Question is how much I should show through the characters and how much I have to fill in. "As you know, George..."

I did write a short story once that was only telling. Of course there were no characters in it... unless the narrator can be a character.

[maestrowork]

Watch and listen to the world's greatest storytellers. You may find your answer there.

[sunandshadow]

What, nobody here loves being told a fairy tale, listening to a lecture about some philosophic principle or bit of history you've never heard before, having a poem read to you, being serenaded...? *shrug* Personally I like reading the fake encyclopedia entries some sf books put at the beginning of each chapter, and I don't think you can find any more pure exposition than that. I think that it is important to both show and tell, using the one to reinforce the other, but using both for clarity, because some people aren't as observant, or will draw a totally different conclusion from just the showing unless you guide them with the telling.

[reph]

Too much telling and too little showing is like a TV news broadcast of the talking-heads type without the visuals.

[Richard]

I often think 'How would this be described today?'. For instance, would you say 'The steel beast roared and throbbed at his every intricate command, gutteral purrs rising from the inner-most workings of the internal combustion system that gave it life' or 'He got in the car.'

[reph]

'The steel beast roared and throbbed at his every intricate command, gutteral purrs rising from the inner-most workings of the internal combustion system that gave it life'
Richard, you have a future in erotica.

[Richard]

Yes. Lonely, lonely evenings. Sob. Sob. Sob.

[Thekherham]

I often think 'How would this be described today?'. For instance, would you say 'The steel beast roared and throbbed at his every intricate command, gutteral purrs rising from the inner-most workings of the internal combustion system that gave it life' or 'He got in the car.'

Hmmm, I don't know. I guess it depends on what type of novel it is.
If we're talking about, let's say, one of those hard-boiled private eye novels, then I think 'He got in the car' would be o.k. If we're talking about a more literary novel, well... maybe the first sentence... maybe...

[Richard]

There's a difference between atmosphere and verbosity. Clearly something like 'The rain fell remorselessly down on his fedora as he slowly froze beneath the warm light' is going to set the noirish mood better than 'He stood damply outside the off-license with a fag*', but...

Of course, you can always take the Max Payne route of writing overblown crap and pathetic attempts at romance, and then pretend you were joking all along.



(* Note: Cigarette)

[ChunkyC]

Even details of how things work can be 'dumped' if done so in context with the story instead of reciting it like a grocery list.

Captain Steeljaw thumbed the power on his blaster, felt the tiny metal teeth of the wheel embedded in its spine press into his skin, felt the tiny vibration each time it clicked: once, twice, three times....

Set to kill.

Okay, so that reads like a bad episode of the original Star Trek series, but you get what I mean. If you need to describe something, it's always a good exercise to see if you can fit the description into the action. Better to have the engineer repair a balky hyperdrive than to recite the owners manual.

[brinkett]

Of course, you can always take the Max Payne route of writing overblown crap and pathetic attempts at romance, and then pretend you were joking all along.

I can't even tell if they were joking since I couldn't follow the story...

[write4details]

Except that any attempt to apply or define that old chestnut breaks down very quickly. ESPECIALLY when talking about description.

One thing to keep in mind and get past all the people saying to keep description to a minimum is that a lot of sci-fi and fantasy readers are not graduates of writing programs...they are genre readers who revel in details of costume, technogeek specification, and weaponry.

There is no machine to tell you what to lop off, if you are good at what you do your own sensibility and style will guide you (with a few kicks and carrots).

If you have an idea who the audience for the work is (which is a good thing to have) and particularly if you are familiar with other works that appeal to that audience, you have some much more practical guidelines.

[write4details]

The vehicles that soar about the city are no longer capable of containing rubber, due to the considerable lack of trees, and so have been designed using various lift propulsion systems in order to elevate them to their destinations. As such, York is swarming with elevated vehicles of every make and model.


There is almost NO call for something like this. You are, essentially, stepping out of the story to tell it...lecturing on non-existant history. (You also lose any educated readers, who know that almost all rubber used in the U.S. TODAY is synthetic). The reason they have flying vehicles is unimportant (and it's so common a description, there is no need to justify it) UNLESS it's important to the story. In which case, it will come up in the story, not get chunked in like that.

Actually, "tell, don't show" is not a bad way to get around this very harmful tendancy towards exposition fever. The only way you can "show" it is to tell us. However, if the CHARACTERS tell us, it's part of the story.

This is not "desciption", it's exposition...and exposition that is not necessary. Anything going on should be part of the story. Setting the scene and costuming and armory is part of the story. Explaining the normal zeitgeist and reality is not.

[LloydBrown]

I have a question that so far has not been addressed (or at least answered) in any "how-to" novel book.

I am writing a Science-Fiction novel. What I am wondering is how much detail should I put into the descriptions of objects, vehicles, races, history, etc.? .


Have you heard the quote "God is in the details"?

At one point, you could get away with minimal description. That was the days of 40,000-word novels and fuzzy physics. Now, you need to describe it all. Readers expect it. Editors expect it.

Just don't lose the pace of the story in your description and follow the usual rules.

[maestrowork]

My thought is if the descriptions, details, etc. stop me from being engaged in the story or the characters, then they're too much. As the author, you need to understand what moves the story forward and engages the readers (the five senses) and what takes them out of the story.

I mean, if I say "the man fires the gun" I am leaving enough details out but I trust that the readers can supply their own imagination to tag along. Do I stop and tell them how a gun works? Do I describe the gun to the most minute details? Do I tell them the history of that gun, that model, right in the middle of the scene?

The same applies to sci-fi. Sure, the readers might not understand the technology behind a "phaser-gun" or whatever, just as they might not be familiar with a .22. If the details help the readers understand the story or the characters, then go for it, but write it so that the details are part of the action. If not, skip it.

"Show vs. tell" sometimes has to do with pace as well.

[Kate Nepveu]

Here's a link to a panel report from last year's Worldcon on exposition in SF, called "As You Know, Bob: The Positives and Negatives of Infodumps in Writing": http://noreascon4.blogs.com/live/2004/09/panel_report_as.html

[write4details]

Let me give you another example known to all...Highlander. There is never any explanation for why the weird immortal effects happen or how they work. Nobody ever finds out the origins of it, there is no science behind it.
The same holds true in Vampire books. Everybody knows all the litle rules and characteristics (built up over time by many writers) but there is no real explanation.
So you know what? They aren't necessary, because those are two really popular constellations of works.

Having more length is no excuse to slather on needless detail (better to make subplots) and more than shortness is an excuse to omit needed detail.

Like I said, look to your audience and what they like. Look to books that appeal to them. If "Lord of the Rings" or Terry Brooks spend pages describing a suit of armor or costume or mount, then it looks like a good idea.

[Richard]

Let me give you another example known to all...Highlander. There is never any explanation for why the weird immortal effects happen or how they work. Nobody ever finds out the origins of it, there is no science behind it.

Actually, they do. In Highlander 2, they reveal that the Immortals are revolutionaries exiled from Planet Zeist for going up against its evil ruler, Katana. The 'Prize' for returning home is a return trip back to Zeist.

And yes, it's exactly as stupid as it sounds. (http://www.jabootu.com/highlander2.htm)

[write4details]

Actually, I was referring to the much richer, longer, greater and better written TV series. Seen by many more people and a far superior piece of work. (Except the episode when than numnuts Lambert showed up for a cameo).

[Richard]

Weren't there several Highlander TV series? I remember at least two live action and one cartoon.

[maestrowork]

I think there was only one Highlander TV series. I might be wrong.

[maestrowork]

Let me give you another example known to all...Highlander.

Or Star Wars. No one has stopped and explained how the lightsabers work, or the force, or the Millennium Falcon, or the Death Star, or....

[Richard]

There was at least Highlander and Highlander: The Raven.

[write4details]

Yeah, the Raven was a spinoff, not a separate series. Featuring the CUTE little theif chick. I could never figure how Duncan could go through centuries of kicking her out bed. She was cute, great body, swordsperson deluxe, acrobat, VERY cool. Instead he always had a fairly lame, much less attractive series of mortal chicks. Go figure. His choice of sidekicks was a bit off, too.

[fedorable1]

Or Star Wars. No one has stopped and explained how the lightsabers work, or the force, or the Millennium Falcon, or the Death Star, or....

Well, the Force was explained. In Episode I they attributed it to the midichlorian count - or however you spell it. Basically a symbiotic bacteria that lives in all things.

As far as the technical gadgets, I agree that in the movies and most books they aren't explained - but then, there are always those "guides" that describe every nut, bolt, and widget in the Star Wars universe.

[scribbler1382]

there are always those "guides" that describe every nut, bolt, and widget in the Star Wars universe.

Those guides are written after the fact, and usually by someone other than the original author. But in the initial writing, they just write thinking "somebody in their parents' basement will figure out how this works later."

[patriciaann]

The more detailed example was a bit too much. I started to skim over it. If you could work something in between the two it will still flow well and enable you to introduce some of the descriptions needed. Some details can be added throughout as the story plays out.

[Marcusthefish]

Movie and TV SF are a separate case from written. On screen you don't need to explain how things might work because the thrill is in seeing them (nobody cares what hyperspace is, we just want it to look cool).

The thrill in written SF is more intellectual--the explanation of things is part of the entertainment. But how many intellectual (technogeek) thrills you offer depends on the kind of SF you're writing. Readers of old-school space opera would be okay with the hero shooting a blaster at the alien. If it's slightly harder SF (or just more modern space opera), the reader might like to know that the gun shoots high-explosive smart bullets programmed to seek the alien's bio-electric field. The craft is in determining what level of detail (and what specific made-up details) to include to get the effect you're aiming for.

MTF

[scribbler1382]

The thrill in written SF is more intellectual--the explanation of things is part of the entertainment. But how many intellectual (technogeek) thrills you offer depends on the kind of SF you're writing. Readers of old-school space opera would be okay with the hero shooting a blaster at the alien.

I think I only partly agree with this. For me, your stance doesn't quite go far enough. While there certainly are market segments that want the explanations, the correlation is that there are an equal number of market segments that want the story and could care less if you're using a phase-induced photonic feedback emitter or a magical flame spitting toad.


If it's slightly harder SF (or just more modern space opera), the reader might like to know that the gun shoots high-explosive smart bullets programmed to seek the alien's bio-electric field.


And for me, this isn't really science (or even pseudo-science). For me, this explanation is the kind a writer who didn't want to explain things in detail would use. With the above statement, as a reader who wants the details I'd be thinking: what kind of explosive? What's the yield? Is there radiation after the fight? What do you mean by "smart" bullet? How is it smart? Does it use MEMS or Nanotechnology or quantum mechanics or ??? How does it detect the bio-electric field? How close do you have to be to use these bullets? Yada-yada-yada.

I'm obviously being a little obtuse here, but maybe this all speaks to the idea that there's a black and white answer to this. Or maybe I'm just sitting at work at a job I hate and desperate to type anything except the words "click here" one more time. You be the judge. :)

[Richard]

And for me, this isn't really science (or even pseudo-science). For me, this explanation is the kind a writer who didn't want to explain things in detail would use. With the above statement, as a reader who wants the details I'd be thinking: what kind of explosive? What's the yield? Is there radiation after the fight? What do you mean by "smart" bullet? How is it smart? Does it use MEMS or Nanotechnology or quantum mechanics or ??? How does it detect the bio-electric field? How close do you have to be to use these bullets? Yada-yada-yada.

Mental note: Continue avoiding sci-fi books thicker than the bricks in my house without specific recommendation.

[reph]

The important thing isn't the amount of information given; it's how you give the information and whether the information helps the story. Will the reader want to know how the mechanism inside the hero's blaster works? Well, yes, if that's important because the blaster misfires in battle in a way that leads the hero to think a particular technician sabotaged it. Usually not, though.

Whose point of view does the description come from? As others have said, avoid impersonal infodumps.

[Jonny Ryan Mac]

I think the one of the minor reasons that Star Wars was such a success, is that for the first time on screen, fantasy clichés were seen in space. While not the main reason, it is a cool outlook. What did it for G. Lucas was Luke, Ham Solo and Darth Vader, not the inner workings of the lightsaber. Techno Babble is nice on occasions, but in sparring amounts and usually to a select few.

Like the ever popular Star Trek series, once in a blue while through the show, they throw in some jargon that makes no sense most of the audience. For the few that get it, I’m glad they had their daily cookies. But then, just as fast as it began, it’s over. And people like me, and the other 30 million viewers, are right back in the thick of the plot, which is right where we wanted to be in the first place.

It wasn’t the technology that sold Star Wars, it was the Characters. It wasn’t the jargon that made Star Trek the backbone of Science Fiction to the uneducated; it was the Captains and the Crew. There’s always something that will stand out to an individual, but if you look at what continually sells, its plot and characters.



As I read from Uncle Jim once, “…story trumps all.” That’s how I see it. Give me the story, not the jargon.

[Marcusthefish]

I think I only partly agree with this. For me, your stance doesn't quite go far enough. While there certainly are market segments that want the explanations, the correlation is that there are an equal number of market segments that want the story and could care less if you're using a phase-induced photonic feedback emitter or a magical flame spitting toad.



I believe most SF market segments want some technological explanation, but don't much care how "pseudo" the science is--that is, you can have a fire-spitting toad as long as it was bioengineered and nano-modified to do so. I know there's plenty of hard SF out there, and it often wins the big awards, but I think there's more of the gosh-wow stuff (if only because you don't have to have a degree to write it).

When I read SF, I want the sense of wonder that comes from watching weird, powerful characters doing amazing things in extraordinary settings. I occasionally read SF with strictly realistic, plausible science, but not as often, because I find the thrill more muted--too intellectual.

But I think this is off the topic of how much explanation is too much.

MTF

[write4details]

You're right. As I mentioned above. Then you ask...so how are you going to show something in a book without telling it and watch the same ones who smugly passed on the old quote start to scratch their heads.

A lot of these chestnuts break down really quick when the rubber meets the road. How about "write what you know"? That's a hot one, especially for sci-fi writers. Do you know what traffic is like on the inner moons of Alderboran? How Orcs keep their pants up? What CIA agents or mafiosi sound like when they talk to each other?

[write4details]

Not to signal out a particular poster, but in order to show what I mean about some of these slogans....

Do not dream - Do.
Do not imagine - Be.
Do not think - Act.

Sounds like good advice for execs, explorers, athletes, etc. Does it sound like very good advice for writers?

[SharonSA]

Even your Example A is too much description to get the attention of readers who want to start identifying with a character immediately. That is, it's description of an impersonal kind. It has the air of coming from an invisible narrator at a great distance from the scene, like a TV host in a booth, describing the Rose Parade for viewers.

Who's looking at the general? I mean, not you, the writer, but who in the book is looking at him? Would that person have a reason to state his coloring, his build, his uniform? Would it occur to the person to give the info about the UN, the soldiers, and so forth?



It may not be the point of view issue alone in Example A that makes it feel impersonal, but the use of present tense as well. As Orson Scott Card notes in Characters & Viewpoint, "Ironically...past tense feels more immediate while present tense feels more distant...."





By switching to past tense and focusing on the character's point of view rather than that of the invisible narrator that reph noted, selective description can be more easily worked into the text. In this kind of thing, showing is more effective than telling ;) :....Major General Peleus Korom strode down the busy runway of the York Aerospace Port, surrounded by his entourage of lower-ranking officers and assistants who raced to keep up. He adjusted the shoulder straps of his metallic breastplate as he walked, his fingers brushing the engraved star insignia of the United Nations. A battalion of cybernetic R.E.C.O.N. soldiers of the York militia saluted as he passed.



The port around Korom crawled with Osiris-class fighters and their support craft, but he focused on the sprawling glass-domed Capitol of the United Nations beyond the Aerospace Port.

[PattiTheWicked]

Yeah, the Raven was a spinoff, not a separate series. Featuring the CUTE little theif chick. I could never figure how Duncan could go through centuries of kicking her out bed. She was cute, great body, swordsperson deluxe, acrobat, VERY cool.
.

I never understood that either. She was fun. All his mortal girlfriends were whiny damsel-in-distress types.

Instead he always had a fairly lame, much less attractive series of mortal chicks. Go figure. His choice of sidekicks was a bit off, too.

I dunno, I still have dreams involving myself, Duncan, Methos and a big vat of Jif.

[brokenfingers]

Not to signal out a particular poster, but in order to show what I mean about some of these slogans....
Do not dream - Do.
Do not imagine - Be.
Do not think - Act.
Sounds like good advice for execs, explorers, athletes, etc. Does it sound like very good advice for writers?

Hmmm, I can't think of any better advice.

You can sit around and dream about being a writer. You can daydream about how nice it'd be to get out from that 9-5 job you hate and do the thing you really want to do - write. You can dream up all kinds of characters and worlds in your head and dream up all kinds of fascinating stories about them.

You can dream about all the cool things that'll happen if you ever get your story written and published and how if you do, you'll finally be validated and you won't have to listen to your wife or husband b!tch about how you're wasting your time and you can even dream about staying home and writing full-time.

Or you can do it. You can learn the craft, practice your writing and hone your skills until you actually create worlds and characters and events that will entrance others and make them want to pay actual money for the privilege of doing so.

You can also sit at home at night and imagine different worlds and events and characters and all kinds of things.

You can sit in front of your computer or in front of your TV or reading a book and imagine what'd it be like to be a famous author. Imagine the profound satisfaction of creating a story that others will want to read, that others will actually want to buy.

Or you can become an author.

You can think about writing and how you might do it someday when you get some time. Or buy books about writing and spend your time thinking about it.

You can sit around all day and just think about your story, think about what's gonna happen on page 150 when the evil emperor kidnaps your beloved or think about whether she has the hero's spare crystal for his galaxy-saving Mcguffin or think about whether you should make her the protagonist or the romantic lead or think about what motivated her or think about the hero's character etc.

You can spend your time thinking about if you should tell more or if you should show more or which TV show did what better than the other.

You can even join a writers forum and spend all your time thinking about writing and discussing it with others thinking about writing and their desire to write a good story.

Or you can act upon those desires and put your butt in a chair and actually write! Once it's done then you can go back - if it's too wordy, you trim it down; if it's too brief, you build it up. Etc. etc.

So, yeah - I'd say that particular saying is definitely applicable to writers. It's one I wrote for myself and have taped to the wall above my monitor. It keeps me going and when I originally wrote it, it got me off my lazy a$$ and reminded me that thinking about it and talking about it - isn't the same as doing it.

Actually, if you don't think those words can apply to every facet of anybody's life - whether it's becoming the person you want to be, finding the person you want to find or doing what you really want to do in life - whatever it is - well, there's nothing I can say here to help you here, brother.

Go ahead and dream, imagine and think about writing (or whatever) all you want.

Explorers, adventurers, athletes etc. have this in common with actual writers:

They do, they act and by doing so, they become.

[fedorable1]

Very nice, brokenfingers. Very well put.

[Marcusthefish]

Sorry to be the curmudgeon, but you can't just decide to become a selling writer. You can decide to try, to dedicate yourself to the craft. But that's just the first step. The road to finished work is not easy for most of us; and the odds are very good that we'll never sell a thing.

If you can handle that, go for it!

MTF

[Supafly]

In Science Fiction, the writer is usually dealing with environments that are alien to the reader, so one needs to describe it. I find it easier to detail the particular environment the characters are in when it is first introduced by incorporating it into the dialogue. You can make two characters riding a...hovercar for example, through a massively populated city, and say one character is visiting the area for the first time and the other is his guide, so the guide can talk about things like "Geez, the population is becoming a problem" or something of that nature and then the conversation can go into the number of buildings and their design and things like that. Not exactly like that, but something of that nature. At least it keeps the action moving, because two people are interacting rather than simply having a boring description that goes on for three paragraphs.

Description is not the enemy, just something that needs to be handled with love and care.

[hpoppink]

I personally love how Heinlein does setting in "Stranger in a Strange Land", describing things first from the perspective of Earth bound characters, then showing you the unique perspective (and confusion) of the "Martian". You get different details with each viewpoint, too, which seems a great way to color the world as you color your characters.

[sassandgroove]

First let me say I am far from the expert here. I am struggling through writing my first novel. But I read, a lot. I read Sci-Fi, I read Fantasy, I read romance (shh…don’t tell anyone) I read chick lit, I read magazines, I read the backs of cereal boxes.

As far as choosing between example A and B, I would choose A. B lost me just by its length. I sighed before I read word one. But beyond that, I would suggest what someone else in this thread has, to make it personal, make it the General’s POV. As much as I didn’t want to admit it, limiting the POV often does make a story tighter, and more quickly paced. In an early version of my novel, I switched from character to character at will, because it was EASIER. But to a reader, it can get old. Meanwhile, limiting the POV means the only information you can reveal is what your character would know or find out. This can make telling the story harder, but ultimately more interesting to the reader. I believe that is why Harry Potter is so compelling, for example. That isn’t to say you can only have one POV. LOTR doesn’t, for example, but he limits it, rather than just using any old hobbit or orc, he keeps the POV to key characters. Yes, the story is most important, but as a reader, I have grown frustrated with good stories that jump around too much.

As far as showing verses telling, I think that should apply more to the story in general. I tried reading an Anne Macaffrey story once and put it down because rather than letting the story happen, she glossed over it. The novel was 1/3 the length it could have been if she had given the story room to breath.

I don’t agree that not explaining how a hyper drive worked in a movie but not a book. I just read four Han Solo books, and it is just assumed that the ships all have hyper drives. It is also just assumed that there are moving sidewalks, blasters, and that people are identified with retinal scans. They write on flimsy, and use datapads. I filled in how all of this might look or work, as far as I needed to. No one explained in Harry Potter how wands work, or how they built the floo network, or how the owls know where to deliver letters. It is all just part of the landscape of the book. Put enough description to set the scene, but not enough to get bogged down and lose the story. You set the pace. Who are your readers? If you try to please everyone you will please no one. Write the story you want to read. My eyes glossed over while reading the detailed battle scenes in LOTR, while my husband read LOTR for the battle scenes. Yet we both read those books and display them with pride on our bookshelf. If the story is good, the readers will stick with it.

[scribbler1382]

If all stories were written like science fiction stories (http://www.shrovetuesdayobserved.com/flight.html)

[Dhewco]

Sass, writers of these books have it easier than scifi writers writing in their own worlds. People already have an idea of the universe it is in. They don't have to explain the things people have already seen work.


David

[sassandgroove]

I've never seen a navicomputer work, but I knew what it was without explanation. I think you are missing the point. Things are introduced in the story, Han enters the coordinates in the navicomputer and then hangs on as the hyperdrive kicks in. We know instantly the navicomputer is tied to the hyperdirve. It has nothing to do with the world already being built. You explain without stopping the story.

[victoriastrauss]

Sass, writers of these books have it easier than scifi writers writing in their own worlds. People already have an idea of the universe it is in. They don't have to explain the things people have already seen work.It's a common assumption that media tie-in writing is easier than writing in one's own world. I admit I used to think so. Knowing someone who writes media tie-in books has really opened my eyes. It's certainly not the same as writing in your own world--but it's not easier. It's just difficult in a different way.

- Victoria

[James D. Macdonald]

What's being lampooned there is badly written science fiction.

[ANNIE]

I once read a commentary from a well known sci-fi author, (her name escapes me at the moment,) who describes her scenes as if her readers already know the details. according to her if her readers aren't smart enought to figure what she's talking about without her explaining every little detail, she does't want them reading her book anyway. In other words don't dumb it up- respect your readers intelligence.