Sci-Fi: Too Much Information?

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.

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.

fedorable1 said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Go with the level demonstrated in Example A.

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

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

James D. Macdonald said:

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.

Click to expand...

Something interesting regarding FTL can be found in this article about the Alcubierre drive, but of course even then it's impossible for us today to know how it would work - if at all.

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.

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!"

David Brin does it beautifully in his novel The Uplift War. Click here 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.

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.

Not how much, but how

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.

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...

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?

brokenfingers said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

sunandshadow said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Amen, Bill.

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

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