Extremely Technical Descriptions

ghagler

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2015
Messages
72
Reaction score
4
Location
Georgia, USA
Hey! So i'm curious to know y'all's opinions on this matter: say you have a mechanism for an explosion which, if you attempted to explain it fully, would be very long and technical. However, you can set it up much shorter and briefer - most readers will understand it and be fine with it - but with a trade-off: experts in that field will call you out because that normally doesn't work. It only works because of [insert long technical explanation] which you didn't include, because no normal reader cares about it.

I know one answer is: "don't include an explosion which requires this long technical explanation to appease experts!" But i'm including it. So, more importantly: would you, as a reader, care if I went with the short, brief explanation? Context: it's about how a plane explodes while re-fueling. It's scientifically sound, but not normal and would require in-depth technical explanation to describe why. But I just list the basic mechanism and go with it.
 

zclesa

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 11, 2014
Messages
164
Reaction score
6
Location
London
Website
www.bethburgess.co.uk
Is there any middle-ground? I wouldn't mind reading something technical if it was well-written. Could you break it up or make it more interesting with bits of dialogue, character reactions, metaphor?
 

Tazlima

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,042
Reaction score
1,494
I wouldn't worry about the science behind it as long as you accurately depict the basic actions.

Let's say you're describing the process of making a phone call. You pick up the phone, flip it open, (flip phones are fun), and dial the number.

That's plenty of information for your readers. Actually, it's probably too much, being super-boring, but you get the idea. There's no need to explain how the electronics within the phone work, or how the signal travels, etc.

Now let's use the same scenario using an unusual method.

You pick up the phone, snort a booger onto the screen, and, voila, the call is placed.

Assuming booger-calls were a real thing, you'd still be fine. Non-technical readers would go "weird" and the curious might hit Google to see if it's really possible. Experts, on the other hand, will recognize it immediately and gleefully dance around exclaiming, "OMG! She mentioned the ultra-rare booger call! That's awesome!"
 
Last edited:

ghagler

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2015
Messages
72
Reaction score
4
Location
Georgia, USA
@zclesa: Well, it'd still be long. The basic mechanism for the explosion is explained, but there are various countermeasures usually taken to stop said mechanism. While I could go through each countermeasure, it'd be long. So far, i'm just going with a summary statement that the countermeasures won't work without explaining each.

@Tazlima: a good point. I'll have to see if there's a way to depict that in a good balance...
 
Last edited:

cbenoi1

Banned
Joined
Dec 30, 2008
Messages
5,038
Reaction score
977
Location
Canada
Does the plot relies on a detailed explanation of the mechanics of a plane exploding?

AKA

Hal looked like he was going to throw the Navcom across the room, but instead he tried a new tack.
"Navcom, if I cross the battery wires, would you explode in a raging fireball or just go phut?"
"What kind of question is that?"
"I'm thinking of turning you into an improvised hand-grenade."
"And I'm thinking you can phut yourself."
- 'Hal SpaceJock 4: No Free Lunch', Simon Haynes


-cb
 

Tazlima

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,042
Reaction score
1,494
@zclesa: Well, it'd still be long. The basic mechanism for the explosion is explained, but there are various countermeasures usually taken to stop said mechanism. While I could go through each countermeasure, it'd be long. So far, i'm just going with a summary statement that the countermeasures won't work without explaining each.

@Tazlima: a good point. I'll have to see if there's a way to depict that in a good balance...

Maybe you could explain just one of the countermeasures and why it won't work, then cover the rest with a broad statement along the lines of, "similar steps have been taken to handle the other countermeasures." That way, you could cherry-pick the most interesting bits.
 

ghagler

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 28, 2015
Messages
72
Reaction score
4
Location
Georgia, USA
@cbenoi1: it's how some people are murdered: villain activates the mechanism and the plane explodes. I initially left it as a very simple explanation: villain deactivated the safety! Oh no! Explosion! But that's not how actual plane refueling works in that regard, and it'd be really sad if some readers hated the book just because I didn't adjust the mechanism a little to make it more realistic for pilots and plane enthusiasts.
 

Putputt

permanently suctioned to Buz's leg
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
5,448
Reaction score
2,980
I found THE MARTIAN really technical, but because the technical bits were explained in a really humorous voice, I didn't mind it at all. As with everything, it just depends on the execution. But at a glance, I'd say be as technical as you want, just remember to do it in a way that doesn't bore your readers.
 

veinglory

volitare nequeo
Self-Ban
Registered
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
28,750
Reaction score
2,933
Location
right here
Website
www.veinglory.com
No matter how technical a process is there is normally a "not wrong" simple way of expressing it.

One professor I know had his students explain their planned PhD topics to a class of seven-year-olds on the theory that "if you can't explain it to a smart kid, you don't really understand it well yourself".
 
Last edited:

Tazlima

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
3,042
Reaction score
1,494
One professor I know had his students explain their planned PhD topics to a class of seven-year-old on the theory that "if you can't explain it to a smart kid, you don't really understand it well yourself".

OK, that's just awesome. I'd love to watch that go down.
 

cmhbob

Did...did I do that?
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 28, 2011
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
4,834
Location
Green Country
Website
www.bobmuellerwriter.com
I can go either way.

Tom Clancy, in Sum of All Fears, I think, went into great detail about the source and construction of the nuclear weapon at the heart of the story. Likewise in Executive Orders, he spent a lot of time talking about how a nun died and how the bad guys were farming her blood for the virus. My impression was that there was much more character-level stuff in EO. It wasn't just the death of the nun, but it was about the characters involved, and how that death and what they were doing affected (or didn't) them. Most of TSOAF was just technical stuff, although I really liked it.
 

Jamesaritchie

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
27,863
Reaction score
2,311
I don't care how technical something is, you can get iot right, and still get it short. This is largely the definition of good writing.

But you really don't have to explain how it works. All you really have to do is accurately say what it is, and readers can do their own research, if so inclined. Accurate jargon is necessary. Long, detailed, technical explanations almost never are.

Be realistic, be technical, be accurate, but be fairly short. This is always possible. Tom Clancy goes on and on about technical aspects of this and that, but he seldom takes up much space with any single thing. He never lets readers forget story and character.

Maybe it all comes down to "trust your readers". Assume they know more than you do because they probably do. Readers of a given type of book love those books because a great many are enthusiasts on the subject matter. They are the experts.
 

frimble3

Heckuva good sport
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
11,574
Reaction score
6,396
Location
west coast, canada
I'd go with the shorter, less technical explanation (that's what I'd prefer to read, certainly) but, if you're really worried about complaints about the details, how about a little 'Author's Note': 'Obviously, exact details of how to blow up the plane have been omitted for security reasons.'
 

SheepDip

Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 5, 2015
Messages
71
Reaction score
5
Location
Lewes
I've always been a fan of a dialogue exchange that runs along the lines of;
Tekkie - "The engine runs on dilithium nano technologies that interact with the..."
Norm - "So it runs on science?"
Tekkie - Sigh. "Yes, it runs on science."

Sheep.