One of the reasons I like science fiction is because of the
bold worlds and dramatic storylines it allows.
It’s a future we see as possible but not yet having arrived, and it
helps us strive for it. We tend to think
that if only we keep on pushing ourselves as human beings and as a society,
we’ll reach the potential the story is prophesying.
While those kinds of visions are great, since the
technology used within is more advanced than what we have, we also seem to
think that we need to explain that technology, as well as the scientific
prowess that created it. Although some
generalized descriptions are fine, it starts to get tedious when we read page
after page about the inner workings of a fusion reactor, or how the design of a
starship allows creatures of different atmospheres to work side by side. Maybe some hardcore sci-fi nerds like this
kind of techno-babble, but I don’t happen to be one of them. Yes, give a general description so we can
believe it, but I bought a story to read, not a technical manual to figure out.
Why do so many sci-fi authors feel the need to delve into
descriptions better left to stereo instructions? Maybe because in our attempts to create
believable worlds, we worry that some folks won’t believe it unless we show off
how we got from A to B. Maybe it’s
because we put so much work into figuring out how our stories could be
believable that we feel we simply have to show the audience the magic behind
the curtain.
In fairness, science fiction isn’t the only genre to do
this. Fantasy worlds sometimes go into
great detail about the inner workings of a dwarven smelter, and crime dramas
will often give us step by step forensics knowledge. Perhaps I’m an outlier, needing only enough
to set the stage while the story develops.
However, I think that a story all too often gets caught up in
technicalisms that it can lose the reader.
The best science fiction doesn’t need everyone to know how to build a
particle laser. Star Trek, for example,
uses just enough techno-babble to let us know it’s really super-smart sciencey
stuff without sitting us down for a physics lecture. After all, do any of us really know anything
about that outside of Star Trek to begin with?
I think that getting too bogged down is a way of showing intellectual
insecurity. Some of us want so badly to
believe we can create the things in our worlds that we think pages of babble
that no one really understands will make us smart. What it really does is open us up to
criticism from real scientists who understand that stuff. I can attest to this from another point of
view – as a retired military officer, I always laugh when authors or shows try
to cram in military knowledge and show how little they truly understand. It makes the story less fun since I can
nitpick it to death. I much prefer
someone who demonstrates just enough to show the competence required to let us
get into the story, but who doesn’t stray off into places they don’t belong.
The story is paramount.
The fluff can help, but it runs the risk of turning off readers. Don’t sacrifice story for fluff.
No comments:
Post a Comment