SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion
Members' Chat
>
Things that scifi writers do that you hate?
Jay wrote: "Handwavium: I have on a couple of occasions had the really smart tech guy start to get into something only to realize he's losing his audience so he just says, "Okay, it doesn't really matter why or how it works, just trust me when I tell you it will. Here's the important part..." ..."
Now that is a good technique and one other writers should remember. But like all good techniques, as you say, it should be used sparingly
Jim wrote: "Now that is a good technique and one other writers should remember. But like all good techniques, as you say, it should be used sparingly "Thank you!
Jason wrote: "As a long time reader of scifi I have a few pet peeves that can put me off of an author or series.- Formulaic plot
- "Cheesy" plots
- Shark jumping
- Plot holes (I can forgive a little, but I've ..."
I agree that two-dimensional characters are a huge drawback in Sci-Fi, or many plots for that matter. It seems like more often these days, writers cant seem to develop characters who not only engage us but are full of conflict and mystery,
Oh, not difficult. Alas, there are plenty of writers that carry on far longer than they ought. A case could seriously be made that the DUNE series jumped the shark along about GOD EMPEROR OF DUNE. Robert Heinlein probably jumped the shark along about FRIDAY. Is vol. 10 of the WHEEL OF TIME series as good as vol. 1? I doubt it (but refuse to read them all).
Tannera, just like in TV, a book jumps the shark when the author breaks one of their own established world-building rules. Things like, "no Wizard can use more than 4 spells at a time" and the protagonist meets someone who can wield 7.
Terry Goodkind's a good example. He jumps at least one shark with each book. It's terrible writing.
Trike wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Since the viewpoint character saw nothing unusual about being on a space station, it made no sense to me to have him think, 'Oh, wow -- I'm on a space station! And now I must contemp..."*sigh*
Harold Ramis...
As an author, I think many other writers have forgotten that people reads books about people. All too often a scifi book serves merely as a vehicle for the author to pontificate on a favorite concept or idea. The characters are just along for the ride, barely more than observers.A good book is about how the story affects the characters, changes them. The story and its concepts have to serve that, not tthe other way around.
Ashley wrote: "Jason wrote: "As a long time reader of scifi I have a few pet peeves that can put me off of an author or series.
- Formulaic plot
- "Cheesy" plots
- Shark jumping
- Plot holes (I can forgive a lit..."
Brenda wrote: "Oh, not difficult. Alas, there are plenty of writers that carry on far longer than they ought. A case could seriously be made that the DUNE series jumped the shark along about GOD EMPEROR OF DUNE. ..."I agree with your examples, though for me the Dune series began to flag in the second book, and Heinlein went off the rails in Stranger In a Strange Land. I stuck with him and made it through Friday, but part of the way through Job I decided that the new Heinlein and I needed to part company.
Authors have the right to take their creative endeavors wherever they wish--and it is every reader's right to decide whether to follow.
A Cheesy plot can be good, it just has to be aware that's it's cheesy and blowing snark all over the place. The worst is when an author tries to pretend a cheesy plot is all serious.Having a "Brilliant" character that constantly to me seems to make stupid decisions, a way bigger issue in fantasy then sci-fi but still.
Kenneth wrote: "Tannera, just like in TV, a book jumps the shark when the author breaks one of their own established world-building rules. Things like, "no Wizard can use more than 4 spells at a time" and the pr..."
I agree that writers should maintain integrity within a series. In a larger context, however, all successful creators confront this problem: How to give your fans what they have come to expect from you, which is at the core of your success, and yet continue to progress in your art.
TV writers are especially susceptible. They begin to get bored, so they add subplots and subtexts and wander into blind alleys until the show simply dissipates. (Think "The Practice," for example.)
An extreme change in course often bewilders, if not incenses, established fans. Two examples that come to mind from musicians: Garth Brooks created a rock-star alter ego and did a rock album (which did not do well) and Pat Boone did the same with, yes, a Goth album. Hmm.
Trike wrote: "Thomas wrote: "Since the viewpoint character saw nothing unusual about being on a space station, it made no sense to me to have him think, 'Oh, wow -- I'm on a space station! And now I must contemp..."This is a problem intrinsic to medical TV shows. Every character in the operating theater is a highly trained professional, but at least one of them has to proclaim the blindingly obvious for the benefit of the audience: "But if we inject 800 ccs of curare and then sever his aorta in three places, the patient will die!"
I suspect that in the real world such expository blatherings would earn some sarcastic replies.
Doc, yeah definitely. Extreme changes tend to be poorly received. They can still succeed, IF the writing is consistent, and established world is not broken as a result. You can have characters break rules that other characters thought were fixed, but in fact, are not the laws of that universe. Once you start breaking the established laws themselves, or whatever analogue to that might exist, then the shark has been jumped and most fans will cease to continue.
Why does a captain or communications officer have to KEY the MIKE to communicate....haha...I mean come on...its like 10-4 good buddy..catch ya on the flip side..and then I fought with the stupid coil of wire and hung my CB mike on the dash and boogied on down the road!!"This is something i struggle with a bit. As somebody who has worked in a secure environment for some time, things like this make sense to me.
For example, my phone at work has a push to talk button. I have a receiver, when i want to speak i have to depress it, when i am done i let it go. It's to prevent unintended background chatter from leaking out over an open line where it can be intercepted.
This is quite common in military, intelligence and research facilities (especially in bigger corporations where patents are their lifeblood)
But as a writer, at which point does emulating the real world become a hindrance to the story?
Nick wrote: "For example, my phone at work has a push to talk button. I have a receiver, when i want to speak i have to depress it, when i am done i let it go. It's to prevent unintended background chatter from leaking out over an open line where it can be intercepted...."
For decades they've had communication devices that do the same thing electronically, without keying. It's called squelching; it suppresses extraneous noises when no one's talking directly into the mouthpiece. This should be refined to perfection by the time we install them aboard the first interstellar ships. Our future communications shouldn't have to be physically keyed.
For decades they've had communication devices that do the same thing electronically, without keying. It's called squelching; it suppresses extraneous noises when no one's talking directly into the mouthpiece. This should be refined to perfection by the time we install them aboard the first interstellar ships. Our future communications shouldn't have to be physically keyed.
Ken wrote: "Nick wrote: "For example, my phone at work has a push to talk button. I have a receiver, when i want to speak i have to depress it, when i am done i let it go. It's to prevent unintended background..."I believe battlestar Galactica addressed this during their initial season, that despite all their advances in technology, when confronted by a superior enemy at times you have to revert to previous strategies. They used wired, push to talk comms in BSG in addition to wireless, but no critical functions were sent over wireless.
in the case of a physical disconnect switch vs a squelch, well, it gets technical, but they aren't foolproof by any means. Perhaps in the future they will develop to such an extent that it won't be the case, but generally speaking there is always a bigger kid on the technology block.
Ken wrote: "Nick wrote: "For example, my phone at work has a push to talk button. I have a receiver, when i want to speak i have to depress it, when i am done i let it go. It's to prevent unintended background..."I believe battlestar Galactica addressed this during their initial season, that despite all their advances in technology, when confronted by a superior enemy at times you have to revert to previous strategies. They used wired, push to talk comms in BSG in addition to wireless, but no critical functions were sent over wireless.
in the case of a physical disconnect switch vs a squelch, well, it gets technical, but they aren't foolproof by any means. Perhaps in the future they will develop to such an extent that it won't be the case, but generally speaking there is always a bigger kid on the technology block.
Tannera wrote: "Jason, I missed your original comment. I understand shark jumping when it pertains to television. Can you please give examples of a book or series that jumped the shark?"Evan Curtis's "Oddysey One" series is a great example. A set of books focused on being scientifically sound enough that space battles include compensation for light speed perception problems and delta-v. But he ends it all by having some bullshit Gaya Mother Earth spirit garbage pull a deus ex machina. Pissed me off so badly Ill never read his work again. I also make it a point to tell others not to as well. It was an insult to his readers and the laziest writing I've ever seen.
Jason wrote: "...Gaya Mother Earth spirit garbage pull a deus ex machina. Pissed me off so badly Ill never read his work again. I also make it a point to tell others not to as well. It was an insult to his readers and the laziest writing I've ever seen..."That's not exactly jumping the shark, it's just what you said, deus ex machina, which is a real no-no and surprisingly widespread.
Just don't read the final book in Joe Haldeman's Forever War series, Forever Free. I was quite enjoying it when WHAM! The mother of all deus ex machina. In fact it was so bad that he had suddenly turned a serious SF tale into a comedy and . . .
. . . It wasn't funny.
Micah wrote: That's not exactly jumping the shark, it's just what you said, deus ex machina, which is a real no-no and surprisingly widespread."I would agree except that in a weird, and "F$#&@ you with a chainsaw, dear loyal reader" sort of way, Evans managed to both jump the shark and pull a deus ex machina at the same time. I mean it when I say that to do what he did took some thinking, and cannot be attributed to error or laziness. I would say how, but to do so would spoil the serious middle finger he gives his readers for those masochistic enough to read his work.
I wouldn't feel that strongly about it, except that as a published author myself I find I'm more (not less - surprisingly) forgiving of blunders. I know how ridiculously difficult writing fiction can be. I know how easy it is to write yourself into a corner, or miss something, or just lose your way. I also know when it's none of those things and the author just copped out, or worse - is just being flat-out disrespectful to his readers. Evans fell squarely, and inarguably into category #2.
Jason wrote: I would agree except that in a weird, and "F$#&@ yo..."
I know it's not the intention, but you're making me really curious about that book.
Being an author myself, I agree with you about how it can make a person more forgiving. I definitely notice problems more frequently, but I'm a lot better at recognizing them and ignoring. Before I did a lot of writing I think my reaction was more one of ignorant frustration. I'd dislike a story but never really be able to figure out why.
Anthony wrote: "Jason wrote: I would agree except that in a weird, and "F$#&@ yo..."
I know it's not the intention, but you're making me really curious about that book."
Trust me. Unless you want to spend a month kicking yourself for giving up a dozen or so hours of your life to reading it, don't. Take those hours and do something that will feel less like you threw a portion of your precious mortality down the toilet. Count the cracks in the sidewalk of your neighborhood,have an intellectual debate with a hillbilly, lay down in your driveway and have a friend drive over you... repeatedly, attempt brain surgery on yourself using only spoons - ANYTHING.
I'm doing this for your own good. I don't want to see you back here in a few days screaming "My God! The STUPID! It BURNS!!!!"
Sometimes, 3/4 of the way through the book, there's a horrible situation the characters are in, and they use technology X to get out of it. This is no problem unless technology X would have solved all their earlier problems really quickly, thus negating the whole plot, but technology X hadn't yet been thought up by the author.
Melinda wrote: "Sometimes, 3/4 of the way through the book, there's a horrible situation the characters are in, and they use technology X to get out of it. This is no problem unless technology X would have solved..."Ah yes, the old "I got so caught up in how clever I was in setting up my characters in a no-win scenario, that I forgot to build in the escape hatch" issue.
Either that or, I forgot to think through the implications of my Miracle Machine or Tardis or telepathic detection device.
Brenda wrote: "Either that or, I forgot to think through the implications of my Miracle Machine or Tardis or telepathic detection device."So true, so very very true.
Anthony wrote: "Being an author myself, I agree with you about how it can make a person more forgiving. I definitely notice problems more frequently, but I'm a lot better at recognizing them and ignoring..."Ha! Complete opposite of me. I'm fairly lenient in my reviews because I tend to only read things I'm predisposed to like, and I can spot where I'm disliking things because of personal preference rather than author failure...but plot holes, inconsistencies, jumping the proverbial, and downright dirty tricks by authors (deus ex machina, suddenly putting new plots or characters into the story at the end just to wrap things up--rabbit out of a hat) I don't forgive.
It's hard to keep things consistent and I live in fear of obvious mistakes I've been blind to...but those obvious ones are just really disappointing.
Brenda wrote: "Either that or, I forgot to think through the implications of my Miracle Machine or Tardis or telepathic detection device."Even Doctor Who, after 51 years of production, often fails to think through the implications of the TARDIS.
Micah wrote: "Brenda wrote: "Either that or, I forgot to think through the implications of my Miracle Machine or Tardis or telepathic detection device."Even Doctor Who, after 51 years of production, often fail..."
I'm not a Whovian myself, but a friend of mine who is referred to this once as "going Retardis".
:)
The difficulties in a serial medium, like comic books or a tv series, are great. Different writers do different things and the whole continuity issue raises its ugly head. Rare is the series that is under the control of one creator who can keep everything consistent. And then there is the whole advance of CGI and film technology; the ENTERPRISE under William Shatner is very different from the one you see in the movies today.So we have to give movies and TV a bye. It's not their fault. However, it is perfectly OK to lambaste authors, who should know better.
Brenda wrote: "Different writers do different things and the whole continuity issue raises its ugly head..."Oh, I agree that a lot of the movie/TV stuff is understandable. The new "old" ST movies look far more futuristic and advanced than any of the older TV shows or movies. Not a problem.
But continuity issues in writing for series is so predictably problematic that I'd really think there should be a keeper of the lore, so to speak. I mean film they have script supervisors who make sure the take-to-take continuity is maintained...seems more important in series to do the same for the story.
It's one of the reasons I'd never want to write for a series. I'd feel compelled to watch everything that had come before to make sure I didn't jump any dangerous sea creatures.
Clearly they do not do it -- because they don't want to. They don't want to spend the money to hire the continuity girl. Or, alternatively, a tedious clinging to continuity would affect marketing. The way the STAR WARS people have happily jettisoned continuity.
Tannera wrote: Michael, I feel an author should explain technical information once in a seri..."
I think it depends upon the series. Authors can rely upon readers to an extent when using common technologies. When it's something new that is key to the story I do think it's important to explain it. But it needs to be done in the right way, not in the character randomly explaining it to himself sort of a way.
Thomas wrote: "Michael wrote: Scifi authors love explaining stuff, as though their characters are deeply intrigued by what happens every time they press the pedal down in their speeder. Do they have these thought..."Well said :)
It is always worth going through the ms and just taking all the explanation out. What happens, if you don't tell the reader =anything=? Surprisingly, it sometimes works perfectly fine.
Ian wrote: "Mmm this could be dodgy as I wrote one and am probably guilty of some of the above... I do hope not... The thing I don't like is the non-explanation of how things work. Someone above called it hand..."
I think it depends on the story. If it's about inventing a star drive, I think some explanation is needed. If it's about using a star drive to go somewhere, how it works isn't so important. Also, an explanation of how a certain item works can often be sprinkled throughout the story instead of one big info dump. And keep in mind, some readers like a lot of that, some don't. You can't please everybody, so you have to figure out who you're writing for. I write for me, and since I've read a lot of SF I figure if I like the way it's done, the majority of readers will as well.
I think it depends on the story. If it's about inventing a star drive, I think some explanation is needed. If it's about using a star drive to go somewhere, how it works isn't so important. Also, an explanation of how a certain item works can often be sprinkled throughout the story instead of one big info dump. And keep in mind, some readers like a lot of that, some don't. You can't please everybody, so you have to figure out who you're writing for. I write for me, and since I've read a lot of SF I figure if I like the way it's done, the majority of readers will as well.
Brenda wrote: "...The way the STAR WARS people have happily jettisoned continuity...."You shouldn’t let continuity become a bugaboo, especially if you’re using the sequel to “explain” something that didn’t work in the original. Gene Roddenberry’s mini-skirts on pliable yeo-women comes to mind (being updated to Picard’s dress uniform).
We drive and don't know how the car works. We fly and not even the experts know aerodynamics that well. Why will the future be different?
weather it's relavent to the story is the key like David Weber is one of the bad abusers of massive info dump about the technology but for the most part it is relavent to the story because it is about an arms race so the characters are of course thinking about how.the new thing will change the battle. On the other hand you will have a space adventure story where like you said explaining how a speeder or whatever works is stupid. Or why would you explain in detail the way your stardrive works when it's only used to get to one location to another and it's the standard stardrive in the metaverse. I guess the question to ask is this information neccesary to get what is going on or does this build anticipation for how awesome an upcoming scene is like a teaser?
Brenda wrote: "It is always worth going through the ms and just taking all the explanation out. What happens, if you don't tell the reader =anything=? Surprisingly, it sometimes works perfectly fine."You'd have a Gene Wolfe book. And it certainly works!
David wrote: "Brenda wrote: "...The way the STAR WARS people have happily jettisoned continuity...."You shouldn’t let continuity become a bugaboo, especially if you’re using the sequel to “explain” something t..."
It was the '60s, a time that considered the asterisk a major design element, so . . . .
The original Starfleet Academy must have included a class to train female officers how to die or faint demurely.
Kenneth wrote: "Brenda wrote: "It is always worth going through the ms and just taking all the explanation out. What happens, if you don't tell the reader =anything=? Surprisingly, it sometimes works perfectly fine."You'd have a Gene Wolfe book. And it certainly works!
For some audiences. Others, not so fine.
One tries to make one's target audience as large as possible, but trying to please everyone is not possible.
And if you scout around, you will see that different authors do it in way different ways. The most bare-bones work I have ever read was BONELAND by Alan Garner. He explains absolutely nothing; blink and you'll fall right off the sled. The polar opposite of, say, Weber.
For me, first novel = too much information. Second novel, got better at it (at least I hope so, and the Darrell Awards committee seemed to agree). Third novel (about to be published) = it's a starship, it works, let's go somewhere interesting... :-)
I know that in general you're right Mary, but I'd rather an author not consider the size of their readership and instead of compromising, just write the damn good story. Probably doesn't make as much money, but people like myself really appreciate it when the author trusts us to read between the lines and not to need guidance.
While I agree with Kenneth, and will always try to write that "damn good story" I have also learned a lot by paying attention to what readers say on this forum. No, I'm not going to change my storylines or try to please everyone; but at least I can try to avoid some of the silly mistakes this thread has highlighted.Just a comment on David Weber and his "info dumps": Weber has a very large following who are in love with his technology (and who will protest very loudly if he is inconsistent about it or violates any of his own rules). Judging by his book sales, there are a lot of readers out there who want to know how it works and don't mind those info dumps.
If I have one complaint about Weber, it's that he has (in recent books, at least) too many minor characters in the far corners of his universe who spend too much time in long discussions about what they THINK is happening... and they are usually wrong, which leads to them doing something stupid. Meanwhile, the reader KNOWS they are wrong, knows they are going to be stupid, and can predict the outcome well in advance.
It's like a reverse "As you know, Bob"... as in, "As you know, Bob, the Manties can't possibly have any forces in the Whatever System, because we pretty sure that Honor Harrington's Eighth Fleet is somewhere else; so let's go there and try to take out the Manty installations there..."
OK -- you can see the results of that one coming three chapters away. C'mon, David... keep us guessing. You can tell us about their stupid mistake AFTER Honor Harrington wipes them out.
It is a judgment call. Clearly if you insist upon writing books about, oh, how women secretly want to be raped (looking at YOU, John Norman) then your readership will necessarily be limited. But if this is how your boat floats, OK. However, if you have a choice -- if you can have the invaders be aliens instead of black people, let us say -- then if it makes no difference to you, a marketing thought might not be amiss.
Kenneth wrote: "I know that in general you're right Mary, but I'd rather an author not consider the size of their readership and instead of compromising, just write the damn good story. Probably doesn't make as mu..."Good stories sell better than bad ones, so if you gotta do something aesthetically, that's one thing. Nevertheless, what readers will get is part of the aspects of art, just like the limitations of language are.
Readers are attracted to a type of story, but their access to multiple plotlines, esoteric elaborations, or the story’s language is limited by their zone of proximal development (Vygotsky). The exposition in TV Sci Fi is much heavier than with books, because the average viewer needs to be spoon-fed: TV is not considered an educational media in the US, and so viewers are generally unwilling to invest their mental effort in watching it. Also TV can use techniques like “sexposition” to keep the viewer engaged (try that on the page :< ). If you’re writing for a mass market, I think you have to assume a 10th grade reading level. But don’t writers have some kind of moral obligation to expand their readers’ ability to read?This is the Bentham/Mills pushpin problem: the pleasure in reading is qualitative (not quantitative) and being able to appreciate complexity is important. We realize this in ourselves, and we should honor it in our readers.
I think most people over-write. I once had a writing instructor suggest that I finish the story and then tear off the first page (and throw it away—since it was mostly the throat-clearing I needed to find the edge of the story). But you can be too ruthless in paring away narrative (Gordon Lish comes to mind) and you shouldn’t necessarily eliminate everything the reader can live without, just the bits that take him or her out of the narrative.
SciFi and Fantasy Book Club
Books mentioned in this topic
On Basilisk Station (other topics)The Roads Must Roll (other topics)
The Quantum Thief (other topics)
Mutated (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
David Weber (other topics)Robert Jordan (other topics)
Tom Godwin (other topics)
The secret is to be good at it! Ham-handed 'as you know Bob' is annoying.