Page 1 of 1
Thoughts on Writing #43: by Seanan McGuire
Posted: November 17, 2012, 02:40:05 AM
by Lester Curtis
This one is something that is certainly dear to the hearts of more than one Aphelionite -- and important enough that I emailed the link for it to my crazy local writer friend. He has the annoying habit in his writing of just making up wild-sounding stuff without checking it to find out if it has any validity. Or accuracy. Or believability. All very dramatic, of course, but I call bullshit on him hard and often.
Most recently, he was working on a fantasy story with medieval stuff in it, and put in a thing he called a 'gauntlet' -- a huge machine with all kinds of mechanized weapons in it, supposedly used to test the King's knights for bravery. Trouble was, it killed everyone who tried it. More trouble was, he neglected to figure out that it would need an enormous power source. But the WORST thing was that I had a very hard time convincing him that NO SUCH THING EVER EXISTED BY THAT NAME.
Eventually, he admitted he'd gotten the idea from Hollywood.
I STILL haven't convinced him to take it out of the story. He says I overthink things like this. I tell him I won't be the only one doing so.
Re: Thoughts on Writing #43: by Seanan McGuire
Posted: November 27, 2012, 03:43:43 PM
by Lester Curtis
TaoPhoenix wrote:However I for one am of the type that becomes so nervous at risking all the mistakes of fact error that I simply don't bother to write many "hard" SF stories because I'll never dig myself out of the orbital mechanics etc.
But what could be interesting is if a writer purposely made up "fake facts" just for the sake of getting the story on the page, then just filling in the research later *while checking if any of the info changes actual story lines*. Of the type of humanistic stories I write, I might need to know how an airlock works, but just making it up with a placeholder wouldn't normally affect the plots I use. Even if the astronaut/crew member was off his game and got in trouble, the placeholder would just read "crew member fails to follow protocol and becomes hurt/dead". So I could always go back later and add something that sounds like it works.
None of which matters if you're Ray Bradbury or a writer or his ilk; he himself said that the only sci-fi story he ever wrote was
Fahrenheit 451. I know this is straying from the message of Seanan's article, but you could get by perfectly well just using your placeholder pretty much as is. The result wouldn't appeal quite as much to the 'hard' SF fans who get their jollies on the technical details, but it would free up your attention for other things like plot, characterization and dialog.
I've done all kinds of research for my novel, but I admit it's rather shallow. I found myself unable to give authenticity to deep topics like space-time, so I just do like Bill Wolfe says: push the button. There's no rule that says you have to explain everything. I only study a topic enough to make it sound authentic. Think of it this way: a great many people drive cars, but only a handful of them have any comprehension of what goes on under the hood -- and describing that in detail might well be wasted on the majority of readers anyway.
Seanan's point is still valid, of course; if you
do choose to portray technological (or other) detail, make sure you get it right.
Re: Thoughts on Writing #43: by Seanan McGuire
Posted: December 11, 2012, 10:03:19 PM
by Lester Curtis
Now, concerning that power source, how about
- A pair of oxen.
- Descending weights and springs.
- A water powered mill.
If all else fails you could always put a windmill on wheels.
I brought this up to him and said, "Why isn't this thing located next to a big water-wheel?"
He basically said, "This is fantasy, that stuff doesn't matter!" At that point, I pretty much gave up. He'll find out from someone else.