Speed of Plot Consternation

[Kamen Rider Blade]

In Star Trek I value characters above all else.

I'll happily watch a documentary about military or other uniform organizations and learn how they work. But Trek isn't constructed as a documentary.

That's fine, to each his own.

While it might sound like I might be criticizing the speed-of-plot, I'm really not--I'm just proposing that it's a common enough element that it's really not something unusual, and definitely not worth crunching numbers, since the people who make this stuff don't.

That's what the technical writers / staff / Lore Master should be doing.

Crunching #'s so that the writers don't have to.

 

[fireproof78]

That's fine, to each his own.

Indeed.

I just think expecting documentary style from Trek is setting up for disappointment.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I just think expecting documentary style from Trek is setting up for disappointment.

Maybe for one or two episodes as a "Special Feature".

But normally, it should remain as is, but still treat the universe like a living/breathing thing.

 

[Christopher]

I use to, and wrote SF and fantasy to be as realistic as possible when working with friends. But, for me, it became less fun. I was doing a ton of research on various facets of technology and describing the long history of FTL and weaponry or technology and it became a tome of tech speak over actually valuing people and their interactions.

But as I've been saying, that research doesn't have to go on the page. It's just background for the writer, the way you set the stage for what the characters do. The purpose is not for the technical stuff to be distractingly visible -- on the contrary, the purpose is to avoid distractingly visible errors. You want the background worldbuilding to work believably enough that it stays in the background instead of calling attention to its flaws.

Gene Roddenberry got this. On the one hand, he went to great lengths to consult with scientists and engineers and let them tell him how to depict a futuristic starship believably. But on the other hand, he told his writers to remember that a cop or a cowboy doesn't stop to explain to the audience how his gun works, he just uses it. He understood the difference between background and foreground, and the importance of both. Just because you don't need to show your work doesn't mean you don't need to do it.

(This is why I have extensive annotations for my fiction on my website. I love to talk about the technical stuff, but I know that most of it doesn't belong in the actual stories. It's backstage stuff.)

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

But as I've been saying, that research doesn't have to go on the page. It's just background for the writer, the way you set the stage for what the characters do. The purpose is not for the technical stuff to be distractingly visible -- on the contrary, the purpose is to avoid distractingly visible errors. You want the background worldbuilding to work believably enough that it stays in the background instead of calling attention to its flaws.

Gene Roddenberry got this. On the one hand, he went to great lengths to consult with scientists and engineers and let them tell him how to depict a futuristic starship believably. But on the other hand, he told his writers to remember that a cop or a cowboy doesn't stop to explain to the audience how his gun works, he just uses it. He understood the difference between background and foreground, and the importance of both. Just because you don't need to show your work doesn't mean you don't need to do it.

(This is why I have extensive annotations for my fiction on my website. I love to talk about the technical stuff, but I know that most of it doesn't belong in the actual stories. It's backstage stuff.)

I wouldn't mind if it was published as a "Side Addendum Book" to your main stories

 

[fireproof78]

But as I've been saying, that research doesn't have to go on the page. It's just background for the writer, the way you set the stage for what the characters do. The purpose is not for the technical stuff to be distractingly visible -- on the contrary, the purpose is to avoid distractingly visible errors. You want the background worldbuilding to work believably enough that it stays in the background instead of calling attention to its flaws.

Yes, I do. But, for me (and only me) the background building became a distraction to the characters. I didn't write characters in as many words; I wrote all the technology all around them and they were just skeletons moving inside of it.


Nowhere am I saying don't due the research; I'm saying that the research became for me too much. And I did it with the fiction I consumed as much as I attempted to write and it made for a completely unenjoyable experience.

Just because you don't need to show your work doesn't mean you don't need to do it.

Not what I'm saying at all.

Maybe for one or two episodes as a "Special Feature".

But normally, it should remain as is, but still treat the universe like a living/breathing thing.

Agreed, but it isn't just a living breathing thing but also a dramatization within the living breathing thing. Drama takes on different rules, at least for me, than a documentary, so different levels of suspension of disbelief apply from one to the other.

 

[Christopher]

Yes, I do. But, for me (and only me) the background building became a distraction to the characters. I didn't write characters in as many words; I wrote all the technology all around them and they were just skeletons moving inside of it.

Then the solution was to improve your character writing, not to abandon the tech research. You don't improve your strength in one area by abandoning your strength in another.

I often used to have underdeveloped characters and story arcs in my fiction in favor of the worldbuilding, but I learned over time to raise my game. Some of the best instruction I got came from rejection letters; when they were personalized and included critiques of my stories, they let me know what areas I needed to improve. I also learned a lot from the time I got to go out to Hollywood and pitch Deep Space Nine ideas to Robert Hewitt Wolfe. I didn't sell anything, but Robert's repeated question "How does this affect our characters?" taught me a lot about what my priorities should be in fiction.

Agreed, but it isn't just a living breathing thing but also a dramatization within the living breathing thing. Drama takes on different rules, at least for me, than a documentary, so different levels of suspension of disbelief apply from one to the other.

But not all drama has to be the same, nor should it be. There's room for fiction that's completely fanciful, but there's also room for grounded, plausible hard science fiction. There should be enough to satisfy everyone's tastes. But the problem for those of us who like hard SF is that there's hardly ever been any of it in film and TV. There's more than there used to be, with things like The Expanse and Interstellar and The Martian, but it's still thin on the ground. So don't begrudge us our wish to have at least some SFTV that doesn't actively insult our intelligence the way something like, say, Syfy's The Ark does.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Agreed, but it isn't just a living breathing thing but also a dramatization within the living breathing thing. Drama takes on different rules, at least for me, than a documentary, so different levels of suspension of disbelief apply from one to the other.

At least for me (this will most likely not apply to you), is the consistent use of internal "In-Universe" technology and the rules you setup for it.

If the "Spore Drive" requires a biological Navigator to travel far distances, like the other side of the Beta Quadrant, then so be it.

Spoiler: Christopher Pike's first 'Spore Jump experience' with the D.A.S.H. Drive

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Otherwise computer aided jumping only gets you Speirin 12, and leaps measured in the hundreds of kilometers in "that direction" doesn't make it useful as a FTL drive.

hundreds of kilometers in "that direction" only makes it useful as a tactical jumping tool during ship to ship combat.

 

[fireproof78]

Then the solution was to improve your character writing, not to abandon the tech research. You don't improve your strength in one area by abandoning your strength in another.

You are correct.

But not all drama has to be the same, nor should it be. There's room for fiction that's completely fanciful, but there's also room for grounded, plausible hard science fiction. There should be enough to satisfy everyone's tastes. But the problem for those of us who like hard SF is that there's hardly ever been any of it in film and TV. There's more than there used to be, with things like The Expanse and Interstellar and The Martian, but it's still thin on the ground. So don't begrudge us our wish to have at least some SFTV that doesn't actively insult our intelligence the way something like, say, Syfy's The Ark does.

I don't. I just don't feel insulted by a piece of fiction either, so it's a new perspective for me to take on.

t least for me (this will most likely not apply to you), is the consistent use of internal "In-Universe" technology and the rules you setup for it.

I would love for that to occur more often.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I would love for that to occur more often.

You & me both.

 

[Forbin]

(I also frequently thought to myself, "Why are we supposed to root for the cowboys? The horses are doing most of the work!")

OMG that's great. So true.