quote: One of the worst of these creatures, the mortvers, was a horrible cross between mammal scavenger, parasitic worm, and genetic games. Not only did the lab responsible give it the abilities to scavenge food from the living, dying, and dead. They also gave these creatures intelligence, and then drove them mad in experiments. The entire facility soon became a nesting ground for the things. The humans who had once experimented on them become the hosts for their young. “I know what we are all thinking of, the caedius mortvereus. Yes, that is probably the one creature we have created in ignorance that is representative of all the wrongs done in genetics in recent years.”
well, what do you think of this... this portion of the story is very info-dump, but i can, i think, get away with it because this is a science convention. i try to make the dumping as interesting as i can though. the person speaking in the second paragraph is Dr. Genki Sue Gaia, an escapee from the labs that created the monster, and a host herself trying to, uhm wait, i shouldn't reveal that, as it isn't revealed yet at this point in the story, haha. you can know about her being a host tho, that is revealed right in the second paragraph of this excerpt had i been able to show you all 15 lines of the 2 paragraph chunk
anyways, rip me up about how evil it is to do info dumps, even when disguised as a science convention.
posted
Actually, a convention is one of the few places where an info dump is not only acceptable, it's expected. Think of the movie X-Men. Having a messenger report, or a history lesson, or something along those lines are also good ways of weaving an info dump into a story.
On that note, it's important to also show the reactions of your characters to the information. In X-Men, the reactions of those hearing the report is integral to advancing the plot and explaining Magneto's continued assertion that mutants will never be accepted into human society.
posted
The convention thing is a good idea. Two issues. First, is I don't see how a creature can be a cross with a game. That must be a cut & paste error. Second, this part:
quote:Not only did the lab responsible give it the abilities to scavenge food from the living, dying, and dead. They also gave these creatures intelligence, and then drove them mad in experiments.
should be one sentence separated by a semicolon or change/add words to form two complete sentences. As they now stand, the first is a fragment.
I'm not especially grabbed or thrilled by this, which I guess is a problem with the science convention idea. Perhaps if it were a press conference, the reporters could ask really outlandish, sensationalist, and just plain ignorant questions. The scientist character has to deal with that conflict in the midst of an attempt at exposition, and that would liven things up.
posted
I'm quite ok with the science convention as a front for providing us with information. As a matter of fact, I think you should get MORE info dumpy with this paragraph. Well, maybe that's not the right way to say it. I'm having trouble picturing this geneticcally manipulated monstrocity. I want to see it, hear it, smell it. I want to shudder with revulsion as I imagine its putrid breath bearing down upon me. If you can, it might not even be a bad idea to draw it and spend some time looking at it for creative inspiration.
One nit-pick: " Not only did the lab responsible give it the abilities to scavenge food from the living, dying, and dead. They also gave these creatures intelligence, and then drove them mad in experiments. "
These two sentences should be one, I think, because of the way you phrased it. Not only x, but also y. It's a long sentence, but I think it should all be together.
posted
I agree with all of the above that a scientific convention makes for a great info dump. I disagree that you need a press conference or some sort of artificial conflict to make the scene interesting. The information can foreshadow conflict or be novel enough to be entertaining in and of itself. My criticism is directed at the fact that the speaker does not sound like a scientist speaking at a convention. Scientists speak in a certain objective mode as scientists. I'm not saying your character has to use jargon or big words or technical terms. I mean that your character shouldn't make so many value judgements about the subject of her lecture. Phrases like: "horrible" "drove them mad" "ignorance "wrongs" Are non-objective statements of value preference. As such, they are definitionally unscientific. If you want your scientist to sound like a scientist, she needs to speak with more detachment. Descrpitive, not prescriptive monologue.
Of course, if your scientist isn't really speaking "as" a scientist--if she is expressing her personal feelings about her experiences with these creatures, for example--then she can speak however she likes. In that case you might consider having other scientists react negatively, perhaps talking behind her back about how incompetent or unscientific her lecture was.
posted
I agree that the tone of the person presenting the material seems rather unscientific. The person sounds more like an activist of some sort. That might be an interesting angle. Maybe an activist group can "crash" the convention.
I was also interested by the press conference idea. That would be a fun way to provide the information.
posted
press conferences don't work merely because of setting, it's hard to get ANY group of people to gather together, let alone people from several majorly different viewpoints.
i should have explained that things really are nothing like they are now, these people are in a perpetual state of war, with each other, with various lab experiments gone awry, and with other countries which have NOT fallen apart to the same degree...
in such an environment, and with having some of the mortvers within you, growing as though they were your own children, how professional do you expect a person to be? i don't think any of the scientists are in the same kind of mindset that any of our current scientists are. pure objectiveness in this kind of environment is likely to get you killed.
so yes, they pretty much are more activist than scientist, everyone is more activist than their claimed profession, whether they are activists about genetic science, physical science, or computer science, whether they are activists about science at all or are activists about militarism, it's really all the same.
that said, i suspect that i have adequately presented this in the section that this excerpt is from, before this portion of it.
quote:On that note, it's important to also show the reactions of your characters to the information. In X-Men, the reactions of those hearing the report is integral to advancing the plot and explaining Magneto's continued assertion that mutants will never be accepted into human society.
that's part of what the first paragraph is, actually it's the story-teller barging into his own story and expounding upon the thoughts and feelings of the crowd...
quote:Two issues. First, is I don't see how a creature can be a cross with a game. That must be a cut & paste error.
actually, uhm, no, that's how i phrased it, i couldn't come up with anything else, "genetic games" is a story-teller's version of genetic manipulation... if it is poorly placed, i will replace it with the more accepted
quote:should be one sentence separated by a semicolon or change/add words to form two complete sentences. As they now stand, the first is a fragment.
i thought such, but my word processor failed to comment, so i failed to correct. it is now corrected
quote:Of course, if your scientist isn't really speaking "as" a scientist--if she is expressing her personal feelings about her experiences with these creatures, for example--then she can speak however she likes. In that case you might consider having other scientists react negatively, perhaps talking behind her back about how incompetent or unscientific her lecture was.
won't work... she is famous and can get away with speaking however the heck she wants, that is my excuse for it within the monologue, outside the monologue, it's the narrator speaking, and the narrator is not Sue, but the aforementioned storyteller of the inner story, you can hardly blame a storyteller for making things sound subjective, subjectiveness is the storytellers art
-----------
well it appears that no one minds the convention idea, the only thing i should try to do is make it more objective, possibly...
i'm not entirely sure if i will, i may go ahead and work on Sue's monologue to try to make her less subjective, but i definitely do not think i'm going to make the narration objective, that'd destroy the pattern i've made for my storyteller, and i can't do that
as for making you see and feel the mortvers, that is for another time, right now we are only discussing how it came to be, i'll have little bits and pieces of the science of it revealed in other parts of the story as well, and there will be a point in this chapter in which i will describe a mortvers physically, of course, each time anyone encounters one i'll need to describe it, because no two mortvers are exactly alike, since they take on certain attributes of the host used in their parasitic stage... hmm, that reminds me, i broke off suddenly when the Vinesley's encountered a mortvers, so when i return to them in the same time period (i do some hopping in time, but i warn the reader when i do it) i need to describe that mortvers
quote:"genetic games" is a story-teller's version of genetic manipulation...
That's fine. It makes my point even more valid, actually. Two creatures can be crossed with each other, but a creature cannot be crossed with a game. Using the word game to mean genetic engineering doesn't make that sentence make any more sense at all. It's got to be rephrased in a different manner.
posted
ok, magic beans, it makes perfect sense to me, but then, i'm the one with the entire idea worked out in my head already, you are the readers, and if it doesn't make sense to you, who are writers as well, how could i expect it to make sense to the pure readers out there...
how about this:
quote:... horrible cross between mammal scavenger and parasitic worm, woven together in a fabric of genetic games.
[This message has been edited by dpatridge (edited November 22, 2004).]
posted
THAT'S what I'm talking about. Now it says what you actually meant, instead of what you thought it meant.
I think the problem stemmed from the word "with." When you said crossing this with that and then right on the heels of that you said with genetic games. Only the second "with" was meant in the sense of "through" or "via." But because it comes right after the same word used the other way, the reader's going to read it in the same way. When you say a rat crossed with a parasite, I imagine a horrible creature, as intended. When you say a rat crossed with a game, I imagine a Scrabble board with fur, fleas, and a tail.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
