posted
Mostly, I've been writing short stories, so the length and number of characters is limited. Some of these stories involve very detailed worlds and technologies that require explaination for the reader to understand the story. When putting this detail into my stories, I've always tried to limit the amount of info dumping, so some information is left out. Generally, I describe pertinent information in detail, and generalize non-pertinet facts and description.
The thing is, that on many occassions I've received comments that the reader would have liked to know more about a technology or process, or exactly how a technology or process worked, even though how every detail of the process was done has no real bearing on the story. In many cases, these comments are in addition to the reader commenting that they found the plot believable and felt it was complete.
One example of this is cloning. Instead of going into a two page detail of how a clone is produced, I might state that all it takes is a bit of blood or hair or skin, and a room full of equipment. I feel that everyone has an idea of how clones are produced, so giving an exact detail of the process used in the story is unnecessary information, unless a part of the process is important to the plot. Besides, if it is coming from a character that is an average person with no real understanding of the technology, then that's how they would describe it.
Considering this then, my question is what is the expectation of the reader in your opinion? If all of the information is given in detail, then the plot and story is bogged down by information, but if there isn't enough, there'll be too many unanswered questions in the reader's mind. Also, if a character is describing something in detail that they couldn't possibly understand, it ruins the credibility of the character.
Should I simply ignore many of these comments and stick to my instincts, especially since the stories are generally accepted and liked, or should I think more about how much information to put into a story?
What do you think, and what do you do about comments like these?
posted
It's a balancing act between enough to keep the reader interested, but not so much the get bogged down. I think you should just write and then work out this sort of detail traffic based on crits and other feedback. Doing crits with a group is so interesting because you will see that some people want the exact opposite of what other people want. So it might be good, in processing crits, to know what the people normally like.
Posts: 366 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, different readers like different things. Some people will ask you to go into more detail on a technology or process because that is interesting to them. Others, not so much. So I think it's better just to write what you feel comfortable writing, and let the readers choose your book or not, depending on their taste.
Me personally, I will put a book down if it goes into too much detail with stuff like that. That's why I liked the Ender series so much - we just got the story, without going off on a tangential description of science or setting. But I'm only one person.
posted
Keep in mind you don't have to go on for pages and pages... sometimes it only takes one or two simple sentences to give enough information to answer some questions the reader might have and to channel their logical assumptions down the right path.
Posts: 2026 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Elan said. Explain, but do it in a phrase or sentence. (I sometimes need as much as a full paragraph. But very very very rarely.) I am uncertain of my advice here.
Posts: 2830 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
some details might give more of a feel for the world, like how long it takes a clone to be matured. If it takes maybe a month to go from clump of cells to human adult, then the reader knows the level of technology is far advanced to ours. If it's about the time it takes now, then technology is at about where we are, making it more contemporary than futuristic or alien.
Also, different markets have different readers. Hard SF readers can probably expect to read a lot of scientific/technical detail.
posted
I think somebody (Heinlein, maybe?) put it best about describing technological change, along the lines of: "You don't think of the name 'Otis' every time you use an elevator." Going on at great length about the history and technical details of something is likely to bore the reader. Better to introduce the change and demonstrate how it works by how it affects the characters of your story.
...unless the explanation is so interesting and intriguing that your typical reader forgets (for the moment) the story the explanation is within.
Some stories, particularly continuing series, can get quite cutsie-poo with their technical lingo. (Think some of the latter-day "Star Trek" episodes for extreme examples.) It's best to keep it to a minimum: have your characters aware of the results of cloning (goo goes in here, clone comes out there) without knowing precise details.
...unless they're important to the story. (Damn! Some days, I can't think up rules without laying down exceptions.)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
