Hatrack River Writers Workshop: Complexity in fiction

This is topic Complexity in fiction in forum Open Discussions About Writing at Hatrack River Writers Workshop.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/writers/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006751

Posted by s_merrell (Member # 5339) on :

Specifically, milieus--why do we as writers sometimes feel that the more complex a milieu is, the better it will be?

Take Robert Jordan, as an example: I haven't read any of his books since the tenth, but I would need to go back and read through all ten of them again to have any sort of grasp on the eleventh book whatsoever. I can't remember anything about the story itself; the surrounding information--politically, culturally, historically, socially--swallowed it alive. The story itself was so inundated with the milieu that not only did the story not go anywhere, but it didn't even seem to matter anymore. The only thing that mattered was the milieu.

It's not just Robert Jordan, folks. This is a trend that I'm seeing in more and more fiction nowadays, more particularly in the realms of science fiction and fantasy. Maybe I'm just reading the wrong stuff. Maybe I don't know where the good stuff is.

But I don't feel that, in order to appreciate a fantasy or sci-fi story, you have to know the totality of the world in which it lives. Sometimes simplicity allows for what's most important; sometimes complexity kills the audience's interest or places too heavy of demands on the reader.

I read the prologue of Brandon Sanderson's The Way of Kings. It didn't make any sense. I had no clue as to what was going on. I told a friend about it, one who read the book, and he agreed.

"It doesn't make any sense at first. Once you get about halfway through the book, you start fitting things together and you have lots of 'aha' moments. It's really cool!"

That set off a lot of alarms for me. I don't want to have to read halfway through an epic fantasy to start to understand things. Doesn't that concern you at all?

Posted by Natej11 (Member # 8547) on :

I would disagree. What bogged down Jordan's books wasn't the world they were in, but the fact that he kept adding more characters and never killed any of them off, and then seemed to feel obligated to give each and every one of them fair time. Where months went by in the first books, by the end you could read a whole book and be lucky if a few days had passed. It felt like nothing was happening and it was all a tangled mess.

I think that's one of the first things Sanderson addressed when he took up the gauntlet, tying up multiple loose ends and resolving conflicts that had been drawn out for far too long.

So to sum up no, the rich and detailed world Jordan created didn't detract from his writing at all, but in most cases served to enhance it. His failing was making the story too big for itself and trying to tell every character's story no matter how minor or inconsequential to the plot.

Posted by KayTi (Member # 5137) on :

I haven't read the books you mention (I know, astonishing, right? lol) but this is why I read mostly middle-grade and YA sci-fi and fantasy. Those authors seem to understand the importance of the approachable story. The need to have characters and plots wrap up in fewer than 300 pages. The need to reach closure or some level of satisfaction at the ending (even if leaving open for a sequel.)

I also look at the library at the "new scifi/fantasy" shelves (grown-up section) every time I'm in there. NOT A SINGLE TITLE in the section is ever a standalone, and most are book 5 or 6 or some other huge number that's just surprising. Sorry, but I don't always want to invest in a super long series!

Posted by s_merrell (Member # 5339) on :

This isn't just about Robert Jordan, as I thought I mentioned previously. This is in a lot of fantasy/sci-fi nowadays. Are you telling me that it's not a problem to compromise your story in exchange for your milieu?

I agree, there are times when it's interesting to read about. There are times when it's cool to learn this or that about the world the story takes place in. But when it overwhelmingly crushes the story with the world that's been built, isn't that a cause for concern and caution, especially for us as writers? Isn't this something to watch out for? Isn't there such thing as something being "too complex"?

Posted by Natej11 (Member # 8547) on :

Sorry, I have a tendency to reply to the first issue in a topic without reading the rest of it >.<.

IMO the more detailed a world is the better, because then as you're writing the story the details come naturally without bogging down the plot or seeming out of place. It can add a lot of depth and dimension to a story to know what's unique about each place and about the history of the world. Not to mention flavor, as we see how things change as the heroes go from city to city.

People might be people wherever you go, but HOW they're people is what makes them interesting.

P.S. In my own opinion Brandon Sanderson's "Way of Kings" is one of the best first books in a fantasy series I've ever read. The beginning was somewhat confusing because of the massive shift in time between the first time we see Kal and when next we see him, but it's not as bad as some I've seen.

[This message has been edited by Natej11 (edited March 25, 2011).]

Posted by Owasm (Member # 8501) on :

Like in a lot of other things, perspective is required. There are a lot of things to balance in a good novel. Characters, dialogue, world building, the plot, the general flow, approachability, etc.

I think that Robert Jordan got out of balance as noted above. I also thing George RR Martin did in his Sword of Fire and Ice. Part of his lost balance was the huge time gaps between novel publishing. That's another balance for a series to adhere to.

However, having said that, people are different and some are attracted to more complex world systems as others are attracted to dark fantasy or to YA/MG fantasy.

I like a little complexity as long as the author makes it logical and coherent. A good balance, in my estimation is Rothfuss' series, so far. That is since I read the first novel last December.

[This message has been edited by Owasm (edited March 25, 2011).]

Posted by MartinV (Member # 5512) on :

Thank you for this thread. Now I'm sure I will never read Robert Jordan's books (I can only buy novels 3,7 and 8 in a local bookstore anyway).

About complexity of settings: in my current story, I'm trying to use the simplest settings possible so the reader could get into the story quickly. I intend to add the detail necessary to understand it full scale only later. I started with a proto-typical fantasy setting and tweaked it when it suited me to get something unique. But I hope the characters will be the driving point of this story, not the setting.

Posted by Tiergan (Member # 7852) on :

I tried to read Robert Jordans first book, man, I dont know how many times, at least 10. I have bought it twice now because so many people told me how great it was, but have never made it past like 60 pages into it.

This book may be the book that killed my drive for epic fantasy Or it may be just a coincidence but around that time I moved on to less involved fantasy, single books, sword and sorcery, and YA and even middle grade. I still hear great things about the series, especially the earlier books, but I have decided his books and me are not a good coupling as of yet. I like to get into the book quickly.

[This message has been edited by Tiergan (edited March 25, 2011).]

Posted by elilyn (Member # 9426) on :

I read all of Jordan's Wheel of Time straight through until this most recent book (book 13). It actually is more seemless that way, you don't feel like you're missing characters in those swampy middle books. This is at least the tenth re-read I've done through them, and I'll probably do one more before the last book is published.

I really can't read 1 short book, I don't feel invested in the characters before they end. I'd much prefer to spend weeks reading an epic.

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

Can't vouch for Robert Jordan...but I'm no fan of endless series of books where you have to read (and buy) each and every one that went before to know just what's going on in the current one---and even that doesn't end it 'cause there's another one just over the hill next year. I found individual books rewarding...but the experience of reading the bulk of them less so. Considerably less so.

Now, some guys write series whose books might be connected by common characters and background. (The late Brian Jacques and his "Redwall" series come to mind.) There might be other problems, but the writer has milked the characters for all the emotional intensity they, and the reader, can stand, and then moved on to something else.

Posted by posulliv (Member # 8147) on :

quote:
Specifically, milieus--why do we as writers sometimes feel that the more complex a milieu is, the better it will be?

Because some readers feel that way. Sounds like you're not one of them.

In one of his books on writing science fiction and fantasy Orson Scott Card describes the MICE quotient in stories; milieu, idea, character, and event, and how different stories emphasize one or more of these aspects over another.

A lot of epic fantasies tend to be heavy on milieu. They sell. Someone must like them.

Horses for courses.

Here are a few stories in the same (broad) genre that rely less on milieu and more on character (in my opinion):

_Sheepfarmer's Daughter (The Deed of Paksenarrion)_ by Elizabeth Moon

_The Assassin's Apprentice (Farseer Trilogy)_ by Robin Hobb

_The Bone Doll's Twin (Tamir Trilogy)_ by Lynn Flewelling

All of these are first books in completed epic or high fantasy series (three books or less). I'm sure I could think of more examples but I've procrastinated enough for one day. Back to work.

[This message has been edited by posulliv (edited March 26, 2011).]

Posted by Robert Nowall (Member # 2764) on :

quote:
Specifically, milieus--why do we as writers sometimes feel that the more complex a milieu is, the better it will be?

Somehow I didn't grasp the main thrust of the original post---too complex for me, maybe.

On complexity...well, the so-called "real world," any time of it you care to name, is a pretty complex place. People live in it and are familiar with it. Writers only reflect what they see.

But on complexity and fiction...writers are also trying to get across to the reader a world that the reader is (1) unfamiliar with, and (2) entering for however long it takes to read [some of] the book. The reader has to be brought to some understanding of this world (fictional or real). Sometimes the writer lays it on with a trowel rather than a paintbrush---some readers like it that way---but, for storytelling purposes, I'd stick with just as much as the reader needs to know.

Posted by LDWriter2 (Member # 9148) on :

I think I pretty much agree with Robert's last comment. But at the same time I also think it depends on the writer. Some include more description of milieu than others and some do a better job with including that description in with the story. And of course it depends on personal taste.

I haven't read Jordan's books even though I have seen them and know that people love the wheel of time series, so I can't comment on them. But I think Tolken, Terry Brooks and a new writer Lisa Shearin, Christopher Staschaff do a good job with it. There are other writers I just can't think of their names at the moment but I don't know how they all compare to Jordan so with the exception of Tolken I don't know if they spend a whole lot of time on milieu.

I should add though that I am assuming what the word milieu means. I noticed that OSC likes to use it but I don't recall any others using it. Not that I have read a lot of books by writers on writing, It seems to mean the same thing as setting.

[This message has been edited by LDWriter2 (edited March 26, 2011).]

Posted by Raker (Member # 9449) on :

I feel that the more you, the author, understand the world your story is set in, the better. However, I don't think it is necessary to explain everything about your world to the readers. Some things need to be explained if they are crucial to the plot, but other things can be merely hinted at, even if the world is fairly complex. In "How to Write Science Fiction and Fantasy," the same book where OSC talks about the MICE quotient, he also discusses this idea when he talks about the rules of magic or space travel. YOU have to know what they are, but the reader only needs to know their consequences.