StarDestroyer.Net BBS

How do you "explain" new technogies need in your (orginal) stories.



Do you try to explain in great detail (using alot of (pseudo-)scientific terms) how something works and the physics behind it (like ST tries to do) or do "explain" it simply naming it and maybe (if relevant to the story) set some limits/underlying physics about it.

Personally I prefer the second way as it allows me to hide my possible lack of knowlage or I just don't to invent so much details that in the end are probably not important to the story anyway.

I don't really have much "technology" in my story per se, but whenever I need to introduce a story mechanism which exists in the universe, it's all about show, don't tell. Yes, it's a popular buzz-term for Creative Writing teachers (blarg), but it's basically true. Expository babble is meaningless, especially for things you honestly can't explain, for it gives your readers nothing except wasted space to drudge though.

I don't even talk about mechanisms unless they're necessary to the story or interesting, but my work is character-based, and I don't know if that's the case for everyone.

I tend to give a short description of its abilities and maybe effects if relevant.

The only case I can remember so far of a long description was when it was part of an underlying plot point, allowing me to fill a chapter-load of fluff (High gravity prisons).

Detailed explanations with the physical rules and all that stretch out tend to be unncessary unless its awesome in some way (KE formula for a weapon impact description) or you're writing hard sci-fi, or you're a bit of a wanker

The second for me; if I have to describe something (at the risk of tooting my own horn) such as hyperspace in Children of Heaven that has oft-referenced effects on how ships act and function in-universe, I want to make sure that the reader understands the concept behind it so they know what's going on - hopefully without spending pages describing every single detail. It gives a concrete handy 'go-to' source of information that both they and I can reference to remember how something works and what its limits are.

That way if you do something with the technology later on in the story, the reader has a frame of reference to understand how it's supposed to work and you're not just throwing it out there/making it up as you go along. (Well, technically that's what is happening...)

It should also be something relevant to the story or 'new'; everyone understands the concept of a missile or a laser. You don't need to spend paragraphs hemming and hawing over 'gravitic drives' or 'argon-cynaide accelerator capsules'; it's not going to add anything to the plot and only gets your audience bogged down in minutiae.

World-building is all well and good - you have to introduce this completely new setting somehow - but it shouldn't take precedence over plot or characters.

It's also a tricky balance to maintain; the characters in your universe already know this stuff. Someone on this board mentioned this point in an older thread - I can't remember which one - about characters explaining things to each other: "Hey, you remember how X works." "Of course, because Y and Z." It's not believable dialogue and it makes the characters either look like they've got ADD or they're just not that bright (recall Troi who was a bridge officer on the Federation's flagship and constantly needed the simplest things explained to her).

As a corollary, sometimes, this type of interaction is necessary (for example between someone who's more educated in a field than another person) but having characters standing around lecturing each other on things they should already know... see above.

Some things, if they're not relevant to the plot of mechanics of the story, you don't really need to go into too much detail. To borrow a topical example: anti-gravity/gravity fields/whatever. The fact that it exists tells the reader "hey, this is a pretty advanced society" and you don't need to go into the mechanics of it, plus it gives a frame of reference for the reader to visualize the scene in their heads. It's just there, and it works.

Most readers won't care about the precise physics or technologies involved and technobabbling simply to sound advanced... (*cough* Star Trek *cough*)

...well, it's nae sae fine. Also, unless you have a a degree in the field you're discussing or have done extensive research, chances are you're more likely than not screwing things up. Badly. Which will turn off the readers who do know these things and work against you.

Edited to squeeze in a corollary.

I'm determined never to spend huge chunks of narrative explaining how or why the technologies work, I think making reference to it, leaving clues about the place but never actually sitting down and saying 'this is technology xxx, it does x, y, z and a, but it can't do this and it also allows you to have sex with b'.

Also, in the case of more surreal technologies, it saves trying to write complicated explanations which are pointless anyway as it assumes scientific knowledge. Also, quite a few of them are bollocks anyway.

One other possibility that noone has mentioned is the idea of having little snippets of newspaper articles or something preceding your chapters that can talk about the invention of some technology. I don't like that style of doing it, but it's an option.

One of the things about which I'm proud in HI is never infodumping technobabble except for a few errant scenes which are going on the cutting room floor. Unless you're writing wiring diagram hard scifi, which has an audience which eats that stuff up, or the specifics are necessary to the plot, in which case technobabble may be a necessary evil (though you might be well advised to consider tweaking the plot so that it is no longer necessary), nobody cares how an imaginary magic widget works.

RedImperator wrote:One of the things about which I'm proud in HI is never infodumping technobabble except for a few errant scenes which are going on the cutting room floor. Unless you're writing wiring diagram hard scifi, which has an audience which eats that stuff up, or the specifics are necessary to the plot, in which case technobabble may be a necessary evil (though you might be well advised to consider tweaking the plot so that it is no longer necessary), nobody cares how an imaginary magic widget works.

On your two exceptions to this entirely reasonable rule of thumb: would you mind listing a couple of examples? Victor Hugo devoted Book 3 of the Hunchback of Notre Dame to describing Parisian architecture, does that go way to far? How about Tom Clancy's chapter describing the fizzled detonation of a nuclear weapon?

Show the effects of the technology; more show than tell in an essence. And when I do have to tell, tell it when that technology is being used in a significant plot point, and keep it as short as possible. Describing it in as less techno-words as possible.

My rule of thumb is pretty much the same as the others listed above. Stick to the point of view of the user, conversant, or affected person(s), go into detail only as far as the problem demands, and try to relate those details to the widest audience possible. On the other hand, it can be entirely enriching of an author works in credible scientific or engineering problems for the reader to chew on After all, this site is devoted to readers and viewers who enjoy dissecting story and device, whether elements are hinted at or thoroughly exposed by the author.

Pick wrote:Expository babble is meaningless, especially for things you honestly can't explain, for it gives your readers nothing except wasted space to drudge though.

Extensive technical details are rather like character biographies; they can be fun and interesting but they shouldn't be in the main story. Dune (the original novel) had a fascinating technical glossary at the end, and Tolkein put all his detailed language and family tree stuff in appendices. Here in the hypertextual wonderland of the Interweb, it's trivial to stick all the backstory/extra story-irrelevant detail on separate pages and link it (discreetly) from the main story; there's no reason to try and cram it awkwardly into exposition. Alas, some people still have no learned this.

Tell what it does, and only tell the basics. There will be a problem you didn't think of, and your readers will spot it. If you do a detailed description, then your readers will say you made a mistake. If you only give the rough effects, then your readers will ask questions.

By looking at the questions, and carefully leading them, you can figure out some small details that can be added later.

Essentially you let the readers figure out how the technology works, all you did was describe what it does. This lets you tell the story, not tell the technology.

If I can make it funny (asuming the story is supposed to be funny), I'll slip in descriptions of mechanisms, ala Douglas Adams describing stuff like the Infinite Improbability or Bistromathic drives. Beyond that, I do like describing in exquisite detail explosions and so on.

Lord Revan wrote:How do you "explain" new technogies need in your (orginal) stories.



Do you try to explain in great detail (using alot of (pseudo-)scientific terms) how something works and the physics behind it (like ST tries to do) or do "explain" it simply naming it and maybe (if relevant to the story) set some limits/underlying physics about it.

Personally I prefer the second way as it allows me to hide my possible lack of knowlage or I just don't to invent so much details that in the end are probably not important to the story anyway.

Most of the time, I'd use it as a tactical improvement, and refer to it more as an achievement, and less as something to pick apart.

i.e. "We finally developed the x, rendering their damnable y useless against our sensors. Now instead of faint ripples in their z, z operators will be able to see those alien ships plain as day."

However, I will allow that circumstances do allow for exceptions to this.

My thumbrule is the following: imagine if you write a story about modern day world for e.g. people of the XIX century. You should not give a detailed explanation about how a car or a cell phone works because it is a fairly commonplace item. So everybody knows they are working, but very few actually interested in how. On the other hand if you introduce something rare like a mass spectrometer or a nuclear magnetic resonance device which requires specialist training to operate you may explain it. However always avoid technobabble, RL scientist only use technobabble style language when they write a publication or applying for money, every other occassion they prefer simplicity.

Starglider wrote:

Pick wrote:Expository babble is meaningless, especially for things you honestly can't explain, for it gives your readers nothing except wasted space to drudge though.

Extensive technical details are rather like character biographies; they can be fun and interesting but they shouldn't be in the main story. Dune (the original novel) had a fascinating technical glossary at the end, and Tolkein put all his detailed language and family tree stuff in appendices. Here in the hypertextual wonderland of the Interweb, it's trivial to stick all the backstory/extra story-irrelevant detail on separate pages and link it (discreetly) from the main story; there's no reason to try and cram it awkwardly into exposition. Alas, some people still have no learned this.

I think that's a good rule to follow, but elaborating extensively in the course of a story may not be entirely a bad idea. Good writers can and have spent pages discussing things that, on their face, seem to have little consequence to the progress of the story. Victor Hugo spent an entire book discussing architecture in Paris. Clancy spent an entire chapter carrying the reader through the detonation of a nuclear weapon. Life and work in space is a common theme in Clarke's work, and in 2001 he spent a good amount of ink exposing the reader to a technical discussion of everything from Daedalus' engines to HAL 9000's architecture and operation to even the diets of his astronauts. State of Fear, for all its flaws, is one huge infodump and still managed to capture a huge audience. Exposition like this engages the reader, encourages them to think. It even convinces a few of you to go through the details with a fine toothed comb and pick apart any mistakes you might find. Either way, it gets you buying what he's selling.

Bad to mediocre writers misuse exposition regardless of the detail they go into. He might digress from the plot to pursue a tangent he alone finds interesting. He may force characters or the narrator to expound for paragraphs or even pages on any subject--relevant or not--only to wrap it up with a cute comment that amounts to "well, getting back to our story." He might even abuse epigraphs. In the end, all this guy's doing is boring the hell out of his readers. Exposition is still a valuable tool in a writer's arsenal, and its use really only depends on the author's ability, cleverness and ability to pace the story.

Starglider wrote:

Pick wrote:Expository babble is meaningless, especially for things you honestly can't explain, for it gives your readers nothing except wasted space to drudge though.

Extensive technical details are rather like character biographies; they can be fun and interesting but they shouldn't be in the main story. Dune (the original novel) had a fascinating technical glossary at the end, and Tolkein put all his detailed language and family tree stuff in appendices. Here in the hypertextual wonderland of the Interweb, it's trivial to stick all the backstory/extra story-irrelevant detail on separate pages and link it (discreetly) from the main story; there's no reason to try and cram it awkwardly into exposition. Alas, some people still have no learned this.

I concur, the idea I've held is that writers should make a bible containing backstory, setting information, and technical data that is in itself worthless as a book except to die hard fans. They should pull from it when deciding how to write the story and the sequences so that everything can remain internally consistant. With technology being what it is, you can even reference what parts you used for different chapters or pages. Using this method, you can transform your usual Star Trek fare such as this:

"We need to go faster! Isn't there anything you can do?"
"Negative, we are already at maximum capacity for the plasma manifolds leading into the primary and secondary engines. Additional power would overload the system and cause critical damage to all systems of the ship, including a rapidly expanding mass of compressed plasma in crew quarters."
"How bad is that?"
"It would result in the deaths of every crew member on board this ship, sir, including us. Even I am not rated for five thousand kelvins, and certainly not with the plasmic material being hydrogen."
"But we'll die if they catch us!"
"I might have another idea. If we can rig a small defense cannon to fire without being tied into the targeting network, we might be able to bypass their point shields. Chances of success are minimal, but it is one of our few remaining options. I will reverse the neutron flow of the cannon's phase inverters so it will do more damage."

Into this:
"We need to go faster! Is there anything you can do?"
"Engines are in the red, we push them any more and they'll blow!"
"How bad?"
"Cajun style crew. Look, I have a batshit idea. Get a heavy pressure suit on and come with me."
"Leaving the ship in a firefight? You are batshit."
"Crazy or dead sir, take your pick."

Then, later, if the fans want to know what the fuck is going on, add the technical specifications for your stuff at the end, or publish another book full of them. The die-hards love that shit.

Definitely agreed on the value of the second method. I couldn't tell you how even a theoretical thingamajig would violate conservation of mass (if it doesn't do so beyond established methods of doign so), such as the Ultimate Nullifier in the Marvel Universe, so usually it should just be a matter of noting whatever difference there is from "conventional" (by which I admittedly mean RL) science. At least, for exposition, don't do it in dialogue when you can in narration.