I Should Know Better Than To Get Into This

[dr_phil_physics]

Disappearing For An Hour Or So

There are days when I wonder why I bother to write a blog, because so few postings get comments, compared to some of the blogs I follow. But that's crap -- I write because I want to write. It's a journal that just happens to be online. That few people comment isn't that big a deal because I know that only a small fraction of readers tend to comment anyway.

Even worse, though, I cannot figure out how one can survive when you regularly get hundreds or even over a thousand comments on a particular post. One of the reasons I don't spend a lot of time at the Nielsen Hayden's Making Light is because I just can't afford the time to wade through all the comments -- because some of them are interesting.

Now, there is a point to all this.

That Old Literary Versus Genre "Debate"

It's been going on for a long time, and the current one I've run into a couple of times in the last few days, but have resisted going deep into it. But... one writer I follow on LiveJournal is nihilistic_kid Nick Mamatas. I've mentioned Nick before and he's an acquired taste, but I appreciate the way he uses language as precisely as he can, though not everyone appreciates that.

So this is all part of a much larger discussion literary versus genre, but I found this gem from Nick starting here and working south:

2. I'd contend that SF/F requires enormous amounts of work on the part of the reader. The ability to sit through lengthy infodumps on means of propulsion, the neologisms, the immense casts of characters and endless 800-page volumes that take place over the course of generations, the many references to earlier literature, outright didacticism on everything from statecraft to sexual politics, and the topic of science in general require significant synoptic facilities and patience from readers. Many many readers simply slam shut a book when the first page contains many crazy terms and weird names--for these readers complex or unusual sentences about the everyday is LESS work than trying to read SF/F. This may be one reason why many adult SF/F readers come to the hobby as children while relatively few people start reading SF/F as adults--one needs years of experience to read the contemporary material in the field.

Okay, Forget The Topical Debate (grin)

To me this is a nice statement both on why some people really get into SF/F and why some can't. I look at my own novel I am currently editing and realize that I do ask my future readers to work some. Whether it is sellable, whether anyone else will think it's any good -- or at least entertaining -- I am too close to my own writing to say.

But it's a statement I can resonate with.

Dr. Phil

Comments

[steve-buchheit.livejournal.com]

"There are days when I wonder why I bother to write a blog, because so few postings get comments"

Hear that. Been there. But you know, we all can't be Scalzi (or Patrick, Teresa, et al). Most people read me through RSS feeds and rarely comment an dI haven't taken the plunge required to track the RSS counts (although I don't do much more than read the weekly digest of visitor numbers).

I think the argument on SF goes much deeper. It's in a context of vernacular and accessibility. As you know, there are those who believe in a democratization of information and those who like to lock information behind the density of their lexicon (ensuring their franchise through obscuration). SF is having such a debate now. Do we require those who wish to read it to keep up with the genre, or do we appeal to a larger population who may did their toes into the genre from time to time.

As someone who uses specialized jargon in his stories (military and high tech stuff or at least specialized knowledge) I walk that line a lot. Some things I say "If the reader is interested, they can google it" but if it's integral to the story (scene, plot, etc) I'll make an attempt to explain it. In the current book I use a lot of specific words to describe items, such as kendogi and hakama. Those are specific items of clothing that are very iconic. But the first time I introduce them I say "kendogi wrap-jacket" and "hakama loose pants". That way the reader who doesn't want to research (or doesn't know those terms) at least has an idea of what I'm talking about. After that I may say "kendogi" by itself. I do this very much when I use military acronyms ("we had twenty MAMs, military age men, coming at us..."). Or "the gleam off the Pope-glass built around the turret..." I hope the reader can pull the image out from that.

[steve-buchheit.livejournal.com]

"who may dip their toes." - Sorry about that

[dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com]

Mind you, I'm not complaining or whining about lack of readers. If anything, should I actually put novels in the marketplace, I wonder how I'll have to change if more people come wandering by. (grin)

Hard military SF is going to be somewhat nutrient rich anyway, in the same way that really good historical military stories are expected to get terminology, technology and tactics somewhat right if we are to believe them. Because the readers of both types are going to pounce on errors. I often mention the incident in Star Trek where Sulu fires an "ancient" revolver seven or eight times without reloading -- and Roddenberry got more letters from gun enthusiasts than any other snafu in the Original Star Trek.

So yesterday I was going through the printout of my novel -- whose first three chapters are out in the aether right now -- and found the following bonehead maneuver in Chapter Ten: Two people having a real time conversation over a distance of maybe 100 million kilometers. Uh, no. It's a one-way message. Rewrite! (grin)

Some SF can be written as less nutrient dense of info, but in some cases the readers will call you on it if you cut it too close to the bone. Does that mean more density makes better SF? Or is it a circular loop of our small SF reader base making a self-fulfilling prophecy, but costs us a larger readership in the end? Who knows?

But I know what I like to read and I know what I like to write. So be it.

Dr. Phil

[charyvna.livejournal.com]

Just wanted to tell you how much I enjoy your posts, even when I don't get the chance to comment.

[dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com]

Thanks! That'll keep me going for a couple more months. (grin)

Dr. Phil

[nerwengreen.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Well, that quote begs the question - if children can grok hard sci-fi, why can't adults? I guess it's probably some function of how much time the reader has.

I'm a dabbler sort myself. I know what I like but I don't really go out of my way to read everything that the genre has to offer.

[dr-phil-physics.livejournal.com]

Unlike some of the recent literary vs. genre articles, SF and fantasy are too diverse to fit just one genre label. And frankly, just because you like some sci-fi, why in the worlds would anyone expect to like ALL sci-fi? (grin)

Dabbling is GOOD. You can even be a bit omnivorous in your dabbling. Jo Walton has a piece on Tor.com regarding humor and why she can't stand some types (http://www.tor.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=bookmark&content_type=Blog&id=52535) and I understand completely what she's saying.

I like Nick Mamatas' idea that kids learn to read hard SF -- that adults jumping into the middle of it often have a hard time, because they haven't done the workouts to get their brain muscles to stretch in those dimensions. There's "willing suspension of disbelief" and then there's something which should be labeled "willing acceptance of the new and contrary to our reality", which isn't the same sort of thing. Both Star Trek and McHale's Navy require "willing suspension of disbelief", but the SF show requires the mind stretching thing.

And who has the time to read everything anyway? (double-edged-grin)

Dr. Phil