site banner
ArjinFerman  Tinfoil Gigachad  22d ago (text post)   478 thread views

Tinker Tuesday for October 29, 2024

This thread is for anyone working on personal projects to share their progress, and hold themselves somewhat accountable to a group of peers.

Post your project, your progress from last week, and what you hope to accomplish this week.

If you want to be pinged with a reminder asking about your project, let me know, and I'll harass you each week until you cancel the service

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I have continued to write the story I'm working on, albeit slowly. I'm currently over 12,300 words, which is nearly the length of Ted Chiang's Story Of Your Life, and I'm probably about a quarter of the way through so far.

Wondering what TheMotte's opinion on lengthy scientific exposition in sci-fi is. I currently have a big block of speculative biochemistry in the latter half of the current draft of the story, and some of my beta-readers... don't like it. I've tried to simplify it so it's understandable while still maintaining the necessary verisimilitude, but in general I get the feeling it might be too much. Personally, I've always liked large infodumps of speculative science in my fiction, the chapter Orphanogenesis in Diaspora with its detailed and lengthy descriptions of how the conceptory creates an orphan is probably one of my favourite openings to a story ever, but in general this kind of thing seems to make people's eyes glaze over.

some general comments:

  • The cortical modems are pretty cool and you've clearly done your homework here. Great name too. Nice.
  • I think there are too many adjectives, and superfluous bundles of adjectives ("strange exotic castle"). A lot of the description also feels generic, especially for how interesting the setting is.
  • Nobody seems to smell or taste anything, even when eating we just get texture. If this is deliberate due to radiation poisoning, that's cool, I like it, maybe make it clearer tho?
  • I'm not feeling the opening, it's slow, I don't like the opening paragraph. It doesn't feel like there is any conflict or tension. The main character opens by telling me he's basically a walking corpse. No chance of survival. None of the characters care about what they're doing. So I feel like the stakes could not be lower, and it's hard for me to care about the action on the page. This doesn't seem to change.
  • I felt there was potential for a much more engaging opening, though, with the reactor explosion or a fakeout with the cortical modems + first person perspective.
  • I also think the opening jumps into dense exposition about the mission background way too quickly, before I had any reason to care about these characters or why they are there.
  • I don't find any of the main characters interesting or likable. Watts' characters are not likable either, but they are all interesting.
  • Things just seem to happen to the protagonist. I didn't feel like he had any agency.
  • I think the flashbacks and shift to omniscient third should be avoided if not necessary. I think you can find ways around chopping up the structure like this. For example, you already have literal head-hopping tech in the modems.

And on exposition - First decide who you are writing for. Greg Egan writes for quite a different audience compared to Watts. If you are going for a niche audience like Egan then you're going to need to find beta readers who are part of that audience.

If you are writing for a more general audience like Watts then I don't like a lot of this exposition. If you study the way Watts provides info, it is relevant to the narrative, and expressed in a way that allows a non-expert to understand it. This is part of the skill of this type of science fiction writing, taking some obscure speculative science concept and presenting it in a way that is comprehensible and evocative, such that it is a crucial part of the story and the audience is actually interested in how it works for that reason.

A couple of examples - I don't understand why you tell us the orbital parameters of planet nine when introducing it. Even if the semi-major axis is somehow crucial to the story later on, readers are not going to remember that. Also, being more evocative with the detail that you do provide - "semi-major axis of 545 AU" vs, for example, "the Sun hung as one pinprick amongst thousands; Planet Nine was brushing the apex of its orbit, over five hundred times further from its parent than Earth." Sometimes I felt like I was reading an excerpt from a scientific paper, not prose.

Second example, the cortical modems, which are cool, but when you introduce them we get a bunch of jargon about how they work before you actually show us their effects in prose. In my opinion this should always be the other way around. Show us what it does, and then the audience thinks, oh, this is cool, I wonder how it works, then you can bust out the exposition (woven into the narrative in a comprehensible and evocative way, of course, rather than all dumped at once).

All just my two cents of course.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats