This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
As a big fan of scifi and an aspiring writer myself, I feel the need to point out that a lot of "classic" scifi that won awards is actually probably much worse than this. A lot of stuff by early guys like Asimov is incredibly dry and has no character development. It was often a vehicle for a concept more than a story. The only modern scifi writer who gets away with that now is the "three body problem" author, Liu Cixin. Outside of his original book, the three body problem, which is a masterpiece, his other books are total dumpster fires. (EDIT:I probably shouldn't have said the only one, but having a good concept and nothing else and finding success is rare now)
So you may be right about this book (I havent read it) but your insinuation that writers couldn't have gotten away with this poor quality in the past is definitely wrong. In the past scifi novels catered to young men with little exposure to good writing, and it showed.
I agree. Of the big three: Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein - Heinlein is the only one I enjoy, and he definitely wrote some stinkers. Asimov and Clarke write grand ideas, but their prose is dry and their characters are cardboard. For some people, Big Dumb Objects in space or Big Galactic Empires are enough, but I've never found them that interesting.
(I will admit I liked Asimov's I, Robot as a kid, though.)
Most sci fi conceptual stories would be best told as a short story; The Egg is great, despite having only a single flat character. Foundation I enjoyed a lot as kid but will never read again; adding rich characters would detract heavily from their impact, which is why e.g. the television adaption was terrible.
(On the other hand, 2001 was a great movie, better than the book.)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So you've never read "The Bicentennial Man"?
Asimov was known for his spare writing style, of course. The "no character development" thing is also usually tossed at him. The problem with the claim is twofold. One, it's usually referring to the short stories. Well, there's only so much room in short stories. Two, it generally ignores the characters of the robots.
What little truth remains after those considerations goes back to the two conceptions of the novel championed (respectively) by Henry James and H.G. Wells, the novel of character and the novel of incident. James prevailed and the novel of character became "mainstream literature". It's not reasonable to expect science fiction -- which descends largely from Wells -- to follow the conventions of mainstream literature; if it did it wouldn't be science fiction.
More options
Context Copy link
IMO that isn't really worthy of much criticism. Character development is icing, not the cake. You can have a good story with a good plot and bad characters, but not vice versa.
Eh, it all matters. Sure, character development is more "icing" but the characters themselves are crucial. A bad character can ruin a story. Decisions that make no sense are just as much plot holes as any other inconsistency.
I would not agree that the characters themselves are crucial. Look at the Foundation stories by Asimov. The characters are paper thin, but those stories are still wonderful. If I were going to try to formulate a rule, it would be something like: your characters don't have to be detailed, as long as they are still plausible in their actions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This makes it good. Not all literature needs to have the same characteristics, character development can be good in scifi but I don't think it's actually required in the same way it is in other genres. You don't need character development in the foundation series because the characters are stand ins for massive crushing historical trends. I adore the destiny's crucible series knowing the writing is sub par and the characters he's decided to transplant from modern day to a pre-industrial world are... suspicious because the concept carries the story. If the author is also a great writer with interesting characters that's a plus but when looking for a scifi novel, at least for me, it's concept first.
Concept is useful but there is no reason not to add solid writing to a concept. It's very hard to care about "crushing historical trends" when you just don't care about any individuals. That's just how people work. Even history is much more interesting through the lense of a Hannibal, Thutmoses III, or Joan of Arc.
I did not find this hard at all. The idea of the religious atomics cult using their monopoly on atomics and obfuscating how they work through rituals that are half pointless was fascinating. That the only name I remember from the series is Hari Seldon takes nothing away from the experience to me. I can't say I care at all what was going on in the personal life of the head priest, it's totally unrelated to the central thesis and leaving it out is great time saving. If you have something interesting to say about how these happening impact relationships, sure, say it. But if the world is going to be mainly populated by the kind of people I already know in the real world then what's the point? You're just going to get another awful forced romance to prove that love exists in every universe, blegh.
Perhaps we're typical minding each other, I absolutely don't think this is true.
More options
Context Copy link
You haven't provided evidence for assertion. More importantly, even you did, ad populum is a logical fallacy thus not proving the benefits of "character development". Personally, I care more about worldbuilding, than deeply written characters experiencing roller coasters of emotion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link