In a recent
interview with Scott Timberg, Neal Stephenson had this to say about his high-concept novels:
There
are a lot of ideas that bang around. They're kind of like seeds which
fall on barren ground.... On a good day, I can take one of these ideas
and see how it fits in with some characters and a story. And then I've
got something. If that's not there, then it's all a complete waste of
time.
Zing! Choirs of affirmative angels and such, the kind that are really sucking up to the Almighty.
That sort of thing is endemic in the Sci-Fi/Fantasy/SpecFic corner of the universe, particularly among folks who are just starting out. To wit:
I've built a whole future society based on hacking and I've created this alternative tribal culture that lives underground in the old subway systems and there's this whole new way of moving information around and I've created maps of the subway warrens and designed logos that can go on tee-shirts!Cool! What's it about?
It's about this guy who lives in this future society that's based on hacking who's part of this alternative tribal culture that lives underground in
the old subway systems and he knows all about this whole new way of moving
information around and he's got maps of the subway warrens and wears goggles and this cool leather trench coat with this logo on the back that
can go on tee-shirts!Uh-huh.
I won't belabor the point, because it's obvious and wouldn't even be worth making, except for the fact that it doesn't always manifest itself with the clarity of my straw example. World-building is necessary, but if that's all you've got, then you haven't got much.
Stephen King
puts it another way:
Write to entertain. Does this mean you can't write "serious fiction"? It does not. Somewhere along the line pernicious critics have invested the American reading and writing public with the idea that entertaining fiction and serious ideas do not overlap. This would have surprised Charles Dickens, not to mention Jane Austen, John Steinbeck, William Faulkner, Bernard Malamud, and hundreds of others. But your serious ideas must always serve your story, not the other way around. I repeat: if you want to preach, get a soapbox.
He
would say that, wouldn't he? Regardless of the self-justifying tinge, the man's got a point, and it's the same one that Stephenson made: neat ideas aren't enough.
Where it gets tricky and annoying is when you think you've avoided the Neat Idea Trap. You've focused on characters and their interactions, and they move through the the world you've created like you or I move through ours--that is, without focusing on every little detail--and they've got arcs to get through, and then
pow! You suddenly realize that your Neat Idea isn't your world, it's the people in it. Your characters are vehicles for your ideas, rather than people in their own right. They exist to express your thematic leanings, rather than support a story. And then you're stuck with a bunch of hollow people stumbling around banging into each other instead of entertaining the reader. After that it's all
Tito's and shotguns and the belated realization that a corner apartment isn't really defensible even if it's on the second floor and has a pretty decent field of fire from the living room window.
Not that I've ever found myself in such a morass of head-pounding dumbfuckery. Not me. Smoooth narrative sailing, yes indeed.
RECENT COMMENTS
BobSmith on Can't stop the signal: "I too, hear a beeping from the dumpster outsi..."
Eileen Workman on The Dance of Veils: "Lovely, lovely, lovely...the eternal dancer, ..."
DaveW on The Dance of Veils: "Love (as they say) it!..."
Ian Wood on Incidentally: "True, true. I shall imagine the story and add..."