|
|
Post by scintor on Dec 28, 2008 1:39:20 GMT -5
I was thinking about plot devices in Sci-Fi that drive me nuts. So that I'm not just whining, I will include an example of both how to do it wrong and how to do it right.
OK my first example is nanotechnology.
Bad:
The nanobots are attacking! They eat everything and turn it into more of themselves! If we don't destroy the heart at the center of their spaceship, they will eat the entire planet! (Justice League Unlimited plot)
The basis of the plot is the Linerian Hydra which if you cut off its head, two more grew in its place. They are using the term nanotechnology as technobable to "explain" when it actually doesn't explain anything. A machine that can eat dirt and make armored robots could concievably make anything at anytime and destroys the basis of work and the economy in your universe. Everyone now gets anything for nothing, and the universe falls apart.
Good:
Well I have good news for you Mr. Morgan. We have a new cure for your type of cancer that doesn't require us cutting out a large part of your brain. It requires injecting millions of tiny nanites into your brain that home in on the cancer cells and release a toxin that destroys the cells near it and then releases the antitoxin a few seconds later. We will have to use a dyalasis machine to remove them form your blood over the next several days so that they don't damage your kidneys.
This introduces the technology in a useful way that doesn't tear the world apart.
If there is interest in this topic, I will add more ideas over time.
Scincerely,
Scintor@aol.com
PS reposted from lost genre guild forum
|
|
|
|
Post by J Jack on Dec 28, 2008 2:10:32 GMT -5
I must agree, although I like the Lazarus Vendetta way of introducing it. They brought in a group of scientists, and the army doctor who would be the main character, and showed you around a pristine facility. They were creating nanobots, and they introduced them in a genius way, they were being created to cure cancer in rats. But there were one in a billion reaction badly, instead attacking healthy cells.
My personal pet peeve in Sci Fi...the alien race introduction. They are good, but oh no all of a sudden BAD death and destruction. (See, day earth stood still, mars attacks, multiple stargate episodes)
|
|
|
|
Post by iconoclast on Dec 28, 2008 8:27:48 GMT -5
Three that get me into  mode: 1) A utopia that is actually a dystopia - no kidding? (Brave New World, 1984, V for Vendetta, Matrix etc). 2) The superhero with all of those darn amazing superhero abilities. 3) The suave foreigner who just happens to be the villian - note all of those British accents in American movies... |
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Dec 28, 2008 10:00:11 GMT -5
Counterpoint here: I work with a lot of unpublished manuscripts and you'd be surprised how many of them have no OR-ELSE element. If the hero fails to do the thing he's trying to do, the consequence will be...um...nothing.
In my Tips column I talk about planting a ticking time-bomb in your story, something bad that will happen if the hero doesn't succeed. But many novelists don't include these, which renders their stories boring to read. Me, I'd rather have a silly plot device driving tension than nothing driving tension at all.
But I do agree that using silly OR-ELSE time-bombs is usually lazy writing. It's the equivalent of passing on forwarded e-mail warnings or spouting some scientific fact you've seen on Entertainment Tonight.
It takes hard work and discipline and actual thought to research deeply enough to find a more plausible OR-ELSE.
The problem is that some of the more realistic ones are boring. If the hero fails to accomplish his goal, then...the PC will need to be restarted...? Sometimes you do the research and still decide to go with something you know is implausible--if it will make for a good story and provide good suspense.
The first two books of my original trilogy had OR-ELSE factors that simply can't happen with today's technology. My question is...so? I had one person give me a terrible review that could be summarized in one phrase: "Everyone knows routers don't work like that!" But besides that, no one seemed to care.
When we come to SF/Fantasy we're more willing than usual to suspend disbelief. So long as you're internally consistent with your story, we're ready to just go, "Okay," and enjoy the story.
Jeff
|
|
|
|
Post by scintor on Dec 28, 2008 18:03:33 GMT -5
I wasn't saying that that you shouldn't have a climactic problem, just that it shouldn't be a bad plot device. My current WIP has multiple waves of an alien invasion. I was just saying that you should think out the consequences of the plot devices that you introduce. Introducing matter conversion or a mind reading device to your world will produce huge changes in your world and if no one notices such a change, there are problems with the story.
Scincerely,
Scintor@aol.com
|
|
|
|
Post by torainfor on Dec 28, 2008 18:47:02 GMT -5
Which do you think is more prone to derivation and blatant theft--fantasy (i.e.: Eragon) or SciFi?
|
|
|
|
Post by scintor on Dec 28, 2008 19:00:55 GMT -5
Three that get me into mode: 1) A utopia that is actually a dystopia - no kidding? (Brave New World, 1984, V for Vendetta, Matrix etc). [\quote] Utopias and dystopias are both bad things. People don't work well in either and they tend to be unworkable. Now that's not to say that cautionary tails are not appropriate or that you cannot try to show the way to a brighter future. You just need to be very careful about how you do it. |
|
|
|
Post by dizzyjam on Dec 28, 2008 19:24:41 GMT -5
I wasn't saying that that you shouldn't have a climactic problem, just that it shouldn't be a bad plot device. My current WIP has multiple waves of an alien invasion. I was just saying that you should think out the consequences of the plot devices that you introduce. Introducing matter conversion or a mind reading device to your world will produce huge changes in your world and if no one notices such a change, there are problems with the story. Scincerely, Scintor@aol.com Describe no one noticing. If the hero is dealing with it, isn't the hero noticing? What if said plot device is to be considered "commonplace" in that story's world? If someone wrote a story about our world and they were from somewhere (or somewhen) else, why would that one go out of the way to point out a pencil when a pencil in our world is commonplace? Or what if the hero is used to dealing with strange and unusual occurances? Then the "not noticing" would fit totally right in. So describe no one noticing, please. |
|
|
|
Post by jdogink on Dec 28, 2008 21:23:31 GMT -5
"Utopias and dystopias are both bad things. People don't work well in either and they tend to be unworkable. Now that's not to say that cautionary tails are not appropriate or that you cannot try to show the way to a brighter future. You just need to be very careful about how you do it."
Ooo, but I like dystopian science fiction. My latest work has dystopian elements. I actually touch on the idea of the "mark of the beast" but gently (hopefully!)...no where along the lines of "Left Behind". I will say that it was hard. First of all, my protagonist is depressed in the beginning...due in part to the oppressive living standards, so it was difficult to make her interesting. And, well, I tried hard to avoid the "cheese factor" all throughout the work, which I suppose may be another way of saying bad scifi plot devices.
|
|
|
|
Post by seraphim on Dec 28, 2008 22:50:39 GMT -5
I thought there were a whole host of bad/questionable SFF plot devices:
It was all just a dream.
He was called Adam and she was called Eve,
Thin retellings of well known Bible stories,
And then they escaped/turned off the video game.
The Catholic Church/Hebrews in outer SPACE Space space
The cleverly unidentified invading monsters turn out to be humans
Single male BEM looking for SWF, objective Matrimony...or dinner as matrimony
etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Spokane Flyboy on Dec 28, 2008 23:50:10 GMT -5
I think a dystopia is more workable than a utopia given that the utopia requires everyone to get along perfectly and make no mistakes that might trigger each other's rage. History hasn't shown any such civilization, but it has shown dystopia societies.
|
|
|
|
Post by jdogink on Dec 29, 2008 6:57:25 GMT -5
I thought of one last night. It might not be a bad plot device, but I realized I had never questioned it. That is, a "force field". What IS a "force field" anyway. How would science go about creating a "force field"? I realize the whole idea of space travel to other galaxies is still a very far-fetched idea. But, I wonder if the DoD has played around with the idea of creating an "invisible wall" of altered matter. That would be pretty neat if they could figure it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jeff Gerke on Dec 29, 2008 8:52:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jdogink on Dec 29, 2008 21:49:08 GMT -5
sweeeeeet
|
|
|
|
Post by J Jack on Dec 29, 2008 23:43:36 GMT -5
My friend, an aspiring musician, mentioned today that an energy field would never work. He made a valid point, you can't harness energy into a solid form.
Waves, particles, all that...how would they become particle cannons, microwave tanks, energy shields, and all that? Channel the energy, ok, that might work. But creating a wall of said energy? You're better off trying to make a firewall, that being said they lose all manner of defense as you get higher. He makes a good point methinks.
|
|
mode:
