To Cut or not to Cut, that is the Question
I have previously mentioned in other posts that I was a molecular biologist and ICU nurse. Sadly, that means I am bedeviled with a double dose of bad writing habits: academese and medicalese. Just write simply may be the response of many to this post. But, this is a real and possibly incurable condition: http://stevenpinker.com/files/pinker/files/why_academics_stink_at_writing.pdf
Yet others suggest scientists are naturals at storytelling since we make a living translating raw data into a narrative designed to convince others: http://venpopov.com/2017/01/09/all-scientists-should-be-storytellers/
Surely, this isn't a universal issue, Crichton was after all both an academic and a medical doctor. I must admit I was surprised to discover why I was never impressed by his presentation of science; it seemed way to simplified or even wrong to be written by a Harvard trained medical doctor.The reason it isn't good science is because Crichton actually didn't initially write the Andromeda Strain in its final version. His editor, Robert Gottlieb, rejected the story and made Crichton rewrite the story several times until it suited Gottlieb's taste. Here is what Crichton stated about the editing:
When I sent Bob a draft of The Andromeda Strain—the first book I did for him—in 1968 he said he would publish it if I would agree to completely rewrite it. I gulped and said OK. He gave me his feelings about what had to happen on the phone, in about twenty minutes. He was very quick. Anyway, I rewrote it completely. He called me up and said, Well, this is good, now you only have to rewrite half of it. Again, he told me what needed to happen—for the book to begin in what was then the middle, and fill in the material from the beginning sometime later on. Finally we had the manuscript in some kind of shape. I was just completely exhausted. He said to me, Dear boy, you’ve got this ending backwards. (He’s married to an actress, and he has a very theatrical manner. He calls me “dear boy,” like an English actor might do.) I don’t remember exactly the way it was, but I had it so that one of the characters was supposed to turn on a nuclear device, and there was suspense about whether or not that would happen. Bob said, No, no, the switch has to turn itself on automatically, and the character has to turn it off. He was absolutely right. That was the first time I understood that when there is something wrong in writing, the chances are that there is either too much of it, too little of it, or that it is in some way backwards. https://www.theparisreview.org/interviews/1760/robert-gottlieb-the-art-of-editing-no-1-robert-gottlieb
My novel is a fictional piece but I am presenting real science. The first few chapters teach actual science principles that will be used throughout the book, hopefully in a clear, concise format. But, writers HATE to delete their hard-crafted passages. Most of us cannot afford a New York City editor. How are we to know what sections most readers skip and therefore are best deleted to maintain the rapid pace needed in a thriller?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/26046. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.
I think you can intersperse non-fictional material in a book, but it would be helpful if you could start with something that engages your reader with your characters first. I think your book will be more satisfying to you if you can implement your vision for it -- with perhaps some revision -- rather than just scrapping it in order to appeal to a wider audience.
Examples: Barbara Kingsolver, A Walk in the Woods by Bill Bryson, and narrative non-fiction.
You might also want to offer an optional short summary of each chapter of scientific explanation for those who are already familiar with your branch of science, or for those who don't mind having a hazy idea of the science involved. (They might come back and read the details a little later!)
And Lauren is right, you will need to try it out on some beta readers.
0 comment threads
You are either presenting real science principles or you are writing a novel. You can't do both. You might as well say that you are presenting a symphony concert but first you are starting off with a monster truck rally. It's not the same audience. Even if there is a crossover between the two audiences, people who like both symphonies and monster trucks, they don't want them in the same venue.
This is what Creighton is saying in the piece you quote. People do not read the Andromeda strain because they are interested in the science, but because they have an instinctive fear of contagion. It isn't the presentation of the science that matters in such a story, it is the manipulation of fear and hope. If you use technical details it is either to evoke fear or to evoke hope. You use whatever details do that best, regardless of whether they are correct science or not. Correct science is usually full of caveats and complexities that leave people feeling confused rather than afraid or hopeful.
The whole anti-vaccination brigade demonstrate this basic psychology. They need a clearly delineated enemy in which to repose the fear that every parent has for their children's health, and they need one that they can clearly and definitively do something about. Doing something, like refusing vaccinations, gives them a sense of being the hero of the story of their children's lives. Real science muddies that clear and simple heroic storyline.
And that is the problem with real science in novel. Real science is hard to reconcile with clear storylines. That is what Creighton had to learn to deal with and that is what you will have to learn to deal with.
Here's how you cut: If it does not create a clear and well defined threat that corresponds to people's native fears for themselves and their families, or solve such a threat in a clear and well defined way, cut it.
You are writing a novel. A novel is a piece of artifice that corresponds to a particular emotional need in the human heart. Politics, history, mythology, science, etc all provide elements you can borrow and bend to lend verisimilitude to a story, to provide McGuffins when you need them, and to create obstacles to the hero's journey. And that is all they do. A novel is not a textbook. Cut anything is is not contributing to the story.
Or write a text book.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads