Does the concept come before other "literary devices" in philosophical science fiction?
I have read in a few books about writing science fiction that a compelling concept should override considerations for character, and possibly other things like setting or plot. I have the notion to write in a subgenre of science fiction known as philosophical science fiction (see here or here). Is what I stated really true in science fiction in general, and philosophical science fiction in particular?
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/27509. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
All bestselling fiction has a strong concept. The concept is the red thread that leads the reader through the story. It is the reference point against which the actions of the characters become meaningful.
I have been admonished by this site's community for saying so, but it is a banal truth that not all readers are highly intelligent. If you want to appeal to the less intellectual part of the reading public, you will have to provide (besides a simple language and uncomplicated characters) clear and unmistakable directions through your story. These directions, or this guide, is your concept.
Hollywood movies and million-selling books usually have a very simple, very clearly stated, and unmistakeable concept, and for all these the concept comes first.
As a writer, you can think of concept as the ground on which the character arc rests.
In literary fiction – another term many members of this community despise – all considerations for your readers may be set aside. In literary fiction you do not write to sell, but to realize an artistic vision. Therefore, that vision comes first. It may or may not entail a concept.
Where you place yourself between these two extremes is your decision.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/40471. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
If you lead with a compelling concept, you should write an essay. A story is not, principally, about exploring an idea. Principally it is about creating an experience. Creating an experience can be a fantastic way to explore the implications of an idea. But it can only do so effectively if it is first and foremost a compelling experience. We don't receive the philosophical implications of the experience if we don't first receive the experience itself in all of its force.
Think about Flowers for Algernon. The concept is simple: Mentally handicapped man receives treatment that makes him smart enough to figure out that the effect of his treatment is temporary. By itself, the concept is a punchline of a rather cruel joke. But that is not how we remember the book. We remember a profoundly moving experience of a man's personal tragedy. The whole story is built on a concept, and yet it is not the concept, but the personal story that moves us, that makes us remember Flowers for Algernon when so many other stories quickly fade from memory.
A concept, in other words, is never compelling in itself. A hundred other writers might have tackled the same concept and made something completely forgettable (and maybe they did). It is the characters and the writing and the vividness and poignancy of telling that make Flowers for Algernon compelling. So it must be with any story.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads