Sci-fi change: Too much or Not enough
I am in the process of editing a short story. It is science fiction of the "if this goes on" kind: I take a social trend I see, and paint its event horizon - a troubling future. 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 are classical examples.
I have received two seemingly contradictory critiques from beta readers: one says
This is too much, this is a strawman, you are weakening your argument by presenting the extreme edge of the phenomenon you wish to engage with rather than its mainstream.
The other says:
This is not enough. If you give that phenomenon free reign, it would go much further, get much worse than what you present. You weaken your story by keeping it too tame, by not going far enough.
How do I listen to both my beta readers here? What is hiding behind the contradictory critique? I can see how there is truth in what each of them says, but how do I combine the two?
Perhaps exacerbating the problem is the fact that this is a short story. I have very limited space to set up what I have set out to explore.
Every reader comes at a work with a different perspective. One reader may not even notice the elements that are central …
5y ago
> you are weakening your argument by presenting the extreme edge of the phenomenon you wish to engage with rather than i …
5y ago
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.
Every reader comes at a work with a different perspective. One reader may not even notice the elements that are central for another.
The only way to find out if your two beta readers were focusing on different things is to ask them. When a society changes fundamentally, especially when leading to dystopia, it will change multiple elements and all to different degrees.
Gender roles, employment protections, who rears children, the weight of the military in the society, prison systems, divides between rich and poor, racial disparity, education, safety of the air and water, the appearance of the night sky, how much nature is left (or has it taken over), and so much more.
Perhaps your first reader felt the ecological changes you were suggesting were too extreme and your second reader felt that the role of children in the society would change a lot more than you showed. But if they were both talking about, say, your portrayals of requirements for military service, then it's trickier to figure out.
More beta readers and more details from the ones you have are your solution.
0 comment threads
you are weakening your argument by presenting the extreme edge of the phenomenon you wish to engage with rather than its mainstream.
That can be true, at one extreme (IRL) people get out and picket a studio for canceling a favorite series, calling for boycotts. The mainstream says, "Damn, I liked that show. Too bad," and moves on. But once in a while the 1% on the picket line win, by scaring the studio, or reversing an arbitrary decision, or whatever, and in that case, the extreme has an impact on the mainstream: The series comes back from the dead, perhaps for a final season, perhaps longer.
You need to show in your story why the extreme matters to the mainstream, how the extreme pulls it, or causes hardships for it, or creates guilt for it.
For example, climate refugees, fleeing starvation or drought or widespread crop failure and starvation, have impacts by flooding other countries with refugees, past the breaking point of their capacity to care for any more. What happens then becomes a matter for the "mainstream", a lot of complacent people that are not refugees but suddenly feel overwhelmed by them. That leads to a rise of nationalism, bigotry, racial or religious prejudice, and that in turn can have a counter-push of tolerance and altruism and seeking answers to the problem, and all of that can play out in politics that affects everyone.
It doesn't take a lot of poison to infect the whole body.
This is not enough. If you give that phenomenon free reign, it would go much further, get much worse than what you present.
Well, that could be a simple misunderstanding. Nearly all natural phenomenon have some braking mechanism. Imagine a company starting out, say a restaurant chain. A few good places have grown at exponential rates, doubling the number of outlets every year. But even if their profit structure supports that, it won't continue indefinitely, because the market is not infinitely large. It is going to level off someday, so will their revenue, and their profit.
The USA grew rapidly, but it leveled off, before we even took Canada and Mexico.
Look for the braking mechanism. It may even be the death of everybody, but there is likely some limit, somewhere. We have physical braking mechanisms, and emotional braking mechanisms (revolution, war, crimes of desperation), and political braking mechanisms, and "scientific" braking mechanisms -- even though some things are theoretically physically possible, we haven't been able to scientifically figure out how to do it. You might call that a cognitive braking mechanism, our ability to innovate and come up with new stuff can only go so far. We have that problem with fundamental physics right now, the theories of physics have been stalled over forty years, since the 70s.
By explaining the braking mechanism, you make it plausible that no, your phenomenon isn't occurring in a vacuum and will not accelerate forever, it is interacting with other things (dependent on or affecting) that will sooner or later slow it down. Nothing, ever, goes to infinity. (But many things can decline to zero.)
0 comment threads
0 comment threads