Subtlety

4 Comments

Subtlety in fiction often includes not explicitly saying what a character does or why they do it—leaving it up to the reader to be able to figure that out.

So I think part of why some science fiction readers (including, to some extent, me) are sometimes a little dubious about that kind of subtlety is that some of us are geeky enough that we don't necessarily understand (or entirely trust our own understanding of) some human behavior.

We humans spend a lot of time interpreting other people's behavior. We watch what they do and listen to what they say, and watch their faces and bodies as they say things (if we can see them), and we make guesses as to their motivations.

And most of the time most of us are pretty good at it. But I suspect that to some readers, certain stories read like puzzles—not science puzzles, but human-behavior puzzles. And if you're good at solving science and math puzzles, but not so good at interpreting human behavior, then you may end up feeling frustrated and dumb. And if you're like me, you hate feeling dumb.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying that we're back to the Audience Question. What can you assume about your readers? Will their cultural expectations color their reading of the story? (Hint: The answer is yes.)

On the other hand, the readers who do have the cultural background that you're expecting will be bored and annoyed if you spell it all out for them. Hell, I get annoyed at the obligatory explanation of the Many-Worlds Interpretation that's required by law to appear in every alternate history story not written by Howard Waldrop—but my first exposure to that idea came from science fiction stories, and authors and editors have to assume that at least some readers won't be familiar with the idea.

As usual, I have no answers.

4 Responses to “Subtlety”

  1. Hannah

    I have this theory that sf-y types aren’t all that much more socially inept than any other group.

    It’s the self-definition thing… We’re not supposed to be good with people, so maybe we’re painfully aware of our every little mistake. Mileage will vary, of course, and I know I sure feel people-stupid most of the time.

    But everyone I’ve talked to about it–geeky or otherwise–has claimed to be lacking in social skills. It’s just that they don’t admit it unless asked.

    reply

  2. Trent

    I was just thinking about this in a number of regards, but I do believe the best fiction provides enough clues to what’s going on. This goes for real life as well. Witness Bill Clinton’s blog:

    http://billclintonbookmylife.blogspot.com/

    I’d never understood him before. Oh, sure, I had glimpses of the real man, but almost always a veneer.

    My feeling, anyway, is that we should get a feel for the character, so that his actions make sense.

    reply

  3. Jay Lake

    Gene Wolfe is a master at this. FIFTH HEAD OF CERBERUS has an entire story line hidden within the text. I used to call the technique “unrevealed backstory”, which isn’t exactly accurate either, but is a little more specific than simply thinking of the work as being subtle.

    reply

  4. metasilk

    I rather liked the explanations of Many Worlds (which I first came across in Hogan’s Thrice Upon a Time, which I read in high school). I think this is because I come across them in books which are playing around with the physics as a major part of the book–not just of the plot, either, and I like that hard sf–and not alternative histories (which I rather think can and should stand on their own merits). I suppose I don’t read enough other-history, or (sometimes) when I do, I know too little history to recognize it as such… ah well.

    Funny how I *like* exposition in books like Forward’s and can’t stand it in Stephenson. Must be topic-preference…

    reply

Join the Conversation

Click here to cancel reply.