Her World Exploded...
Mar. 30th, 2005 03:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sinanjuThey've been discussing the demise of Firefly over on ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
theferret's livejournal. I commented on the topic and yesterday the ferret used that comment as a jumping off point (http://www.livejournal.com/users/theferrett/478138.html) to go into why shows can fail while still attracting fanatical viewers.
I'd read something long ago that described the differences between the protocols involved in reading science fiction as opposed to contemporary fiction. It boils down to two thing, only one of which was really relevant that discussion.
1. SF readers learn not to expect to understand everything right away, to have faith that (assuming a competent writer) all the unfamiliar words, phrases and customs will be explained eventually and will make sense in context. Readers of contemporary fiction don't have that expectation. The story is set in the world they know, so a lot of the background needn't be explained, and the parts that do need explaining are explained immediately. Tom Clancy may show you facets of the world around us you had no idea existed, but he'll also fill you in on what you need to know when it comes up. SF readers might be trained to wait to grok a new concept in the fullness of time, but most mainstream readers aren't so forgiving. It's not a matter of smarts or knowledge--it's a matter of taste. SF readers like that taste or they wouldn't be SF readers.
The sad fact for fans of Firefly and similar shows is that most tv viewers aren't science fiction fans; hell, most readers aren't science fiction fans. So a tv show has to meet the expectations of non-SF readers if its going to succeed, which means that the very thing that often excites SF fans (the fun of piecing together the story world from clues, of creating and discarding theories as more evidence is produced and seeing how well you did at anticipating the author) is a real barrier to widespread acceptance by the viewing audience. Which is why you see hardcore Firefly (or Farscape or whatever) fans bemoaning a show that never developed a sufficient audience to stay afloat. TV SF generally isn't nearly as wild and woolly as written SF, and that's a big part of the reason why (the expense of doing SF as opposed to contemporary shows is another piece).
The other protocol for reading SF?
2. SF readers also have learned to keep an open mind about unusual turns of phrase. If John Grisham writes "her world exploded" the reader knows it to be a metaphor. If Robert Heinlein or Frank Herbert (or David Weber to name an SF writer who is still breathing) wrote that, the reader can't be sure it's a metaphor. It might be literal description of what happened. Consider Kal-El of the late, great planet Krypton.... Turns of phrase that a mainstream author can use with assurance that nobody will misunderstand have to be used carefully by SF writers--they have to make sure the reader doesn't mistake a metaphor for reality or vice versa.
Mickey Spillane can write about "anthropoids in wrinkled suits" and nobody is going to wonder if he means it literally....
theferret's livejournal. I commented on the topic and yesterday the ferret used that comment as a jumping off point (http://www.livejournal.com/users/theferrett/478138.html) to go into why shows can fail while still attracting fanatical viewers.I'd read something long ago that described the differences between the protocols involved in reading science fiction as opposed to contemporary fiction. It boils down to two thing, only one of which was really relevant that discussion.
1. SF readers learn not to expect to understand everything right away, to have faith that (assuming a competent writer) all the unfamiliar words, phrases and customs will be explained eventually and will make sense in context. Readers of contemporary fiction don't have that expectation. The story is set in the world they know, so a lot of the background needn't be explained, and the parts that do need explaining are explained immediately. Tom Clancy may show you facets of the world around us you had no idea existed, but he'll also fill you in on what you need to know when it comes up. SF readers might be trained to wait to grok a new concept in the fullness of time, but most mainstream readers aren't so forgiving. It's not a matter of smarts or knowledge--it's a matter of taste. SF readers like that taste or they wouldn't be SF readers.
The sad fact for fans of Firefly and similar shows is that most tv viewers aren't science fiction fans; hell, most readers aren't science fiction fans. So a tv show has to meet the expectations of non-SF readers if its going to succeed, which means that the very thing that often excites SF fans (the fun of piecing together the story world from clues, of creating and discarding theories as more evidence is produced and seeing how well you did at anticipating the author) is a real barrier to widespread acceptance by the viewing audience. Which is why you see hardcore Firefly (or Farscape or whatever) fans bemoaning a show that never developed a sufficient audience to stay afloat. TV SF generally isn't nearly as wild and woolly as written SF, and that's a big part of the reason why (the expense of doing SF as opposed to contemporary shows is another piece).
The other protocol for reading SF?
2. SF readers also have learned to keep an open mind about unusual turns of phrase. If John Grisham writes "her world exploded" the reader knows it to be a metaphor. If Robert Heinlein or Frank Herbert (or David Weber to name an SF writer who is still breathing) wrote that, the reader can't be sure it's a metaphor. It might be literal description of what happened. Consider Kal-El of the late, great planet Krypton.... Turns of phrase that a mainstream author can use with assurance that nobody will misunderstand have to be used carefully by SF writers--they have to make sure the reader doesn't mistake a metaphor for reality or vice versa.
Mickey Spillane can write about "anthropoids in wrinkled suits" and nobody is going to wonder if he means it literally....
