Posted: 21 April 2013 at 5:12pm | IP Logged | 3
|
|
|
Matt, I think one thing we both agree on is that whatever rules are made up by the writers, they should remain behind the scenes. While it's okay to drop tidbits here and there in exposition, they should never take the place of actual storytelling.
So handled properly -- as they are in a lot of SF literature -- the reader is never told the rules, but it's clear by what's going on that the writer is following them. This has a consequence of forcing the writer to write within the constraints forced upon him by those rules.
A simplified example might be: "How come we never see stories about Spider-Man flying under his own power?" Obviously, because Spider-Man can't fly under his own power. Even if the writer has a wonderful idea for a "flying Spider-Man" story, he can't do it. At least, he can't do it if he doesn't want to damage Spider-Man's (and his own) credibility.
So setting parameters is important. Even having fairly complex rules is okay as long as the reader isn't directly exposed to that complexity. Of course, writers will try to mine that ruleset for story ideas. Lesser experienced writers will seize on the first thing that tickles their imagination. Better writers will be choosier, and only use ideas that reinforce the core of the character. I would imagine it would be up to editorial to act as gatekeeper in that regard.
I don't need to know how far away the Planet is from Kent's apartment, mainly because such a fact would pretty much never come up in a story in any relevant way. But I might want to have a grasp on how his x-ray vision works, since it's used fairly often. If I were writing Superman, I sure as hell would have worked out exactly how his x-ray vision works -- consulting a physicist if I had to. I don't think I would ever offer up that explanation in any Superman story, but I would always make sure his use of that power fit with the model I had worked out.
|