- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 7,698
I wonder if sometimes, when people come to write SFF, their experience of science fiction and fantasy isn't based in other writing, but in things that have been on the screen.
The visual media are better suited to depicting certain things. The awe of a vast battle scene is probably easier to do on screen. Likewise anything that requires movement or a sense of speed. An in-depth character study is easier in print, because you can literally read the character's thoughts. Epic statements of the sort you get in films ("The two mightiest empires in history tore each other apart without mercy or remorse", "Can a man who loses his soul win the struggle to regain it" etc) often just feel a bit empty and fake when written down.
In visual media, some things are treated superficially in a way that you couldn't do in a novel. Say the hero's son is killed by aliens. On screen, the hero rages, goes quiet, swears revenge and takes it entertainingly. In a book, this just isn't enough: it's not convincing. Films, shows and, especially, games, are much cruder in this way. They can use stereotyped characters and situations and get away with it. I don't think prose writers can.
Then there's the issue that the cutting edge of ideas has often been in print. The Matrix may have been unusual as a film, but its ideas of false reality were being discussed by Philip K Dick in the 1970s. Not having that background runs the risk of repeating old ideas (as is often said when non-genre writers turn their hand to SFF).
I wonder if this will have a lasting effect on the genre?
The visual media are better suited to depicting certain things. The awe of a vast battle scene is probably easier to do on screen. Likewise anything that requires movement or a sense of speed. An in-depth character study is easier in print, because you can literally read the character's thoughts. Epic statements of the sort you get in films ("The two mightiest empires in history tore each other apart without mercy or remorse", "Can a man who loses his soul win the struggle to regain it" etc) often just feel a bit empty and fake when written down.
In visual media, some things are treated superficially in a way that you couldn't do in a novel. Say the hero's son is killed by aliens. On screen, the hero rages, goes quiet, swears revenge and takes it entertainingly. In a book, this just isn't enough: it's not convincing. Films, shows and, especially, games, are much cruder in this way. They can use stereotyped characters and situations and get away with it. I don't think prose writers can.
Then there's the issue that the cutting edge of ideas has often been in print. The Matrix may have been unusual as a film, but its ideas of false reality were being discussed by Philip K Dick in the 1970s. Not having that background runs the risk of repeating old ideas (as is often said when non-genre writers turn their hand to SFF).
I wonder if this will have a lasting effect on the genre?