Rationality fiction --- Telling too much vs. Telling too little

[Greedya]

I'm writing a story that is based loosely on rationality. It is quite philosophical (if you have read Plato's work on Socrates's life then you know what this is like) and scientifically methodological (unlike sci-fi, which focuses on theory and application, I put emphasis on the methods, e.g. how to construct theories).

 

I am having a dilemma here. If I tell the readers too much, it would be an easy read and it won't be fun. I guess readers have fun only if I am a little cryptic and force them to think. But...But if I tell too little, the story would be incomprehensible. Too difficult to digest.

 

The main problem, therefore, is: I don't know the line. I understand that most people don't read Plato and stuffs like that... but I find it surprising that Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality (MoR) is one of the most popular Harry Potter fanfics. MoR isn't an easy read, especially in later chapters. But people are still intrigued and read on.

 

I am struggling on some parts in my upcoming chapter. For instance, I want to edit the following paragraph to be more reader-friendly, but explaining more seems to me like suicide. I bet some readers are not familiar with terms like 'quantifiable', 'digitisable', 'the machine language' (Assembly language), etc...However, explaining those terms would lose its charm and bore readers who already understand the terms. Any idea?

(this paragraph follows a scene in which Charles was given a green light by an identification system that checks retina, fingerprints, etc.)

 

Charles didn't like that. He was fine with the procedure, but he wasn't okay with the underlying philosophy. Who was Charles Darwin? According to technology, Charles Darwin was what he was (body), what he had (student card), and what he knew (password). Everything was definable, quantifiable, and digitisable. He sometimes thought he was a faked being, an artificial being, maybe a clone, maybe an AI. He didn't know. But he couldn't help feeling that he had to be checked against something or someone 'more real' in order to confirm that he was real.

 

Wasn't it sad that human identities were reduced to

zeros and ones

– the machine language?

 

Thanks!

[Nephylim]

I think that, like with every other author, you need to consider what market you are aiming for. It's not only about whether people are able to grasp the philosophical concepts but whether they want to. Think where are you putting the story and why do most people go there. If it's for pure escapism then they are not going to be reading philosophy because they don't want to have to that hard.

 

With regard to the chapter you posted it seems fine to me except that I really don't understand that sudden leap from... the underlying philosophy... to... Who was Charles Darwin?

 

 

[Cia]

One... who are you writing this for? Do you understand what you wrote? Does it make sense to you? Okay, I know the whole thing of what's the purpose of writing if people can't read what you write versus you only write for yourself is a total catch 22. I love when readers enjoy my stories but I don't sit down and write a story going, "I think that they would like it if I had this in my story versus that." I worry about what I see for the story and how to best express the idea I have. I think you should do the same. I don't know the context of this paragraph you wrote or why Charlie is thinking this way or what events have precipitated this thinking but reading what you wrote in 'my terms' I get this:

 

Charlie is having his identity verified by a machine that is checking his image, his identification card and a password he has been given to memorize. He is wondering the validity of the fact that a machine decides if the person standing before it is actually him or not by those few details but what makes those things 'what he is?' When was that essential question, 'What makes me, ME?' that most people are constantly seeking to find boiled down to a few specific details that is judgeable by something as mundane as a machine with all it's limitations? And if that is really possible what does that make him?

 

Okay, so maybe I'm pretty far off base. I don't hold degrees, I'm not a genius, I don't actually like reading philosophical treatises or debates for the most part. I do like a story that makes me question things and reevaluate the concepts I think I know or believe in. I like them a lot better couched in a fictional tale that doesn't bore me than a dry article that poses the questions for me to consider without giving me someone to compare and relate to. If you have something you are trying to work out in your own mind and it's coming out in a story that is filled with things that intrigue you then by all means, keep writing how you feel comfortable. But will 'dumbing' it down for people perhaps make it more readable by the masses and keep still it true to the vision you have for it? Will it affect your satisfaction if you do that?

[AnytaSunday]

(this paragraph follows a scene in which Charles was given a green light by an identification system that checks retina, fingerprints, etc.)

 

Charles didn't like that. He was fine with the procedure, but he wasn't okay with the underlying philosophy. Who was Charles Darwin? According to technology, Charles Darwin was what he was (body), what he had (student card), and what he knew (password). Everything was definable, quantifiable, and digitisable. He sometimes thought he was a faked being, an artificial being, maybe a clone, maybe an AI. He didn't know. But he couldn't help feeling that he had to be checked against something or someone 'more real' in order to confirm that he was real.

 

Wasn't it sad that human identities were reduced to zeros and ones

[Greedya]

I think that, like with every other author, you need to consider what market you are aiming for.

 

Thanks Nephy. Honestly I don't get to know the audience of gay fiction yet. From what I observe, stories that hit the readers on GA are mostly about romance and coming out, unless you are an established author, of course. I'm considering revising this story for straight audience lol. I know them better.

[Greedya]

Thank you very much Cia, for a thoughtful reply.

I don't sit down and write a story going, "I think that they would like it if I had this in my story versus that." I worry about what I see for the story and how to best express the idea I have. I think you should do the same.

Don't you think that the best way to express your ideas is to take the readers' perspectives? After all, creative writing is very subjective, and what the writer sees alone is, I think, not sufficient. And one of my goals in writing is to entertain the readers. Not to spoil them, but to keep them interested while not harming the charm of the story. I guess most writers want to entertain their readers too. So why not adding some spices if the chef can do it and the dish tastes better to the diner?

 

 

If you have something you are trying to work out in your own mind and it's coming out in a story that is filled with things that intrigue you then by all means, keep writing how you feel comfortable. But will 'dumbing' it down for people perhaps make it more readable by the masses and keep still it true to the vision you have for it? Will it affect your satisfaction if you do that?

Well, my writing - writing in my philosophy - is not about feeling comfortable or self-satisfied. I have fun living up to challenges. From time to time I write stories in genres/areas I haven't been before... just to be a well-rounded writer. And of course, if I want to be a well-rounded writer, my stories should be readable by the general audience. Anyway, I understand that some writers have different philosophies. I've met some who write for themselves lol - like a hobby. Maybe I take things a little too seriously

 

 

 

[Greedya]

Anyway, to be brief, that sentence feels a little like info being stuffed down my throat.

 

 

* nods with agreement * Thank you.