[LMB] SFi vs Fantasy

[paal at gis.net]

----- Original Message Follows -----
> Mervi said...
> >
> > Most of the time I don't care for SF (as I said in some earlier
> > post) because it's 1, science heavy (I'm a 100% Arts student. Most
> > science explanations make as much sense to me as magic.) 2,
> > explanation heavy  (bored
> > to tears, here) and 3, not friendly to female characters or readers.
> > Of course, there are plenty of fantasy that contains point 3 and
> > which I do  my
> > best to avoid.
> 
> Your point 2 is what I call "The Curse of the Thriller Writer" or,
> "I've  Suffered For My Art And Now You Will, Too!"
> 
> In hard SF it manifests as lengthy explanations of the science.  In 

This is known as "the expository lump."

> thrillers, it manifests as lengthy descriptions of the shiny techy
> toys  (usually weaponry).  In fantasy (yes, it happens there, too!) it
> manifests  as lengthy digressions into the history and/or
> socio-politics of the world.
> 
> In all cases, the author seems to have put a lot of work into research
> or  world-building (or sometimes in fantasy, both), and cannot resist
> the urge  to shove the results under the nose of the unfortunate
> reader.

Some folks LOVE exposition, and go to lectures for fun.  Some give them
for fun. 

> No matter what genre it's in, I consider it bad writing, and generally
> skip  it.

It doesn't -have- to be, but there very much are style and taste issues
involved. If someone goes into masses of passive voice other than for
the intentional purpose of lampooning that style, I tend to get annoyed.
"Can't this person WRITE competently?! or is it abominable editing?"
 
> (This is one of the reasons I dislike "The Lord of the Rings". 
> Tolkien was  a bugger for dumping unnecessary background info into his
> story.  Maybe he  learned it from Victor Hugo.)

Term is "infodump"