Hi Lauren. You've made a very thorough and intelligent analysis of technology's role and how, in particular, it should be treated within speculative fiction. But I feel that its position within a story shouldn't be overstated. Any tech which is ubiquitous shouldn't require explanation or direct mention. Your characters wouldn't talk about it, so info dumps or copious details are unnecessary, only there to explain to a reader. If it takes them a leap of imagination then so be it, but tech shouldn't get in the way of a story. On the other hand, a technology whose introduction or corruption is a key plot point or dramatic pivot in a novel of course deserves more pages. A balance needs to be struck without technology becoming an intrusive textual presence.
Narrowing down to cli-fi for a final point: the intro phrase "technology will not save us" is undoubtedly true. As always, it's also going to take lots of people and new processes - and more time than we might have. But it's the "us" I find more interesting. When most people implore others to 'save the planet', they don't really mean that, they mean saving "us" - humans - and, by extension, themselves. This implicit human-centricity is, for me, the real underlying problem to truly saving a planet which has the current misfortune of being our dying host.
Thank you for the intellectual stimulation. I'm now going to seek out your fiction...
Thank you for your thoughts! You're absolutely right that the writers shouldn't have to explain _everything_ about the technology in their stories. Infodumps are deadly in terms of story momentum and reader engagement. I guess I'm advocating for more nuanced portrayals that demonstrate the writer has done their homework and has fully thought through the implications of whatever they're writing about. Even when the technology is in the background or ubiquitous in the world, oversimplifying or handwaving away inconvenient aspects is a missed opportunity in my opinion to deepen realism, add plot complications, and differentiate one's work. I side-eye portrayals where it feels like solutions could be interchangeable in particular.
And yes, I hadn't really thought of it that way until you pointed it out, but there really is a selfish, ego-centric quality implicit in rallying crys of "saving us," isn't there? That could be another essay in itself!
Thanks so much for your response, Lauren. I realise I should have been more explicit about how I do very much agree with your ‘tech framing’ approach, especially with how ubiquity and immersion can be best portrayed. I try to take my background research seriously. I think somewhat similar to you, horizon scanning tech (but for early commercial application) was my ‘pre-writing’ job. And inventing new tech which might exist in future was good fun for my first serial (‘seeing’ in murky water with sound, anyone?👍🏼). I look forward to any further essays from you.
Hi Lauren. You've made a very thorough and intelligent analysis of technology's role and how, in particular, it should be treated within speculative fiction. But I feel that its position within a story shouldn't be overstated. Any tech which is ubiquitous shouldn't require explanation or direct mention. Your characters wouldn't talk about it, so info dumps or copious details are unnecessary, only there to explain to a reader. If it takes them a leap of imagination then so be it, but tech shouldn't get in the way of a story. On the other hand, a technology whose introduction or corruption is a key plot point or dramatic pivot in a novel of course deserves more pages. A balance needs to be struck without technology becoming an intrusive textual presence.
Narrowing down to cli-fi for a final point: the intro phrase "technology will not save us" is undoubtedly true. As always, it's also going to take lots of people and new processes - and more time than we might have. But it's the "us" I find more interesting. When most people implore others to 'save the planet', they don't really mean that, they mean saving "us" - humans - and, by extension, themselves. This implicit human-centricity is, for me, the real underlying problem to truly saving a planet which has the current misfortune of being our dying host.
Thank you for the intellectual stimulation. I'm now going to seek out your fiction...
Thank you for your thoughts! You're absolutely right that the writers shouldn't have to explain _everything_ about the technology in their stories. Infodumps are deadly in terms of story momentum and reader engagement. I guess I'm advocating for more nuanced portrayals that demonstrate the writer has done their homework and has fully thought through the implications of whatever they're writing about. Even when the technology is in the background or ubiquitous in the world, oversimplifying or handwaving away inconvenient aspects is a missed opportunity in my opinion to deepen realism, add plot complications, and differentiate one's work. I side-eye portrayals where it feels like solutions could be interchangeable in particular.
And yes, I hadn't really thought of it that way until you pointed it out, but there really is a selfish, ego-centric quality implicit in rallying crys of "saving us," isn't there? That could be another essay in itself!
Thanks so much for your response, Lauren. I realise I should have been more explicit about how I do very much agree with your ‘tech framing’ approach, especially with how ubiquity and immersion can be best portrayed. I try to take my background research seriously. I think somewhat similar to you, horizon scanning tech (but for early commercial application) was my ‘pre-writing’ job. And inventing new tech which might exist in future was good fun for my first serial (‘seeing’ in murky water with sound, anyone?👍🏼). I look forward to any further essays from you.
Love this ❤️