I heard a writer say once that you should internally have three layers of explanation, and provide those or more as it becomes necessary. Like “These are transporters. They break you into molecules, store your data, and reassemble you on the other side. What if there’s a malfunction? Safety features would keep the data in the buffer.” And maybe one more. Reader’s eyes glaze over if you talk about any more than that, so more can wait until it becomes plot significant.
I saw an interview with their physics/science consultant, who found it a very frustrating job. He said they’d bring him a script, and say “We’ve got this problem, and we want to get out of it by doing (some nonsensical science thing). What do you think?”
And he’d tell them that it was ridiculous, no such thing exists, it wouldn’t work like that, it’s stupid, it’s impossible, WTF?, etc., and they’d say “Eh, we’re doing it anyway.”
That sounds right. Have an outline of what might be necessary for a situation, but don’t over explain it. And while it’s for visual media, I think Roddenberry’s suggestion also works. Don’t take out a technology and explain it, just show it in use (don’t tell). The reader will get it.
I heard a writer say once that you should internally have three layers of explanation, and provide those or more as it becomes necessary. Like “These are transporters. They break you into molecules, store your data, and reassemble you on the other side. What if there’s a malfunction? Safety features would keep the data in the buffer.” And maybe one more. Reader’s eyes glaze over if you talk about any more than that, so more can wait until it becomes plot significant.
Or so I heard, I’m not a writer.
I saw an interview with their physics/science consultant, who found it a very frustrating job. He said they’d bring him a script, and say “We’ve got this problem, and we want to get out of it by doing (some nonsensical science thing). What do you think?”
And he’d tell them that it was ridiculous, no such thing exists, it wouldn’t work like that, it’s stupid, it’s impossible, WTF?, etc., and they’d say “Eh, we’re doing it anyway.”
This is exactly how the best episodes of Trek worked.
That sounds right. Have an outline of what might be necessary for a situation, but don’t over explain it. And while it’s for visual media, I think Roddenberry’s suggestion also works. Don’t take out a technology and explain it, just show it in use (don’t tell). The reader will get it.