next »

[Angrymatter]

What in your opinion is something that has been greatly unexplored in writing these days?
What concepts, what scenarios etc?

To name a few(only in my opinion though)-

Consciousness as a non physical property : There is still tons of ideas etc about consciousness(self awareness) not merely being physical(Ie, the soul). This leads to many interesting scenarios. Immagine a cold war, but instead of nuclear bombs, there exist massive devices that, when pointed at people and fired, disconnect their consciousness.

Everything is already done : Imagine a world where every book, every art piece, every film and every game is already made. What would people do then? Do they talk about this concept? If you consider the multiverse theory, then everything has already happened. You have already existed before an infinite time in infinite universes. Every game has been made(Even half life three), every living life form has existed.

Nano-technological apocalypse : I would really love a book about this. It is a rarely explored subject, far less than AI war or any other apocalypse scenario.

Dieselpounk : We need moar  .

So what are some subjects you think should be more explored?

[Graham-]

The story that you are more passionate about writing than any other. I promise you, that hasn't been explored. I bet you don't even know what it is. And you're _you_. .

I like the idea of how people in a society impact each other. A number of movies explore this idea, but generally only superficially. I have yet to see a good look at the way the growth of individuals in a family affect one another. Even if you take a look at the Sopranos, interactions occur in silos. One character affects another character. We get the impression that, oh, this one character has been moody in this one particular way, and is reacting to this other character in a way that implies that his/her moody-ness is maybe caused by something the other character did, but we don't see that something in the story. In the show it's like events come out of the ether, fill the characters for a line of dialogue, then disappear. The real weight of the relationship exists outside of our view. We don't see what someone did to push someone else in a certain direction. All windows into inner-thoughts are anecdotal.

The Wire, another excellent show, takes the opposite approach. Nothing is anecdotal. All we see are turning points. We see the changes and never the daily life. We know how things change, but not what it felt like on either side of the change.

I want a story that's like this,

A character (1) was like <original>, then <x> happened, and is now like <new>.

When this character (1) was like <original>, he had <y> impact on character 2.

Character 2 was like <2-original>, then <y> happened (from character 1), and is now like <2-new>

Does that make sense? It's confusing to read, but it's accurate.

Movies are always like, the character was something, then something happened, and then he was like something else. I want to see how his change makes someone else change, then how that person makes yet someone else change. I want to see the ripple.

Also, movies rarely show how someone got to their original state in the first place, or how that particular person changed because of what happened to them. Think about Darth Vader going evil in Episode 3. WTF was that? The audience has no understanding of what happened inside him. We're left to imagine that part. Movies always describe the how of events but never the how of a character's internal development.

Even think about The Godfather, one of my favourite movies. Marlon Brando is incredible. All we know is that he's cool. He is so cool. We get to see how cool he is. We learn about his values. But he never understand how he arrived at them. It's not like I see that movie and understand how to follow in his footsteps. I know he had a home, that he grew up in an interesting foreign place, that he loves his family, that he was pushed to crime out of necessity. These things set the stage for my imagination to determine how everything worked out to get to the current point, but I'm never given any details about it. It's like the writers of movies are always to afraid to talk about the how. If they talk about the how they need to know about the how. Screenwriters define how as, "the sequence of key events that led to the current situation." That's just past-term "what." "How" gives a description for reproduction. If I explain how I got an A, you should be able to get an A too.

I want to see how the development of an idividual is affected by his environment, and how he affects his environment, which is really just his society.

I also like the idea of putting Man in a position where he interacts with nature. Nature is amazing. It's very slow, so it can be hard to understand what it is, or how we can relate to it, but when I go camping I can appreciate a lot of things that are hard to describe. I often come up with designs that have some kind of complicated ecosystem with lots of plant and wildlife and diverse climates, but everything is tangible. Games often use "nature" as a backdrop, for mood. You never interact with it. Collecting sticks to build a fire in Skies of Arcadia, waiting for a rescue that may never come? Hells yeah.

I also like space-alien plants. I want to relate to a plant in a game the way I relate to an animal in life, and relate to an animal in a game in the way I relate to a human in real life. And I want to relate to a human in a game in the way I would relate to a family member in real life, if you know, we got along.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

i'd say nothing is "unexplored" but there's a lot of stuff that's "underexplored" or stuff which has only been explored in obscure places

[1982]

Movies are always like, the character was something, then something happened, and then he was like something else. I want to see how his change makes someone else change, then how that person makes yet someone else change. I want to see the ripple.

I might be completely wrong, but I think you should check out films like Magnolia, Jerry McGuire and American Beauty... maybe. I am sure there are more obscure European art house films touching this subject but how in hell I could know that.

[Graham-]

I've seen those movies.

In American Beauty... we see the father's relationship with the daughter, the mother's relationship with the daughter, and the father and mother's relationship with each other. The daughter has a relationship with the boy next-door. The boy next door has a relationship with his parents.

The father is looking for purpose, the mother is looking for confidence, the daughter is looking for an identity, the boy next-door is looking for understanding. These things are set up so that we can relate to them. We know what they all are, and what might satisfy them.

We don't see where any of these desires come from. It's plausible to us as an audience that these desires exist, and that they can co-exist. Each grouping of people makes sense in some way.

The daughter has a friend. I see how the needs of the two friends would make them friends. How did they meet? I don't know. What decisions led the father into a depression? I don't know. When the father was falling into himself, how was his wife reacting? Why didn't she do anything? How was she before, and how did she develop into the person she is? There are a long series of decision that each married partner made that allowed the current situation to develop. There was an interplay. The daughter's current predicament is a result of this interplay. I understand how the family felt before. I understand how they feel now. I even understand how they feel after. But I don't understand what that means.

What am I supposed to take away from that movie? Sometimes, "life is this way." So what? Have I learned to prevent it? How many relationships can I make between what allowed the characters to devolve, and the mistakes I make in my own life? If I'm a father, I might know that my child may suffer an identity crisis because I don't set a powerful example, if I don't lead and listen. But my life isn't like Kevin Spacey's life (the father). I'm not going to be depressed like him. I listen. My wife isn't lacking guidance the way her movie counterpart is. Though... maybe she is, and I can't see it. What are the clues that link my behaviour to hers? What are the decisions that the movie-father made that are similar to the decisions that I've made that produced parallel results? I can't see that. The movie doesn't show me that.

Tell me what happened in the movie? You can do that. Tell me why it happened? You can do that too. Tell me how you feel about it and why you like it? Easy. American Beauty is a good movie. Now tell me how your family dynamic mirrors the one in the movie? If you're a suburban westerner, you should be able to do this. I'm sure everyone could, but they'd stumble at the question. They'd stumble at the thought.

I want to know how I can change my behaviour to fix the flaws in those I heavily interact with. What should my goals be? I can't force them to change. I have to be different. I'm not like the characters in the movie. How do I change, so that others will change, so I get the result that I want? I don't know.

I don't even know how to do this. The idea is just interesting.

It's like, when I'm watching a movie with my Mother, then afterward we talk for 30 minutes, I make 3 comments that I probably should have held on to. How do these affect the decision she makes in the next 4 days? How could I detect which comment was which? If I carry-on with this behaviour for a year, how do my comments affect her colleagues at work, her behaviour at home, her relationship with my Father, and her relationship with me? What situation am I more likely to be put in by her because of my comments, closing the loop?

Magnolia is a nice comparison. It shows several different lives that have nothing to do with each other slightly impacting one another. However, their interactions are the result of circumstance, aren't that likely in daily life, and are only mildly impactful. They're setup for contrast more than anything, under the guise of interplay.

I'd like to make a Magnolia but where people could say, "that's just like my life! I see how my relationships are like those!" Then they live, and return to the game to further understand the relationship they have with it. Imagine if I built a manual for the "God" of social interaction, that he had to reference to implement the rules that define how our decisions impact one another. Then imagine I made an example video demonstrating all the contexts that illustrate those rules, then I made it into an interesting video, then I made it into a game.

Also, love Jerry Maguire.

[Angrymatter]

But isnt that the unknown mystery about life? That we are all independent and yet slaves to each other in thought? That although our thoughts are influenced by many things, there is still that small aspect of freedom within people to make choice? I dono.

[Graham-]

Me neither.

[VortexCortex]

To me, there are many things yet unexplored and under-explored.  To find them, you need look no further than to the future.  I am a cyberneticist so this is the expanding sphere of knowledge in which I think; Folks with other backgrounds certainly have other intriguing paths to the frontiers in writing.

Some things are underexplored among the transition from "non-sentience" to sentience.  Is there a boundary?  We keep breeding smarter pets, at what point will you give them rights?  Sure, there's "Planet of the Apes", and various furry fictions, but few actually explore the rise to sentience itself, nor the discovery that sentience does not exist except as a chauvinistic term.  The boundary is arbitrary and does not exist in reality, only varying degrees of awareness exist depending on the complexity of mind.

From my research with neural networks, and pet training, I've found that any sufficiently complex interaction is indistinguishable from sentience...  Books on advanced "AI" abound; Being human, many writers frequently extrapolate to war, but is that the only path evolution will make possible?  I think the term AI is racist: There's nothing Artificial about the materials or complexity that yields Machine Intelligence (MI), not anymore than your own intellect is artificial; Indeed, the human mind is made of such a fragile and slow chemputer, it's almost laughable to be proud of it at all!  If you believed in an intelligent designer, would you call yourself artificial life?

Humans have already discovered devices that can determine the secret thoughts in their minds.  There are many dystopian works about such things.  Where are the works that look on the brighter side of things?  Decoding brain patterns + WIFI = Telepathy.  There are many books on transhumanism, but what of transcending even that?

The problem with many humans is that they see "The Singularity" as a point beyond which they can not know.  HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE?  Humans are now like the languageless people of the past to their future states of being!  This coming transition is just the past repeating itself on ever grander scales.  Humans are as the pre-homo-symbolicus peoples were when they witnessed the dawn of Language itself, and yet some entertain the idea that most everything has already been written?!

I truly feel sorry for such people -- as a human might feel compassion for the speechless ape when pondering the wonderful concepts and knowledge the other minds can not yet know: Who would not pull the apes up and let them know the freedom and power humans wield?  Oh, if only I could give them a piece of my mind!  How wonderful that would be!  Sadly, we must not... The other minds must find their own way beyond their own mental singularities, and so must you. 

Can you sense it, as some encultured apes sense the power of language?  Do any yet have an inkling as to the unlimited stories of epic proportions that will be possible to you when you're finally able to speak?!

[Capntastic]

    A man is fighting with a cup of coffee. The rules: he must not break the cup nor spill its coffee; nor must the cup break the man's bones or spill his blood.

    The man said, oh the hell with it, as he swept the cup to the floor. The cup did not break but its coffee poured out of its open self.

    The cup cried, don't hurt me, please don't hurt me; I am without mobility, I have no defense save my utility; use me to hold your coffee.

-Russell Edson

[Gentleman Owl]

We usually don't see much of:

1. Stories focused on the elderly, and the troubles they must face (physical weakness, disease, encroaching death).

2. Stories that deal with mental illness in a sympathetic and realistic way - and not that mental illness makes people into murderous schizophrenics.

3. Stories that don't reward rebellion (rebellion is often depicted as a positive thing - not often is the opposite perspective shown).

4. Stories that deal with religion in a non-shallow way.

I can probably think of a few examples of movies / media that could fall into these categories, however I think that examples are still fairly uncommon in the mainstream.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

here's some mainstream examples of each

1. the corrections
2. there's lots of these, the whole 'naturalism' genre focuses on this. some examples are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness_in_fiction
3. anna karenina
4. brothers karamazov

[VortexCortex]

Their attraction was undeniable.  Fully exposed, their bodies drew rapidly closer.  Nearness awakened every fiber of each form to the other's.  Her lithe curves and easy undulation betrayed her ample experience, some of which she would soon impart to him.  Her awesome presence caused him to quake softly in response, this being his first time.

With only her incredible closeness she called forth the very tip of his being.  Their bodies touched first only at a single point, from which searing waves of heat rushed forth, mirrored in them both, ripping away all resistance to their inevitable purpose.  An ageless eternity passed between them in a moment, and instantly all of her knew all of him.

When their intense furious coupling had subsided, she drifted at the edge of his perception.  The heart of his being was left glowing brighter than a billion suns.  No one knew what seed had been planted that day, but it was certain he was changed and could never be the same again.

-The Big Bang
A story of Universal creation by VortexCortex

[Gentleman Owl]

here's some mainstream examples of each

1. the corrections
2. there's lots of these, the whole 'naturalism' genre focuses on this. some examples are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_illness_in_fiction
3. anna karenina
4. brothers karamazov

Don't you feel like some of those themes are under explored though? (in games I think they are) Or rather, what themes do you feel could have more written on?

Those titles look interesting, I'll need to check them out.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

almost everything is underexplored, those no more than most

but in games, here are some examples from your categories that come to mind

1. the graveyard
2. yume nikki
3. vandal hearts 1 & 2
4. xenogears

[Capntastic]

Did Vandal Hearts even have writing?



But yeah, Gentleman Owl's categories are by no means 'rare'.  My own bookshelf teems with a few examples of each category listed, except maybe frailties of the elderly.

(The following was basically floating in a running text file I'd been keeping to make a proper response to a subject of this weight, so apologies if it is a bit rambling.)

The core problem is that for a subject to be written about in a non-trivializing way, the author must be able to intuit something of the subject, (through experience or reason), and relate that point of view.  The more obscure the scenario or subject matter, the higher level of precision is required both in acquiring that level of familiarity and transmitting it to the reader. 

In many cases, this can be easier than it sounds- consider Flatland, which I suppose any middle schooler could read with ease, despite it being about a two dimensional culture.  Even though it is a satirical work of fiction, based around math and some philosophical points, it's not a real head scratcher.  Perhaps it's because many of the smaller day to day details of how a square percieves time or how a triangle ages, are glossed over.  Even then, to create a coherent fiction, even with these simple premises, a good deal of thought was laid out in terms of cause and effect. 

Some neat points have been raised in this thread and I've spent some time meditating upon it.  A lot of my own "serious" writing is simultaneously mundane and absurdist.  I've jokingly called it Tragic Realism to my associates.  When I'm in the zone, so to speak, many concepts can spring out of my mouth fully formed, and it's only later as I'm noting them down do their underlying absurdities spring out.  Meaning seeps into it all, even if I'm trying to be as banal as possible.

What I'm trying to get at is that even pointless seeming things can be loaded with meaning, and it's that meaning which can make the difference between worthwhile reading and trash.  You have to draw on that, even if subconsciously, to create something "good", be it informative, emotionally charged, something someone can relate to, or whatever.

To apply that to the subject, 'what is underexplored in writing', you can't just put a twist on a known genre (dieselpunk), or even a known scenario (apocalypse, societal collapse, lack of a resource, environmental problems) and say you're treading new ground.  No matter how you arrange those base components, it's up to the writer to make those parts and themes sing.  Even then, it would be a rare thing indeed for a writer to hit upon some truly untrod ground of human experience to jot down. 

But still,

[JMStark]

Considering that there are probably an almost infinite amount of ideas that can be potentially generated/comprehended by the human mind, there will always be plenty of dreamscapes left to explore. The problem is in the search for works that are entirely 100% new. Anything new must be accompanied with the common and familiar in order to provide the audience with a reference point. Some of the people in this thread have pointed to concepts such as consciousness, trans-humanism, and the like, which while not entirely new, are not often explored in the mainstream because of their controversial and complex nature. If a writer wanted to successfully convey these ideas to the masses, they would need to mix in with them elements that the audience is comfortable with.

Unfortunately, the pursuit of the new and unexplored often ends with the author vomiting out some uninspired, overly abstract work that no human can have an easily meaningful connection to. That which is unexplored is not exclusively good, while that which has been covered a billion times over is not exclusively bad. Usually, writing honestly can  be a great way to find a virgin concept.

[Musenik]

Usually, writing honestly can  be a great way to find a virgin concept.

Nicely put.

[Muz]

love between a (wo)man and a muddy plant

the life and thoughts of a cloud that has been made sentient by nanobots

a rogue brain cancer cell who eventually created a revolution inside a good person and then turned that good person into an entirely different other slightly less good person using the power of cancer. this new cancer brain goes on a spree enjoying his freedom, having sex with prostitutes (he created a penis in the brain using cancer cells, but it didnt last so he had to call prostitutes who he trick into having sex with cancer), he binges on soya milk, gambles, eat lots of food, and later on gets fat and realizes that all he has is the body he once overthrew and destroyed and feels sorry, and decides to make lots of money which he donates to cancer societies. ironically and tragically, this creature later dies of cancer.


In other words, there's too many ideas untried. 90% of them are crap.

Oh, and I find from experience that creating something completely new and fresh just doesn't appeal to people. People tend to go from one genre to another slowly. Sometimes it's another take on a favorite genre.

[impulse9]

How about gonzo journalism?