Written by Peter Weilnböck
Published on: 2023-02-26
Some rambling about what epic scale in story means, and why I do not like it.
I recently read through the science fiction novels of Andy Weir. I really liked all of them. And, for some reason, I preferred them in the order of release. So, I enjoyed “The Martian” the most, followed by “Artemis” and liked “Project Hail Mary” the least. (Although liking it least, still means that I thoroughly enjoyed it. He is a excellent writer, in my opinion) One of the reasons for this was of course, the humour. I like to be amused when reading, and “The Martian” frequently had me burst out laughing. The main character was designed to be quite humorous, and this was very well executed. The main characters of the following books took themself a bit more seriously. So the humour is one of the reasons. But the other reason, is drumroll please the scale of the main problem. What does epic scale of the main problem mean, in this case?
Especially in fantasy and science fiction stories, there is usually a threat. Something that threatens either the protagonist, or the world they live in. This is to keep the reader invested. And one often used tool to increase the tension is to simply increase the scale of the threat. Now not only the the protagonist is threatened, but his whole village! Oh no, not only the village is threatened, but the whole country! Oh no, not only the country is threatened, but the whole world! Now some minor spoilers ahead (although nothing that does not appear in the blurb on the back of the books): In “The Martian” in is only the protagonist that is threatened - it is a kind of survival novel, so this makes sense. In “Artemis” it is also mainly the protagonist that is threatened for most of the book, but it then turns out, that the whole colony is threatened as well. In “Project Hail Mary” the whole human species is threatened right from the start.
So, does the increased threat level increase the suspense and the readers engagement? Not necessarily. Once the scale becomes to big, it is no longer comprehensible on an emotional level. I can feel afraid for Matt Watney in “The Martian” or for Jazz Bashara in “Artemis”. Caring for a village, and seeing the threat for that is also easy to grasp. But once it becomes too big, it usually does not register in the same way. I can go on, but Overly Sarcastic productions made a video, that explains the concept better than I think I ever could.
Now that I have clarified what the different scales of threat mean, I can outlay my opinion in a bit more detail. I think it was already quite clear, that I prefer a more localised threat. More specific. Something concerning the protagonist and his personal sphere of interest. Humans are not made to care for much more than themself and those immediately around them. I think this is also the reason why climate change still is so widely ignored, even by those that acknowledge it exists. It is not yet clear to them, how it affects them and their immediate surroundings. But before I go down a completely different rabbit hole, lets try to stay on topic: Since people care most about their immediate surroundings, it also makes sense, that this is also what the protagonist cares about. (Actually, this is something that was very well executed in “Project Hail Mary ” as well, especially towards the end. But I give no details here, because that would be a spoiler). As a reader, we empathise with a well written character. So we care about what they care as well. And it is easier to believe, that they care about their own survival, or their neighbours or George their childhood friend, than about something so abstract as the end of the world. Smaller communities are also much easier to threaten. And if the threat is smaller, it is also easier to find a matching solution to that threat, that is not just “hand-wave” magic. But those smaller threats, that only threaten the protagonists immediate “world” instead of the whole world cause at least the same amount of suspense, in my opinion. So, if it is easier to have a believable small threat, with a believable solution that cause the same amount tension, why is it so common to threaten the whole world? To be honest, I do not know. And to be frank, I do not like it. Maybe it looks better on the back cover blurb, maybe it is the need to “one up” the danger of other stories. Whatever it is, I think it creates less interest. I like the “small” stories. I need less suspense of disbelieve for those. A good example of this type of “small” stories would be the Aubrey-Maturin series by Patrick O’Brian. It is a historical novel, but the tension is not built upon how a war ends, who gets dominance over Europe, etc. but built on the fate of the two protagonists. For long stretches there is no antagonist, and often no natural disaster or other hurdle to overcome. Just human nature and interaction and the compelling stories that grow from that. And with that Patrick O’Brian managed to craft an epic series, that might be my favourite, even beating Lord of the Rings.
I could go on with examples, like “Firefly” vs. “Serenity”, but I think I made myself clear. Stories with issues on a smaller scale simply are more relatable and therefore compelling for me.
For my part? Nothing really. If I ever write a fulfil my childhood dream and become an author, or just write a homebrew ttrpg campaign, I would keep this in mind and try to build something compelling on a smaller scale. Other than that, I can only try to find stories to read that I enjoy.