Even fictitiously.
Plague. Nuclear war. Mayan calendar. Global warming. Aliens. Zombies.
Once you've picked that, you must lay out a world history so it all makes sense.
Then some brainiac says: "That's not plausible for this reason!"
The whole thing falls apart because you're not a real cultural anthropologist and physicist and historian.
But you know what works? Use a narrator who doesn't know any better and just reports without bias the bits and pieces of shared stories from the survivors. Still need a plausible disaster, but you let the reader fill in the blanks his or her own way.
Oh, I know what happened, but I'm only leaking it in little drips and splatters.
I use lots of campfire chat. I also believe when a global cataclysm strikes, no one will know the whole story. Most people will apply their limited knowledge and experience to lots of paranoia and fear, ending up with a mostly false but very satisfying story.
Back to my feelings on omniscient third-person narration: novels that begin with an in-depth explanation of everything that happened across the world that lead us to this cataclysm strike me as unnatural.
Plus, it's hard.
“Always
ecstatic or angered. One day
Gives
lobster and champagne to everyone
Saying:
‘This is the end. Lets go out strong.’
Next
day sells K rations, antivirals,
And
wind-up radios out the back door.
Meanwhile,
I try to run a restaurant.
Crazy
don’t make good hospitality.
Needed
some mountain air, get fat on trout.
Changed
my voicemail greeting to: ‘I quit, Tweak.’
Took
my ass and his best whiskey hiking.”
From Cathartes Aura on the Road from Nowhere, Chapter Seven, Verse Ten.
I like how you're linking your posts to writing. Although I think destroying the world is easy; too easy as we destroy a part of it everyday. The hard part is not realising or accepting that we're doing so . . . off soap box now. I love your posts as they really do stir my desire for debate and thinking. You're a really clever, thought provoking writer who I'm glad I have met on this blogflash. x
ReplyDeleteThanks and I'm glad to have met you, also.
DeleteYet I disagree that destroying the world fictitiously is easy. Even with all the ruining of certain parts of our environment, the human population is growing strong. The largest disasters and plagues we've ever experienced have hardy killed a few percent of us. We're a durable and adaptable bunch.
It's definitely a clever approach to use the 'drips and splatters' method. If the devil is in the detail, sometimes you need to find a way to avoid it!
ReplyDelete