Characters vs. Setting
netmouse reported about having gone to see The Day After Tomorrow and remarked that this film, while it concerned global events, focused on the lives of a few characters. There are two ways that I've found authors can rope in the interest to a story about developments that are happening to our entire species. Non-documentary films always have to use the first one due to the nature of the medium. Which one works better in written fiction depends on which kind of reader they're trying to attract.
In the first, they rope in the reader by describing the experiences and feelings of specific people. The setting they live in and the greater historical context is gradually revealed over the course of the book. The second type proceeds in reverse: it draws the setting and historical events as if you are reading an entry in an encylopedia. Then it zooms closer in to talk more and more about the individual players.
The second kind of book is rarer, because most readers don't give a flip about the techno-social complex until they are invested in the characters and their feelings. (Or perhaps this is just a preconceived notion on the part of most authors.) The reverse is true of me; I don't give a flying flip about the characters until I've been roped in by the ideas. In the first kind of book, I always have to grit my teeth and slog through the soap-opera part to get to the challenging ideas. I can't count the number of books I've set down in the first chapter and never picked up again, such as The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson. If he had started out by explaining precisely what events he changed, in guns or germs or the invention of the stirrup or something, and how they resulted in an alternate history, I probably would have cared enough to finish it. I refuse to read several unrewarding and confusing chapters about some pointless peon I can't relate to. Describing the setting first, would give me that bridge to relate to him. Or sometimes an author will depict day-to-day life among an alien race and not bother to mention broad, ubiquitous elements of the setting until chapter four. Such as the fact that they are hive minds for crying out loud! Why should I read three unrewarding and confusing chapters?
As a result, the beginning is the weakest part of most SF/F or alternate history. This is why my favorite SF is found in setting sourcebooks for roleplaying games. It is pure historical setting, without getting bogged down with things like character development or dialog.
In the first, they rope in the reader by describing the experiences and feelings of specific people. The setting they live in and the greater historical context is gradually revealed over the course of the book. The second type proceeds in reverse: it draws the setting and historical events as if you are reading an entry in an encylopedia. Then it zooms closer in to talk more and more about the individual players.
The second kind of book is rarer, because most readers don't give a flip about the techno-social complex until they are invested in the characters and their feelings. (Or perhaps this is just a preconceived notion on the part of most authors.) The reverse is true of me; I don't give a flying flip about the characters until I've been roped in by the ideas. In the first kind of book, I always have to grit my teeth and slog through the soap-opera part to get to the challenging ideas. I can't count the number of books I've set down in the first chapter and never picked up again, such as The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson. If he had started out by explaining precisely what events he changed, in guns or germs or the invention of the stirrup or something, and how they resulted in an alternate history, I probably would have cared enough to finish it. I refuse to read several unrewarding and confusing chapters about some pointless peon I can't relate to. Describing the setting first, would give me that bridge to relate to him. Or sometimes an author will depict day-to-day life among an alien race and not bother to mention broad, ubiquitous elements of the setting until chapter four. Such as the fact that they are hive minds for crying out loud! Why should I read three unrewarding and confusing chapters?
As a result, the beginning is the weakest part of most SF/F or alternate history. This is why my favorite SF is found in setting sourcebooks for roleplaying games. It is pure historical setting, without getting bogged down with things like character development or dialog.