1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Unnecessary "fluff" in fiction

Discussion in 'Entertainment and Technology' started by Argentwing, Jan 8, 2015.

  1. Argentwing

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    6,696
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    New England
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    In reading a negative review of Interstellar (a movie that took the fast-track straight to the top of my "favorite things ever" list) the person mentioned that Cooper's son was totally unimportant to the story, and this opinion of the fact:

    I had to put the brakes on there. Is nonessential junk in some fictional story a sign of low quality?

    For practicality's sake, maybe, because it takes up limited time that could be spent on relevant parts. We want our stories to be meaty, dense, and thoroughly meaningful. Non- or loosely-related content detracts from the plot; I get that much and tend to agree with it.

    However, I can't help but think of Interstellar in a broader sense. To me it symbolizes what we are, what we are destined to be, and how we might achieve it. And in real life, not everything is "relevant to the plot." Nestled in with meaty content is sometimes unavoidable fluff. Why not give Murphy a brother without her lust for the extraordinary? And besides, even while he was mostly left alone for being unimportant, eventually he, indirectly, became important. He helped Murph discover the lengths she needed to go in order to accomplish her goals. It fits in nicely with the proverb and perspective that "everything happens for a reason."

    So perhaps fluff has a severely-limited position in fiction. But is an over-simplification to say that it's a mark of lousy writing. Details that are seemingly irrelevant to the end are a part of the human experience and cannot be thoroughly dismissed. Any other opinions on what you think of this?
     
  2. White Knight

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2014
    Messages:
    1,816
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Istanbul, TR
    I think you are meaning "emotional stuff" with fluff.

    I don't care what hard core sci-fi funs think but my favorite piece of sci fi is Mass Effect series. It is all because "fluff". Star Wars original series or Star Trek... heck any kind of old school sci fi barely delwe into human emotions.

    Mass Effect is the first one making that for me. Shepard and crew weren't cartony figures, they have emotional baggages like us normal humans do. Third game of the series probably only piece of art that makes me shed so much tears... even at the scale of Prayers for Bobby movie. It was all because of emotional build up series had to that point.

    No matter what some "critic" say I hope we see more fluff in science fiction... like last Star Trek movie... that is also amazing example for me.
     
  3. Argentwing

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2012
    Messages:
    6,696
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    New England
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Out to everyone
    Not really; emotional attachment is really important to a story lol. What I mean is adding in information that doesn't make a big difference to the story, like in Mass Effect how Shepard's backstory is chosen from a list of options. It was mostly just used for filler dialogue (aka would the ending of the story change if they left it out? Probably not) but I'm glad it was put in there. Massive-scale RPGs are very different from movies, but fundamentally they both need a little bit of flavor to go along with the core plot.
     
  4. SwimScotty

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2014
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Central Ohio
    Gender:
    Male
    Gender Pronoun:
    He
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    I would think it depends on the amount and the reason for using fluff. If it's like Charles Dickens, who was a very good author but got paid by the word (meaning for every word he wrote, he got money; hence why some of his books are ridiculously verbose when they don't really need to be), then it can be unnecessary. But I personally like some fluff to make the story seem more realistic. Something to just tie it back into the real world, despite the fact that it's completely fictitious. Whether it's done in the form of a long-lost child or a trip to the doctor's office, almost all "good writing" has at least some fluff.

    But when someone uses fluff for the sole purpose of making a story longer with no relevance to the plot itself, then it gets to be a sign of poor writing.
     
  5. kem

    kem
    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2010
    Messages:
    1,936
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kerava, Finland
    It really depends on the context of the film and the style.
    Peter Jackson's Hobbitt films have a ridiculous amount of unnecessarily stretched scenes with meaningful bits of the original book streamlined and action sequences added to make it look cool. For a die-hard LOTR action fan, the trilogy might be awesome to watch. I do love fantasy, but I love compelling narrative, character depth and good film adaptions even more so, ergo, I strongly disliked the films (didn't stop me from watching the first two on their premiere tho). In a meta-film sense, one might also consider the HFR 3D cinematography used in the trilogy to be 'fluff' distracting from the film itself.
     
  6. Chloe

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    7
    Location:
    Eastern USA
    Gender:
    Female
    Gender Pronoun:
    She
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    Some people
    Like the others said, there are many reasons for "extra" content that may or may not be related to quality.

    Just to share a personal experience: I can write well and have had some short stories published. In one case, editors had me write extra material to increase the word count enough to create a stand-alone story instead of something that could only be published in an anthology. It went from 8000 words to 10K for one publisher. When they didn't take it, the next publisher required 12K. When I finally found someone interested in publishing it, the story had 17K words but not much more plot.
     
  7. Gen

    Gen
    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2012
    Messages:
    4,070
    Likes Received:
    4
    Location:
    Nowhere
    There is a difference between adding depth and adding fluff.

    Yes, nonsensical details, tangents, and side plots are a sign of poor writing, but the key word there is nonsensical. I believe that most would categorize fluff or filler as additional information or plot without purpose. Every single scene within a story should have a purpose. It does not have to be dense or integral. it doesn't all have to tie back to the central plot; but every scene should be written with the purpose of bringing something more to the work as a whole.

    One of the best examples of this is children's literature. In most children's literature, the bulk of the central plot is split between the first and final quarter of the novel. The first quarter emphasizes the central plot; the second and third quarters emphasizes the journey, adventure, magic, mystery, etc; then the final quarter brings it back to the central plot and everything climaxes and concludes. The reason why these middle sections are not considered filler or meaningless when done properly is because the actual adventure is the most valued part of children's literature. Most people don't pick up a middle grade novel for revolutionary plot. People find more meaning in the lightheartedness and the innocence of a whimsical, adolescent adventure.

    Ultimately, every scene should have relevance to the meaning, plot, character development, or overall storytelling experience. My personal philosophy is that each scene should cover at least two or three of those categories; however, I believe that the rule of thumb is at least one.