Sci-fi advice for me??? - Page 2 - Writers Forum

Flexbile Garphite · 11-01-2006, 02:48 PM

Thanks to everyone for the advice, I think I have decided what to do. My question is why did this thread get brought out of the gutter?

Dresdor · 11-01-2006, 06:50 PM

What I do, and what I like to read, is not to have an introduction or background. Important things can be shown through the writing. This can be frustrating at times for a reader, but if done well it is a journey of discovery. Plus I find it extremely boring and fake if characters are blatantly explaining things so the reader can udnerstand them. These characters live in this world, if something is normal in that world, they probably won't comment on it.

Interstingly enough, you can cheat by using that fact. Sayings and cliche's in cultures often develop from common things. This is expecially true of curses and blessings. For instance, if a character said "By the Flame!" in a suprised tone, you can bet that the Flame is a holy or divine being or concept. Having these little things in a story also makes it feel more real. "May Churlag eat your rice." is an enagmatic curse, but shows that this written world has a life and culture of it's own.

egg1291 · 11-01-2006, 08:55 PM

In my opinion it would be a lot more intersting if you work the history and background of the world into your book.

Domenic · 11-02-2006, 07:30 PM

Yeah, I agree with the bad-writer's cop-out.
A pre-narrative shouldn't be nescessary unless you invision your world as completely filled with krome and flying cars and such.

A good trick to sci-fi is to DEFINATELY not over gagetize. That's just wrong and makes the story hokey. Add what's nescessary, and refrain on
"holo" "hyper" "auto" etc.

And if you /do/ use that, use it more like.
And I put in the holodisc to watch the [whatever]

Refrain from holo-something. A combined word ads fluency and brings a reader more into the story.

Vee · 11-03-2006, 03:56 AM

In answer to the original question: Yes. Most writers do this - often as a prologue.

Also remember science-fiction is different from fantasy as in it explains how the science works hence the name science-fiction. Fantasy tends to get on with the action more.

Mike C · 11-03-2006, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vee

Also remember science-fiction is different from fantasy as in it explains how the science works hence the name science-fiction. Fantasy tends to get on with the action more.

That's a mis-definition. Hard SF tends to be heavy on the science, and is a fairly narrow niche appealing maainly to the tech-junkies (who'll tear you to shreds if you get the science - even theoretical science - wrong). A larger proportion, particularly since the New Wave, leaves the science in the background and concentrates on the people. Look at work by Moorcock, Aldiss, Ellison, Bradbury, Ballard etc and try to find the science.

A good story is about people doing stuff, nothing more, and it doesn't matter whether you write fantasy, SF, magical realism, romance or whatever.

Flexbile Garphite · 11-03-2006, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

A good story is about people doing stuff, nothing more, and it doesn't matter whether you write fantasy, SF, magical realism, romance or whatever.

I agree!

Vee · 11-03-2006, 10:20 PM

Then they would be classified as Fantasy if done correctly.

To use movie comparisons - Star Trek = Sci-Fi, Star Wars = Fantasy.

bob rulz · 11-04-2006, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vee

Then they would be classified as Fantasy if done correctly.

To use movie comparisons - Star Trek = Sci-Fi, Star Wars = Fantasy.

Star Wars is science fiction/fantasy, not pure fantasy. Star Wars is just a fantasy storyline transcribed into a science fiction universe.

By the way, Mike C, "plastisteel" actually seems like it could be a real material. And how is it a cliche to do it how imrhati said? It's not sci-fi without technology, and therefore you have to show what the technology does at some point or another. No, not necessarily how it works; I tend to avoid that myself in science fiction (which is what I mostly write).

Fixed · 11-04-2006, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vee

Then they would be classified as Fantasy if done correctly.

To use movie comparisons - Star Trek = Sci-Fi, Star Wars = Fantasy.

it depends what you consider sci-fi
indeed if you think science fiction is the "explaining of science" then sure you could classify it as that but I consider it, more like simililarly driven stories, just where fantasy has magic and different worlds and creatures, sci-fi has nifty gadgets and also different worlds and creatures, but the two worlds are completely different and in most cases so is character interaction, in fundamental though, the two are extremely similar

I would only ever read any book if it had a good story so obviously I find your definition of sci-fi boring

Mike C · 11-04-2006, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob rulz

By the way, Mike C, "plastisteel" actually seems like it could be a real material.

Maybe I'm tainted by over exposure to badly written SF. To me, it's the sign of a bad writer putting in sf 'tags' to reinforce what they're writing.

Does it matter, for example, if a guy sits at a plastisteel chair, or just a chair? Am I interested in the guy, or furnishings? People seem to think that made-up names are a requirement in sf, and it invariably stands out like a sore thumb.

Quote:

And how is it a cliche to do it how imrhati said? It's not sci-fi without technology, and therefore you have to show what the technology does at some point or another. No, not necessarily how it works; I tend to avoid that myself in science fiction (which is what I mostly write).

It's moot whether it's sf without technology - I disagree with you. Read, for example, Moorcock's 'The Black Corridor'. It's set in the future. It's set, for the most part, in space. The mc's family is frozen for the whole duration of the narrative, and appear only in his imagination. All the elements you could want for classic sf.

The science in the book is so far removed it almost doesn't exist. It's a story about the nature of self, an of identity, not a pseudo futuristic parts manual. What's important is the mental disintegration of a guilty man in self-imposed solitary confinement, not about space travel.

A good story is about people doing stuff.

bob rulz · 11-04-2006, 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Maybe I'm tainted by over exposure to badly written SF. To me, it's the sign of a bad writer putting in sf 'tags' to reinforce what they're writing.

Does it matter, for example, if a guy sits at a plastisteel chair, or just a chair? Am I interested in the guy, or furnishings? People seem to think that made-up names are a requirement in sf, and it invariably stands out like a sore thumb.

I wouldn't really consider it bad writing. It would be no different than mentioning that the couch is leather, or that the sweater is flannel. It's simply creating a more vivid universe to be in. However, I am in agreement that it's not necessary to include this information, but it's not a sign of bad writing. In my sci-fi book, all the cars hover...but I never mention that, because I don't deem it necessary. I simply refer to it as a car. Some people do feel the need (or the want) to include that info. I also don't think it's necessary to include the info of how it works or how it's made, but making up names for them simply gives a distinguishing identifier of some sort. Yes, sometimes it does sound cheesy...but no cheesier than a lot of the combo-names we've come up with for things in our daily life that we've become used to and don't even think about.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

It's moot whether it's sf without technology - I disagree with you. Read, for example, Moorcock's 'The Black Corridor'. It's set in the future. It's set, for the most part, in space. The mc's family is frozen for the whole duration of the narrative, and appear only in his imagination. All the elements you could want for classic sf.

The science in the book is so far removed it almost doesn't exist. It's a story about the nature of self, an of identity, not a pseudo futuristic parts manual. What's important is the mental disintegration of a guilty man in self-imposed solitary confinement, not about space travel.

Hmm, it sounds interesting; perhaps I'll try it some day. I agree that it's possible to make a good sci fi story without actually naming or going into detail about any futuristic technology, and I try to work off of this philosophy whenever I can. However, creating a science fiction story without mentioning any sort of futuristic technology is a very difficult, if not impossible, task, and not going into some details about them would require either an appropriate setting or very good writing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

A good story is about people doing stuff.

Yes, stories are always made good (or bad) by the characters. Stories are about characters. I try to put more characterization and realism into my stories than other sci-fi or fantasy books otherwise seem to do.

Emerson Darkness · 11-06-2006, 10:34 PM

Try it, but don't for a minute think that people reading a science fiction piece would not rather prefer to learn all about your strange new world in a creative setting instead of an appendix or some sort of introductory glossary.

The beauty of writing scifi is that it can be so different, and take a reader's imagination places she/he never thought it could go. Scifi readers want to learn new things, so my suggestion is that you incorporate your currently nonexisting technology into the story in an artful fashion ala George Lucas.

Who knows what a hydrospanner is? Yeah, exactly.
Come on star wars fans. I now your out there.

Well anyway, as Han Solo goes crawling through the bowels of his ship, while heading toward an asteroid field and running from three great imperial crusers, because the Falcon won't enter hyperspace, you kind of get the idea what a hydrospanner is for.

ghent96 · 11-08-2006, 11:24 AM

Well evidently there's a difference between Hard Sci-Fi and True Sci-Fi then

True Sci-Fi always deals with an ethical dilemna either inside the setting of, or imposed upon humanity by, technology. Whether the story is set in the hypothetical future, present, alternate present, or alternate past, technology and science is an important part of the story. It's responsible for establishing the setting and entire reason for the story (be it directly or indirectly), as well as causing or being involved in an ethical dilemna. It's tasked with moving the plot forward, whether alone or in combination with "people doing stuff". Finally, it's crucial to resovling the story - will they blow up the Death Star, will the Andromeda Strain escape or be cured, will cloning be accepted or rejected by society at large?

If your sci-fi story is merely people doing stuff, I'd hate to be a reader.

Sometimes people don't even DO anything in sci-fi. Sometimes technology does something to people, and they have to make a decision on it or react, or just deal with it and survive. When people DO things in a story but have a little futuristic technology described here and there, that's not sci-fi, that's action-adventure, fantasy, whatever... Star Trek is usually not sci-fi, it's futuristic adventure or geek-fi. I'd say Star Wars is sci-fi, contrary to an above poster, because it involves tech like cloning, death stars, hyperspace, the force, and how people war over them and how they affect people for better or for worse.

I agree with bob_rulz - creating a more vivid universe to immerse the reader in is of great importance. A story with only characters, while a noble experiment in writing perhaps, is not really a full story.

Good sci-fi creates that vivid universe, fills it with science and technology and hypotheses, cleverly places well-characterized people into positions to interact with that science/tech, and uncovers/solves a related ethical dilemna. That's my informed opinion based on reading other's works, definitions, instruction, and precedent.

Stewart · 11-08-2006, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob rulz

I wouldn't really consider it bad writing. It would be no different than mentioning that the couch is leather, or that the sweater is flannel. It's simply creating a more vivid universe to be in.

However, I am in agreement that it's not necessary to include this information, but it's not a sign of bad writing.

If someone tells me that the couch is leather or plastisteel then I'm going to mark it down as bad writing regardless. The only way it doesn't get marked down is if the leather or plastisteel is important to either the story or the character.

I really hate reading works, especially by hacks, where they put in stuff like "she was wearing a red raincoat with shiny plastic buttons all done up" as if the raincoat being red or the buttons being either shiny or plastic matters. Hell, do I even need to know she's wearing a raincoat? On a summer's day, it may be relevant, but when it's pissing down outside I would expect my mind to fill in the details, given that the story does not need to.

Quote:

In my sci-fi book, all the cars hover...but I never mention that, because I don't deem it necessary. I simply refer to it as a car. Some people do feel the need (or the want) to include that info.

Good. Much better to state that the characters crossed the road while cars buzzed overhead than to call them hovercars. Urgh!

Quote:

I also don't think it's necessary to include the info of how it works or how it's made, but making up names for them simply gives a distinguishing identifier of some sort.

Regarding the naming, it really does depend on the narrator. A third person you can just mention it (in)directly. In first person, it's a bit different. If it's someone new to the world then he may just dwell on the fact the cars can hover. Someone born and bred in this sci-fi city might just refer to it as a car, while an enthusiast may refer to it by its make and model. "Ooh, the MagLev 2000."

Quote:

creating a science fiction story without mentioning any sort of futuristic technology is a very difficult, if not impossible, task, and not going into some details about them would require either an appropriate setting or very good writing.

In a way, you could put Mary Shelley's Frankenstein into the science fiction category, given that it uses science to reanimate an assembled collection of body parts. Nothing futuristic there. But science fiction doesn't even need to be in the future. Check out Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go. Admittedly, it's in an alternative world but it's present day and the content is hardly futuristic.