Sci-fi advice for me??? - Page 3 - Writers Forum

Stewart · 11-08-2006, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghent96

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

Shame that. You'd be depriving yourself of something that sounds good rather than the torrid cliche driven crap you described above.

Mike C · 11-08-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghent96

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

I'd stick to comics if I were you.

Don't read 1984. Don't read Brave New World. Or the Chrisalids, the Day of the Triffids, any work by Moorcock or Ballard or Aldiss or Ellison or even most of Asimov's work, because they all have something in common - they are character, not technology, driven. Even Arthur C Clarke - his books are quite science heavy, but like all the above, he uses the tech as a backdrop to stories about people - doing stuff.

In fact, forget comics too. Spiderman - is it about radioactive spiders, or about a teenage boy? Silver Surfer - a lesson in cosmology, or en examination of the nature of humanity and loneliness?

Quote:

True Sci-Fi always deals with an ethical dilemna either inside the setting of, or imposed upon humanity by, technology

Since when? Whose definition of 'true' SF are you using? 'True' SF tends to defy trite pideonholing.

Better still, forget SF completely. Just make sure you don't go over the lines in your colouring book.

Vee · 11-08-2006, 06:57 PM

I've been thinking about my definition of sci-fi and I've come to the conclusion that sci-fi is still about the science but the science does not necessarily have to be explained as long as the futuristic devices are a reasonable extrapolation.

imrhati · 11-08-2006, 08:50 PM

Science fiction onyl provides a setting, you need characters and actions to go somewhere in it.

Emerson Darkness · 11-08-2006, 09:04 PM

interesting sig Vee.
"Ive heard that before."

Mike C · 11-09-2006, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by imrhati

Science fiction onyl provides a setting, you need characters and actions to go somewhere in it.

Indeed. Science/setting is just a backdrop, much like a set in a theatre. You don't go to the theatre to look at the scenery, but the people moving around in front of it.

bob rulz · 11-09-2006, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart

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 don't see why people think there's anything wrong with that. Just because it's not important to the development of the story doesn't mean that it shouldn't be mentioned. Writing is an art, not a machine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart

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.

That description would be too much for me, too, but simply a "red raincoat" is quite relevant. If a person wears dark clothes, chains hanging from their jeans, studded belts, etc, it says a lot about their character, just like if they wear plain clothes, or if they wear a suit everywhere. Clothing is a personality trait, just like anything else. And just because they're in the rain doesn't mean they're wearing a rain coat, which is another reason I think it's certainly not bad writing. You don't need to mention that the couch is leather, but does it really harm the story if you do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart

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

Yes, indeed. I'm sure in the future, if we ever get to the point of all cars hovering, they won't be referred to as hover cars...the standard name for them would remain the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart

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.

Some people can class that into science fiction, and I certainly don't deny their right to define it that, but I don't believe that it is science fiction. Science fiction, in my mind, deals with futuristic technology and, oftentimes, exploration of ethical issues dealing with technology.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghent96

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.

Well, certainly Star Wars is science fiction. But it can also be classed as fantasy. Think about it; adventurous farmboy has his parents murdered by an Evil Empire ruled by an Evil Emperor and is able to embark on a "coming-of-age" quest, where he discovers who his true self is, supports a good cause against the Evil Empire, saves the princess from the clutches of evil, and saves the Universe (eventually). Sounds like a fantasy storyline, only with more advanced technology and a far larger scale. Just replace planets with different regions among a single planet, ships and vehicles with horses, lightsaber battles with sword fights, epic space battles with epic ground battles, the Force with magic, the Emperor with an evil King or evil Wizard, and walla, you've got yourself a fantasy movie. Star Wars is simply a fantasy storyline superimposed in a science fiction setting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghent96

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

All stories are just about people doing stuff. It's simply why they do them, how they do them, and where they do them that changes between books. If there's one thing that all stories must have, it's characters doing things. Nothing else in a story is mandatory.

Mike C · 11-09-2006, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bob rulz

IWell, certainly Star Wars is science fiction. But it can also be classed as fantasy.

So true. Star Wars has all the elements of classic fantasy, even the meeting at the inn at the beginning of the quest! But I think the secret of SW broad appeal and success is that it successfuly melds elements from virtually every genre - it's part sf, part fantasy, part western, part cops 'n' robbers... like Tarantino does now, Lucas borrowed heavily from just about everyone from Hitchcock to Kurosawa. The movie pushes all the right buttons. But still, above all, it's the characters that drive things forwards.

Quote:

Science fiction, in my mind, deals with futuristic technology and, oftentimes, exploration of ethical issues dealing with technology.

Can, but doesn't have to. A classic example of what you're referring to is, obviously, Bladerunner. Or 2001.

But what about some of the examples I quoted earlier? Anything by Wyndham, for example, where there's no overt technology, no ethical issues, just ordinary people dealing with extraordinary circumstances? Or Moorcock, whose main characters are largely amoral and don't give a stuff about ethics? There is technology there, for sure, but it just exists. He never stoops to tell you how anything works, or even describes it, any more than you'd get a description of a pager in a contemporary novel.

Bottom line is, I guess, that SF defies definition. Hard or soft, there are a thousand variants.

bob rulz · 11-10-2006, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Can, but doesn't have to. A classic example of what you're referring to is, obviously, Bladerunner. Or 2001.

But what about some of the examples I quoted earlier? Anything by Wyndham, for example, where there's no overt technology, no ethical issues, just ordinary people dealing with extraordinary circumstances? Or Moorcock, whose main characters are largely amoral and don't give a stuff about ethics? There is technology there, for sure, but it just exists. He never stoops to tell you how anything works, or even describes it, any more than you'd get a description of a pager in a contemporary novel.

Well, as I said before, it doesn't have to describe the technology to be science fiction, and it certainly doesn't have to say how it works. But most sci-fi books do describe the technology, they do say what it is. But it's not a requirement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike C

Bottom line is, I guess, that SF defies definition. Hard or soft, there are a thousand variants.

Very true.

JK_Wannabe · 11-10-2006, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flexbile Garphite

Hello, I am attempting to write a science-fiction novel, and would like some advice, specifically, do you think it's a good idea to provide the readers with a narrative section at the beginning with background on the world that they're about to be immersed in? I figure it might work because it will save the reader from having to simultaneously learn crucial things about the history, places, or technologies of that world while they are reading, and allows them to focus on the story instead. Without the extra narrative, description aimed at explaining future technologies might get in the way of the story itself. However, I also think a pre-narrative could be a “bad writer’s cop-out”, meaning that a good writer should be able to explain the technologies and history sufficiently enough to make it both believable and easy to read.

What are your thoughts on this? I am still on the fence… George Orwell included an appendix on Newspeak in 1984, and I am inclined to do something similar in my novel…

If you haven't even started yet, my advice would be to try to write it however it feels natural to you and then go back and change it later if nessecary.

If you've already finished it, read through and ask yourself, "As a reader, which way would I like to see this written?"

I hope that helps some.

GradysGhost · 11-20-2006, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghent96

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.

Good point. I think of Ray Bradbury's "The Veldt" and "There Will Come Soft Rains." The Veldt - where technology has become so pervasive that people have become unable to do the simplest things without it, like tying their shoelaces. There Will Come Soft Rains - where even after a war has torn the world apart and all the people in it are dead, the only thing left is all the technology, still doing everything it used to.

Bradbury is a brilliant man. I hope he never dies.

Cynic · 11-20-2006, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flexbile Graphite

What are your thoughts on this? I am still on the fence… George Orwell included an appendix on Newspeak in 1984, and I am inclined to do something similar in my novel…

Just about anything can be done well. But that kind of thing usually comes across as cheesy anymore. It's not so much the form, I think, as it is the history it has acquired through the beginings of countless '80s movies like Escape from New York. Sure, that's a cool movie. But it's hard to be taken seriously when your preface reads like the opening voiceover from The A-Team. Time was, that was a thought that wouldn't have crossed the reader's mind. But the new history has changed us.

A footnote or two, or an appendix can be OK though, if the work seems to need it. Of course it's difficult to determine the difference between a work that needs that and a work that could have done a better job of informing the reader inline. It can be a matter of style, like in The Foundation series.

My personal ideal of sci-fi takes the technology for granted. But I'm a fan of the "transcends genre" notion. What I mean is, I don't recommend that technology or circumstances should be discussed anymore than they must be. Part of that's the "show don't tell" bit. But more specifically, I mean that no matter what period of time or circumstance a book is set in, the level of exposition should be about the same. So, if you're writing a story set in modern day, it would be odd to describe in exacting detail the form, function, and history of a car. And by extension it's odd to describe whatever the current equivellent happens to be. Explaination should be a last resort and only used if the detail is both crucial and necessary to keep the reader from getting lost.

But of course that's just my opinion. By all means, if you can make such a thing work, don't let anyone stop you.

ghent96 · 12-06-2006, 12:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewart

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

Sorry for the cuts. I think you oversimplify, just like reading a story merely about "people doing stuff" would be incredibly droll. Be descriptive... just not purple. Immerse the reader, but avoid drowning them.

To a futuristic reader, perhaps your cars sentence will instill a mental image of vehicles flying through the air. To a reader of today, it could just imply walking across a road under another road with cars on it - ie - an overpass. Not very consistent with what the author wants to portray now, is it? No, it's not. The reader will interpret and imagine what your work tells them to imagine. If you leave out a detail, then anything goes. Your work becomes an adulterated bastard child, contorted into something you didn't intend.

Even with a single or short work, you create a universe for the reader to immerse themselves in. If they get confused, or aren't immersed enough, they'll dump you and find another author without a second's thought. There's certainly a surplus to choose from.

Some people accuse writers like Clancy, Koontz, Crichton, Grisham of being hacks. Maybe, but I'd dare to say that far more people disagree - clearly they are popular for a reason. Different genre, I know...

(it's just sad to read Mike's posts, I can't be bothered to comment/rebutt at this late hour.)

My bottom line still stands - sci-fi must involve technology (science) and people both. You cannot neglect one or the other, they necessarily define the genre. Too much tech, and you have geek-fi or a Star Trek episode. Too little tech, and you just have drama, adventure, thriller, or w/e. The tech is more than just a setting, otherwise you merely have futuristic fiction. I can concede that Star Wars is probably more fantasy/futuristic fiction than sci-fi, but it's borderline.

Ben Bova strikes me as fairly good so far. I like Timothy Zahn, but you have to get past the SW books, and read Angelmass & Conquerers. Otherwise, not so good. I think any sci-fi writer has to get back to the roots, though, to read, learn, absorb them. Asimov, Clarke, Wells, Verne, etc. It should improve your own work, and help you read newer authors more critically.

Mike C · 12-06-2006, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghent96

(it's just sad to read Mike's posts, I can't be bothered to comment/rebutt at this late hour.)

My bottom line still stands - sci-fi must involve technology (science) and people both.

What's really sad, ghent, is your slavish insistence on adherence to your own self-imposed rules. SF can involve tech, but needn't, and you don't need to bog your work down in description to convey the obvious to the reader. I had a SF story piblished in Jupiter, a respected UK print SF Mag.

It was about time travel - or rather it wasn't. It was about two guys who happened to travel around in time. The ONLY tech:

"Three small electrical devices, one with a meter of some sort, one with a small LCD display, one with a sequence of flashing lights, red and green."

That's the only description of the time machine in the whole story. It's the techiest part of the story. The editor liked it enough to make it the lead story. He liked it because it was about people doing stuff. Not bad for a mag that only prints SF.

SF is a broad church. Don't try to narrow it down to fit your own narrow definition, ghent, and don't forget that the things that make a great sf story are the same things that make any other genre great.

bob rulz · 12-06-2006, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ghent96

Ben Bova strikes me as fairly good so far. I like Timothy Zahn, but you have to get past the SW books, and read Angelmass & Conquerers. Otherwise, not so good. I think any sci-fi writer has to get back to the roots, though, to read, learn, absorb them. Asimov, Clarke, Wells, Verne, etc. It should improve your own work, and help you read newer authors more critically.

Timothy Zahn wrote a great trilogy based off of Star Wars. Not to revive this endless debate, but just because it's fan fiction does not mean it is not great work. The Thrawn Trilogy is fantastic (especially compared to the other Star Wars books, some of which are okay, some of which are really bad). I get kind of sick of the anti-fan fiction vendetta among "good" writers, just because they aren't writing completely original stories. Originality =/= writing talent. I've wanted to try out his original stuff, but I haven't gotten around to it yet. I'm sure they're great, considering how good his Star Wars books are (amazing for fan fiction).