Stewart

I think you are misinterpreting the notion of "people doing stuff". It's not a bunch of delinquents just hanging around the mall, shooting the shit. Doing stuff is about the events in their lives and how they go about dealing with them.

But what's the point in describing things that are irrelevant to the narrative? Unless, of course, you are being paid for your word count. I don't believe it's immersive at all; more restrictive. You want to give the reader enough detail to spark their imagination, not to control it.

I'm sure Charles Dickens, Gustave Flaubert et al were very knowledgable of what was going to happen one hundred years on from when they wrote. I'm so happy they brought their works into the 21st Century from the comfort of the 18th. By writing your brand of sci-fi, it's hardly a guarantee that you are going to have futuristic readers since concepts date. Those that seem to endure are the one where people do stuff.

A few reasons:

Their publishers buy up the tables at the front of stores and these are the books that people tend to buy due to the perceived value for money you get when you get them in a 3 for 2 deal. These are the books that get billboard posters and ads in magazines. (When did you last see a Shunsuke Endo or an Anna Kavan book advertised?)

It's no surprise that the generally ignorant reader will gravitate to something like this. These are people who tend toward their annual haul when jetting off on vacation. Perhaps they do find it exciting, but more than likely they just don't want to try new stuff. Hackwork is safework.

Sounds more like you've changed your tune. You were saying earlier that it must be about the technology, now you are saying it must involve technology. You'll be saying fantasy must include dragons next, then conceding that it doesn't.

__________________
book reviews | world lit forum

Cynic

The best description I've seen of science fiction is that it must portray the effects advancement has on people and of society.

That leaves a lot of wiggle room, but it also nicely chops out stories that are effectively contemporary stories set in another time. Striving to transcend genre is a noble goal, of course, but not required. But stories that involve flying cars and starships for no particular reason I think miss the point of what I consider to be the essense of science fiction.

One good rule of thumb is to ask yourself: if people in the future read it and the future turns out exactly as you've predicted, and they didn't know it was written in the past... would they understand it to be science fiction?

It's not all that important a rule, necessarily. But it's a useful question to ask yourself if you're wonder if some element you're going out of your way to describe is gratuitus or not.

__________________
"I don't like to write. I like to have written." -William Zinsser

Mike C

Any rule that contains the word 'must' is bad.

__________________
My writing
My Photo Blog
Web design for Writers
The Oddville Press

Cynic

I suppose that could go for those that contain "any" as well.

There are usually exceptions. My point is, if you strip out the notion of advancement and its effects, what you're left with is just speculation about the future. And while there's nothing wrong with that, that's best described as speculative fiction, not science fiction.

__________________
"I don't like to write. I like to have written." -William Zinsser