Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

From my favorite author of all times:

I will define science fiction, first, by saying what science fiction is not. It cannot be defined as 'a story set in the future,' [nor does it require] ultra-advanced technology. It must have a fictitious world, a society that does not in fact exist, but is predicated on our known society... that comes out of our world, the one we know:

This world must be different from the given one in at least one way, and this one way must be sufficient to give rise to events that could not occur in our society…

There must be a coherent idea involved in this dislocation…so that as a result a new society is generated in the author's mind, transferred to paper, and from paper it occurs as a convulsive shock in the reader's mind, the shock of dysrecognition.

[In] good science fiction, the conceptual dislocation---the new idea, in other words---must be truly new and it must be intellectually stimulating to the reader…[so] it sets off a chain-reaction of ramification, ideas in the mind of the reader; it so-to-speak unlocks the reader's mind so that that mind, like the author's, begins to create…. The very best science fiction ultimately winds up being a collaboration between author and reader, in which both create---and enjoy doing it, [experiencing] the joy of discovery of newness.

--Philip K. Dick, The Collected Stories of Philip K. Dick, Carol Publishing, 1999, xviii-xiv.

Michael wrote: "I am curious to know why you consider it a space opera..."

Space opera's definition has changed since the old days. Some talk about "new space opera" where scientific credibility is a lot more prevelent. [from wikipedia]:

"The new space opera was a reaction against the old. New space opera proponents claim that the genre centers on character development, fine writing, high literary standards, verisimilitude, and a moral exploration of contemporary social issues. McAuley and Michael Levy[12] identify Iain M. Banks, Stephen Baxter, M. John Harrison, Alastair Reynolds, McAuley[11] himself, Ken MacLeod, Peter F. Hamilton and Justina Robson as the most notable practitioners of the new space opera."

I think the most difficult point in writing a science fiction story, just as it is with any story, is defining the story you want to tell, defining the tone of the story, defining the core characters and their interaction and then asking yourself - do I really want to tell this story? If you know the answer to all of the above and the answer to the last question is - if I don't tell it, I will explode, you just go ahead and write it. Another thing I have learned through writing 12 works of science fiction is that limiting yourself to one genre is just that - limiting yourself. We are living in a post-modernist age where nothing is incompatible. You can play around with concepts and ideas and mix them with the straightforward story you are telling. It will spice it up and make the process more engaging both for you and the reader. Another thing I miss in many of the books I read today, and which I try to re-capture in my own books, is the sense of humor. One remembers the new Joker's famous quote of why so serious? Indeed, why so serious? Your story may cover anything from the death of the planet to a sixteen legged mutant trombone player but whatever it is, just keep in mind that this is first and foremost - entertainment. So have fun :)

BTW: Faster Than Light is a fascinating subject, but an all too easy loophole in my opinion.

In my books I prefer the reality that FTL is impossible. That sets up much more interesting situations. Like if a mission to another star would require hundreds of years. Generations would be born, live, and die on the spacecraft. Think of that commitment to the journey.

R.F.G. wrote: "The details that go into the back story do get interesting, hence the research.

Unlike graphic artists, if you back a story with science you can't use your words to paint an impossible picture; li..."

I'm not sure if there's any way to know that without a HUGE selection of beta readers. Like at least 20 people. There are a lot of books out there that I feel should never have gotten off the ground, and yet they seem to click with readers.

Dawn wrote: "R.F.G. wrote: "The details that go into the back story do get interesting, hence the research.

Unlike graphic artists, if you back a story with science you can't use your words to paint an impossi..."

Consider a different point of view. My father-in-law has a background in science, he also teaches science and higher math. He's into astronomy. Up until I sent him some back story data for one of the novels I'm working on, he thought most Sci-Fi writers today were simply fantasizing stories set on other worlds, as in there was no scientific grounding. His basic point was he thought most Sci-Fi writers were full of crap, till he saw what I sent him.

Yes, some people love some novels with bad fuzzy (at best) science behind them, and others have avoided reading any speculative fiction due to those same novels based on bad fuzzy science.

Vardan wrote: "I think the most difficult point in writing a science fiction story, just as it is with any story, is defining the story you want to tell, defining the tone of the story, defining the core characte..."

FTW and time travel are the two big difficulties in much science fiction. I have proposed a solution in my series for one but not the other. I based this on real research into multiple particle states. i am not Stephen Hawking or others I do not have the theoretical mathematics to argue but I do understand the concepts that are being proposed around intra-dimensional and inter-dimensional states. Sub-atomic particles or Bosuns and quarks all leave much understanding to be discovered.

I set my future one thousand years ahead. If you had shown someone from the year 1015 a jet plane, an x-ray or a mobile phone, including the leading scientists and thinkers of their day, they would have said impossible or magic. Speculative science fiction needs imagination. If there are scientific theories or actuality behind it all the better. Some of the best SF every written was about life on mars, does this make it less entertaining or less of a good story now we know there is nothing like what was portrayed in War of the Worlds?

It's great to see a lot of positive discussion taking place here! :) Thanks.

I've long heard and even practiced the strategy of writing bad just to get it out. Now I believe I've allowed myself at the same time I still left the devil editor on my shoulder. I let myself write bad in some ways but then when it came to really using my imagination and setting it free if you will I once again became critical.

I expect that with Hard Science Fiction especially there will always be someone out there ready and willing to pick at your story and its details. Given the nature of science though I think there's a lot more that isn't set in stone than is. Have you heard, "The more we learn the more we don't know", or something along those lines? I agree with others that if your plot and characters are interesting and believable enough some bumps in the road will be overlooked or excused. I've certainly done this with movies. This keeps with my belief that sometimes cliches are allowed, don't put weight on them, but use them strategically so they're hardly recognizable or seen.

It would seem to me that "show don't tell" is actually more important in SciFi than in many other genres. Advice I've read and learned is that your character's world is theirs, and like someone else said, they don't see the need to explain all the simple things to each other, the every day things. So when writing about a different world it's important that we don't remind our readers that they are reading about someone. We need to enable them to be a fly on the wall. If I wanted to tell you what it's like living with Parrots I'll tell you all about what routines I have, the noise level in my house, the mess, etc. But if I want to tell you a story about a girl who lives with parrots I'm not going to explain what or why she's doing what she's doing. I'm going to have her go about her daily routine like it's nothing because to her it is. If I want you to see it through the eyes of an "outsider" I'll do just that and give the perspective of say the neighbor, or someone who visits her house.

When it comes to deciding whether or not to add more detail I think this is definitely a time to allow for bad writing just to get the thoughts out. A lot of advice for writing suggests fleshing out details that are important to your story even if they're not going to be included in the actual story. This way you come to know people, things, and places better and you can move forward. Plus having readers is super important for this because they can say hey, that was so boring, too long, it made me stop for the day, whether or not your manuscript is done this can be done.

On the topic of doing your research and staying away from the things that just aren't possible I must ask, who or what deems something impossible? I certainly understand the importance in doing your research and making sure your story is believable even if it is make-believe - after all I started this thread about how do you balance it and still be imaginative - however science is constantly changing, things being proven, then unproven, then decided upon to be something else entirely. So I think it's not the best advice to say just don't write about things that are impossible. Once upon a time TV would have been impossible. Just imagine telling the people of 1901 about the internet...yeah, probably wouldn't go well. I wouldn't say stay within what's possible because that is too general, but can you make it believable within a reasonable degree?

Cheers everyone!

The science, definitely the science.

I wasn't the best student when it came to scientific stuff, even if I was fascinated by the concepts. I spent a lot of time doing research for my next novel so the science wouldn't be perfect, but would at least make sense.

Micah wrote: "From my favorite author of all times:

I will define science fiction, first, by saying what science fiction is not. It cannot be defined as 'a story set in the future,' [nor does it require] ultra-..."
I really don't know how much better it can be said than this. And this definition is what lets me know I still have a place in this genre.