Goodreads Authors/Readers discussion

Hello & Happy New Year!

I'm currently a self-published poet however as well as working on a second collection I'm working on my first novel, a work of science fiction. And so for the sake of fostering discussion I thought I'd ask about the writing experience of others.

So far I'm finding it challenging to balance fact with fiction. It seems when it's my turn to work getting out of my science head and into my fiction head I have to battle myself. My imagination cowers afraid it will cross the wrong boundaries. I feel like it's a sort of writing stage fright. I tell myself to just write bad and let it flow and that works but not in the way I'm needing it to.

So how about you, what did you find difficult - or are experiencing now - in your science fiction travels?

Cheers!

Balancing the "suspension of belief" with the story I want to tell. You must know enough of the science to support what you want to do at least in theory so readers will believe it. That's quite a balance to strike, and often it takes several rewrites and revisions to get it right. If you're on your rough draft (as I am with my trilogy-in-progress) I say just write. Don't worry about it being good. Just get the story written. You can do the research and tighten it up in rewrites, revisions, and proofreads.

I hope this helps!

Oh God all of it. I love your term, "writing stage fright" because that's exactly what it is.
I'm about two-thirds of the way through my first science fiction adventure, which has taken me a year and a half to write. I've actually finished two or three novels between chapters because this thing is kicking my butt. I'm nervous about the liberties I have to take with the laws of physics in order to make the story work. I'm nervous about how much detail to put in; I'm creating an entire world so I have to describe everything and everyone... but I don't want to bore the reader with random details either. I'm nervous about the geography I'm creating; is the climate on this planet believable? Are there too many mountains? Not enough?
I have NEVER been this nerveracked writing a book before, EVER. I usually just make it up as I go and take out everything that doesn't work later. For some reason I can't get into the groove that easily with this one.

I haven't written much SF in a long time, but once upon a time it was about all that I wrote. In those days, probably the hardest thing for me was to write a story rather than explain the world in which it was set. That's probably what you're talking about, too.

Key point to remember: people who live in a given world take most of it for granted. We flip a switch and a light comes on. Most of the time, we don't stop and explain to each other why the light comes on. It just does. In an SF story, the characters have to have the same level of take-it-for-grantedness about the technology they live with. Interestingly, if they do, most of the time the reader will, too, with minimal explanation.

I have an SF novel in the works now. It takes place out in the Oort cloud. If you're much into astronomy, you know what it is. If not, I've made reference to its location waaaaay out on the fringes of the solar system. I've done so in a couple of ways, one of which is mentioning how dark it is because the sun is just this very bright star. That's done not through explanation but through showing the feelings of various characters about where they are. That's all readers need. They'll get it.

I hope. ;-)

Dawn: FYI, I have a reasonable background in physics (I'm an amateur astronomer). If you want to run anything by me for workability, I'll be happy to comment on it.

I'm not an astronomer or scientist per se but I do research what goes into my work. I've had some amateur astronomers let me know I nailed things fairly well because I took the time to do the math. On other subjects I do the best anyone can with what is known.

If you keep some character profiles, and for alien species some short descriptions in a separate file from your manuscript you can build some background for your story, whether the background is included as an appendix is up to you.

If you've done your research well enough people will find it believable. Kind of like a story an alternate-earth where life developed along different lines, if the background is plausible the story should follow suit.

Dale wrote: "Dawn: FYI, I have a reasonable background in physics (I'm an amateur astronomer). If you want to run anything by me for workability, I'll be happy to comment on it."

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind when it comes time to edit.

With my most recent book the hardest thing for me was meeting what I thought my readers expectations would be. The plot of my book revolved around an alien abduction and I spent a lot of time researching "real" abductions wanting to capture what real people have experienced instead of just making something up.

I think with much of science fiction there are some people who have an easier time suspending belief, where others want to read about things that are more grounded in science.

Lauryn wrote: "I think with much of science fiction there are some people who have an easier time suspending belief, where others want to read about things that are more grounded in science..."

If the storyline references a 'hard science', there will be someone somewhere who will pick apart details.

If the storyline references something considered theoretical / hypothetical at best, it's easier to suspend disbelief, but there again if there are eyewitness type accounts it's best to go with what is considered 'known'.

The characters and plot should be what drives the story, but the science is what's under the hood. That said, you can tell an entire story without providing any explanation to some future or alien technologies, but many people (not all) still need that technology to have some basis in real physics as we understand it. And, as R.F.G. writes, if your science is not well-researched or entirely off the mark, someone will critique you for it. I thought I had done a fairly good job researching the science in my sci-fi novel, but I chanced upon a friend at work who had majored in physics and his advice allowed me to fix the 'mistakes' and enabled me to produce (what I feel is) a better overall product. If you are unsure of yourself, this is a great community to find beta-readers who are well-versed in this area.

The thing I most love about SF is that I can write about real-world issues without all the clutter attached. If I want to write about bigotry, politics, war, etc., I can write at a remove, and make points that otherwise might be caught up in whether the reader sees I'm for or against a side of an argument based on one specific point.

For me, hard SF would be pure torture, because I've never seen SF as being about the future, or projecting scientific concepts beyond the known. So really none of the issues regarding technology or science impacts my writing at all.

The hardest part is taking an old idea, say, a future society in which people fly from planet to planet as casually as we would go on a ship voyage today, and making it interesting and original. I don't want to just have readers slip into my world like a warm bath ala Star Trek--I want them to feel it is an alien world, a future not like ours. I want that "remove," so the reader can bond with the characters as they interact with this strange world. I want the opposite of the "regular guy in the future."

Coming up with that sense of strangeness is hard, and takes a lot of work, and can be very rewarding.

Imagine if you will, a world where humans evolved from rodents rather than primates...

R.F.G. wrote: "Imagine if you will, a world where humans evolved from rodents rather than primates..."

Skaven!

Dawn wrote: "R.F.G. wrote: "Imagine if you will, a world where humans evolved from rodents rather than primates..."

Skaven!"

Okay then, imagine the world where humans are egg-layers instead of placentals...

R.F.G. wrote: "Dawn wrote: "R.F.G. wrote: "Imagine if you will, a world where humans evolved from rodents rather than primates..."

Skaven!"

Okay then, imagine the world where humans are egg-layers instead of pl..."

Ow. :D

My one and only novel, released more than three years ago, is centered upon a social experiment to create the most perfect and productive society possible.

The most difficult task was determining which institutions, philosophies, and specific behaviors had been directly or indirectly responsible for war, crime, prejudice, bigotry, greed, and envy throughout history. Once that was accomplished, developing and narrating the story in such a way as to justify those activities being eliminated, without intentionally offending readers who might interpret the story to be a direct attack or disparagement of their personal beliefs and lifestyle, proved to be equally difficult, if not impossible, at times.

Dawn wrote: "Ow. :D "

I did one version of the egg-layer (prototherian) version of humans, but I won't release without editing, can't afford an editor, and have a Tiny Demon taking a lot of my time at the moment.

Plus the last person I heard back from on editing insists on Trad Publish strictures and suggested a good story won't run more than 70,000 to 120,000 words.

Oh well, back to working on a stellar system for now.

Hardest parts for me are 1) finding time to actually edit what I've written, and 2) knowing when I've not explained things well enough, and when I've overcomplicated things. I tend to come to a certain point in the story where I wonder whether, in my joy of pushing through to the finish, I've been too lazy and haven't fully developed or investigated the ramifications of what's going on in the story (or the technology in the story).

So, like in a society where everyone has implanted ID chips and just takes that for granted...have I failed to explore interesting and threatening possibilities of that? Would delving deeper into that slow the story down, or worse, change the story into something other than I had wanted it to be? Would more complexity and depth be better, or would it be a hindrance?

Hard to tell.

As for the science-ness of the science...that really only matters if you're trying to stick to Hard SF.

I've just read Asimov's Foundation Trilogy for the first time and he uses so much Flash Gordon scifi magic it's almost Star Wars (atomic blaster pistols, personal atomic shields the can totally protect you from an atomic blaster's death ray, hyperspace FTL travel with no explanation of the mechanism, floating atomic powered thrones, people glowing with atomic auras to impress the natives).

Yet everyone praises that work to high heaven. So if it was good enough for the Grand Old Man of SF, why worry about it now unless that's one of the challenges you set for your work?

As long as the story clicks, you can get away with whatever you like. Sure some people will wag fingers and declare "Actually this isn't science fiction because its technology is magic. This is fantasy." But who gives a s#@$?

"Strangers have left on longer trains before." ~ The Residents

Micah
I was never all that impressed by Flash Gordon. I guess I like nailing as much as I can so when I hit the parts there's no way to explain it's easier to say "nobody has that answer yet".

R.F.G. wrote: "Dawn wrote: "Ow. :D "

I did one version of the egg-layer (prototherian) version of humans, but I won't release without editing, can't afford an editor, and have a Tiny Demon taking a lot of my tim..."

It boggles my mind how many people out there still think that there are actually hard and fast rules for things like length, style, and technique. There are general trends, but there's really no predicting what people are going to like. Could anyone have predicted that sparkling emo vampires would become all the rage? I don't think anyone saw THAT coming.
That's what's great about the indie wave. You write what you write, and if your story is true to you, someone out there is going to read it and love it. Maybe not enough people to make a bigshot trad pubber offer you a million big ones, but who cares.

R.F.G. wrote: "Micah
I was never all that impressed by Flash Gordon. I guess I like nailing as much as I can so when I hit the parts there's no way to explain it's easier to say "nobody has that answer yet"."

Neither did I except for its camp-ness.

But my point was that Asimov wasn't too far off from that, at least the Foundation Trilogy wasn't. It was a few steps away in that it eschewed violence as a reasonable conflict resolution tactic, but as far as its technology goes it was still very pulp.

And Asimov is held up as one of the great SF giants. So I don't really thing it matters much in the end. If it's your style to make sure the science is all plausible, that's great! But its not a rule. And SF is all over the place as far as that goes.

In Asimov's defense, the Foundation books were so important in their time because of the scale of the concept, and his carrying through with it. I'm not the biggest Asimov fan, but if one compares the balance of his work, he left the Flash Gordon stuff behind very early in his career. You can hold it against him if you like, but it isn't a good example of why the bulk of his output was considered important to the growth of SF. He is held up as a giant because in context, compared to the mass of junk that came out concurrently, he was indeed more respectful of science later in the fifties and then in the eighties, which was actually more typical of his output as a whole.

P.S. Also, in Foundation he actually invented a science fictional SCIENCE, psychohistory. It's certainly not a 'real' science, but again, it's a lot more than what 99% of the stuff coming out at the time did when it came to science fiction.

R.F.G. wrote: "If the storyline references a 'hard science', there will be someone somewhere who will pick apart details.
If the storyline references something considered theoretical / hypothetical at best, it's easier to suspend disbelief, but there again if there are eyewitness type accounts it's best to go with what is considered 'known'..."

One thing that makes it difficult to write credible Hard Science Fiction is that you can do all the research, and still be called out on perceived errors by reviewers. I had one reviewer call into question the physics in the story, which I thoroughly researched, without specifying the actual error, OR the area of physics, while another complained that the story gave short shrift to the time delay that goes along with long-distance radio communications. You sometimes wonder if they read the whole book, or just missed the explanation. If so, maybe it was my fault that it wasn't clearer--some things you might mention in passing, but don't want to belabor because it slows down the story and makes it tedious. And you can't really complain when someone takes the time to write out a review, even if you disagree with it. Sometimes it just hard to agree, even on facts.

For me, the hardest part of writing science fiction has been when modern science actually progresses faster than imagined and messes up my story's plot. A prime example of this took place in the 1990s. I was working on my novel Brutal Adaptation, tackling the issue of genetic engineering. I was able to get a third of the way through the book when the news of the first successfully cloned sheep hit the headlines. Suddenly, I was stopped dead because I didn't know how this true event would effect the public attitudes and shape the laws. I ended up shelving the whole thing for over ten years before starting again from scratch with a revamped story plot.

On the issue of the "science is magic," I try to be as scientifically as accurate as possible when writing. Still, the thing I love most in reading science fiction is exploring new alien races and their societies. This would be impossible to write about if we had to avoid faster than light travel. To make a good story, you sometimes have to accept certain concepts like FTL as a given, and ignore the naysayers.

When it comes to 'impossibilities' and physics, I think about how at one point in time it was considered impossible for a person to travel in a vehicle with a velocity greater than 70 MPH as the speed would force the air out suffocating the passenger. People today would laugh at that concept.

While current physics and technologies make FTL travel an impossibility, it doesn't mean that someone somewhere won't find a loophole. Then there is another old staple, suspended animation, which due to ongoing research isn't quite as implausible as it may sound.

When it comes to what may or may not happen, all we can do is go with a best guess, place it in a setting that allows the suspension of disbelief, and give it a shot.

If one of us gets lucky, someone will take an idea seriously enough to bring it closer to reality.

There's been hypothesized loopholes around for quite a while now on FTL. A quick search for Miguel Alcubierre will show one of them. Unfortunately, the people who complain about the science/magic do not always do their research. It is funny, though, how much modern technology had already been previously seen in science fiction TV/movies. The iPads and tablets of today were first shown in the Star Trek TV series. Touch screen controls, also on ST. Small and thin, removable data storage devices for data, another ST creation. I'm sure there are many others, but those came to mind first.

The funny thing about the original Star Trek series is that not long after it first appeared, everything from stereos to kitchen appliances began to come with slide controls (like the ST transporter) instead of knobs.

Micah wrote: "Hardest parts for me are 1) finding time to actually edit what I've written, and 2) knowing when I've not explained things well enough, and when I've overcomplicated things. I tend to come to a cer..."

Do you have people reading for you? The only way to answer your questions are to get other eyes and opinions on your work. And you should do it before your final revisions too. Even small changes can affect large portions of text or potentially whole story arcs. Better to confront them in an early stage of writing than when you're ready for an editor. Other authors, especially in your genre, can be wonderful help and may be willing to swap "critique" service.

I, too, was very worried about whether I had the science right in my first novel, and it made it very difficult to pull the self-publish lever for fear that I had something wrong. At the end of the day, however, I realized that what I was writing was science FICTION. It's just a story, and if some want to get caught up in the details, that's their prerogative.

While I'm always eager to receive positive criticism to help me grow as a writer, I'm just pleased to know that writing my story was all worth it for those who enjoyed it.

This is neither here nor there, but I was reading The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester (amazing story, definitely withstands the test of time), and it hit me how futuristic sci-fi that was written 30-50 years ago has all this new technology and amazing transportation systems... and there are still pay phones everywhere. I don't know why, but that just struck me as funny. Telescreens, FTL travel, taking a train from one planet to the next in minutes... and when you get there you can find a pay phone no problem. It's just a funny juxtaposition to me.

ooh thats easy - the damn science. lolz
i like hard sci fi so i want my science correct when i write my story. the research takes a lot of my time (im into metaphysics... been interested since middle school). i tend to write action adventure space operas so it takes me a bit to finish. i had a manuscript ready for blaster books but had to fix it because my science was wrong (mecha functionings in space whee) and i been hitting the books to correct it. its taking a lot longer than i thought because im trying to get my alien planets and alien life forms correct and just opened a bag of worms... i dint want the die hards to wreck my work. because those obsessive kids dont play -_-

I bought a copy of this a year or two ago and it came in really handy. Lots of helpful info about how stars and planets work, the theory behind FTL travel, and the different ways to address futuristic, "impossible" science.
http://www.amazon.com/Writers-Creatin...

Oddly some technologies are seen as indispensable and may be quite prevalent when the story is written, much like fax machines were when the movie "Back to the Future II" was produced. Later on those technologies get sidelined by different developing technologies.

Sometimes the writers guess right, sometimes they guess wrong. Often enough people who really love a story don't mind the inaccuracies.

But then there's that 25-year-old kid living in his parents' basement who speaks Klingon and studies particle physics for fun, who can pick up on details, like the sun rising in the east on Venus...

Dawn wrote: "This is neither here nor there, but I was reading The Demolished Man by Alfred Bester (amazing story, definitely withstands the test of time), and it hit me how futuristic sci-fi that was written 3..."

Thanks for the link. It looks helpful. I love reading/watching sci-fi and have (MG) story ideas, but hard science is not my forte. Luckily I do have people I can call on to proofread for me!

Finding that happy middle ground is key.

Tom wrote: "There's been hypothesized loopholes around for quite a while now on FTL. A quick search for Miguel Alcubierre will show one of them. Unfortunately, the people who complain about the science/magic do not always do their research..."

From my experience here and elsewhere, most of the people who complain about science/magic do know all about the hypothesized loopholes around FTL...but they still declare all that magic basically because they require things which are outside our knowledge right now.

The Alcubierre "warp" drive, for example, requires a theoretical negative-energy exotic matter, which has never actually been proven to exist. So, the naysayers declare, that is "magic." Doesn't matter to them that such things are based on scientific supposition or principles. All that matters to them is that they have not been scientifically proven to exist, therefore using them in a story makes the story fantasy.

You can't win arguments like that. So basically I just write the kind of SF I like to read and don't worry about such criticism.

B.B. wrote: "Do you have people reading for you? The only way to answer your questions are to get other eyes and opinions on your work. And you should do it before your final revisions too..."

I do, but they don't see the manuscript until it's at least complete. While I'm writing is when the real questions come up, or in my first few reviews of the rough draft.

This kind of questioning pushed a short story into becoming a novella, as I decided to flesh out the protagonist's back story more. I'm glad I did, I think it made the story a lot stronger in the end.

Micah wrote: "B.B. wrote: "Do you have people reading for you? The only way to answer your questions are to get other eyes and opinions on your work. And you should do it before your final revisions too..."

I d..."

I have beta readers who see the manuscript in almost finished form, but for my current WIP I've been working with another author as a critique partner and it's been extremely valuable. Even if they don't know about the topic or write in the same genre, if they understand the craft, they can help with whether there's too much detail, not enough, flow, pace, plot holes, character inconsistency, etc.

Micah wrote: " . . . but they still declare all that magic basically because they require things which are outside our knowledge right now."

I find this attitude quite humorous. To me, if the story is about science that exists now, then it is no longer science fiction. It is just fiction. Real science fiction looks at scientific possibilities. I've heard James P. Hogan was considered a Hard Science fiction writer in his heyday. Yet, he used scientific theories in many of his novels that are not accepted in the scientific community, such as the Steady State Universe. At its roots, science fiction is speculative fiction. In my opinion, it shines brightest when it looks at 'what if.' What if you created a world in the shape of a ring, spinning around a sun to make gravity? What if life exists swimming in the gases of Saturn?

In my book, Terraforming Teardrop, I used J. Marvin Herndon, PH.D.'s Nuclear Planet theory as an important element in the plot of the story. Even though the vast scientific community believes the Earth's core is made of molten iron, As far as I know, nobody has proven that the core is not actually a nuclear reactor. Dr. Herndon's theory explains magnetic fields and their tendencies to shift pole over time just as well, if not better, then the idea of a molten iron core. Which ever theory is right, we've yet to find a way to prove one over the other (again, as far as I know. I haven't read anything about it to date.) But that really doesn't matter. The real pleasure for me was using this new idea and incorporating it into fun and engaging story.

No offense to the people who only like 100% accurate science but they are limiting their own potential enjoyment. The type of accuracy they desire will never make a book keep the majority of reader's eagerly turning the pages by itself. Readers need engaging characters and a good plot. However, no matter how bad the science in a novel, it can still grab the readers if the latter two are done well. How much reading enjoyment must these people be depriving themselves of, I wonder?

omg dawn thanks for the link! imma buy a copy ad soon as possible. this will help so much. i've been crunching numbers for awhile and researching driving myself nuts. what a life saver!!

I have a an SF type survivors book which I researched heavily on viruses before publishing.I aimed for realism in that scenario as much as possible, but I don't consider that book true SF.

I also have an SF series, a space opera that I am writing part 2 of. The science background in the series uses current fusion research and other real science elements such as quantum string theory, dimensional research and advances in medicine (stem cells) and nano technology. I have set my human world over 1000 years in the future. Despite this the hardest systems part is writing about time and measurement. I have blogged about this too.

We are prisoners of our own reference systems. We are tied to days hours, dates and numbering systems. Other worlds and civilizations may be different. Even when human beings eventually colonize mars, a mars resident will have a different concept of a day and a year. I have rareley seen this discussed in SF

I find this element as fascinating as the technology piece. If we get confused with Earth timezones imagine different timings completely.

Philip wrote: "I also have an SF series, a space opera that I am writing part 2 of. The science background in the series uses current fusion research and other real science elements such as quantum string theory, dimensional research and advances in medicine (stem cells) and nano technology"

Philip, It seems like you've put a lot of thought into your series. It sounds very compelling. However, I am curious to know why you consider it a space opera, if you are including elements of hard science. I typically think of space opera as a sci fi adventure that simply takes all futuristic concepts for granted (e.g. FTL, weaponry, etc.) without much rationalization for the science behind it.

Best wishes!

Michael wrote: "Philip wrote: "I also have an SF series, a space opera that I am writing part 2 of. The science background in the series uses current fusion research and other real science elements such as quantum..."

It is the simplest description. Most readers will probably miss some of the hard science hidden in the back story. If harder SF fans like it, excellent, I do not mind. I do not make try to make the technical side the main description although it does play a large part in the plot i.e. space travel. No idea if my scientific elements will come true but there is considerable research into the areas I show as solved and therefore common place. Starting with fusion as the power source.

Personally I like my SF to have the grounding of developed technology with a bit of explanation not just the fact of it. Likewise societal changes. How did this society come about or how does it work. The space opera tag is because its a series - like a soap opera, set in space for some part.

The trick is to use 'science fiction' to create realities that don't currently exist (or we are not aware of) as a background for your story. For example another universe where another culture exists.

Don't try to alter our known reality and describe science that can't be real.

You can't violate our laws of physics in our universe, period. If you try it won't be believable.

I think a lot of authors forget that first word in this genre: SCIENCE.

Yes, science fiction needs to have some basis in science. If you want to write fantasy about dragons and trolls that's fine. If you want to write science fiction then do some research and know what you're talking about is remotely possible.

What's the difference? An imaginary helicopter will never break the sound barrier or fly 7,500 miles on a tank of jet fuel, or have unlimited bullets.

If you want to avoid ridicule don't get bogged down in inventing things that can't exist in our known universe, stick with a bigger picture.

Dawn wrote: "I'm nervous about the liberties I have to take with the laws of physics in order to make the story work. I'm nervous about how much detail to put in ..."

Don't violate the known laws of physics - if you want to make something up, make it up somewhere else...

Ed wrote: "Dawn wrote: "I'm nervous about the liberties I have to take with the laws of physics in order to make the story work. I'm nervous about how much detail to put in ..."

Don't violate the known laws ..."

I don't violate the known laws, but I do explore the less likely possibilities around the edges of the universe. I feel like there's a fine line there, but as Doctor Who has demonstrated you can force a little wiggle room if it's a good enough story.

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; like a habitable double-planet where the two worlds are so close they each fill the others sky. One would think tidal forces would make such a pair uninhabitable, however if the two have more separation...

It's about knowing what will and won't have the readers calling foul.