The Laws of Science Fiction

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Theodore Sturgeon once commented that an SF story is one that could not exist without the science component. If yours can, maybe you aren't writing SF.

Originally Posted by Luke King

I think this a little limiting. There are plenty of novels in the top 100 lists that could exist without their science component, and some simply have none at all.

In this class there is 1984, Fahrenheit 451, Brave New World, The Man in the High Castle, A Clockwork Orange, Journey to the Center of the Earth, The Handmaid's Tale, The Chrysalids, Flatland - and that's just what I can pick from what I've read on this list:

The science that made 1984 different from us was psychology (propaganda, mainly). Fahrenheit 451 was SF because of the sociology (the pattern of behavioral norms that existed in that society but not ours). The science that made Brave New World SF was an advancement in reproduction (mass-reproduction). And The Handmaid's Tale took one aspect of our current society, emphasized it, and added a technological event (some kind of disaster with fertility).

The thing is, Luke, is that you've confused technology with science. The 2 are not the same. You've listed a bunch of classic stories that are SF because of the science, not technology.

Also, you're wrong about Brave New World. There would be no story if not for the technology.

P.S. Thanks for listing the stories. Explaining why they were SF was fun .

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

The science that made 1984 different from us was psychology (propaganda, mainly). Fahrenheit 451 was SF because of the sociology (the pattern of behavioral norms that existed in that society but not ours). The science that made Brave New World SF was an advancement in reproduction (mass-reproduction). And The Handmaid's Tale took one aspect of our current society, emphasized it, and added a technological event (some kind of disaster with fertility).

All of them are dystopian cautionary tales of the "If this goes on..." form, postulating bad ends that might result from current directions. And all are set in the future. Remove the future setting, and you remove the premise and the story.

I talked about SF tropes, but the tropes don't have to directly include science or technology.

The thing is, Luke, is that you've confused technology with science. The 2 are not the same. You've listed a bunch of classic stories that are SF because of the science, not technology.

Also, you're wrong about Brave New World. There would be no story if not for the technology.

Another common error is too narrow a view of science. While "hard" SF tends to be based on physics or chemistry, plenty of other sciences have been fertile seeds for SF. Linguistics is one, like Samuel R. Delany's _Babel 17_. Anthropology is another, like most of the work of the late Chad Oliver. In the case of Brave New Worlds, it's genetics, and the consequences of trying to breed a new, improved humanity.
______
Dennis

[Xanthe]

No characters that are thinly disguised avatars of the author's pet cat or dog. 7 foot tall bipedal cat-like or dog-like creatures don't fool us - especially when Kitty or Fido has been thanked before your family in your Acknowlegement page.

No Mary Sue characters.

All planets do not have earth-standard gravity or air mix. Remember that when designing aliens.

Sex scenes do not disguise lack of plot.

The readers will buy most faster-than-light travel IF you take the time to make up a believable technical explanation for it. We appreciate the effort. (My personal favorite is Asaro's imaginary number.)

Don't get bogged down with excessive descriptions of speed ratios of various types of missiles/lasers/graser/whatever when describing battles in space (I'm taking to you, David Weber).

Remember that a hole in the spaceship wall sucks everything out, not just the air so weapons which would do so shouldn't even be allowed on the ship in the first place.

Give the reader at least a throwaway explanation why all the characters seem to be speaking the same language.

Remember the communications lag time, or else give us an explanation why there isn't one.

Remember that sentient beings are supposed to be living in the cities and worlds you are creating, so don't go all Blade Runner on the locales. Usually, if it's sentient, it needs sunlight and surroundings that are esthetically pleasing within its cultural definition.

Use people who read science fiction as your beta readers - not just your best friends. They might pick up the most glaring errors.

Remember that people live in spaceships for extended periods of time. People have smells. Food had smells. Machinery has smells. Air is a commodity, not a given, in space. Remember the minutia of life.

Everyone does not have the same body shape. Unless the society is a dictatorship, people don't tend to wear the same type of clothes.

Not all cultures will have the same modesty concerns, but will probably be affected by heat and cold to some extent, or will have different degrees of "skin" fragility - take that into account when dressing your characters. Beings that are cold-blooded should be wearing some type of covering when in cold climates if they have any sense, not just letting the cold make them comatose.

[Fat Abe]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I wasn't attempting to propose Sturgeon's notion as a definition of SF. I just thought it was a useful measuring stick. If you can remove the tropes and still have the story, maybe you aren't writing SF, and should consider removing that window dressing.

Speaking of tropes, here's an interesting post with illustrations:

http://io9.com/5628989/ten-tropes-yo...and-over-again

Round up the usual suspects, said Claude Rains. One immutable law of science fiction, which is rarely violated, is that SF is disrespected by the academic community, some of whom are anti-science liberal arts majors. If you exam the list of Nobel Prize winners in literature, you will hardly see any major SF writers on the list. Who are the great SF writers? Sturgeon, Dick, Disch, Lafferty, Orwell, to name a few. At least IMHO. The fact that 1984 is regarded as a piece of SF is a technicality to some. But one wonders if that was the reason he was denied a Nobel prize.

http://bookstove.com/book-talk/famou...in-literature/

Which brings up the subject of Doris Lessing. I really cannot comment on her abilities in SF writing, as her works did not catch my interest during my SF reading heyday. Though, honestly, I should do some catching up.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/12/nob...12lessing.html

Don't worry, aspiring SF writers. I love your work as much as that of Steinbeck, Melville, etc.

[DrZoidberg]

Accept the fact that even if you're a successful sci-fi author, you won't get rich. Try aiming for staving-off-hunger and you won't be disappointed... That's assuming you're successful.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Give the reader at least a throwaway explanation why all the characters seem to be speaking the same language.

Thanks for mentioning that. All the characters speaking the same language, with no explanation as to why that is so, in sf or fantasy novels is my pet peeve.

[Steven Lake]

Yeah, mine as well. I even took some time out in book 3 of my series and explained why everyone seemed to be speaking english. I even made a bit of a joke out of it.

[Tom Wood]

Semi-related to language, there's a really good scene in The 13th Warrior where Antonio Banderas learns the 'foreign' language by associating objects with their names as he listens to campfire discussions. Up to that point in the story they used subtitles. Once he learned it, everybody spoke English from that point forward. Not really plausible to pull off in one night, but it was enough to get past the problem.

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Don't get bogged down with excessive descriptions of speed ratios of various types of missiles/lasers/graser/whatever when describing battles in space (I'm taking to you, David Weber).

Some of us like that stuff (and yes, I am a Tom Clancy fan too ).

[Jack Tingle]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

RULE #1 about science fiction.

It's about people in new environments and the problems they have, not new environments that happen to have people in them! (I'm real broad-minded about what you consider people...The world awaits a yarn about a intelligent dolphin, from the dolphins point of view....)

No matter how interested you are in your created world, it's the people...

Well said. I tend to advise:

"Write copious pages about your planet, society, geography, physics, etc. Get a shoebox, a 3-hole punch and an empty notebook. Take all the pages and trsnscribe only the parts about the character and plot. Punch the transcribed pages and put in notebook. Put original pages in shoebox. Edit transcribed pages in notebook and submit."

'Cause, you learned something about the world you created, and it strongly influneced HOW you wrote the tale. You may need it if you decide to write a sequel, but NO ONE wants to read all that stuff.

Regards,
Jack Tingle

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

Accept the fact that even if you're a successful sci-fi author, you won't get rich. Try aiming for staving-off-hunger and you won't be disappointed... That's assuming you're successful.

I know an assortment of successful SF/fantasy authors. With three exceptions, all have day jobs they don't plan to give up. Two exceptions have spouses whose incomes fill in the valleys that appear while waiting for contracts to be signed and and advances to be issued. The third offers freelance editing and book doctor services as well as writing, though writing is the main income.

But this is not unique to SF. Very few authors make a living from it in any genre.
______
Dennis

[Fat Abe]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

I know an assortment of successful SF/fantasy authors. With three exceptions, all have day jobs they don't plan to give up.
______
Dennis

Brother, I can hear where you're coming from. Stephen King writes about the "day job" in his memoir, On Writing:

"Writing courses and seminars do offer at least one undeniable benefit: in them, the desire to write fiction or poetry is taken seriously. For aspiring writers who have been looked upon with pitying condescension by their friends and relatives (“You better not quit your day job just yet!” is a popular
line, usually delivered with a hideous Bob’s-yer-uncle grin), this is a wonderful thing. In writing classes, if nowhere else, it is entirely permissible to spend large chunks of your time off in your own little dreamworld. Still—do you really need permission and a hall-pass to go there? Do you need someone to make you a paper badge with the word WRITER on it before you can believe you are one? God, I hope not."

Earlier in the book, King references the day job from a different angle:

"We do it for the music, but we also do it for the companionship. We like each other, and we like having a chance to talk sometimes about the real job, the day job people are always telling us not to quit. We are writers, and we never ask one another where we get our ideas; we know we don’t know."

At the time, King was in a band called The Rock Bottom Remainders, composed mostly of writers. King reminds us later that Anthony Trollope had a day job in the British postal service.

People go into investment banking for the money. They take up writing, or music, hopefully because they love it. In spite of the fact that society does not respect people for their imagination. Except a few chosen individuals.

For some unexplainable reason, King's book became available for download from a Spanish language site, http://www.librosgratisweb.com/. Since this is a gray area in U.S. copyright law, I will not post the full link. Google has the actual location.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by Jack Tingle

Well said. I tend to advise:

"Write copious pages about your planet, society, geography, physics, etc. Get a shoebox, a 3-hole punch and an empty notebook. Take all the pages and trsnscribe only the parts about the character and plot. Punch the transcribed pages and put in notebook. Put original pages in shoebox. Edit transcribed pages in notebook and submit."

'Cause, you learned something about the world you created, and it strongly influneced HOW you wrote the tale. You may need it if you decide to write a sequel, but NO ONE wants to read all that stuff.

Regards,
Jack Tingle

Sounds like good advice, I quite like that.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by mbovenka

Some of us like that stuff (and yes, I am a Tom Clancy fan too ).

Well, I don't mind it either, unless it's taken to orgasmic extent as Weber tends to do at times. I mean, it's not like we're ever going to be in a battle situation where that knowledge is critical.

I'm a Tom Clancy fan too (his solo written books, not the collaborations, with Red Storm Rising being my favorite).

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Latinandgreek

Thanks for mentioning that. All the characters speaking the same language, with no explanation as to why that is so, in sf or fantasy novels is my pet peeve.

I give extra kudos to authors who have their characters speak English (or Standard ) but who tend to lapse into using their native grammatical rules when stressed. That tells me the reader that they have actually given some thought to the culture of the character.