Is today's SF too pessimistic?

[Michael McLovin]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

You don't need a PhD to write good SF. But a writer can be a good enough researcher (and just know enough about science) to write good SF.

Agreed that PhD is not needed. That's why i also included

Originally Posted by Michael McLovin

(or are at least willing to put in hours of research)

It's impossible to make SF believable if you don't understand the S-part.

[Michael McLovin]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Isaac Asimov was a practicing scientist (Phd. in Chemistry) who wrote an SF novel or two ( you may have heard of him).

Stephen Baxter, David Brin and Gregory Benford are other scientists who write science fiction. I'm sure there are others.

Carl Sagan also comes to mind.

[VaporPunk]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'll resist until a few readers whose tastes and opinions I'm familiar with tell me it wasn't a mistake of monumental proportions. Until then... I'm going to be leery as hell about Wind Through the Keyhole. The past is rife with disastrous results when an author decides to "wake up" a series that was all wrapped up, put to bed and tucked in. Nobody would be happier than me if King bucked the odds on this one (and I know there's scads of gaps in the various time-frames of the series that can be filled with narrative), but I can't think of a single instance where I've been able to honestly say; "Yeah... I'm sooooo glad <insert author> decided to drag that one out of mothballs (after the better part of a decade)." I'm always willing to hear other's examples where they thought it worked out well, though.

"Wanting more" is most often the best state to leave your readers in. The problem is that the readers themselves don't usually understand that they're better off not "getting more" once the final curtain has fallen. So they clamor for more and usually end up with a bad taste in their mouth when the author makes the mistake of actually giving it to them.

There is much wisdom here.

From Stonetools:

Money quote:

Quote:
Why do trilogies become series? Sometimes, it's just audience demand, or the publisher's desire to keep a popular story going. But also, in a lot of these cases, the authors set out to create universes before they start writing the actual books, and they wind up with grand mythical realms. This is likely why these epics lend themselves so well to other mediums like TV, film and videogames – they are immersive, due to the sheer scope of their universes.

My own take: originality is hard. Building a rich, complex original world is REALLY hard. Most writers don't successfully do it even once. Not surprisingly , most writers who do it tend to recycle (er , revisit) their creations rather than imagine new ones.

Also here is much wisdom.

And from FJTorres:

Writing is hard work; writers are often compelled to follow-up whenever a good story or compelling characters present themselves so sequels and series aren't always about milking a popular character or millieau for a few extra bucks; sometimes it's about a muse that just won't be denied.

Again, wisdom. The keyword here is sometimes. For me, one of the best recent examples of this is Neal Stephenson's Baroque Cycle. I never got the feeling of being milked while reading this, just entranced by the story and its characters/setting/plot. Its certainly not perfect but damn, watta good read.

[stonetools]

Writing is hard work; writers are often compelled to follow-up whenever a good story or compelling characters present themselves so sequels and series aren't always about milking a popular character or milieu for a few extra bucks; sometimes it's about a muse that just won't be denied.

If you look at this ARTICLE I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that the story some times takes over once the author begins to write .

After three chapters, he had a vivid idea of a boy seeing a man's beheading and finding direwolves in the snow, which would eventually become the first non-prologue chapter of A Game of Thrones.[21] Putting Avalon aside, Martin finished this chapter in a few days and grew certain that it was part of a longer story

Its incredible that the the entire ASOIAF world grew out of a single scene. I think we have to reconsider DDs insistence that GRRM should just get to the point already and should have finished the thing. I believe GRRM did originally plan to get the job done in three books, but the story just took on a life of its own , especially this:

After A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings, and A Storm of Swords, Martin originally intended to write three more books.[18] The fourth book, tentatively titled A Dance with Dragons, was to focus on Daenerys Targaryen's return to Westeros and the conflicts that creates.[24] Martin wanted to set this story five years after A Storm of Swords so that the younger characters could grow older and the dragons grow larger.[32] Agreeing with his publishers early on that the new book should be shorter than A Storm of Swords, Martin set out to write the novel closer in length to A Clash of Kings.[26] A long prologue was to establish what had happened in the meantime, initially just as one chapter of Aeron Damphair on the Iron Islands at the Kingsmoot.

That initial plan did not work and he had to re-conceive the arc of the story at midpoint. You can't predict stuff like that, you just have to do it.
I also have to re-consider my rather cynical point about recycling. The ASOIAF world is so rich that GRRM could spend the rest of his life just exploring the story possibilities . I could easily imagine a standalone book or even series based on the Free Cities mileiu or on pre-Doom Valyria . Those would count practically as "new worlds" since they are so different from Westeros in the era of ASOIAF. I would favor GRRM revisiting the ASOIAF world after the present story arc is done to explore new stories.
(He is already doing this with the Dunk and Egg stories but this is really more of the same, rather than a significantly different setting like a Valyria setting would be. )

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Its incredible that the the entire ASOIAF world grew out of a single scene. I think we have to reconsider DDs insistence that GRRM should just get to the point already and should have finished the thing. I believe GRRM did originally plan to get the job done in three books, but the story just took on a life of its own , especially this:

Reconsider it all you want. I'm only giving my opinion and the way I see things. I wouldn't dream of implying that it coincides with anyone else's views.

I don't disagree that a story can take on a life of it's own. I just don't believe when that does happen... that it's automatically goody-goody-gumdrops-and-hooray! for that series. Sometimes yes, most times no. I'm of the opinion that it was 'no' for ASoIaF. But sales numbers tell me I'm in the minority, there. I'm cool with that.

And I never said he should be finished; I said he should "get to the frickin' point." He can write as many books as he wants in his series, but when he (or any author) spins his wheels for two whole books, I'm bailing... period. I have another name for "world-building" that has very little direct impact on the story/plot. I call it "filler." And I'm not interested in it. I like authors who "world-hint" and allow me and my imagination to do the actual building. I don't like my imagination being micro-managed.

More is just more. There's no inherent implication that it always means "better," just because it happened spontaneously. *shrugs*

[stonetools]

And I never said he should be finished; I said he should "get to the frickin' point." He can write as many books as he wants in his series, but when he (or any author) spins his wheels for two whole books, I'm bailing... period. I have another name for "world-building" that has very little direct impact on the story/plot. I call it "filler." And I'm not interested in it. I like authors who "world-hint" and allow me and my imagination to do the actual building. I don't like my imagination being micro-managed.

More is just more. There's no inherent implication that it always means "better," just because it happened spontaneously. *shrugs*

Look, I fully understand your frustrations. Eleven years to produce two books-Seriously? And we are still two, maybe three, books from the end? That kind of progress would try the faith of Job. I guess I'm kind of like the battered spouse who is always giving the batterer the benefit of the doubt ( Surely, he'll improve... Just give him one more chance ).
I haven't read his latest, because frankly, I'm afraid of my faith being tested. Eventually, I'll download and read it-and you might find me joining your POV.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Reconsider it all you want. I'm only giving my opinion and the way I see things. I wouldn't dream of implying it that coincides with anyone else's views.

I don't disagree that a story can take on a life of it's own. I just don't believe when that does happen... that it's automatically goody-goody-gumdrops-and-hooray! for that series. Sometimes yes, most times no. I'm of the opinion that it was 'no' for ASoIaF. But sales numbers tells me I'm in the minority, there. I'm cool with that.

And I never said he should be finished; I said he should "get to the frickin' point." He can write as many books as he wants in his series, but when he (or any author) spins his wheels for two whole books, I'm bailing... period. I have another name for "world-building" that has very little direct impact on the story/plot. I call it "filler." And I'm not interested in it. I like authors who "world-hint" and allow me and my imagination to do the actual building. I don't like my imagination being micro-managed.

More is just more. There's no inherent implication that it always means "better," just because it happened spontaneously. *shrugs*

OMG, Yes. More is not always better. Sometimes more is not only "just more," sometimes more is too much.

[xg4bx]

i'll cut GRRM some slack because he built a world almost too detailed for one man to handle.

if one wants to talk 'milking a series' however, robert jordan will always be my go-to example and his protege sanderson seems to be headed in the same direction with his (planned) 10 part way of kings series.

[DiapDealer]

if one wants to talk 'milking a series' however, robert jordan will always be my go-to example and his protege sanderson seems to be headed in the same direction with his (planned) 10 part way of kings series.

You'll get no argument from me.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

i'll cut GRRM some slack because he built a world almost too detailed for one man to handle.

if one wants to talk 'milking a series' however, robert jordan will always be my go-to example and his protege sanderson seems to be headed in the same direction with his (planned) 10 part way of kings series.

Agreed. I started reading WoT in HS. At the end of book two when I realized that the series wasn't finished, I stopped reading but started collecting. I bought each book in hardback...and gave them all to my mother unread when he hit book 14.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

i'll cut GRRM some slack because he built a world almost too detailed for one man to handle.

if one wants to talk 'milking a series' however, robert jordan will always be my go-to example and his protege sanderson seems to be headed in the same direction with his (planned) 10 part way of kings series.

I find a lot of people who thought Jordan had gone too far are willing to give GRRM the B of the D. They're not all hard -a$$ like DD.

I haven't read ADWD or commentary on it ( want to avoid spoilers) but from what I can glean, there will have to be some MAJOR action in Book 6 to avoid mass bail outs. And Book 6 has to be here fairly quickly as well.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

How about Patricia C. Wrede? I love her fantasy. In-depth and interesting, but with a very hopeful "good wins the day" tone.

I luurrve the fantasy-Regencies she wrote with Caroline Stevemer (_Sorcery & Cecilia_ et seq.) as well as Stevermer's standalones. Good stuff, that.

[Joykins]

I was a crazy-insane WoT fan--in 1995. Now I have the next-to-last book in my to-be-read pile...I may read it when the last one comes out.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Of course not... how realistic is a happy and peaceful utopia? But a story in which a crisis threatens a non-utopic but otherwise-stable society is always workable (though, in most cases, more epic than realistic). Better off writing a story in which a crisis or person threatens an otherwise-stable group or society... much more workable, much more realistic. And can be optimistic.

If the crisis is big enough to threaten an otherwise-stable group or society, the story can't be optimistic.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

You don't need a PhD to write good SF. But a writer can be a good enough researcher (and just know enough about science) to write good SF.

In science a PhD shows that your peers consider you capable of doing independent research.

What novel scientific ideas did you introduce in your books?

[Penforhire]

To be fair, a PhD shows you know how to get through the academic grind and win the prize. I managed industrial R&D for decades now and a PhD is no guarantee of even good critical thinking! If anything, there is a tendency among them to micro-focus in ways that are less than useful.