mbarker: (MantisYes)
[personal profile] mbarker
Original posting 2021/9/23
Let's see. Over on Writing Excuses, they are walking through the elements of the M. I. C. E. Quotient. Next week, they'll hit the E (Event!) but... right now, they have milieu, inquiry, and character pieces. So, a quick roundup so far?

Milieu is place, or setting. Typically, it starts with the character crossing a threshold of some kind, entering the milieu, and ends when the character exits the milieu. Conflicts in the middle (or should that be muddle?) are mostly things blocking the character from leaving. Heist stories and survival stories. https://writingexcuses.com/2021/09/05/16-36-deep-dive-into-milieu/

Inquiry stories start with a question, and end when the character finds the answer. The conflicts in the middle are things blocking finding the answer. Mysteries, and many science fiction stories. https://writingexcuses.com/2021/09/12/16-37-deep-dive-into-inquiry/

Character stories start with the question "Who am I?" and end with the declaration "This is who I am!" Heavy on internal conflicts, an exploration of self-discovery. Wanting to change, to be somebody different. Coming of age stories. https://writingexcuses.com/2021/09/19/16-38-deep-dive-into-character/

There's a running attempt to talk about obstacles versus complications in these different types of stories. I think if you start with the old try-fail cycle, and the paired no-and, yes-but endings which often go with that, you might be able to figure it out. Basically, obstacles result in failure, the standard no, we didn't succeed, AND now we've got some new problems. Complications arise when yes, we succeed, BUT now we've got new problems. 

So in a milieu story, the obstacles keep the character from exiting, and add new issues. The complications look as if we're succeeding in getting closer to exiting, but... now we've got different issues.

In an inquiry story, the obstacles keep the character from finding the answer, and add new questions. The complications... well, we've gotten a little farther, but there's these other issues now...

And, of course, in character stories, the obstacles make the character want to turn back, to hold onto that old self-identity, and add more burdens, too. The complications mean the character may have moved a bit forward, but... now there are these other little problems, too!

Y'a know, I don't think I helped that discussion of obstacles and complications at all. Well, maybe the original podcasts will clear it up for you...

Anyway, probably the key to get from all this is these three (soon to be four!) elements of stories. They tend to be nested, so the character may very well step through a door, start looking for the way out, find a dead body on the floor, start trying to figure out who did it, find the killer, and now... get out of the house! Okay? 

How can you use this? Well, two possibilities. First, as you are writing, especially for those who prefer discovery writing, thinking about these elements provides at least a little guidance. Second, when you are editing, looking for the elements can help uncover problems, especially when threads are either not finished, or simply out of order.

Okay? So... there's three of the MICE elements. I'll try to remember to fill in the last one, event, next week. Events are mostly about changes in the status quo, something happens, and we gotta react to it. But we'll talk about that next week!

In the meantime, keep writing!
mbarker: (Burp)
[personal profile] mbarker
 Original Posting 9/30/2020
Writer's Digest, August 1992, had an article by Michael Seidman, defining the science fiction novel. This was part six of eight articles, talking about the genres – romance, mystery, suspense/thriller, Science Fiction, fantasy, horror, action/adventure, and Westerns. He starts out by telling us that each genre has a formula at its core. "You must understand this basic guideline or philosophy, must learn the formula that makes a category work for the reader… And the editor."

Now, he admits that individual publishers do have specific interests and needs, but there are general rules you need to know.

"Traditional SF is hardware oriented." Imagine tomorrow's technology, and then write stories about it. However, the ideas behind the stories have become more sophisticated. Time travel is more interesting than space travel, because space travel is too close to reality. "To a very great degree, contemporary SF is parable, an opportunity to explore not only the stars but ourselves."

Now, we still like hardware. Robots, communications, weapons, power… All kinds of things.

At that time, he said that, "There's still a broad, active, hungry market for short stories, magazines devoted to the form, and a rabid fandom that sponsors conventions on almost every weekend of the year."

Now, most successful SF writers grow up reading it. You need to know what has happened in the genre, you need to know worldbuilding, and you need to know a mix of physical and social sciences.

In the fantasy fiction categories, fantasy, horror, and Science Fiction, "you are limited only by your imagination and your ability to create worlds." It's the situation more than the characters that drives the story.

What separates SF from technothriller or action/adventure? Partly, marketing. Especially, modern-day or near future stories. Don't worry about the category, tell a good story.

Make sure to follow one cardinal rule: "The story, the action, is all plausible given the rules that you dictated when you sat down to begin."

He does recommend Science Fiction Writers of America (SFWA) and Locus.

So, get those genres rolling…
mbarker: (Burp)
[personal profile] mbarker
 Original Posting 12/19/2019

Old Man Murphy (550 words)By Mike BarkerWhat do you mean, you want to know if I knew old man Murphy?Y'a know, when I was growing up, most of the kids were scared of old man Murphy. He lived in that funny house on the corner all by himself, and he didn't seem to do anything. Although everybody loved his Christmas lights. He took that old house, and just covered it with lights.Did I ever talk to him?Of course, I used to talk to him. He subscribed to the local paper, and I delivered it, so I had to go in and collect from him. He always had time to talk to me, and he had some really great stories. I mean I remember him talking about his pet that he called Growler, and the time that Growler got caught by some monstrous wasps. Growler got stung, and swelled up. But the vet gave him some kind of special medicine, and old Growler pulled through. I could see tears in old man Murphy's eyes when he was talking about it. I asked him about Growler, and he said he left him back on the home planet.That's one of the things I liked about old man Murphy. He always talked about his home planet. It was almost like one of those science fiction books or something.What about the Christmas lights?Anyway, he covered his house with lights every Christmas. He had ladders of lights, lights that changed colors, all kinds of lights. People used to come take videos of all his lights. I've got several videos myself. He was always adding some things and moving other things around. It was the best light show in town.I asked him about it, and he said it wasn't really for Christmas, it was because the intergalactic rescue ships always check for signals on the winter solstice. When I told him I didn't know what that was, he explained that the shortest day and longest night was the winter solstice, and that it was standard practice for the rescue ships to look for signals at that time, and for aliens to make signals. Then he would chuckle, and say that maybe this year would be the year that one of the rescue ships would notice his signal.Why are you interested? Oh wow, that's quite a story.So, you tell me that he put up even more lights this year? And the other night, the night of the winter solstice, he had them running all night? Matter of fact, they were running the next day? And when someone called the police, and they went inside, there was nobody there. Not surprising.What do I mean?Seems obvious to me. Old man Murphy went home.What am I going to do?Now, I have to admit, I'm going to try and get every bit of video that I can find about his house, especially this year. And then I'm going to start putting up Christmas lights myself.See if I can get a rescue ship to land. I'd really kind of like to see Growler and old man Murphy, and the best way I can think to do it is with a bit of light.Shining in the dark of a winter's solstice.The End(or maybe it's the beginning?)
mbarker: (Fireworks Delight)
[personal profile] mbarker
 Original Posting May 30, 2018

Writer's Digest, pages 72, 70, 71 (yeah, they got fancy with the order) has an article by Ray Faraday Nelson with the title The Science Fiction Attitude: The Only Thing You Need to Write Futuristic Fiction. Oh, that sounds interesting.

Ray starts out with a little math problem! Let me quote it to you. It's not a hard one.

How many years have you been alive? Write down the number. Label it Figure A. (hint: small number, less than 100)
Before that, how many years were you not alive? Write down that number. Label it Figure B. (hint: big number, pushing eternity)

Then he suggests that you look at the numbers and think about them. Play with them a little, subtracting one from the other, get a feeling for how they compare. "You're looking at what I call the Cosmic Ratio." That comparison, that feeling for how much one individual human life is in perspective is the Long View. And then Ray tells us, "I think about the Cosmic Ratio often, particularly when I am writing science fiction, because that Cosmic Ratio is what science fiction is all about, what science fiction's basic message is."

Wow.

Then he points out that literary critics often criticize science fiction for the lack of characterization, the lack of memorable three-dimensional characters. Ray says that's not important. Think about the Cosmic Ratio.

Science Fiction can be funny, adventurous, romantic, sentimental, can include literally anything that has ever been or might be, and even things that never were and never could be, but it's always in the shadow of the Cosmic Ratio. That understanding is what Ray calls The Science Fiction Attitude.

Next, Ray says that to write Science Fiction, you don't need to know anything at all about science. Ray Bradbury doesn't know science, but NASA invites him to watch, and the media interviews him. Isaac Asimov knows a lot about science, but when he's writing science fiction, he goes ahead and has FTL spaceships and telepathic robots…

Ray even mentions that Marion Zimmer Bradley writes Science Fiction, but is actively opposed to science. She prefers magic. She actually is opposed to space travel.

Many science fiction authors don't even know much about mainstream fiction.

So, you don't need science, you don't need fiction, what do you need? You need the attitude. Look at The Cosmic Ratio and let it sink deep into your brain. "Then, even when you write autobiography, sticking strictly to the facts, the result will have the flavor, the color, the perspective of science fiction."

WOW!

So, if characterization is not so important in Science Fiction, what is? The background! That's right, world building, setting, all that good stuff. Except… Don't sweat the small stuff, the actual physical characteristics. Mostly?

"Actual practicing science fiction writers build planets by analogy." Ignore the boring facts, and give us something exciting!

Technology, gadgets, the 3Rs of Science Fiction: Rockets, Robots, and Rayguns? Again, use analogy. Star Wars spaceships are really World War II mustangs, spitfires, and so forth.

"Analogy makes things easier for the writer. More important, analogy makes things easier for the viewer or the reader. When I write for you, I have to draw my images out of the store of things you already know about or you won't understand a word I say.… I have to tell you about it in terms you already know. That is, I have to use analogy.

Now, Ray talks about trying to explain all the bits and pieces. Basically, he recommends against it. The practice now is not so much explanation, just go ahead and say the sun comes up a different color every day, or whatever you need to, and go on from there.

"My practice is to decide, at the beginning of each story, just how far I'm going to allow myself to stray from the path of current science." Set the level of unreality that you want to use.

"So, if you want to write science fiction, don't worry about science, don't worry about fiction as defined by literature professors; just think about where you fit into eternity, where you fit in relation to the distance between galaxies, how you shape up in the Cosmic Equation. Then look around you. And write."

Huh. Almost as bad as "Writing is easy. You just open a vein and bleed." Still, it does provide a kind of perspective on just what makes science fiction different.

So. How long have you been alive? How long weren't you alive? What's that ratio? How do you fit between the galaxies? Now... WRITE!
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
Original posting 1 Dec 2009

The e-mail newsletter from Penguin books includes a short bit about their recommendation for the 10 essential Classics. Being curious, I went to check out what they thought were essential Classics. Here's their list:
  1. The Inferno by Dante Alighieri
  2. Walden by Henry David Thoreau
  3. Oedipus Rex by Sophocles
  4. Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka
  5. Moby Dick by Herman Melville
  6. Hamlet by William Shakespeare
  7. The Odyssey by Homer
  8. Pride & Prejudice by Jane Austen
  9. Jane Eyre by Charlotte Bronte
  10. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck
http://www.us.penguingroup.com/static/pages/features/tenessentialclassics/index.html

Actually, I seem to have numbered them backwards -- the last shall be first and the first shall be last, a countdown instead of a count up?

It's an interesting list. Exploring hell, living by yourself, dysfunctional family relations, fantasy, whale hunting, the play's the thing..., search for a golden fleece, a romance or two, and a couple of drifters in the Great Depression. More or less?

What do you think about Classics? Do you read them? Do you remember being forced to read them in school? If you had to pick out a list of five or 10 top books that you recommend people read -- in particular, the writers gathered here on the list -- what would they be?

Or perhaps you'd prefer to make a list of five books in your genre? The Classics of science fiction -- that's harder than I really want to work right now. Dune by Frank Herbert? Maybe the Lensmen series by E.E. Smith? Heinlein? Ender's Game by Card? Drat, that's four, and there are so many good ones still to choose from.

Oh, well. Classics? What do we learn from the classics for our own writing?
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
Original posting 26 December 2007

Genre Tips for Plot and Structure (28)

It's beginning to look a lot like a plot, all around the scenes?

Anyway, before we torture any other old songs with words of writing, let's get to Plot & Structure by James Scott Bell, shall we? Along about page 218 in chapter 14 where Bell gives various tips. Perhaps the most important is the two-fold injunction to know the chosen genre's conventions and always add something fresh. Good advice for all genres!

Mystery. First bit of advice is the suggestion to start with the scene of the crime and plot backwards from that. Take one killer, a good strong motive, and the murder or crime that gets committed. Then work out from that what clues need to be planted in the plot and what other suspects, distractions, etc. will keep the readers guessing.

Thriller. Often like a mystery, but where the mystery is a puzzle or maze full of clues, the thriller is a narrowing chase towards a climactic confrontation. Probably easiest to start with that scene, then plot and write towards that. Make sure your opposition has a good solid motive throughout, too!

Literary. Mood, texture, impressions -  that's the literary goal. So think about resonances, images that will stick to your readers' minds.

Romance. Think about all the things that might keep two lovers apart. Frustration can be good for romance, so pile it on!

Science-fiction and Fantasy. The joy and danger of these genres is the ease with which the writer can change the rules. So don't do it! Establish your world and keep it naturally woven into the story. Make sure there's a real story there, beyond just speculative visions.

Bell cites Brenda Ueland's book "If You Want to Write" where Brenda asserts, "Everybody is talented, original and has something important to say . . . Everybody is original, if he tells the truth, if he speaks from himself."

Plot and structure are tools you use to connect with your readers, but you will be pouring yourself out in the story, that's what makes it unique. So start pouring.

That about does it for Plot & Structure. There's an appendix where Bell summarizes the key points in five pages, and another appendix with a four-step kickstart based around writing the backcover description first, but maybe we'll leave those for purchasers of the book. Right now, it's almost time to start thinking about a story a week!
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
Original posting: Tue, 19 Apr 1994 18:35:02 JST

Hi, Phil
- But I th-th-thought it was s-so c-c-cold . . .
lots of people do, but - what's one of the best insulators? (hint - used for years in containers for hot and cold drinks)

[that's socratic inquest, if you're keeping score]

look at it another way. there are three ways for something to cool down - radiation, conduction, convection (actually, to acquire or lose heat energy).

Space (the BIG nothing) doesn't conduct, and without gases or liquids, there isn't loss to convection (which I always thought was really just conduction in a different phase, but we won't continue that argument right now). I suppose there is some loss to sublimation (as sweat converts to gas at low pressures) but it is tiny.

The only one that's left is radiation - which also is pretty slow (very few people glow, and even fewer shine:-)

And to answer my own question, that's why they use "space" (a vacuum) as insulation in the better grade of drink container. Nothing keeps what's inside hot or cold better than something!

If you happen to be in contact with .. oh, say the backside of Mercury or some other cold material, then you could have a problem. Of course, if you insist on sticking your hand in liquid nitrogen or some such here on earth, you could have a problem too.

From: Stan
- This is a very interesting point since I've always found
- fault with 2001 for having the astronaut without his helmet
- shoot through space to disable HAL. I thought the cold or
- something like that of deep space would kill (freeze) him
- instantly. I guess this isn't the case and I can go back
- to liking the movie.
yep. 2001 was pretty good about accuracy - Clarke insisted on it.

this has been today's science lesson (mr. wizard? no, there's a new one, and I don't remember the name...)

tomorrow we'll look at training common houseplants to eat parents! Won't that be fun!
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
Original posting: Fri, 15 Apr 1994 18:35:01 JST

extracted from the "Space FAQ"
- HOW LONG CAN A HUMAN LIVE UNPROTECTED IN SPACE

- If you *don't* try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a
- minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your
- breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to
- watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your
- Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal
- experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no
- immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do
- not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.

- Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some
- [mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue)
- start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from
- lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes,
- you're dying. The limits are not really known.
So your hero(ine), if they relax, exhale, and keep their wits about them, should have 30 seconds or so, at least, to handle the situation. Plenty of time for any red-blooded author to have them whip up an emergency spaceship (capable of faster-than-light travel, natchurly - and supplied with a useful variety of odds and ends for facing later crises) just using some leftover cans and other junk drifing in the vicinity! If MacGyver could do it, you can too!

(this TECH note brought to you by the truth in fiction committee in hopes of reviving the fading art of space opera - it ain't over until the last evil overlord is squelched, you know)
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
original posting: Tue, 11 Jan 1994 16:58:49 JST

"I think we all loathe the expressions _serious novel_ and _serious writer_, with the loaded implications that the wordworker who stresses action, the sheerly imaginative, or the fully nonexistent is somehow playing at writing and decidedly less talented. Worse, _mainstream_ and _serious story_ are often meant to convey that fantasists, detective story writers, and so on are less concerned with the important things." (p. 26)

(from the essay "Plotting as Your Power Source" by J.N. Williamson)

How to Write Tales of Horror, Fantasy, and Science Fiction
Ed. J.N. Williamson
1987, Writer's Digest Books
ISBN 0-89879-270-3
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
original posting: Sat, 7 Aug 1993 17:57:01 JST

FAQ: Shock Treatment

I'm glad I never claimed to be a medical writer. Still, maybe this'll get some hearts beating...

-------------------------------------
Shock Treatment

The body was still, unmoving on the table under the bright lights. The ER staff seemed to be moving twice as fast in compensation.

"What have we got here, Doctor?"

"OD'd. Full stop. And nothing seems to get him started again."

The traces on the monitors were flat.

"OK, I'll take charge now. Nurse! Yes, you. Quickly, 100 lines of Walt Whitman, right to the heart. Stet!"

"Now, you. Keep those pages of Faulkner turning. Steady, now, feed it to him steady."

"OK, Doctor, if you'd take the P.G. Wodehouse and apply it, we'll see if there's any reaction."

"What about Thurber?"

"Well, some times. Try one, then the other. But I'm afraid..."

The team moved. Still, the traces were flat.

"All right, everyone. I'm going to try one more thing. Clear!"

The body convulsed. The traces all jumped, then settled down.

Then, as everyone watched, one ticked. Another ticked. Bump, whoosh, bump, bump, bump, whoosh.


The young intern shook the older doctor's hand.

"Amazing. Simply amazing. What was that last dosage, Doctor?"

The older doctor leaned forward, letting a nurse wipe his forehead.

"That? Oh. Pure, hard SF. It's always a shock to the system, but I think it did the trick. I was ready to try space opera if that failed..."

The young intern nodded.

"Yes, I've heard of it, but I'd never seen it. Well, now I'm a believer. Uh, what kind of treatment would you prescribe for maintenance?"

The older doctor glanced once at the body, then at the intern.

"Keep him hooked up to WRITERS for a while, at least."

The intern grimaced.

"Yes, he'll have some disorientation, maybe some confusion. But remember, you're dealing with a serious block, and that's the best treatment I know for it."

The intern nodded.

"Well, I suppose. Imagine, a mainstream writer OD'd like that on mass media. Classical, grand writer's block. I know it happens a lot, but I hate to see them wasted like that."

The older doctor squeezed the intern's shoulder.

"Don't worry, you'll learn. Just keep those pages flowing, and .. oh, no T.V. in ICU, ok? When he comes to, would you let me know?"

"Sure, but why?"

"Well, as long as he's here, I've got this great idea for a book..."

If you get blocked, battered, or even bored, try WRITERS!
Recommended by better writing treatment centers everywhere...
--------------------------------------------
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
and found some links and links and links :-)

Okay, this is just some scattered links that I want to keep track of. Do a search for science fiction, fantasy, etc. and plot, cliche, whatnot, and you might stumble over:

Assorted generators:
http://nine.frenchboys.net/index.php
http://www.warpcoresf.co.uk/fantasyplot.php

Lists of Plots
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/alex/Handbooks/WWWPlots/genre.html
The Big List of RPG Plots http://www.io.com/~sjohn/plots.htm

Bad Ideas and The Plot That Wouldn't Die and Well-Worn Ideas
http://www.sfwa.org/writing/turkeycity.html
http://www.seetuscany.com/writd/notdie.htm
http://www.strangehorizons.com/guidelines/fiction-common-horror.shtml
http://www.strangehorizons.com/guidelines/fiction-common.shtml

SF Cliches http://www.cthreepo.com/cliche/
Fantasy Cliches http://www.amethyst-angel.com/cliche.html
Horror http://www.darkhart.com/blog/?p=1
Romance Cliches http://www.writing-world.com/romance/cliches.shtml

The Well Tempered Plot Device
http://news.ansible.co.uk/plotdev.html

Evil Overlord List
http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html


Lots of fun to look over.
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
Original Posting: Fri, 15 Aug 1997 10:30:15 EDT

We've had our discussions about mainstream, genre, formed and unformed writing, and so forth. I don't really want to restart those protestations of faith, but I found this article interesting and thought I would point you at it. (and yes, you'll find me in the pew of the SF genre most reading times, if that makes a difference)

As a quick summary, I think Dave Wolverton presents a case for understanding where the modern mainstream genre developed from, why other genres offer other strengths, and a final plea that we allow room for many different literatures as good or even great.

some clippings from http://www.sff.net/people/dtruesdale/new/wolverton1.htp

"By insisting that we write elitist fiction with powerful images, opacity, and a distinctive poetic voice; by insisting that the tales lack form; by limiting the types of characters, conflicts and settings; by favoring political correctness over other types of honest questioning or exploration of themes; and by insisting that tales lean toward existentialism rather than some more affirmative world view; a very restrictive genre emerged."

"Unable to explore setting, conflict, characters or themes in their fiction, the mainstreamers wrote more and more eloquently about nothing at all. "

"Sit down and study three years worth of 1980s fiction from the New Yorker, and you will discover a remarkable number of very similar stories. These were the bread and butter of the literary mainstream, and I'll call them 'Manhattan Angst' stories. They dealt with a person--often a literature professor--who goes to a New Year's party in a big city and there meets an old fling, a lost love. The height of comedy is attained when some woman enters the party who is not properly dressed for the occasion. On returning home, the meaninglessness of the protagonist's life is brought home as he watches 'dirty brown maple leaves swirling down to lie amongst the bones of leaves.'"

<slip a bit>

"The existentialists may believe that life is meaningless. Indeed, if you believe that your life is meaningless, it probably will be. But does that mean that art must also be meaningless? "

"As a writer of science fiction, I find it difficult to conceive why anyone would want to obscure the fact that there are cause-and-effect relationships in our lives. Eat too much, and you'll get fat. Breathe vacuum, and you die."

"The existentialists who shout 'Stop making sense!' do so at a terrible price. The fact is that we can make some sense of the world."

"Literature allows us to share experience, to communicate, and to grow not just as individuals, but as societies. Literature allows us to evolve. Literature makes sense."

<and one more snippet>

"Keeping in mind that any of my standards can successfully be violated, here is how I value a story:"

"A story that fascinates is better than one that bores. A story that is eloquent is better than the babboon howlings of the verbally damned. A story that is profound, that transmits valuable insight, is better than one that is pedestrian or that is opaque. A story that speaks to many is better than one that speaks to few. A story that is beautiful in form is better than one that is inelegant, rambling or clumsy. A story that transports me to another world or that transmits experience is better than a story that leaves me sitting alone and troubled in my reading chair. A story that artfully moves me emotionally or intellectually is better than one that leaves me emotionally or intellectually anesthetized."

Something to think about...
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
original posting: Fri, 13 May 1994 18:35:02 JST

jc asked...
To reach down a little further into the discussion of what is SF and what's not....
Why do we care? ...
honest answer - I don't. However, I finally had to think about why some stories with well-written characters, plot, and so forth, simply didn't produce the same excitement for me as a reader that other (sometimes very badly written) stories did. When I thought about it (and compared them), I found that the "flat" stories were those that didn't mix their peculiar assumptions into the story. Yank out the background, slap it down in the present, and nothing needed to be changed.

there is a special charm for me in a story that makes some special assumption(s) and "drives" the story off of that, rather than just using it (or them) as an ornament for an otherwise pedestrian tale.

so now when I read some drivel that has cardboard characters, peeling backdrop scenes, and so forth - and it rings a bell anyway - I start looking for the SF slant. On the other hand, when I read something well-written that still leaves me flat, I start checking - and usually the plot and so forth are oldies, without that SF twisty to liven them up.

On the other side of the coin, in trying to write the darned stuff, I feel it is important to know what I'm trying to do. Not that I necessarily do anything even close to what I think I'm trying to do, but it gives me warm fuzzies to think I have some method (instead of alien facehuggers... AAACHoo!).

while I'm meandering - Randy mentioned happy endings and jc pointed out that some authors should be killed for their endings (keeping the reader curious about how the "heroes" could possibly get out of this, only to find out that they don't!).

While I like happy endings, I prefer any ending - RESOLUTION - to what some authors seem to be pulling. I realize that it isn't necessarily "realistic" to expect every story to have an ending, but - isn't part of the trick of fiction that the stories aren't necessarily realistic?

So, if the author just shuffles and says "things went on..." - I am not happy. If the author declares it was only a dream, it was only a game, april fool's, etc. - I'm ready to borrow a kitchen knife.

Do something - blow up the town in pyrrhic victory, give the vampire pyorrhea to save the children, let the python crush the police into hamburger for the 4th of July picnic - but resolve the story. Carrie (I think?) was neat because (along with many others) she was dead. Full stop. and the hand from the grave was NEW - not just the same old story straggling on into the sunset...

I think that's the real ugly part of some of these "unhappy endings" - they don't end. Even if the ending is to have the hero(ine) break and give in to the fault - let the reader know, don't just leave them hanging...

Sigh - if the blob is going to eat the town, let the romantics do something interesting as the last act. Break into the Hilton to use a hottub, down the Dom Perignon, and declare undying love as the creeping crud slowly dissolves them, leaving a single rose gently rocking in the waves, drifting slowly into the ring of greasy kid's stuff blobbo left in its wake... Eat a chocolate chip cookie and damn the zits!

Finish the story. Please?
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
Original Posting: Sat, 7 May 1994 18:35:02 JST

greg asked, quite correctly, if I would try to explain why I don't consider Star Wars as fundamentally SF.

Let me admit that one of the first times Randy and jc pinned me to the wall and made me think on this list was in connection with the question of what constitutes SF. At that time, I ended up with some extravagant number of words trying to pin down my own thinking about it, and I'm still not sure I'm happy with it.

I still start with the basic notion that there must be at least one assumption not part of "consensus reality" (thanks, jc!) which is necessary to the story. This is a generalization of the more common "the science has to be so integral to the plot that the story would collapse without it." Generalized in that I am not as dogmatic as I once was about what kind of "science" I allow in (e.g., magic, properly handled, can be entertaining) and in that I've been pounded around the head and shoulders enough with the notion that the difference from "consensus reality" might be integral to something besides the plot.

Let me mention an example. Heinlein's story about a time travel agent who is his own father and mother is perhaps one of the clearest examples of a story where removing the "science" -- time travel -- would destroy the story completely. Quite simply, take away that pin and there is nothing left - you can't write the story! The feelings, the characterizations of the single character who makes up the story, these are all very, very human - but the story requires time travel.

Okay - I'll admit that Star Wars has a fantastic setting, robots, and so forth and so on. BUT they are not necessary to the story. In fact, I get the impression in watching it (the first one - I haven't seen the others enough to be impressed with them) that there might have been a concerted effort to avoid making the story turn on any of the differences. Servants would have done just as well as robots. The farm on the edge of the dustbowl is so stereotyped that I had to cheer when it was blown away. Etc. at length.

Thus, while I admit the setting is exotic - since it has nothing to do with the story, the story fails to meet my standards for SF.

(with a touch of hesitancy - how much did the story depend on the setting? would the bar scene have been as much fun without the gratuitious "aliens"? in some ways, the SF setting is played for laughs, as a kind of "camp" backdrop to the tired old story - and I might argue myself into considering that in some way necessary to the story. But it's a pretty weak connection, at best...)

Admittedly, there are a great number of stories and novels marketed under the label SF which I also consider as marginal, at best. Further, there are stories marketed in other parts of the literary world which I would happily consider as fulfilling this basic requirement for SF - no matter how the world weighs them.

And while I'm noting my hedges - in a sense, it could be (and has been) argued that all fiction is merely the subset of SF whose assumptions counter to consensus reality are so minor that we suspend our disbelief easily in regard to them. Non-fiction, of course, is then merely that subset of fiction whose assumptions happen to coincide with consensus reality. By that argument, all writing belongs to SF - it's just that we're kind enough to skip lightly over the minor disagreements between consensus reality and ordinary fiction, while the relatively large and deliberate differences of those writings ordinarily identified as SF require a larger helping of willing suspension...

[BTW - let me just reference Writing Science Fiction and Fantasy, Gardner Dozois et al, St. Martin's Press, 1991, ISBN 0-312-06003-3. Should at least be read in the library by anyone who wants to write SF. Robert Heinlein sums up his five critical points for SF and tells you to write human stories; Gardner Dozois spends a good 15 pages showing you why simply moving a story into the future or to another planet isn't good enough; and many others... recommended!

Heinlein's List:
  1. The conditions must be, in some respect different from here-and-now, although the difference may lie only in an invention made in the course of the story.
  2. The new conditions must be an essential part of the story.
  3. The problem itself -- the "plot" -- must be a _human_ problem.
  4. The human problem must be one that is created by, or indispensably affected by, the new conditions.
  5. (at length) don't violate established facts; make it at least partially plausible; keep it consistent...]
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
Initial posting: Thu, 21 Aug 1997 11:21:15 EDT

[For those who aren't SF cognoscente (does that really mean people with smelly brains?), C.J. Cherryh writes good, hard SF, with emphasis on the "sense of wonder" caused by NOT explaining the background, just letting the reader deduce it from what is going on...anyway, before I get too far out on a limb without visible support, C.J. Cherryh is a published writer]

And in http://www.cherryh.com/www/charac.htm , C.J. Cherryh discusses heroic and morally weak characters, along with 'well-drawn' and 'one-dimensional' characters.

[HINT: GO READ IT! REALLY!]

Along with other interesting points, this piece includes the following:

"What are the reasonable 'dramatic expectations of a novel'?

1) The central character is supposed to be responsible for things.

2) The central character has to act and cause things to happen, even if the results aren't ideal.

3) Anticipated consequences have to really happen, and have to be dealt with...no 'it was all a dream.' And beware of magical fixes.

4) No backing away or relating things from second-hand or remote vantages.

<snippet>

5) Create anticipation, and remember terror is one form of anticipation. It's why otherwise rational people wrap birthday presents for people they love, and pay to read horror novels.

6) The character should meet opposition or reversal of some kind and should exit with some lasting consequences that aren't positive, some cost---and some gain. <... go read it!>

7) No miracles. The character who fails, the 'morally weak' character, the character who must confront...but refuses, will not cope, will not bear up, will find a weasel way out or a miracle way out rather than face the consequences and who had rather buy moral authority the cheap way or have it granted by a god on a rope, rather than hammering it out the hard way...that's a villain, or a foil for the hero. When it occurs in a hero at the end of the book, it's frustration for the reader, and prompts me to remember an author I won't buy again. The central character in an adult novel must solve the problem, never, never, never have it solved for him by someone else. A central character must never be generally absent or non-participant in the dramatic sort-out. Sounds silly to have to say, but it is true.

"Well, those are 7 rules by which to create a book and 7 rules by which a reader may reasonably judge a book. They can be bent, but only by a master hand...and rarely even then."

<snip-clip>

And the very last sentence of the piece:

"What's character? The whole book...for me...is character."

Something else to ponder, perhaps?
[identity profile] mbarker.livejournal.com
original posting: Wed, 23 Jun 1993 17:00:03 JST

Favorite SF Bloopers (Outer Space)

Science fiction writing, unfortunately for the writer, often involves writing about science. Not that you need your Ph.D., but it helps if you don't make elementary bloopers. Just for fun (and to help you avoid them) here are some of my favorites concerning outer space.

Incidentally, since these are just the ones I could remember easily, I'm sure I've missed several other common ones. If you have a favorite, send it in - we can all use the help.

1. Decaying orbits

The scene is familiar, but let me fill in the correct ending. Power failing or gone, the ship... will continue to orbit indefinitely. If you wonder why, consider the moon, or Earth itself. Despite completely lacking in drive engines of any kind, they just keep on orbiting. Now, if you want to use this "ticking clock," there are some possibilities:
a) the ship is in a very low orbit, already inside the atmosphere. This orbit will "decay", as friction removes energy.
b) the ship is in an artificially forced orbit, going faster than it should for the small orbit (for a fast survey?). And when power fails, it moves farther out, perhaps to collide with other orbiting ships or material or maybe just becoming detectable to pursuers.
c) the ship cannot correct course after power fails. This could mean it will fail to enter the correct orbit, will collide with something, or otherwise have problems caused by continuing when it should have turned, slowed, or speeded up.
d) air (movement or recycling), heating or cooling, and other systems necessary to sustain the life of your characters can fail.
While it may not be as visually spectacular as burning up in atmospheric reentry, choking, broiling, or freezing are quite adequate threats to the life of your characters. However, be careful of my next favorite goof (the dreaded infinite cold of outer space).

BTW - the same problem often threatens rotating space stations - having lost power, they grind to a stop. As does the story, for me, because there is no necessity to keep supplying power to a rotating body in space. Just like the Earth, it just keeps on spinning, unless something counteracts it. Now, you might slow down (or speed up) as ships connected... but simply losing power will not change the spin rate.

However, please don't pay attention to the Captain when he claims that if power is lost, our orbit will start to decay. He only has an hour to defeat this week's lumpy headed aliens, so he can't waste any time threatening you with the real problems the power loss will raise...

2. The infinite cold of space...

"Exposed to the vacuum of space for a few seconds, the instantly frozen rose cracked into a thousand shards at his touch." Well, someone has paid attention to the shows with liquid nitrogen and other coolants. However, vacuum is an excellent insulator (as demonstrated by thermos bottles). It reduces the loss of heat due to conduction. Admittedly, water or other liquids will evaporate, producing a cooling effect, but in general items exposed to space will tend to hold their temperature. If exposed to sunlight or other sources of radiant energy, they may even rise significantly in temperature. The drying and depressurization effects are significant enough - don't add in the "cold of space", because vacuum doesn't have a temperature.

3. Zero-gee (or lower gee) weightlifting

"In low gee conditions, he lifted the ship easily on one finger."

Mass stays the same. I.e., to move that ship, he should be able to move it anytime. He might start it moving (slowly) with one finger or stop it moving (again, slowly) with one finger, but simply changing gravitational fields does not turn it into a balloon.

One quirk to this - lower gee does significantly change frictional interactions. For example, a table leg that would be normally stable against sideways pushes under normal gravitation might be quite slippery under lower gee.

Moral - think carefully about whether the character is working against mass or gravitational effects. One never changes, while the other does.

4. Retrograde Planets and the Magical East-West Intuition

"He looked at the sun rising in the west and felt the oddity of reversed directions."

Maybe. First, though, let's take a look at "east" and "west." I think these can be defined
a) in relation to where the sun rises and sets (i.e. in relation to the direction of revolution, which defines north/south poles, also)
b) in relation to the magnetic poles
c) in relation to the direction of orbit around the sun

The normal meaning of a retrograde planet is one whose revolution or spin is opposite to the direction of orbit. E.g., when you look at the orbit of the Earth around the Sun and the direction of spin of the Earth, they both go the same direction.

Now, does being a retrograde planet affect the first common usage of "east" and "west"? NO! The direction the sun comes up is east, and the direction it sets is west. Simple, and under most conditions, anyone on the surface of a planet is likely to use this meaning for these words.

Does being a retrograde planet affect magnetic poles? I have to admit, I'm not sure about this, since I don't know exactly what creates the magnetic fields. However, if the magnetic poles are related to spin, the likelihood is that again, the person on the surface of the planet is unlikely to notice any discrepancy. You might use this, although very few people really pay attention to compasses.

Aha! A retrograde planet does, indeed, redefine east and west when compared to the directions defined by orbit around the sun. In fact, that is the definition of it. But, is someone on a planet likely to notice this? It is possible (by noting astronomical phenomena over time), but relatively unlikely. It took our own people quite a while to get around to the notion that the planet orbits the sun...

Now, I will grant that the visitor from space may have been told that the planet is retrograde. But, I submit, once on the planet's surface, the likelihood of noticing that is slim, and the sun will rise in the east, and set in the west.

If you really want to have some wonder, play with the lunar orbit(s), or those of the other planets. What happens when the moon(s)'s orbit is counter to the spin? Or what happens if two planets orbit in different directions around the sun (stability may be low, if they are relatively close, but...)?

OK? Ready, set, now write - and avoid these bloopers.

Profile

The Place For My Writers Notes

February 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2 345 6 7 8
910 11121314 15
161718192021 22
232425262728 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 3rd, 2026 05:24 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios