LibriumArcana.Games

This is the old adage of writers everywhere. If you could distill writing down to 'how-to' then this would be the first lesson, the first point, the first sentence. Write about what you know. The implication is obvious: if you write about what you know, your writing will feel 'real'; if you are ignorant of the themes of the story, if you don't know what it is you write, if you bluff your way through it... you disrespect the reader.

But then you have science fiction and fantasy, brother and sister of 'speculative' fiction. In this case, 'what you know' can be something made up or impossible. For example, how do you write about magic? Magic is clearly impossible, and is clearly something you cannot touch, taste, see or hear or smell in real life. But does this mean you cannot 'know' it? What about FTL and science fiction? FTL is scientifically impossible, yet it not only appears in scifi shows but also the so-called 'hard' scifi books from Asimov, Clarke and Heinlein.

What does 'know' mean in this context? In relation to normal fiction, know can mean something like "Don't write about mountain climbing unless you've done it yourself or know someone who has". In scifi/fantasy, what does knowing mean for the story and for the writing of it?

It means(looking at fantasy) thinking up a reasonable model and writing in a way that lets the reader understand, and not just pull it out of thin hair.

Sci-fi I assume it means the writer should have some sort of grounding in physics, with the best example Alaister Reynolds, a great author with a masters or PHD(can't remember) in physics.

I would take it to mean you should have a basic understanding of the concepts involved. Things like spells, counterspells, charms and the like.

Does that mean you can only be a scientist to write scifi? I kinda disagree with that.

No, I gave that as an example, but I also said a grounding in physics, it can also mean taking physics classes in high school, an understanding of physics.

I to disagree. Good Sci-Fi is not about machines, it is about people and their interactions. This holds true for any genre, a good story is about people and their interactions. Knowledge of machinery or steallar objects is not required, however it is benifitical to sci-fi.

To me that "write what you know" applys only to characters. If you cannot somehow get a handle and some understanding of a character, don't write him/her.

The writers of the Golden Age science fiction, starting in the forties and on to the sixties, largely were involved in such fields as physics, astronomy, rocketry and so on.

And the internal critiques of their material when it came to those subjects could be downright brutal.

However, almost all science fiction requires some degree of handwavium, and that is known and accepted. The flaw of such series as TNG was that they tried to explain the handwavium with gobbledygook, and used their handwavium to buy themselves out of a significant number of plots.

However, FM nailed it- the key to good writing and good story is good characters and interaction. A prime example of somebody who doesn't bother with such fripperies is Arthur C. Clarke, who writes critically acclaimed novels that are utter goddamned bores. Michael Crichton is another example, though thankfully it seems his star is in decline.

Niven, for example, was not a scientist by training but had a good understanding of science. A lot of his stories were mysteries or problem solving, with the solution being a scientific fact that was not immediately apparent. You need some grounding in your subject matter, but as FM and Petro as pointing out, you are interacting with a reader. The most important part is making that reader want to continue reading.

After having read a Peter Hamilton stand-alone I have to wonder at the notion that scifi has to be scientific or be written with a scientific grounding. Hamilton writes about biotech and space ships that hatch from eggs like dragons. But he's still scifi because he uses the word 'biotech'.

I was discussing this with a friend a long time ago, and I brought up the issue of psionics and magic. If it's magic, it's fantasy; if it's psionic it's scifi. He explained that it's the word that is used. If you call it the Force you're putting it in fantasy territory, but if you call it 'latent telepathy' that makes it 'sound' scientific.

What I hate the most is the people like Orion's Arm who think their little gizmos and gadgets are 'scientific' because it has the prefiz nano in the title. Even Traveller annoys me in this because they say specifically that there is no 'ray guns' or 'deflector shields' or 'tractor beams' in their scifi and it's all hard SF. But they're wrong. They have laser guns, albeit in a way never before seen (the powerpack and the gun are separate, and are connected with a power cable); they have deflector shields, but predictably, it's leftover ancient alien technology (Blackglobe generators); and while they don't have tractor beams yet they do have repulsors, and anti-gravity, and floating cities. Meaning tractors can't be too far behind.

It annoys me because I don't see why the two genres, fantasy and science fiction, must be separate. I don't like hard SF because as Petro says, it bores me to tears. Fuck a duck, Asimov writes about fortune-telling being a science in that most classic of scifi novels, Foundation (and yes, I understand that Psychohistory has its limits, i and love Foundation but lets be blunt: Hari Seldon predicted the future). And his Robots had antimatter brains.

Even the best scifi has these little things that make you go 'Yeah that's bullshit' but you still read it, because as has been stated, you love the characters or the concept or the plot or this or that.

Hard science fiction, in and of itself, doesn't have to be bad. It's simply a question of whether or not compelling characters and storylines are added to the mix.

Now, the difference between science fiction and space opera is that science fiction at least works from extrapolations of modern theory and technology, whereas space opera (which borders on fantasy) just makes it all up, complete handwavium. It's the difference between most of 2001 (Before the final acid trip) and Star Wars.

Why the hard stuff is boring is because so often the people who have the mindset to find fact-intensive material that is dull to the common public fascinating often can't understand that few people find it as interesting as they do. I'm reminded of a college prof who used to pivot slowly after finishing an equation on the chalkboard, a little satisfied smile on his face at having demonstrated how it all went together.

On that point, it is very possible to fuse sci-fi and fantasy, just be perpared for the idiot brigade to do everything in their power to shove you in one area or the other. I've taken abolsute joy in mudding the waters has much has possible in some of my games and stories. I'll qoute

Did that Orc just throw a grenade at me?

:D

Now honestly I feel that Hard Sci-Fi (and not so hard Sci-Fi) has a tendency to talk to much about the machines. You'll note in Glory Wars I refuse to go to in depth into techonolgy, just showing you what the characters are doing with it. The damn spaceship flies FTL okay, just accept it.

frigidmagi wrote:Now honestly I feel that Hard Sci-Fi (and not so hard Sci-Fi) has a tendency to talk to much about the machines. You'll note in Glory Wars I refuse to go to in depth into techonolgy, just showing you what the characters are doing with it. The damn spaceship flies FTL okay, just accept it.

That's poorly written material, not the fault of the genre.

Fiction is ALLWAYS about the characters, but that dosn't mean that if your writing sci-fi you shouldn't know about the subject, its nice to say its in the background, but if it somehow affects the story, you need to be able to think of logical affects, not wave your hand and mumble.

Again, I'll bring up Redemption Space and Abseloution gap(sp), both great books, technology appears alot, yet great,

However, FM nailed it- the key to good writing and good story is good characters and interaction. A prime example of somebody who doesn't bother with such fripperies is Arthur C. Clarke, who writes critically acclaimed novels that are utter goddamned bores.

I disagree entirely with your assement of Sir Clarke. His stories aren't and never were meant as character peices. Instead they were as much about exploring the mechanisms and environments he creates. Rendevous with Rama is one of the seminal classics of that and it works quite well in creating a fictional alien environment and exploring. It's not about character development, it's about the thrill of discovering something new and alien through the authors created surrogates. They don't need to be highly developed to serve a specific purpose.

Not every novel needs to focus so heavily on characters. You can see that in things like legal dramas, detective stories, popular histories, and yes in techno-novels. All of those to a fairly strong degree dispense with much character development, if they bother at all, and don't really suffer for it.