 |
|
|
Scifi and Fantasy Forum: Writer's Discussion: Questions :
Anyone writing traditional Science Fiction?
Anyone writing traditional Science Fiction?
We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!
PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS
Posted By:  Holyoak Jul 11, 2004 - 09:06 am |       | I am curious if there are any traditional SF writers here? By that, I mean people who write SF, but keep it grounded in science, avoiding as much "science fantasy" as possible. Things like star wars and star trek are complete science fantasy, as opposed to the more technical stories of people like Asimov and Clarke.
I am trying to get more into the SF writing, where I have done mainly fantasy in the past. But it's a difficult genre to break in to, with all the research and postulation. Is there anyone here that does it? I don't want to write science fantasy, I want to write stuff that is scientifically possible, just maybe not invented or discovered yet. Things like spaceships with artificial gravity, faster than light travel, transporters, all the such, I want to avoid.
Basically, I am asking if I have to be a physicist to write plausible SF stories.
| Posted By: Magus Jul 11, 2004 - 04:33 pm | | I don;t write what you're talking about. All of my sci-fi ideas are what you would classify as "science fantasy". But that is only because that's the aspect of it I enjoy more.
And as for the final question, no. Far from it, in fact. You don;t have to be a scientist to write the sci-fi you want. All you have to do is know your material. Figure out what you want to write about and research the hell out of it. Good luck. Maybe if you told us a little about your story and we could help you out in that department. But that's your choice.
| Posted By: Holyoak Jul 11, 2004 - 05:47 pm | | The problem is that I am not coming up with good hard SF story ideas.
If we look at what Asimov and Clarke were writing 50 years ago, it's dated now, and alot of it wasn't real accurate, but it was hardcore SF and grounded in alot of real research and scientific fact.
But, as they say "The future isn't what it used to be". What would Clarke and Asimov be writing about now if they were born 60 years later than their birthdates? Modern hard SF would deal with pretty complex things... we've gone from rocket booster theories and the trials of spacewalking and space stations, to nowdays you'd have to really get into realistic genetic engineering, quantum physics, nanotechnology, string and chaos theory... mostly advanced physics and atomic/molecular construction.
Maybe I'm part of a dying minority who wants to write hard SF. It's almost as if all of the wonder and speculation of Science has been drained away by technology. Does the world find modern Science, and science stories, boring? Maybe hard SF died when the last man walked on the moon... 40 years ago.
I guess what I am saying is that I want to write SF like they did in the 40's, but find it hard to base stories on technolgies and the futures from the 21st century.
| Posted By: Magus Jul 11, 2004 - 06:43 pm | | Good luck!
| Posted By: Aldan Jul 12, 2004 - 05:47 pm | | The most important thing about science fiction is that, while it has to be about POSSIBILITIES, it does NOT have to be something Nostradamus would have written (not prophetic). The SciFi I most enjoy is based upon a single concept (I see Gordon R. Dickson's Childe series as being about the way we humans are becoming more and more specialized, and what the potential effects of that would be, as an example). Do those novels contain science fantasy? I suppose you could say they do. However, the basic concept that he started from was science fiction - what effect will technology have on humanity.
Try not to box yourself too tightly into a corner. That method leads to madness. *giggles insanely*
| Posted By: Magus Jul 12, 2004 - 07:14 pm | | **Applaudes Aldan on insightful comments**
**Clap Clap**
When the possibilities mentioned above, are based on what ground science has broken into so far, it is science fiction. This is why suggestions sci fi authors make, sometimes lead science.
Holyoak, you do not need to be a scientist of a particular specialty to write sci fi. You can use the good offices of people who are scientists.
This is done first in the stage where you are guided according to your own concept, idea, what your imagination has conceived.
Then, you are guided to validate your story scientifically aiming at making it credible.
It is given that an expert scientist with a writing talent can write sci fi easily. But also a man of knowledge can write science fiction. A man of narrow horizons is forbiddingly handicapped.
This must lead us to ponder on the reasons which make us write science fiction.
All my science fiction ideas for stories are even more science fantasy than star wars and star trek....I would say....
If you really think about it even the classic SciFi writers of old wrote science fantasy. The things they were writing about hadn't even been theorized, at least not popularly. Clark wrote about revolving space stations at a time when space travel itself was consider pure fancy.
However, if you did want to write Science Fiction the way that you define it I would suggest picking up a used Physics or Cosmology text book, not to old, pick a concept and run with it. However, DO NOT get to deep into the technical sides of the concept. We all fell asleep when Geordi went hog wild on the technobabble.
The biggest problem is that science has just about outstripped the layman’s imagination. Some of the concepts being thrown around are so incredibly baroque that even professional physicist don't understand them.
Also remember that Science Fiction is just that, fiction and as such is meant to entertain. Don't let your quest for a purly scientific science fiction story become a physics 201 lecture.
| Posted By: Aslan Jul 15, 2004 - 02:04 pm | | If you like mid-twentieth century science fiction, why not write it? Forget about chaos theory and all that other stuff. Aldan's right (dear God) - you don't have to be prophetic. Science fiction is most often either VERY speculative or grounded in current science.
If you want to write fiction grounded in science and set in the future, why not just use today's technology? As far as space travel goes, most of it is the same as back in the 60s. We're still using rockets, mostly. Take a look at the possibilities presented by the new X-prize competetors. Imagine how our space colonization may (or may not) go. Then write about it. It's science fiction as long as it's plausible. Space travel, I think, shouldn't be too hard.
Seriously, though. If you like old "hard" sci-fi, emulate it. Even though it's old, it's still science fiction.
My current book is definitely science fantasy, but also draws upon research in the fields of bioengineering, space travel, terraforming, and paleontology. I'd recommend just finding a topic you want to write about and then researching it. Find magazine databases and search for articles regarding your topic. You'll become close enough to an expert that no one will be able to tell the difference. It's amazing what kind of things you'll find in your research.
Horatio makes a wonderful suggestion, "... pick(ing) up a used Physics or Cosmology text book". Yet, the member seems to be confusing basic concepts.
Science fiction is to entertain, Horatio says, ignoring the fact that some people consider entertainment well within the realms of the intellect, not only irregular emotional unrest and aimless imagination somersaults.
This has been scientifically established, by the way, since the dawn of time, when Aristotelis (Aristotle) said that "happiness is an occupation of the intellect, characterised by energy, self-sufficiency and a capacity for rest".
The things great authors of the past were writing about hadn't even been theorized, Horatio says and contradicts it immediately adding "at least not popularly". It is a pity if one can not follow or even trace scientific progress.
On that, for example, I am absolutely certain people still today think the world in 1492 believed the Earth was flat, to which they may claim the fears voiced against Colombus's voyage which warned him he would fall off the flat world.
As for the example mentioned, gravity on a revolving system had been theorised. It may be interesting to discover by whom himself. Then, the revolving station in an scifi book made it ... "popular".
A point has already been made above. Science Fiction has often led Science.
| Posted By: MrD Oct 16, 2004 - 01:03 pm | | i can't remember the authors name right now, he was writing in the mid 1950's when he was quite young. the authors notes at the beginning of the novel went on about how he was always getting published in dual books, one author with one story one side, flip it over and another author, another story.
he then went on to state that he didn't serve in WWII being so young and hadn't had a sound educational background in the sciences and didn't think he would ever break through into a market led by giants who had done both in their lives.
i personally love military science fiction, have served in the british army and been educated to A level standard in sciences and literally read thousands of sci-fi novels in my time (hell, my local library had nothing left but womens written sci-fi in the end, which just isn't my taste)
i think my efforts in this genre will be unique, as apart from Fentuch's Hope series based on nineteenth century british naval regulations framed in the future, there has been little works published with the british theme.
life experience has a lot to do with your scenes being believable, the way people walk, talk and act.
you don't have to copy other authors styles, pick your own. you are taking images from your life for your writings and then researching aspects that you don't know about, say, the pure science of science fiction since you are coming over from fantasy.
style to me doesn't cover universes and races, but authors style. interesting characters and situations don't work if the author doesn't have a good style of writing that the readers can just settle into. i have read so many books that i don't think should have been published, simply because the author seemed unable to make believable scenes, interactions between characters and their surroundings.
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion
