# Sci-Fi and no inspiration...



## Schrody (Nov 3, 2013)

Well, I'm stuck. :sad: I'm writing Sci-Fi (real science, not some mumbo-jumbo, with proven facts, and some imagination) novel, I have beginning, have middle and the end, but between... I have nothing. I don't know what to write. I wanna write, but don't want it to be some crap, writing just so I could say I wrote something today. Those "crisis" happen really rarely to me, but it seems Christmas came little earlier this year. :neutral: What do you do when encountered with writer's blockade (especially Sci-Fi writers)? Do you have any suggestion for me? I researched really hard for this novel, everything turned out to be just like I wanted, but I just can't move forward.


----------



## Gavrushka (Nov 3, 2013)

It's not a lot to work on, but if you post a little of what you've done to date, I am sure a few people will throw some ideas at you.

Perhaps if you see a beginning, a middle and an end, but no story amidst it all, you could turn to a different plot that was easier to flesh out.

Or you could just start writing, anyhow, and see where it leads.

Whatever you do, I wish you well and hope you find some inspiration.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 3, 2013)

It's not translated (I'm writing on my mother's tongue), and it's really a lot of work to do. I have a story, have ideas, but if I write them right now, I might be over too soon. It's about pre-historic Earth (Hadean), and present Earth. Thank you for your good wishes. :cheers:


----------



## Robdemanc (Nov 3, 2013)

The hadean?   That sounds a bit far back, there was no life on Earth then.  If this is some time traveling story then that would be interesting to describe what it was like then.  But in any story you need a conflict for the characters so if you don't have one why not develop one and write about that.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 3, 2013)

Schrody said:


> Well, I'm stuck. :sad: I'm writing Sci-Fi (real science, not some mumbo-jumbo, with proven facts, and some imagination) novel, I have beginning, have middle and the end, but between... I have nothing. I don't know what to write....



Well, it's pretty obvious that you have forgotten what Science Fiction is about, especially "Hard" Science Fiction. Isn't it? Think about it, just for the space of these few words.. _What is Science Fiction about?_

Now, here's the answer to that question and to your dilemma - Science Fiction is about how technology impacts humanity. That's it, there's nothing more basic than that in the way of a definition. However, there's an element there that you have to acknowledge. It's the "Fiction" in Science Fiction, of course. Why is that important? Glad you asked!

In order to write fiction, you have to write about something fictitious, right?  And, if you're writing Science Fiction, which is supposed to be about how technology impacts humanity, then you have to write about... wait for it... wait for it... "fictitious" technology! So, to recap, Science Fiction is about how technology impacts humanity, but usually with an emphasis on fictional technology. See how that works?

Now, why do I say you have forgotten about what Science Fiction is about? Well, you've said you're writing Science Fiction, have a beginning, middle and an end, yet... you can't think of a way that your Science Fiction hook can be further written about inasmuch as how it impacts humanity?

Really?

What's your biggest Science Fiction hook in your story? Drag it out, polish it off, then start applying it to humanity. Think of ways that Science Fiction Fictional Technology will impact the societies in your story. What about individual people? How are they personally effected by this technology? Political systems? How would a new political or social system arise in a world where your Science Fiction Fictional Technology existed? How would it be alike or different when compared to the "factual" ones that we are familiar with?

You _can not_ run out of things to write about in Science Fiction if you're using it appropriately. As long as you're familiar with human experiences, which is likely in this case, then you can take those familiar experiences and then apply your Science Fiction Fictional Technology to them to render an altered version. If it's worth discussing, then you save that idea and put it in your novel.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 4, 2013)

Robdemanc said:


> The hadean?   That sounds a bit far back, there was no life on Earth then.  If this is some time traveling story then that would be interesting to describe what it was like then.  But in any story you need a conflict for the characters so if you don't have one why not develop one and write about that.



There will be conflicts of course, but I don't think that's the most important thing in the book.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 4, 2013)

@Morkonan Science Fiction is mostly about science, then technology, if you ask me. This won't be some generic Sci-Fi like, I don't know, Star Wars or something. It won't have any futuristic weapons or technology, story is set in the present. Sorry I disappointed you. :mrgreen:


----------



## Schrody (Nov 4, 2013)

So, to make myself clear: this story is based on science (palaeontology and geology mostly), some proven facts, some maybe conservative, and a little bit of fiction. That's way it's so hard to write about it.


----------



## The Tourist (Nov 4, 2013)

I'll share something that works for me.  Something I learned from the early version of "Total Recall."

In the movie the memory implant salesman asked Schwarzenegger what's the thing that never changes on vacations.  The answer is you.

If I get bogged down writing, I go find a new firearm forum.  If I'm bored with the scenery, I change motorcycles and go find a place I've never been.  I get tired of polishing, then I go clean the garage.

My take is that if something is holding you back, then more of the same never helps.  If you truly love the science of science fiction, and you're stymied, go churn butter for the afternoon.

Your book will be there when you get back, so change the "writer."


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 4, 2013)

Schrody said:


> There will be conflicts of course, but I don't think that's the most important thing in the book.


Science is the backdrop for the characters and their conflicts, not the point of the story.  If you want to write about science solely, write a textbook.

Find the human action, conflict and point of the story first.  After that, cloak it in science.


----------



## The Tourist (Nov 4, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> Find the human action, conflict and point of the story first.  After that, cloak it in science.



While I agree with you, I wonder if that's the real problem.

That "sophomore" middle portion of the story has tripped up lots of writers.  We have a catchy opening hook, good character development, a snazzy ending and then the transitional part falls to pieces.

I'm having the same issue right now, and it's been dragging on for months.  I know where I am, I know where I have to be (the ending was written last year, and wrote itself) but I feel like I'm typing in boxing gloves.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 4, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> While I agree with you, I wonder if that's the real problem.
> 
> That "sophomore" middle portion of the story has tripped up lots of writers.  We have a catchy opening hook, good character development, a snazzy ending and then the transitional part falls to pieces.
> 
> I'm having the same issue right now, and it's been dragging on for months.  I know where I am, I know where I have to be (the ending was written last year, and wrote itself) but I feel like I'm typing in boxing gloves.


For me, that is the point where doing an outline becomes invaluable.  Figuring out where the characters needs to go and what they need to do to make it to the end, eliminates the weak middle for me.

I have no idea how writers execute an entire novel without creating even a rudimentary outline.


----------



## The Tourist (Nov 4, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> For me, that is the point where doing an outline becomes invaluable.



Again, no argument.  I have an outline, solid character profiles and I started the work in 1979.  Then I stumbled--big time--in the soft middle of the yarn.  

I was also a member of another forum at the time and mentioned the sophomore section problem.  I got a bunch of answers of "Me, too."

I figure it this way.  I wrote my way into this mess, I'll write my way out.  But if you can think of a ploy, or a strategy or a writing resource that addresses this issue, I'd sure like the link.


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 4, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> Again, no argument.  I have an outline, solid character profiles and I started the work in 1979.  Then I stumbled--big time--in the soft middle of the yarn.
> 
> I was also a member of another forum at the time and mentioned the sophomore section problem.  I got a bunch of answers of "Me, too."
> 
> I figure it this way.  I wrote my way into this mess, I'll write my way out.  But if you can think of a ploy, or a strategy or a writing resource that addresses this issue, I'd sure like the link.


IMO, the only way to make it through the slow middle is to push through, complete it then return during editing and fix it if needed.

Sometimes, writing is purely and simply, hard work and determination (for me it is at least).  Knuckle up, get it done and forget about *always* having to be inspired to write.  You seem like a world-worn (polished like rocks in a running stream I like to think) dude, so I'm sure you're very much aware that sometimes, you just gotta get messy.  You can make look pretty after the fact.

That's been my personal approach.  Some people agree and do the same, most do not.

Heck, I ran into the "soft middle" at the beginning of each and every one of my chapters.  That sometimes dragged into starting each new scene because I wasn't exactly sure where to take it.  But, once I got rolling, I almost always found my stride as the scenes fleshed themselves out while I fumbled about on the page.  So I write, hacking it out, until I get that tingle of a spark.

Once you start to engage your creativity, even with bad ideas, the good stuff starts to rise to the surface.

Even as I write my current WIP, I find myself stumbling at the beginning of the chapters and new scenes, but I just keep going, keep on pushing.  I literally have to muscle it out with straight up grit sometimes.  Get the brain working so inspiration can find it's way out of my jumble of thoughts and onto the pages.  Once there, I can slice and dice out the most interesting things.

It's easier to fix bad ideas than come up with new ones.


----------



## The Tourist (Nov 4, 2013)

Tettsuo said:


> IMO, the only way to make it through the slow middle is to push through...I ran into the "soft middle" at the beginning of each and every one of my chapters...It's easier to fix bad ideas than come up with new ones.



Thanks for the words of encouragement.  Sometimes I open up that page and just see the endless gray paragraphs--the maw of a writing abyss.  

I also attempt "little successes."  If I can go in, write a few lines of some decent dialog, then jump out, I get a little boost.  It makes coming back a few hours later when the house is quiet that much easier.

My wife and I have a saying about household chores, _"It's just us two, there are no elves."_

In like manner, if this book is going to get fixed and finished, it's going to have to be me.

I wish you good fortune in all of your "soft middles."


----------



## Tettsuo (Nov 4, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> Thanks for the words of encouragement.  Sometimes I open up that page and just see the endless gray paragraphs--the maw of a writing abyss.
> 
> I also attempt "little successes."  If I can go in, write a few lines of some decent dialog, then jump out, I get a little boost.  It makes coming back a few hours later when the house is quiet that much easier.
> 
> ...


Little successes ROCK!

Unlike you, I can't get the ball rolling with a few sentences here and there.  I can't get into my flow like that.  That's why I HAVE to push.  It's not an option for me, sadly.

In any case, I wish you the best of luck on your approach. * Do what works for you!*


----------



## Schrody (Nov 4, 2013)

Wiki quote:

"Science fiction elements include:

A time setting in the future, in alternative timelines, or in a historical past that contradicts known facts of history or the archaeological record."

Edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction


----------



## Mutimir (Nov 4, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Well, it's pretty obvious that you have forgotten what Science Fiction is about, especially "Hard" Science Fiction. Isn't it? Think about it, just for the space of these few words.. _What is Science Fiction about?_
> 
> Now, here's the answer to that question and to your dilemma - Science Fiction is about how technology impacts humanity. That's it, there's nothing more basic than that in the way of a definition. However, there's an element there that you have to acknowledge. It's the "Fiction" in Science Fiction, of course. Why is that important? Glad you asked!
> 
> ...



I think you are right on the money. Technology and humanity. Great way to think about it to start a story. As soon as I read that I began to think about conflict. Now we are getting somewhere, am I right?


----------



## Jeko (Nov 5, 2013)

> I wanna write, but don't want it to be some crap



Then you will fail.

When you start out as a writer, things will likely look crap. Write regardless.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 5, 2013)

Cadence said:


> Then you will fail.
> 
> When you start out as a writer, things will likely look crap. Write regardless.




I'm writing for 15 years, and know when I can afford myself to write something crappy.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 5, 2013)

Schrody said:


> @Morkonan Science Fiction is mostly about science, then technology, if you ask me. This won't be some generic Sci-Fi like, I don't know, Star Wars or something. It won't have any futuristic weapons or technology, story is set in the present. Sorry I disappointed you. :mrgreen:



That's fine, it doesn't conflict at all with the standard definition of "Science Fiction." However, in order to write Science Fiction, you have to have something "fictional" in it. If you don't, it's not Science Fiction. So, what are your "fictional" elements? Keep in mind, you could possibly introduce fictional social or cultural elements and that could, in a pinch, still conform to the standard definition of Science Fiction.

Take those fictional elements and apply them to the society in which your characters live. How is that society impacted? How is it different? If it is different, how does that effect the lives of the people within it? If you can't find fictional elements that are powerful enough to warrant writing about how they impact the lives of the people experiencing them, then what does that say to you? (ie: You need better/stronger fictional elements that lend themselves towards writing a novel. Get some!  )


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 5, 2013)

Mutimir said:


> I think you are right on the money. Technology and humanity. Great way to think about it to start a story. As soon as I read that I began to think about conflict. Now we are getting somewhere, am I right?



Aye, conflict is good in any novel. But, a conflict between technology and society isn't completely necessary in Science Fiction. Science Fiction could just "examine" how technology impacts society without any "conflict" in evidence. (Though, conflict is the heartbeat of any good novel, Science Fiction or no.)

BUT... Most decent Science Fiction stories that examine a technology's impact on culture or society gravitate towards conflict, either a conflict in the story or drawing attention to how a fictional culture, in harmony with such fictional technology, conflicts with our own social or cultural values. Great stuff!


----------



## Schrody (Nov 5, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> That's fine, it doesn't conflict at all with the standard definition of "Science Fiction." However, in order to write Science Fiction, you have to have something "fictional" in it. If you don't, it's not Science Fiction. So, what are your "fictional" elements? Keep in mind, you could possibly introduce fictional social or cultural elements and that could, in a pinch, still conform to the standard definition of Science Fiction.



Let's say it this way: it's a story about young geology professor, and through the novel he explains some scientific facts/theories; quantum mechanics, origin of life on Earth etc., that's the scientific part. Then comes fiction (I can't really wrote what 'cos it is main thing in the book, and it would be some kind of spoiler), which is and isn't fiction, it's not proven, but it is possible (I don't know in what percentage, but I think that anything is possible when it comes about the main theme). So there is fiction (and some relationship between characters ), just not like in other Sci-Fi books, let's take Asimov for example.



Morkonan said:


> Take those fictional elements and apply them to the society in which your characters live. How is that society impacted? How is it different? If it is different, how does that effect the lives of the people within it? If you can't find fictional elements that are powerful enough to warrant writing about how they impact the lives of the people experiencing them, then what does that say to you? (ie: You need better/stronger fictional elements that lend themselves towards writing a novel. Get some!  )



Society is just as we know it; story is set in the present (and little in prehistoric times), with people like you and me. So, without some new technologies, but that fictional thing will have huge impact on people's lives, and of course I'm gonna describe how. I have strong fictional element powerful enough to blow minds (well, some for sure), that's not the problem. Problem was I started writing, had beginning, have end (it's not written yet, but it's in my head), and I have that main thing, I just need to write about something until I get to that main thing. Maybe some story about professor life? I don't know, I don't like it when I don't have ideas, or I'm writing rubbish just for the sake of writing. :scratch:


----------



## Jeko (Nov 6, 2013)

> I'm writing for 15 years, and know when I can afford myself to write something crappy.



You can afford yourself to write something crappy now. Re-writing and editing will then make it less crappy.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 6, 2013)

Cadence said:


> You can afford yourself to write something crappy now. Re-writing and editing will then make it less crappy.



I'm tired of writing crappy things and then re-writing them. Too much work. I prefer to write something good, then edit it, and make it better.


----------



## Kevin (Nov 6, 2013)

> I'm tired of writing crappy things and then re-writing them. Too much work.


 Me too. I want to just skip to the big bank account and me sitting in a chair smoking a cigar with a glass of wine. Hey, while I'm sitting here, tell me a story.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Nov 6, 2013)

I'll show you a link. It's not that hard believe me.

http://www.copyblogger.com/tricks-for-writing-inspiration/

This should help you.

There are good books on revision plus, there has to be a subject you like as a science.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 6, 2013)

Kevin said:


> Me too. I want to just skip to the big bank account and me sitting in a chair smoking a cigar with a glass of wine. Hey, while I'm sitting here, tell me a story.



Yeah, like I'm gonna earn millions... it's not all about money, there's something about writer's integrity.


----------



## Jeko (Nov 6, 2013)

> I'm tired of writing crappy things and then re-writing them.



Me too.

You and I are still doing it though, and will be doing it for the foreseeable future. Ultimately, I think the important thing is to not care. Stop assessing the quality of your work. Just tell the darn story, and then tell it better.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 6, 2013)

Schrody said:


> Let's say it this way: it's a story about young geology professor, and through the novel he explains some scientific facts/theories; quantum mechanics, origin of life on Earth etc., that's the scientific part. Then comes fiction (I can't really wrote what 'cos it is main thing in the book, and it would be some kind of spoiler), which is and isn't fiction, it's not proven, but it is possible (I don't know in what percentage, but I think that anything is possible when it comes about the main theme). So there is fiction (and some relationship between characters ), just not like in other Sci-Fi books, let's take Asimov for example.



Simply because there's "Science" and "Fiction" in one story does not make it Science Fiction. Just be aware of that. In order to make it true Science Fiction, you need to have Fictional Science (Social/Cultural forces count as well, but to a slightly limited extent.)

One of your fictional elements must be "Scientific" in nature. It could be any sort of formally studied "Science", these days. But, it's preferred that it be related to the "Hard Sciences" for the classical definition. Soft Sciences, like Sociology, Psychology, etc.. can be more difficult to nail down when Science Fiction principles are applied. To that end, most alterations of Social or Cultural norms are done by fictional technological advancements. By doing that, there's no doubt that it's Science Fiction and not just some Social Commentary.

"Fahrenheit 451" is a good example. It's not properly a Science Fiction book, really. But, it deals with a dystopic society and altered social and cultural values, some time in a possible future history. In that aspect, it can be considered something of a Science Fiction novelette, but not strictly so. (It's just darn fine writing, all around.)

So, are you writing something like "Fahrenheit 451", which focuses on cultural and social values that are different than those of the present day? If so, it's still possible to qualify as true Science Fiction if you can find a technological or scientific force that is behind those changes. 



> Problem was I started writing, had beginning, have end (it's not written yet, but it's in my head), and I have that main thing, I just need to write about something until I get to that main thing. Maybe some story about professor life? I don't know, I don't like it when I don't have ideas, or I'm writing rubbish just for the sake of writing. :scratch:



Maybe it's not a full novel, after all? Maybe it's a novelette or a short? If you want it to be a novel and you need "content", then I suggest you alter your Plot and introduce a few things, like additional "Setbacks" as well as delaying true knowledge of the "Antagonist" or the ultimate "Goal" of the Protagonist. In other words, your characters and story have outpaced your ideas and are now sitting at the finish line, waiting for you to catch up. So, you need to throw additional obstacles at them in order to delay their arrival as well as add richness to your story by using subtle misdirection, and taking the time to write it all out to the delight of your reader. It may also be worth adding some subplots that need to be resolved and to explore how to do that so that you don't detract from your main story.


----------



## Theglasshouse (Nov 6, 2013)

Those are excellent points since I recently read, that culture and sociology are the key definitions to what science fiction aspires to do. I see it as being very important since criticism of society includes some genres where maturity exists (and sciences). There is pulp (maturity is not present), post colonialism, historical, dystopia, the ambiguous dystopia, and more. It's about being critical of society. This is done through cultural, sociological means, and even political. That is all I know  really, since I've been trying to  think this over as to how some people who started it defined it. I read a book where it constantly quoted Le Guin, and it used feminism as an example. She wrote about the current crises, and issues of  the day. Women's rights were not yet what they are today. So that should give you some good context.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 6, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Simply because there's "Science" and "Fiction" in one story does not make it Science Fiction.


 
I agree.



Morkonan said:


> In order to make it true Science Fiction, you need to have Fictional Science (Social/Cultural forces count as well, but to a slightly limited extent.) One of your fictional elements must be "Scientific" in nature.



One of my fictional element is scientific in nature. In other words, some scientists would support that element, some wouldn't, but it's based on science. There's some facts and some theories, but they're all scientific.



Morkonan said:


> It could be any sort of formally studied "Science", these days. But, it's preferred that it be related to the "Hard Sciences" for the classical definition. Soft Sciences, like Sociology, Psychology, etc.. can be more difficult to nail down when Science Fiction principles are applied.



I couldn't sleep at night if I said it's Sci-Fi, but it's based only on psychology. I posted link here from Wiki, and I think my story is what's called a "hard" science.



Morkonan said:


> So, are you writing something like "Fahrenheit 451", which focuses on cultural and social values that are different than those of the present day? If so, it's still possible to qualify as true Science Fiction if you can find a technological or scientific force that is behind those changes.



I wouldn't say cultural or social values are different than present, it's not some alternative history/present etc. It relies on different approach of one particular part of science. It's sure that, let's call it theory, will change lives, for those who want to believe, and that's "scientific force", it would be a whole new era for some people's lives, but not to those who don't have open mind (don't want to except the truth). Sure I'm gonna write how will it impact from social /religious /cultural standing.




Morkonan said:


> Maybe it's not a full novel, after all? Maybe it's a novelette or a short? If you want it to be a novel and you need "content", then I suggest you alter your Plot and introduce a few things, like additional "Setbacks" as well as delaying true knowledge of the "Antagonist" or the ultimate "Goal" of the Protagonist. In other words, your characters and story have outpaced your ideas and are now sitting at the finish line, waiting for you to catch up. So, you need to throw additional obstacles at them in order to delay their arrival as well as add richness to your story by using subtle misdirection, and taking the time to write it all out to the delight of your reader. It may also be worth adding some subplots that need to be resolved and to explore how to do that so that you don't detract from your main story.



I don't know yet. I don't wanna limit myself, maybe it'll be novel, maybe short story. I never really know. Well, main thing will go slowly, main character discovers something, then a little bit of research, some scientific work, and then whole thing will escalate. It even has a twist. :hush: :hush:.  Maybe a little personal philosophy. Of course I'm gonna throw some subplot, I just need to figure out what will it be.

Edit: I think it's going to be a novelette, most of my stories are about 20.000 + words.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 6, 2013)

Theglasshouse said:


> Women's rights were not yet what they are today. So that should give you some good context.



This is actually helping. I just got some "scene", dialogue actually (I don't know about all of you, but when I write I see scenes in my head, it's like I'm watching a movie), about what you said. Description of how it was in the past, and how in present (it's not about feminism though). Tnx!


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 8, 2013)

Schrody said:


> ...One of my fictional element is scientific in nature. In other words, some scientists would support that element, some wouldn't, but it's based on science. There's some facts and some theories, but they're all scientific....I couldn't sleep at night if I said it's Sci-Fi, but it's based only on psychology. I posted link here from Wiki, and I think my story is what's called a "hard" science....



Without knowing more, I can't really give you "excellent" advice.  "Hard Science Fiction" deals with generally known phenomenon and extrapolates logical deductions and... then comes up with complete fiction.  Hard Science Fiction gives you Warp Bubble Drives with Schwarschild Engines and plays with time dilation and laser beams blasting all over the place, but without any sound. That's it! Hard Science Fiction is the type of Science Fiction that doesn't have the sounds of explosions echoing in space.   Soft "Sci-Fi" has lasers going "blowie" and 'splosions going "boom" as well as spaceships with artificial gravity while completely ignoring the fact that they don't tell you how the ship has artificial gravity and still maintains hull integrity...

It may be that, due to your subject (Psychology), you're struggling with a "technological" fiction to play around with. For instance, in "Scanners" and in "Through a Scanner Darkly", by P.K.D., the principle "technological" element was a drug that caused psychoactive reactions or gave amazing telekinetic powers. There were also fictional social and cultural elements in these stories. But, there wasn't any obtrusive, hard-sided, spray-painted technology that was used as the main science-fiction focus. Instead, a nice pill and some unique social conditions led to good stories.

Is this the kind of thing you're dealing with in your "psychologically" inspired fiction? Then, you need to add some socio-cultural elements, add a few mysterious organizations, add some "freedom fighters", add an oppressive government (or just an oppressive/ruthless organization) and pile on some corporate interests. Get everyone focused on your "science fiction" element, but only inasmuch as how they can benefit from it, abuse it, keep it from being abused or control it, etc... You should have plenty of "story" and not just a few subplots to keep you in content until you can catch up to your Plot, which is sitting at the end of the book, waiting for you.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 8, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Without knowing more, I can't really give you "excellent" advice.  "Hard Science Fiction" deals with generally known phenomenon and extrapolates logical deductions and... then comes up with complete fiction.  Hard Science Fiction gives you Warp Bubble Drives with Schwarschild Engines and plays with time dilation and laser beams blasting all over the place, but without any sound. That's it! Hard Science Fiction is the type of Science Fiction that doesn't have the sounds of explosions echoing in space.


 
I know, and there won't be any sound echoing in space when spaceship explodes :friendly_wink: I told you, it's based on facts. Scientific facts. I'm not gonna write Earth is 2 billion years old and call it Science :deadhorseI just love this smiley) 




Morkonan said:


> Soft "Sci-Fi" has lasers going "blowie" and 'splosions going "boom" as well as spaceships with artificial gravity while completely ignoring the fact that they don't tell you how the ship has artificial gravity and still maintains hull integrity...



I'll explain mostly everything, but I'll leave some things to reader's imagination, I think that's the best thing to do.



Morkonan said:


> It may be that, due to your subject (Psychology), you're struggling with a "technological" fiction to play around with. For instance, in "Scanners" and in "Through a Scanner Darkly", by P.K.D., the principle "technological" element was a drug that caused psychoactive reactions or gave amazing telekinetic powers. There were also fictional social and cultural elements in these stories. But, there wasn't any obtrusive, hard-sided, spray-painted technology that was used as the main science-fiction focus. Instead, a nice pill and some unique social conditions led to good stories.



No, no, you've got it wrong. It's not about psychology, I said I couldn't sleep at night if I said it's Sci-Fi, but it's only about psychology. It's about geology and theoretical physics, some personal philosophy (what I, i.e., character think about related topic), views of life and so. I don't have problem with technological part, I don't know what to write until main event unravels itself.  



Morkonan said:


> Is this the kind of thing you're dealing with in your "psychologically" inspired fiction? Then, you need to add some socio-cultural elements, add a few mysterious organizations, add some "freedom fighters", add an oppressive government (or just an oppressive/ruthless organization) and pile on some corporate interests. Get everyone focused on your "science fiction" element, but only inasmuch as how they can benefit from it, abuse it, keep it from being abused or control it, etc... You should have plenty of "story" and not just a few subplots to keep you in content until you can catch up to your Plot, which is sitting at the end of the book, waiting for you.



There will be socio-cultural elements, religious too, but it's not a Sci-Fi crime story, there's no evil/mysterious organizations, freedom fighters, no rebels... just plain science, life on Earth etc. Some could find it boring, I don't know. It's not typical, it's science all the way until "it" happens, then you could call it "pseudoscience". And because that pseudoscience thing didn't happen, it's not proven, it becomes fiction.


----------



## Outiboros (Nov 9, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> as well as spaceships with artificial gravity while completely ignoring the fact that they don't tell you how the ship has artificial gravity and still maintains hull integrity...


Sturdy ships? G-forces caused by acceleration will be much higher than the measly 1G used to keep the bones of your cosmonauts from going liquid.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 9, 2013)

Schrody said:


> ...No, no, you've got it wrong. It's not about psychology, I said I couldn't sleep at night if I said it's Sci-Fi, but it's only about psychology. It's about geology and theoretical physics, some personal philosophy (what I, i.e., character think about related topic), views of life and so. I don't have problem with technological part,_ I don't know what to write until main event unravels itself._


 (Emphasis Mine)

Then, you need to get the characters to the "Main Event" using "Story" and Subplots. In other words, let's say a Main Event in a Science Fiction story is that a giant trash-monster is spontaneously created at a garbage dump due to some dimwitted researcher throwing out a bag of active nanites that have a collective conscious. Instead of throwing them into the incinerator, he dumped them in the garbage can. Now, our main character is an accountant. We need that because he's going to use his super-duper accounting skills to unravel the code the nanites are using to maintain their consciousness. (We also need it because we're writing for the Science Fiction Loving Accountant fanbase...)

The Main Event is the eruption of the nasty trashmonster, but we have to figure out something else to do before that. So, our poor accountant is going to lose his cushy private industry job and get stuck taking a job with the local government, running the automated trash compactor at the local dump. Hmmm, this presents us an opportunity for some neat story elements, specifically "foreshadowing." So, with this idea, we're going to backtrack and say that our accountant lost his job due to being replaced by a computer! There, that's nice and tasty - He'll take his revenge on the trashmonster and become a hero! Still, we need more "filler", but it can't seem like "filler." So, we need a couple of subplots. For one, we have decided that the Science Fiction Loving Accountant audience needs some love, specifically a "Romantic Interest." So, our Accountant has fallen in love with the girl at the check-out counter at Wendy's. She's cute, perky and doesn't appear to know that he exists, despite the fact that he eats there every night. We have to get these two together! We'll let his angst stew for awhile until she spills coke all over him, then they'll laugh together, break the ice, and she'll notice that he's got a really cool calculator. He'll tell her he's an accountant and she'll tell him her tax woes... Next thing you know, she's dropping off her tax forms to him at his job at the junkyard when, miracle of miracles, the trashmonster rises to threaten the World!  The next subplot needs to be something internal, something our hero is struggling with. Well, for one thing, it's probably going to be some sort of self-confidence issue. That just seems right for an accountant that spends his day at his desk, hiding behind his numbers. So, we'll include a next-door neighbor that is overbearing, rude, obnoxious and demanding. The neighbor takes advantage of our accountant's meekness every chance he gets! So, we'll write in some of that, detail a few scenes of conflict and describe how our hero maddeningly refuses to stand up for himself. This sort of mini-conflict will insert itself a few times, but won't be any more detailed in the exchange between the two than one good scene. (That way, it's not too overbearing. "Conflict" can get out of hand, sometimes.) And, for the finale to this subplot? Our hero is going to ride the trashmonster to his neighbor's house and trample his bed of petunias... or something.

In the end, he'll rescue the fair maiden and win her love, learn to assert himself by rampaging through his neighbor's petunias, take revenge upon "computer-kind" by vanquishing the trashmonster and save the World. Who knows, he may even get his old job back, since the computer that replaces him ends up making a bajillion-dollar mistake... Ooooh, a theme developed while we weren't looking! Neat, huh?

The point is this - There can be a great deal going on in your story that doesn't appear to have anything to do with your "Main Event." In fact, if you don't have anything in it except the Main Event, it's not rich enough. Pamphlets are like that, all description about a specific topic with no interesting bits that transform them into "stories." So, don't make the story a pamphlet - Give it some "stuff" to do before your Main Event and construct that stuff so that you can fully integrate it into a story that is much more than just a pamphlet about your Main Event.



> There will be socio-cultural elements, religious too, but it's not a Sci-Fi crime story, there's no evil/mysterious organizations, freedom fighters, no rebels... just plain science, life on Earth etc. Some could find it boring, I don't know. It's not typical, it's science all the way until "it" happens, then you could call it "pseudoscience". And because that pseudoscience thing didn't happen, it's not proven, it becomes fiction.



That sounds just fine. It doesn't have to be a crime story to have some crime-like elements in it. For instance, one of your characters could be what amounts to being a policeman. There's no crime element in the story, but he uses some sort of policeman-like skills to help overcome an obstacle, somewhere along the line. If there are religious elements, you can have atheist characters who have sharply contrasting views and either end up accepting the possibility of a truly religious element or somehow justify what they have witnessed using their own pre-existing values. Yet, that doesn't make it a "religious" story, it's just interesting subplots you can play around with in order to entertain the reader. Besides, you have to build the subplots up a little bit so they're worth including in the book, that means you have to lead them up with some "content," which is exactly what you're looking for.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 9, 2013)

I wish it's that simple. I wish our hero can slay the dragon/aliens/evil corporations and save the day. But it's not like that. Not at all. It may look like a simple story, but it's damn hard to write it. Maybe I'm too much into science and now everything I come up with, is just not good enough (I feel like I would spoil whole concept with parts without science, silly, I know) to satisfy the story. It's hard, because it's not some crime/love/fantasy or whatever story where I can "make up" anything I want, this story is based on facts, and I can't write, I don't know (I mean, I could, but then I would show my inconsistently (I hope that's the right word) to the story), people were hunting dinos for food, and Moon is an Earth's Sun, etc. When dealing with (hard) scientific facts, and research, it's hard to "jump" to the fictional world, i.e., everyday problems and so, because there isn't anything new; technology is the same, society's the same, everything is exactly just as it is.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 9, 2013)

Schrody said:


> I wish it's that simple. I wish our hero can slay the dragon/aliens/evil corporations and save the day. But it's not like that. Not at all. It may look like a simple story, but it's damn hard to write it. Maybe I'm too much into science and now everything I come up with, is just not good enough (I feel like I would spoil whole concept with parts without science, silly, I know) to satisfy the story. It's hard, because it's not some crime/love/fantasy or whatever story where I can "make up" anything I want, this story is based on facts, and I can't write, I don't know (I mean, I could, but then I would show my inconsistently (I hope that's the right word) to the story), people were hunting dinos for food, and Moon is an Earth's Sun, etc. When dealing with (hard) scientific facts, and research, it's hard to "jump" to the fictional world, i.e., everyday problems and so, because there isn't anything new; technology is the same, society's the same, everything is exactly just as it is.



I understand, perfectly.

I'm a very picky person when it comes down to "facts" and "Science." Especially, Science. In writing Science Fiction, I find it enormously difficult to fudge some numbers just so the story can go the way I want it to. I find it aggravating that Science and what we know of the physical world doesn't quite match up to what I need in a story. At least, I used to... 

But, it wasn't too long ago that I realized that I wasn't attempting to publish a paper in Nature and that the "peers" who would be the experts selected to review my work would be looking for a good story, not a scientific treatise. You have to have just enough "oomph" in your factual Science parts to suit the taste of your chosen Hard Science audience, but with enough latitude, when necessary, to bend the rules to satisfy their need for a good story. Science usually points to the direction that most rules need to be bent, anyway, so it's not particularly difficult to do. For instance, communally conscious robots already exist. Nano-machines already exist. AI, while virtually nonexistent, isn't too far away. Nano-machines capable of reproducing themselves are virtually banned (Grey Goo problem) and most science-literate people are aware of the problems inherent in genetic engineering and laboratory escapes. In short, everything "factually" needed from the Hard Science end for the story above is available and acceptable. But, where's the human element if that's all the story is about? Where's the draw and drama in regurgitating already known facts without some artistic embellishment?

See, that's where I ended up crossing the line. I was able to take my somewhat stodgy attitude towards Hard Science Fiction and turn it into a more forgiving and rewarding outlook - Yes, the Science matters. But, the story matters more. As long as one isn't doing something blatantly stupid (in the eyes of a Hard Science Fiction fan), the reader will put up with just about anything for the reward of a good story and an entertaining ride.

Add some human elements. Add some relationships, maybe a family or three, kids, a job, emotional problems, neurosis.. whatever. Then, tend it so it grows towards where you need it to grow in order to compliment your story. Heck, add world events, just make 'em up. Add a war or three, a natural disaster, plague, genocide, libertarians... Write a "Day in the Life" of one of your characters and then just start throwing weird stuff at them until they make it to your Main Event. Just make sure to tie it all together in the end.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 10, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> I understand, perfectly.
> 
> I'm a very picky person when it comes down to "facts" and "Science." Especially, Science. In writing Science Fiction, I find it enormously difficult to fudge some numbers just so the story can go the way I want it to. I find it aggravating that Science and what we know of the physical world doesn't quite match up to what I need in a story. At least, I used to...



I have other Sci-Fi novel/novelette, whatever, and it was quite easy writing it, it's set in the future, new technology, new society... piece of cake. But when I decided this story is going to be Hard science... man, that's tough cookie. Even though everything came out just the way I wanted (most of things I imagined were true, or based on presumption), it's still really hard because I don't know what to write, what fiction details should I put (some of professor's life, some thoughts, love story? but I think this story deserves better than "romance") in. 



Morkonan said:


> But, it wasn't too long ago that I realized that I wasn't attempting to publish a paper in Nature and that the "peers" who would be the experts selected to review my work would be looking for a good story, not a scientific treatise. You have to have just enough "oomph" in your factual Science parts to suit the taste of your chosen Hard Science audience, but with enough latitude, when necessary, to bend the rules to satisfy their need for a good story. Science usually points to the direction that most rules need to be bent, anyway, so it's not particularly difficult to do. For instance, communally conscious robots already exist. Nano-machines already exist. AI, while virtually nonexistent, isn't too far away. Nano-machines capable of reproducing themselves are virtually banned (Grey Goo problem) and most science-literate people are aware of the problems inherent in genetic engineering and laboratory escapes. In short, everything "factually" needed from the Hard Science end for the story above is available and acceptable.



I'm already bending (well some would call it bending, some rubbish, some facts, and the truth is, it's everything but facts, at least for now) that fictional part. And it's not that hard to believe in that bending.



Morkonan said:


> But, where's the human element if that's all the story is about? Where's the draw and drama in regurgitating already known facts without some artistic embellishment?



Human element is there from the beginning, you only realize it later. Drama is somewhere in the middle, and it gets stronger towards end. I'm planning to have dramatical (more or less) ending.



Morkonan said:


> See, that's where I ended up crossing the line. I was able to take my somewhat stodgy attitude towards Hard Science Fiction and turn it into a more forgiving and rewarding outlook - Yes, the Science matters. But, the story matters more. As long as one isn't doing something blatantly stupid (in the eyes of a Hard Science Fiction fan), the reader will put up with just about anything for the reward of a good story and an entertaining ride.



Yeah, I know. Science is only guide in the story, without her it would be difficult to explain some things, but yet, it seems it took over my mind. 



Morkonan said:


> Heck, add world events, just make 'em up. Add a war or three, a natural disaster, plague, genocide, libertarians...



This might be the best advice you gave me (no offence), I just got an idea. Thanks! See? That's what I'm talking about, my main character is geologist/palaeontologist, and I didn't even think about adding some disaster like earthquake or something. It took over my mind. I'm on the dark side now.


----------



## Mutimir (Nov 10, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> I understand, perfectly.
> 
> I'm a very picky person when it comes down to "facts" and "Science." Especially, Science. In writing Science Fiction, I find it enormously difficult to fudge some numbers just so the story can go the way I want it to. I find it aggravating that Science and what we know of the physical world doesn't quite match up to what I need in a story. At least, I used to...
> 
> ...



You are right on the money here. The average reader isn't going to fact check your work. They don't care how accurate it is they want to be entertained. They know, when it comes right down to it, it's FICTION. You can spend night and day making sure every aspect is scientifically true but if your story and characters stink...then who cares. Maybe a handful of super nerds?


----------



## Schrody (Nov 11, 2013)

Mutimir said:


> You are right on the money here. The average reader isn't going to fact check your work. They don't care how accurate it is they want to be entertained. They know, when it comes right down to it, it's FICTION. You can spend night and day making sure every aspect is scientifically true but if your story and characters stink...then who cares. Maybe a handful of super nerds?



True, and that's what I'm trying to evade.


----------



## Terry D (Nov 11, 2013)

Science fiction is never really about the science--not good science fiction anyway--it is about the story first and foremost, and the story is fiction. The readers read it for the tale being told, any science brought into it is a bonus. It seems to me that you might be worrying too much about how your Thanksgiving turkey looks, and not enough about how it tastes.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 11, 2013)

Terry D said:


> Science fiction is never really about the science--not good science fiction anyway--it is about the story first and foremost, and the story is fiction. The readers read it for the tale being told, any science brought into it is a bonus. It seems to me that you might be worrying too much about how your Thanksgiving turkey looks, and not enough about how it tastes.



My turkey is going to be delicious when I overcome my problem, but if I don't put science, then it's just... fiction.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 11, 2013)

Schrody said:


> ...This might be the best advice you gave me (no offence), I just got an idea. Thanks! See? That's what I'm talking about, my main character is geologist/palaeontologist, and I didn't even think about adding some disaster like earthquake or something. It took over my mind. I'm on the dark side now.



That's why I "babble" in certain sorts of replies. It's why I go off-the-edge and start making wacky suggestions or come up with example-plots and make quips - It's all just fuel for your fire. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. But, if it does, that's all that really matters.

Earthquakes are nice. You can have a wide-ranging disaster without having to destroy the world. And, there's always the threat of aftershocks to deal with. You can also use a quake to get characters together that just make no sense being together, otherwise. Look at some of the disaster movies out there. Poseidon Adventure, Towering Inferno, etc... those bring all sorts of characters together and place them in situations in which they're forced to combine their skills. Who knew Ethel Merman would be able to plug the whole in the side in the Poseidon in order to keep it from sinking? Err.. Wait, that happened, didn't it?


----------



## Schrody (Nov 11, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> That's why I "babble" in certain sorts of replies. It's why I go off-the-edge and start making wacky suggestions or come up with example-plots and make quips - It's all just fuel for your fire. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. But, if it does, that's all that really matters.



Babble is fine, babble is good, I often babble myself. It's great when something good came out of it. 



Morkonan said:


> Earthquakes are nice. You can have a wide-ranging disaster without having to destroy the world. And, there's always the threat of aftershocks to deal with. You can also use a quake to get characters together that just make no sense being together, otherwise. Look at some of the disaster movies out there.



Yes, earthquakes :laughing in maniacal way: I can throw some history; Pompeii and such. Some unusual geothermal activity. Ideas are just flowing...



Morkonan said:


> Poseidon Adventure, Towering Inferno, etc... those bring all sorts of characters together and place them in situations in which they're forced to combine their skills. Who knew Ethel Merman would be able to plug the whole in the side in the Poseidon in order to keep it from sinking? Err.. Wait, that happened, didn't it?



It's been years since I've watched Poseidon, but I think ship drowned after they've been rescued? I watched original ('72), and can't really remember. But yeah, I know what you mean.


----------



## newkman (Nov 11, 2013)

Hi Schrody! My advice is to lay it down and do something else for a while. I know from personal experience, the harder I press the more the wall presses back. Give it time and inspiration will come. Ken


----------



## Schrody (Nov 11, 2013)

newkman said:


> Hi Schrody! My advice is to lay it down and do something else for a while. I know from personal experience, the harder I press the more the wall presses back. Give it time and inspiration will come. Ken



Hello! Thanks for the advice, but thing is I always do something else; start writing one story, then when I get bored, I start another one... so, basically, I'm trying to finish at least one story without working on others at the same time, and it's not easy.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 13, 2013)

Morkonan said:


> Well, it's pretty obvious that you have forgotten what Science Fiction is about, especially "Hard" Science Fiction. Isn't it? Think about it, just for the space of these few words.. _What is Science Fiction about?_
> 
> Now, here's the answer to that question and to your dilemma - Science Fiction is about how technology impacts humanity. That's it, there's nothing more basic than that in the way of a definition. However, there's an element there that you have to acknowledge. It's the "Fiction" in Science Fiction, of course. Why is that important? Glad you asked!



Although I would have to widen the definition from 'how technology impacts humanity' to 'how science impacts humanity' this is a very wise post.  Early in my days here at the forum I was trying to make a point (which was thoroughly shot down and stomped on and left at the side of the road like a dead cat) which was something about knowing the genre in order to write the genre.  

I also posted the question - what genre is Star Wars?  (a question outright ignored by all)  

Star Wars would definitely fall into the category of 'some mumbo-jumbo' - there is no science and as such it isn't science fiction.  It's a classic sandals and swords with boots and light-sabres.  

As such, I have to get behind Morkonan's advice.  If it's science fiction, write about the science / impact of the science and the rest should take care of itself, especially if you have a beginning, middle and end.  
David Gordon Burke


----------



## Terry D (Nov 13, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> I also posted the question - what genre is Star Wars?  (a question outright ignored by all)
> 
> Star Wars would definitely fall into the category of 'some mumbo-jumbo' - there is no science and as such it isn't science fiction.  It's a classic sandals and swords with boots and light-sabres.



There actually is a sub-genre of science fiction into which Star Wars fits perfectly; Space Opera

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 13, 2013)

Terry D said:


> There actually is a sub-genre of science fiction into which Star Wars fits perfectly; Space Opera
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera



Barely...

DGB is right - Star Wars is difficult to classify in a purist sense. It's straight out of Fantasy, with archetypical Fantasy characters and high swords and sorcery action with quite a bit of magic thrown into the mix. It's not technobabble-magic, either, but straightforward Merlinesque sorcery. Heck, "Merlin" is even in the thing, for goodness sakes. 

However, Star Wars *is* "Romance" just as Fantasy is traditionally viewed as the last of the modern Romance genres. Evil is evil, Good is good, and things are brought to high contrast with no ambiguity. King Arthur knew about Lancelot and Guinevere, but sacrificed his pride for the sake of the kingdom... Uh, wait. Never mind. The point is that Star Wars is an incredible movie _because_ it melded such a wide variety of genres. It took a plain "Rescue the Princess from the castle of the Evil Wizard" storyline and put it in an untraditional setting, yet broke the rules by retaining the fantastical mechanisms such a story would have been expected to have. Sure, other Sci-Fi pictures/stories have done this. But, Star Wars is the one that gets recognized the most for succeeding at doing it in film.


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 13, 2013)

Uff.  Just call it what it is - A soap opera with Wookies, Ewoks and Ja Ja Binks.  This is rather telling in itself -  Beware any story / book / novel etc. that ignores the established norms of its genre and which goes on to a. sell millions and b. get a genre named after it.  Remind anyone of any recent work that did the same thing?  
I'll pass.  On both counts.  
I ask myself - aside from special effects and a big budget, how is the Star Wars Universe any superior to say the universe created by Joss Whedon for his 'Firefly' show.  

D.G.B. 
Apologies for getting off track here.   And I think you meant Shelley Winters in the Poseidon adventure.  Unless you mean the sequel or the remake.  Ethel Merman?  Just the name make me crack up.  Like Phyliss Diller.  HA.  (Give one of them a role in Star Wars 7 and I'll pay to see it)


----------



## Terry D (Nov 13, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Uff.  Just call it what it is - A soap opera with Wookies, Ewoks and Ja Ja Binks.


 
Hence the name 'space opera' similar to the old, melodramatic western movies known as 'horse operas'.



> I ask myself - aside from special effects and a big budget, how is the Star Wars Universe any superior to say the universe created by Joss Whedon for his 'Firefly' show.



Because it was done in 1977. The ground breakers often get overlooked in the mass of copy-cats who come after them.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 13, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Star Wars would definitely fall into the category of 'some mumbo-jumbo' - there is no science and as such it isn't science fiction.  It's a classic sandals and swords with boots and light-sabres.


 
It may be, but Star Wars are greater than some "mumbo jumbo", it's one of a kind, it has a plot, and it's not necessary to put some scientific explanation, it would just ruin whole thing.



David Gordon Burke said:


> As such, I have to get behind Morkonan's advice.  If it's science fiction, write about the science / impact of the science and the rest should take care of itself, especially if you have a beginning, middle and end.
> David Gordon Burke



I am writing about science, but hard science, which is not the same as average Sci-Fi.



Terry D said:


> There actually is a sub-genre of science fiction into which Star Wars fits perfectly; Space Opera
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_opera



Some say it's fantasy, Sci-Fi, romance, little bit of this, little of that.... I think it's everything mixed up, and that's what makes (space) opera.


----------



## newkman (Nov 13, 2013)

My definition of classic science fiction is not so much science and tech, but as a way to criticize current events or regimes without incurring the wrath of big brother and going to prison or the gallows. Talk about human rights all you want as long as it's on another planet. I always thought that westerns and the sci-fi of today were one in the same, only the locations differ. Take Star Trek for example. On the frontier of civilization the only law is the pistol on your hip. Instead of Native Americans you have aliens. Same story different local.


----------



## Schrody (Nov 13, 2013)

newkman said:


> My definition of classic science fiction is not so much science and tech, but as a way to criticize current events or regimes without incurring the wrath of big brother and going to prison or the gallows. Talk about human rights all you want as long as it's on another planet. I always thought that westerns and the sci-fi of today were one in the same, only the locations differ. Take Star Trek for example. On the frontier of civilization the only law is the pistol on your hip. Instead of Native Americans you have aliens. Same story different local.



Yes and no. If there's no science or something based on science, even though it's just tech babble, that IMO is not Sci-Fi.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 13, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Uff.  Just call it what it is - A soap opera with Wookies, Ewoks and Ja Ja Binks.



Nothing after "The Revenge of the Jedi" qualifies as "Star Wars" in my opinion. All the rest of that is just some crazy sort of Ed Wood production... Heck, Ed Wood should have been hired to direct it. It wouldn't have mattered if they did have to dig up his corpse, it would have done a better job.



> I ask myself - aside from special effects and a big budget, how is the Star Wars Universe any superior to say the universe created by Joss Whedon for his 'Firefly' show.



Meh, never was a fan of Firefly, but it did have an interesting setting, I'll grant that. The original SW Trilogy, though, was a well crafted masterpiece. All the rest of that crap... Well, see "Ed Wood", above.



> Apologies for getting off track here.   And I think you meant Shelley Winters in the Poseidon adventure.  Unless you mean the sequel or the remake.  Ethel Merman?  Just the name make me crack up.  Like Phyliss Diller.  HA.  (Give one of them a role in Star Wars 7 and I'll pay to see it)



DANGIT! You're right, it was Shelly Winters!  Cudos for you! Sorry, I get my large ladies mixed up...


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Nov 14, 2013)

Schrody said:


> I am writing about science, but hard science, which is not the same as average Sci-Fi.



Since I'm not in the market for a lunchbox, bed-sheets with the image of the death star or Hans Solo collectibles I'll leave the merits of Star Wars for another convo.

I am wondering if you are a fan of Michael Crichton.  He did the 'hard science' thing as well or better than most.  Notwithstanding the Jurassic Park phenom, a lot of his books get to the heart of scientific advances.  I recently read 'Prey' with is about nano-technology gone amok.  You could benefit from reading some of his stuff.  

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Schrody (Nov 14, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Since I'm not in the market for a lunchbox, bed-sheets with the image of the death star or Hans Solo collectibles I'll leave the merits of Star Wars for another convo.
> 
> I am wondering if you are a fan of Michael Crichton.  He did the 'hard science' thing as well or better than most.  Notwithstanding the Jurassic Park phenom, a lot of his books get to the heart of scientific advances.  I recently read 'Prey' with is about nano-technology gone amok.  You could benefit from reading some of his stuff.
> 
> David Gordon Burke



I never read Crichton, only watched Jurassic Park, and if he explained the DNA process (fossil mosquito) in book just like in the movie... I wouldn't call it hard science. I believe his other books are better.


----------



## Morkonan (Nov 14, 2013)

David Gordon Burke said:


> ... I recently read 'Prey' with is about nano-technology gone amok....



I haven't taken the dive into that book, but I do agree that Chrichton melds fiction with science with a very readable style. His books usually appear to have a good scientific foundation, then he embellishes them with great characters and situations. The science may not be strictly "hard", but it's usually cutting-edge enough to warrant attention as "modern commentary."


----------



## Busterfriend (Dec 19, 2013)

Go write a short story or something, or just take a break for a few days. Put it off though, and you'll likely come back with new ideas. Just don't force it, it never works.


----------



## Schrody (Dec 19, 2013)

Busterfriend said:


> Go write a short story or something, or just take a break for a few days. Put it off though, and you'll likely come back with new ideas. Just don't force it, it never works.



You're right, but "pushing" this story through actually helped me (and advices of the colleagues).


----------



## stellar (Dec 23, 2013)

My suggestion is that you have a fiction-to-be that is dipped heavily in the scientific realm, but you're afraid it wont fall into the mainstream category of "Sci-fi". 

Not to worry. Even if your story gets published and is placed in the "general fiction" or "etc." categroy, it's still a tale that you would like to tell. 

What about writing the story itself grinds your gears? Is it a very quirky dinosaur who seems to make all the other dinosaurs jealous with it's discovery of magical things like fire sticks and falling rocks of different sizes that fall at the exact same time? 

I'm only going on bits and pieces. 

Maybe you're more driven to explain some aspects of geology rather than telling a purely fictional story? Are there parts where the narrator pulls the reader off the screen and explains about sediment layers? Why is a fiction the best medium for your story? Are there other sources that might help you pull your work together? 

Should you be looking at reference books, and text books, for advice on how to create an engaging work? I have often been fascinated by the side notes in some of those books. Sometimes there's humorous hypotheticals, trivia, illustrations; all sorts of extras that let me immerse myself in the topic at hand.

I feel you are being inspired, but it can't all be found in the fiction section of a bookstore. Try reference.


----------

