I’ve picked up two science fiction books recently and have not been able to get past page 100. I won’t mention the authors of these books so not to offend, but they were the perfect example of what I feel is wrong with the genre these days. The authors got so bogged down in their research or knowledge that already had that the lost sight of their story. This isn’t more of my characters-are-more-important ramblings. If your story is event driven, that’s fine, but your latest sci-fi (the term doesn’t offend me)novel should not read like a technical journal for NASA.

Just because you’re smart and just because you can write, doesn’t make you a novelist. Just because you’re well versed in a particular subject doesn’t make you a novelist. There are ways to use this information and still write a compelling story and not bore the reader to tears. To add insult to injury these novels are nominated for the most prestigious awards in the field.

Arguably, the most famous science fiction story in any medium is Star Wars---Lucas was telling a good story. (at least the first three times or last three depending on how you look at it) and not trying to prove how much he knew about space travel. The same for Star Trek and Logan’s Run---hell, even Ender’s Game. I’m a comic book fan from way back so “bad science” doesn’t offend me, but the focus of the book should not be your research or your scientific knowledge. It should be to tell a stroy.

I wish someone could write a good sci-fi novel. It doesn’t have to have an alien invasion or anything that pedestrian, but for the love of God, do really need to read the story from a squid’s perspective?

These authors are the reason it takes me 45 minutes to find a book to read, and thankful for Barnes & Nobles liberal return policy.

JOHN!

Once a book is published, it's fair game for reviews and criticisms like the one you've posted here.

Also, using specific examples of what doesn't work for you can give writers help in what not to do and how not to do it.

As long as you don't get personal in your remarks, and stick to what's in the book itself, your comments can be very useful.

I remember talking to David Brin on the day that he won the Hugo for STARTIDE RISING, and telling him that by writing the book the way he had, he made it hard for me to really care about any of the characters until I was much more than 100 pages into it. (He had written one chapter after another introducing a large cast of characters, and that took almost half the book. I recommended that he introduce a few characters and let the readers get to know them a little, before introducing more characters.)

He was very gracious about my comments--and he did not come back after winning and tell me how wrong I was. In fact, in his next book in the series, UPLIFT WAR, he introduced a few characters first, and then introduced the others as the story developed.

I don't know whether it was because of what I said or not, but my comments certainly didn't hurt, and he was a real gentleman about them.

"Just because you’re smart and just because you can write, doesn’t make you a novelist."

I could not agree with you more.

The more recent book I was referring to was Manfold Time by Stephen Baxter. First off, he breaks up the characters which is tolerable if you see them together at first, but when it's really disjointed and you have to read over half the book to see how they relate, and one of them is a super-intellegent squid---well you can see how it gets convaluted real fast. Give us a few hints how that fit together. Well, some statrt to come together but others just leave you scratching your head.

The characters are almost interesting, different if nothing else and I like some of their relationships, but with the way it keeps changing POV (the chapters are named after characters and some relate some don't.) you stop caring and you primary goal is to figure out what the hell is going on.

Mr. Baxter is obvioulsy intellegent and despite my protest concerning research I respect the amount of work and time that went into it, but again your book should not be about your research. There's only one book by OSC that I read that I didn't absolutely love and that was Pastwatch which suffered from the same problem.

Another nuance of Baxter's which annoyed me was when a character is talking to an audience, congress, board room, press conference etc, that character is the name of the chapter and his speech is written in normal font with no quotations and everyone else's dialogue is written in italics This is annoying and bad form.

Basically, too much science and not enough fiction.

As for my "quote of the year" being smart certainly helps and you do need a certain amount of intellegence to write, but this alone doesn't make you a novelist. Everyone speaks so therefore they thnk they can string sentances together, until they have enough to make a book.

Fiction writing is a skill---a talent. Either you have the apptittude for it or you don't. It's like playiing the violin or painting. Smart people don't automatcally assume they can do these things. It's not such a common part of their lives like reading and speaking that they realize some talent or skill is involved. (just like Emily Dickenson and Sylvia Plath have convinced every woman on the planet that the only thing you need to write poetry is female sex organs, but that's a rant for a different day)

I wish editors would stop being impressed with research and intellegnece and actually worry about publishing GOOD stories.

JOHN!

The one side needs the expertise to wrap their pure science into a good read, and the other side needs the expertise to take its modicum of science and make it sparkle. Both types of books should be available, since reading tastes vary, but neither side should assume an elitist attitude toward the other.

I'm not familiar with the process, but I would hope sci-fi awards don't attach greater weight to one side just because of the science involved. Imagination and writing skill should be just as important. Or are sci-fi awards like the fashion industry where the winners are things few people wear?

I'm not trying to come off as a elitist, but for people who enjoy research and the actuall science aspect of it should write non-fiction as obvioulsly that's their interest. The key word in the title of the genre is FICTION not science. I've always like the term Speculative Fiction too.

I just think in the places I've seen it it's a crutch for a story that wasn't fully developed. Not to talk about the same authors over over, but David Eddings (fantasy writer) has done more research than healthy, like waking up at dawn and walking until sunset just to see how many miles he could cover. It adds realism to his stoy, but it doesn't take away. That's what research or interests should do add, not be the main thrust. IM(ns)HO

JOHN!

quote:

---

if you use "bad science" you can add a million more to that

---

I love it! After all, one planet's bad science can be another's reality. However, I can appreciate the fact that one person's science fiction is just as good as another's science fiction. I, too, like the term "speculative fiction," as long as you can speculate all you like. In any case, the story is paramount. All the bells and whistles in the universe won't make up for a fictional flop.

quote:

---

IM(ns)HO

---

I sure less people pay attention to me than I actually think, but to those that may have, have any of my opinions been that humbele?

I guess my problem isn't so much that these books are published are even that they're nominated for awards, but the fact that I waste my time and money on them. I swear to God I spent probably an hour at B & N (I'm a picky reader) and I was actually trying to find a fantasy novel written by a chick author to no avail. (all looked really bad or I could only find book 3 of a series) After all that time I feel like I got burnt. I really, despise books lik that and it's kinda tunred me to sci-fi.

There has to be something out there besides the type of books I've mentioned, books that spawn cults, and books with alien names that are spelled like Kp'tgsdfs'dtw (I hate that shit).

Anyone ever watch Robotech as a kid? I'm not much of a anime-geek, but that's science ficition at it's best. Great characters , not so distant future, cool aliens and tech. It was great. I'm gonna to write a sci-fi novel one day. It's going to be Robotech meets Pulp Fiction meets Saved By the Bell. It'll be great. (I'm only half serious)

JOHN!

I remember at a Squaw Valley writer’s conference, one of the author speakers gave a great talk. I still have my notes from that conference way back when. He told the story of how one author (the inference was that this happened often) kept getting rejected even though his work was good. He was writing SciFi and marketing his book as SciFi, but the science in his book was telepathy. There was and explanation as to why the people had the telepathy—based in science. But the editors were reading it as Fantasy because he didn’t give the explanation.

Perhaps these new writers have taken that division too seriously and that’s why they are devoting so much time to the hard science aspect to be sure that they are understood as SciFi writers.

We also seem to live in a world of let’s explain it. You may not care so much about the nuts and bolts but want a people story. But the author assumes you know nothing of the topic. And many readers do not “get” many things about another science, so need the explanations, same goes for books like PASTWATCH. I have written a historical fantasy/SciFI. And in it often times my crit group would say—“What’s this?” And that was just with Native American terms that to me are everyday. If an editor does much the same---well I many end up with more “tech” explanations than I want.

Sadly, though, I agree. I stand in the SciFi or Fantasy isle and groan. Probably why I have been reading so many mysteries lately.

Shawn

Technical sci-fi has a loyal, dedicated, hard-core audience. ANALOG magazine, after all, has one of the highest -- if not THE highest -- circulation.

Benford and Baxter are among my favorite authors simply because they get their facts straight. My personal vote for "Best Rising New Star" is Geoff Landis, who is a NASA engineer/physicist who writes in his spare time. (I've read some of his technical papers -- they're just as SF as his novels. Good stuff!) Landis' MARS CROSSING was an excellent, high-tech adventure story.

The reason technical books get published, and people like Benford and Baxter make a living, is people like me -- and there are a lot of us -- can't abide by novels where the science is less than 99.5% accurate.

Not that YOU have to read such stories, of course!!!

We have a free market economy, and the market will decide who is a good writer. Simply because I can't stand Robert Jordan doesn't make him BAD; it only means he won't get my $5/novel. Benford and Baxter will. They, in turn, won't get your $5/novel.

Indeed, fiction is what it is because everyone has different tastes. If everyone wrote and read the same stuff, it would get really boring really fast.

Consider: the so-called New Wave writers of the 1970's (I am told) rebelled against the hard-SF paradigm. Larry Niven made dump-truck-fulls of cash in the 1970's because he was about the only new hard-SF guy. Not that the "new wave" were bad, simply that a dedicated audience cried out for hard science and Niven delivered.

Similarly, with the rather impressive quantity of heroic fantasy being published these days, we hard-SF types eat up all the work the few still-living hard-SF writers can produce.

Certainly Orson Scott Card is a brilliant author, but I haven't read any of his stuff lately, simply because I have finite time and money, and I want to cram a different sub-genre into said finite time.

You’re exactly the voice I was hoping to hear from. When I express an opinion, I don’t expect people to agree with me, although that would be great, I just want them to understand my point of view. In return I’d like to understand the opposite side as well.

I’d like to know the allure of these novels. To me it’s stops being so much a story and starts to seem like it should be one of those books in the library I’m not allowed to check out.

Have you read Manfold Time? Does it get “better” as it goes along? I thought the relationship between the main character and his ex-wife was kinda cool, but not enough to keep me going. The politics, NASA being the bad guy, was also a neat catch as well. To me it’s like watching Jurassic Park or Twister the special effects are the main characters and plot---so his the reality based science in the types of books I mentioned. If these books used the same research and were just as technically sound, but had more characterization, I would be more apt to read them. I think these men are extremely intelligent, hard working, and good writers. If you like their books more power to you. I just don’t think their very good storytellers.

I totally agree with you that these kind of books have a hardcore following because it’s the only thing I can ever find. These books have decent plots because the back of the book sounds great and then after a few pages it sounds like Popular Science. It’s not that I’m stupid and can’t understand what’s being said (although I do get a little bogged down) it’s that it just doesn’t interest me.

JOHN!

In general, I find the appeal to be much like that of a mystery story: the author presents a scientific puzzle, the way a mystery must immediately present a murder.

As the story goes on, the author drops scientific clues. I race the characters to the conclusion, trying to firugre out what weird bit of science the author is driving at. In a mystery, the resolution you try to guess before it is revealed is "Who dun it?" In hard SF, you must guess, "How dun it?"

That's the sub-sub-genre of the hard-SF puzzle, anyway. People like Crichton, who write the hard-SF adventure (or whatnot), make more money because their well-characterized, well-plotted books are better.

Don't get me wrong; good characterization and stroytelling are preferable to not! Simply that all we DEMAND is hard science. If it's in conjuction with character et al., excelsior! If it's a poorly written story with kick-ass science, we'll make do.

Crichton is a better author than most, because he does both. But few things can engage my mind like a Robert Forward pure-puzzle story, or a Benford-type scientifically architectured milieu.

quote:

---

We have a free market economy, and the market will decide who is a good writer. Simply because I can't stand Robert Jordan doesn't make him BAD; it only means he won't get my $5/novel. Benford and Baxter will. They, in turn, won't get your $5/novel.

---

Don't think that I missed the point, but Jordan won't get my $5(more like $8)/novel anymore. Book one was enough. I DO see what you mean, though.

JOHN!

I'm a third year Astrophysics student, and every time I've tried to write a piece of 'hard' scifi, I always have difficulties. I mean, I am well aware of what I'm writing and so I am so anal about making sure that the science is right, that it stops being fun. More like I'm correcting a technical journal.

So, I think you have to make a few omissions, or atleast stretch some things in order for it to be exciting.

I just read something by an agent: If you're not having fun writing, stop already. Put yourself out of your misery. (paraphrased) Or, in this case, identify and eliminate what it is that's sapping your writing enjoyment. If a too-anal determination to be scientifically flawless has placed a monkey on your back, throw the thing off.

Anyway, the book I got was Sir Apropos of Nothing by Peter David. I'm only a few hundred pages into it but it's a great read and really funny. Check it out; the sequel just came out in hardback as well Sir Apropos The Woad to Wuin.

I am a fan of hard science fiction, but I do not need an explanation of how everything works, unless the explanation is important to the story.

Suppose a character needs to move a spaceship. It's enough for the writer to tell me "Captain Ironrod needed to blast out of orbit, so he engaged the fusion drive and the starship surged ahead." I don't need to hear about H, He, Dueterium, or the temperature of pressure of the engine, unless that information will be an important clue (or red herring) in the plot.

But woe unto the writer who tells me "Captain Ironrod needed to blast out of orbit, so he shoveled some coal into the firebox. The drive wheels bit into the rails, and with a metalic squeal his cosmic locomotive chugged foreward."

Yuch. That science is awful to the point of being comical!

I routinely accept things like fusion, antimatter, spectroscopy, doppler shift, time dilation, etc. I understand them without an explanation because they work in the world around me.

But other sci-fi staples (e.g. telepathy, time travel, faster-than-light travel, telekinesis, etc) cannot follow the laws of nature that I know. If an author is going to use them, he/she had better give me some explanation of how they work in his/her world!

JOHN!